: Process, processed, processes, processings,
Classicists assume that processes may be dichotomized EOOO dichon(assemblage,
elementary). Notice how that dichotomy echoes their larger dichon(macrocosm,
microcosm) and its attendant failure of classical thought:
Physicists put nearly all their energies into studying elementary
mechanical processes. Why?
Feynman, in his QED says it like this, "I would
like to again impress you with the vast range of phenomena that
the theory of QED describes: It's easier to say it backwards:
the theory describes all phenomena of the physical world
except the gravitational effect...and radioactive phenomena...I
must clarify something: When I say that all the phenomena
of the physical world can be explained by this theory, we don't
really know that. Most phenomena we are familiar with involve
such tremendous numbers of electrons [and photons] that
it's hard for our poor minds to follow that complexity."
Pages 7-8, PUP, 1985 paperback. Our bold, brackets and ellipses.
That is why physicists primarily exert effort on 'elementary'
There is a huge issue here which many philosophers and theoreticians
are unaware. You may have read our critical
review of EPR to which our comments here are relevant.
Boris Podolsky wrote a letter to Physical Review Letters
in response to E. C. Kemble's "acrid" criticism of
EPR. Said letter, for unknown reasons was never published
until Max Jammer offered its text, with Podolsky's widow's permission,
in his The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, pp. 192-3,
which we subquote here, "I believe that Einstein and Rosen
would agree with me that quantum mechanics is, in the view of
our present knowledge, a correct and a complete statistical theory
of such [quantum mechanical] assemblages. A statistical mechanics,
however, may not be a complete description of elementary processesand
it is of these that we speak. If [statistical mechanics'] validity
as a complete description is restricted to assemblages,..."
Simple explanation of this issue is that there are no elementary
processes in quantum reality! Another way of saying this is that
simple, are statistical assemblages!" By saying it
that way, we also commence glimmering why a matrix approach
vis-à-vis a wave approach to explaining quantum reality
is more mechanical (objective and quantitative) and less physially
(subjectively, qualitatively) exegetic.
Podolsky offers us another classical dichon(quantum_mechanical_process,
And Podolsky concludes accordingly, "...in that case
we are not dealing with the same reality." In other words,
a classically "simple" 'particulate' reality is 'not
same' as a simple,
yet ensemble stochastic,
quantum wave reality.
Physicists assume there are two realities. One quantum mechanical.
Another classically physical, and that physical reality
may be explained using elementary process analysis. Results then
may be massively induced to classical assemblages. Classical
physics is bogus Classical Thing-king Method folks!
How can we show that explicitly in EPR? Recall that
EPR insisted "We shall be satisfied with the following criterion,
which we regard as reasonable. If, without in any way disturbing
a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability
equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there
exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical
quantity. It seems to us that this criterion, while far from
exhausting all possible ways of recognizing a physical reality,
at least provides us with one such way, whenever the conditions
set down in it occur."
What does that quote show us? EPR are telling us that classical
process certainty in their physical reality demands a probability
equal to unity to vindicate local realism's 1-1 correspondence!
H¤wævær, quantum ræhlihty issi
umcærtain! N¤ pr¤cæss ihn
issi ¤hr can bæ
certain,' offering verifiable and valid probability equal
to unity to vindicate classical naïve realistic maltuitions
In balance of his letter to PRL, Podolsky went on to show
that elementary processes can be stopped for purposes of measurement
and thus have "state."
Atoms, nucleons, electrons, photons are PMMs,
quantum perpetual processes, and have no ideal classical 'state.'
Their assemblages are seldom considered perpetual. Why? Their
assemblages, faster and slower, evolve, emerge, change
For Kemble reality as a process is dichon(external, internal),
dichon(nonlocal, local) and dichon(subjective, objective). Classical
physicists only study internal, local, objective processes which
may be conveniently stopped and held still. Quantum wave functions,
therefore are nonphysical, subjective!
Now we can commence understanding why Schrödinger's work
is almost wholly missing from QED and QCD research and texts.
Wave mechanical processes are apparently 'subjective,' and matrix
mechanical processes are acceptably 'objective.'
Just think, that fundamental objectivist, Parmenides started
all this... Ugh!
pr¤cæsses, pr¤cæssings, etc.
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'process' amd
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with
In classical contexts we shall use 'process.' In Quantonics~quantum
comtexts we shall use
Classical process is simple and and often microscopic. Classical
process depends upon 'elementary' determinate, closed, isolated,
local, manufactured process scenarios, which may be induced to
macro scales. Quantum
classically complex and macroscopic, based upon statistical ensembles.
(Remember: classically "state is simple and flux
is complex;" while quantumly "flux is simple and state
is complex." Doug - 4Mar2009.) Try doing this Poisson Bracket
To help you get unstuck in your initial thinkqing
recall that state 'simplicity' assumes reality holds still as
'state.' What is quantum's push~back on that classical delusion?
| State Simplicity
Also see complexity~simplicity discussion under our A
3D Fuzzon. See our A Quantum Pendulum discussion on
You want a fledged example? Look here.
Classical '-process-' always has a begin- and an -end, an
alpha- and an -omega. Classical 'process' can start [classical
state] and stop [classical
state]. Classical reality viewed as 'process' is conveniently
and conventionally (re)startable and (re)stoppable like a movie
film or a video tape or a CD-ROM-DVD or a digital computer.
Quantum 'pr¤cess' assumes abs¤lute ensehmble flux, abs¤lute ensehmble changæ
with¤ut demarcable, measureable, lisr
starts and st¤ps.
See Henri Louis Bergson's remarkable comments on, "you can analyze a [classical]
thing, but n¤t a process."
Classically time is a space
proxy. Einstein made time and space an 'identity.' We must realize
that classical notions of time and space are bogus: wr¤ng,
incorrect, ill-thought. Quantumly, time is not classical space.
Time rather is pure duration, pure process, unstoppable process.
See Doug's c. 2008 prescient remarks on Bergson's cogent, "Motion...eludes space."
Quantumly, we can say that like this, "Time as pure quantum~pr¤cæss
eludes classically stoppable space." Doug - 29Jan2008.
See OEDC. See
MoQ I Reality Loop.
See MoQ II Reality Loop.
See Zeno on stoppability.
Page top index.