Item 
English Language Problematic 
Quantonics' Quantum Remediation
©Quantonics, Inc., 20012030 

'tautologous'
'tautology' 
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'tautologous' amd
remerq all
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'taut¤l¤g¤us.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'tautologous.' In Quantonics/quantum
comtexts we shall use 'taut¤l¤g¤us.'
Where classical 'tautologous' implies an objective dichotomous
quantitative absolute unchanging analytic global truth (absolute
classical certainty), quantum 'taut¤l¤g¤us'
implies quantum c¤mplementary qualitative abs¤lutely
changæable
tentative l¤cal truth (abs¤lute
quantum uncertainty).
As examples, let's extract some text from our Aristotle
Connection.
Aristotle's syllogisms say:
 a law of identity  (A is A);
 a law of contradiction  (A must be either A or not A);
 and a law of an excluded middle  (A cannot be both A and
not A).
Our quantum c¤¤pti¤n says:
Our quantum c¤¤pti¤n remerqs
amd c¤¤pts
all three ¤f Aristotle's syllogisms.
Whatever classicists ineptly call 'tautologous,' students
of Quantonics should more adeptly perceive as Quantum Variable
Persistence. See QVP.
Tautology is never classically absolute, rather it is quantum
agency of its own paratehmp¤ral,
parafluxual changæ
— however viscous and tentative that changæ
may be.
See: absolute,
axiom, certain,
fact, law,
principle, rule,
tautology, truth.
Too, in quantum reality all these terms are QVP!
Page top index.


'think' 
Quantonics chooses to remerq classical 'think' to classical
'thingk.'
Quantonics chooses to remerq classical 'think' to quantum
'think.' Alternatively, think_{q}.
Classical thingking is:
 material,
 substantial,
 objective,
 dogmaticprovincialparochial,
 absolutelydeterminate,
 closed,
 stateic,
 orthodox (meaning, literally "politically correct"
classically right, heresyfree, OSFA,
tragedy of commons sense, social opinion and reason)
 choice is heresy,
 causeeffect,
 11 correspondent,
 AristotelianBaconianCartesianNewtonianLeibnitzianEinsteinian,
etc.,
 lisr,
 stable (inanimate except for classical y=f(t) 'motion.'),
 mechanical,
 analytical,
 dichonic,
 dialectical,
 excludedmiddle,
 everywherebivalentlydissociative,
 EOOO,
 oppositional,
 CTM,
 retroflective (inductive on history, deductive from history;
always looking back and doing so OGC
encompassing OGT; see SOM Connection),
 independently propertyesque,
 serial rote, trusted, stateic knowledge base methodic incremental
objective EEMD recall
thingking.
Quantum thinking (alternatively, think_{q}ing)
issi:
 energetic,
 abs¤lutely
fluxing (QVPersistently),
 subjective,
 heuristicihnterpretivehermeneutic,
 apparentlyensehmble pr¤babilistic,
 ¤pen,
 phaseic,
 heterodox (meaning "...interpretation involves according
primacy of subjectivity over objectivity...," and quantum
uncertain individual opinionings and reasonings
are hermeneutic)
 freewihll,
 affectati¤nal
(ensehmble n¤wings' comditi¤nings
as affectings f¤r ensehmble
c¤¤bsfectivel¤caln¤nl¤calselectings
nextings' ¤utc¤mings),
 manymany c¤rrelative,
 Heraclitean, Zenoan, Hamannian,
Bergsonian, Jamesian, Pirsigean, etc.,
 n¤nlisr,
 anihmatæ,
 n¤nmechanical,
 ensehmblerecursivefractalemergent,
 quantonic,
 rhet¤rical,
 ihncludedmihddle,
 everywhere¤mnivalentlyass¤ciative
(see our coined 'omnivalent;'
real quantum qubits wihll
all¤w us t¤ 'use' this
quantum 'miracle' f¤r 'computational' thibediring),
 BAWAM,
 c¤mplementary,
 QTM,
 kn¤wflective (thibediring),
 c¤¤bsfective
ihnterrelati¤nshipings,
 up to Planck rate sorso~EIMA recapitulative
quantonic m¤dal
pr¤cessings thinking.
Both lists are incomplete. They can be extended indefinitely.
We ask our readers and students to compare them and 'select'
for themselves which of those they perceive as better. Some of
you will probably want to choose notions (more classical) and
memes (more quantum) from both lists. As you grow in Quantonics
that may be a necessary option. However, as you mature as students
of Quantonics you may see your views migrating from that classical
list to our quantum list.
Note that our interpretation of Zeno's
paradice does not agree with countless others. Had we adhered
other classical interpretations of Zeno we would not be including
him in our quantumdroppingnames list.


'thought' 
: Thought, etc.
Classical thought tends to dogmatically 'thingk' about past
and now. Even worse it tends to 'thingk' unitemporally:
one past, one now, one future. See our QELR of think.
Also see thingk.
If you want evidence of our position here on classical 'thought,'
see Hume's Law which says that "There is no bridge twixt
fact and value." Analogously Hume would say "There
is no bridge twixt pastnow and future," and "There
certainly is no bridge twixt wasis and ought."
This is how classical 'science' and classical 'religion' thingk:
ought is subjunctive, ought is about subjective, qualitative
value and reality is objective and materially real.
:
Th~¤ught, etc.
Quantum th~¤ught issi a quanton(¤ught,th)! Wæ can sh¤w
that as quanton(n¤nahctualihty,ahctualihty)
issi quanton(¤ught,th) issi th~¤ught.
For a more detail description see our review of Hoffmann's
The
Strange Story of the Quantum, Act II. (This link will
be available during late AugustSeptember early, 2007. Doug.)
So we shall coopt classical 'thought' and QELR it as
th~¤ught.
What that illustrates is quantum~thought is subjunctive:
quantum~n¤nactual. It has an ought partial and a 'th'
partial. Ought is subjunctive and 'th' is actual and reifiably
objective.
Power here is in a novel view of thought as an agent of evolution
which bridges fact and Value, like this: HotMeme™
Th~¤ught bridges fact and Value.™
HotMeme™.
Th~¤ught,
quantum~th~¤ught
issi
a quanton(Value,fact).
Iht issi th~¤ught as quantum~æv¤luti¤n,
agæncy ¤f quantum~æv¤luti¤n.
Think_{q}ing about what ought, what should,
what will be, what may be, potentia,
etc. Tapping into reserve~energy.
See Was,
Is, Ought.
Let's take this a tad further...
Recall Paul Pietsch's "Indeterminacy is the principal
feature of intelligence." Do you remember how we slightly
reworded it to, "[Quantum~] Uncertainty is the principal
feature of intelligence?"
Further...let's reword it again with our more recent emerqancy
of thought: "Indeterminacy is the principal feature
of
th~¤ught."
We see quantum~uncertainty
ihn n¤vel
quantum~lightings. Fathom uncertainty as
th~¤ught
bridging (straddling) fact and Value at reality's
edgings of nowings assessing
and selectings,
ihn a l¤cal
comtext,
whatings
each of us is wanting to be happenings nextings.
Compare all of that to a classical 'science'
which says "Absolute certainty is the goal of all
dialectical 'thought.'"
Now, are you going to MBO? Rather should you not ponder Value
of _{w}MBU?
Page top index.


'time' 
To our most steadfast and undaunted students of Quantonics...this
is, apparent to us now, in September, 2002, our most omnifficult
of all Quantonic English Language Remediations. Please comsider
our tiny efforts here but tentative creasings in imminent and
much sm¤¤ther quantum manif¤ldings. Indeed,
student, you may wish to view our efforts here, depicted under
bullet items below, as but an outline of candidate, and vaster
texts. We feel comfident that we have emerscitectured
many pr¤t¤emergent memes for a n¤vel
Millennium III quantum perspective of 'time.' 'Tis nontrivial...beware.
7Sep2002  Doug.
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'time' amd
remerq all
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with
'tihmæ.'
Students of Quantonics, very, very, very important! Read
this:
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical nongrammatical plural, presentparticiple 'timings'
amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'tihmings.'
Ditto tehmp¤ral.
'Tihmæ'
issi ¤ur m¤st ¤mnihffihcult Quantonics mæmæ t¤
¤mniscrihbæ. Quantonic
th~¤ughts~think_{q}~king ab¤ut
omnifferences
among classically quantitative ideas and concepts of 'time,'
and our Quantonics
qualihtatihvæ mæmæos, mæmæs,
amd ¤mniscrihpti¤ns
¤f tihmings aræ lihkæ quantum
n¤mbærs
— their girth appears nearly limitless.
We have said to our students prior that Greek is a nounesque,
objective, (Attic) dialectical language. Latin is a verbesque,
functional, quasi dialectical language.
Latin, philosophically and scientifically and theologically
owns terms for temporality (including terms shown below
and: agere, animus, cadere, etc.).
(Greek owns the term for change: pragma.
Also chronos.) They are, in their current asused etymonics,
inadequate for Quantonics' quantum~temporal~plural~participle
linguistics, so we shall coin and QELR our own versions, here:
English
plus
Quantum Plurals and Plural Participles 
Latin Temporalisms
as
Non Plural Participles 
Quantonics' Quantum Temporalisms
as
Innovative^{1} Latin Plural Participles 
QELRed 
Past, pasts, pastings 
a posteriori 
a posteriorai 
a p¤stærih¤hrai

Now, nows, nowings 
a iami, a presenti 
a iamai, a presentai 
a ihamai,
a præsæntai

Before, befores, beforings 
a priori 
a priorai 
a prih¤hrai

Future, futures, futurings 
a futuriori 
a futuriorai 
a futurih¤hrai



^{1}We are assuming that our mutant
usages are non Latin standard. 

We are exceptionally tickled to have a iamai turn out
as a palindrome, unintentionally. Compare it to Quantonics' issi
at iamai edgings! Rather fabulously we see quantum~issings
as quantum~nowings! Emotively this is quantum wellness
to our sensibilities. Doug  19Apr2005.


'time'...continued... 
: Time
Classicists, AKA SOMites tend to thingk of time as unitime
and unitemporality: monochronicity. One classical time
fits all reality.
10Jan2009 Aside:
What does that last sentence mean?
Let's ask a question. "If classical Earth time fits all
reality, what happens
when Earth stops rotating?" Does Alpha Centauri time stop? Does omniversal
time stop?
N¤!
See, whenever we declare any 'thing' a monism, like classicists
do with 'time,' we immediately put ourselves in SOM's
Box, we imprison our thoughts in a
local corral, a detention center of mind. Classical thingking
detends classical minds.
Time is n¤t a, quantum~timings are n¤t, universal
canonic whole
OSFA OGC
monism[s]. Ditto
space, mass, and gravity.
Why?
Quantum~flux is heterogeneous, EIMA,
and evolving at up to Planck rates. Time, space, mass, and gravity
are all symptoms of their metameme quantum~flux in a similar
sense that acceleration
is a symptom of its metameme gravity.
Quantum~reality is heterogeneous,
EIMA, and evolving
at up to Planck rates, therefore we can phasement
comfidently that there are n¤ classical monisms in quantum~reality!
Thank you for reading.
Doug  10Jan2009.
10Jan2009 Aside end.
Classicists, AKA CRites may thingk of time as times and polytemporality:
polychronicity. Differing relative contexts may have differing
time bases and temporal phasicities.
Both SOMites and CRites view their versions of time as proxies
for space rate. This is what is meant, usually, when we hear
classicists say, "spacetime 'identity.'"
:
Tihmæ,
tihming, tihmings,
tehmp¤ra, tehmp¤ral,
tehmp¤ralihty,
etc.
Quantumists say
that
ahll
classically
indefinable measurables
aræ quantum dæfihnable~¤mniscrihbable
ihn tærms ¤f m¤re
prihmihtihvæ quantum flux. Sææ
¤ur
flux
perspicacities and perspicuities web page.
Quantum tihmings
aræ, sihmihlar
quantum h¤l¤gramings,
amd quantum is¤flux,
classically directionless,
amd heterogæne¤uhs. Ihn
Quantonics wæ cahll that quantum mæmæo~mæmæ¤tihc "¤mnihtehmp¤ralihties."
Begin A
Doug Aside on Quantum~Time:
When Doug wrote this QELR of time starting in 2002 and updating
it since then, he didn't have a fledged vocabulary to describe
quantum~time in a simple manner. Doug had yet to describe quantum~scintillation
based on quantization and packetization of flux_{q} then.
Now he has that linguistic qua,
and it is pretty good at that.
Doug has a better vocabulary_{q} n¤wings,
over 12 years later. So, let's use said better vocabulary_{q}
to omniscribe 'time' quantumly.
Time_{q} is wave~functional~flux. All flux_{q}
ihn quantum~reality issi quantized.
So, to omniscribe time_{q} quantumly, we must say "time_{q}
issi quantized." Too, quanta
are packets of flux~energy_{q}.
Doug realized this when he and another philosopher were discussing
Carlo Suares' opus, and Suares was using time as OSFA
classically temporal, continuous, durational, and linear.
Quantization of flux destroys classical notions of classical
time, period, especially notions_{c} conceived_{c}
in terms_{c} of 'state_{c}' rate_{c}.
Let's be as clear as we can be...omniscriptionings of time_{q}
are our most challenging gauntlet ihn
our quantum~adventure, so far... We have to creep up on time_{q}.
She, like Sappho, won't allow us to desnouer_{q}
her without showing her how much we really_{q} Value_{q}
her. We shall have to very slowly, and assiduously_{q}
seduce_{q} her, full well k~n¤w~ings she will
never let us see_{q} her all...
Doug will~shall bæ spænding
m¤ræ time here ihn
his QELR of time, ihn futurings_{q}...
Doug  3Dec2014.
End A Doug Aside on Quantum~Time.
Summary:
 time and unitime  Classically SOMitic time
 times and polytime  Classically CRitic times

tihmings amd
¤mnihtehmp¤ralihty
(omnitemporality)
 Quantumly
MoQitic
tihmings
 quantum~time, quantum~timings
Page top index.


'time'...continued... 
Classical 'time:'
 Time as homogeneous
 This classical interpretation of time demands unitemporality,
"one time fits all"
 Unitemporality imposes ubiquitous mechanical synchronicity
 Ubiquitous synchronicity disables any notions of qualitative
novel emergence
 Unitemporality is a classical, arbitrary, quantitative and
objective edict
 One time fits all: OGC
forces OGT
 Human sensory bandwidth limits human perceptions of time
 Spacetime 'identity'
 Time as space rate, implies
 Time is space/space,
and
 An implication: dx/dx dx/dt, thus
 We conclude classical time has no selfcoherent classical
meaning
 Classical "scientific"
time
 "scientific" time as an 'independent' staticproxy
space rate (space/space) analytic 'variable'
 updated 28Dec2014  Observe that 'variable' is classically
absurd nonsense if change
isn't absolute.
(That is, absolute_{q} as memes_{q} of
changing all and always changing all chaoequilly
which implies classical notions of analytic 'state' (e.g., "zero
momentum," "stoppability," "sample and hold,"
etc.) are absurd...)
We see bogus classical analytic assumptions and presumptions
that 'time_{c} as a space identity'
is 'stateic' thus stoppable for analytic 'scientific' con
job convenience  "So dark the con of [hu]man[ity]."
Said con job is in its fullest One World Order analytic
quantitativeeasing metastaticity now~ings, CeodE
2014, beginning of "Day three, Millennium III."  Doug.
 except for Dirac's notion of many
times, classical "scientific" times never appear
as heterogeneous (Why? Classical reality is presumed unitemporal.
One classical time fits all! See OGT.)
 classical "scientific" times never appear as Poincaréan
heterogeneous relational dependencies (Why? Classical "scientific"
time has no classical dependencies. It is objective time, ideally,
exclusively EEMD.
Think about that, do n¤t thingk about
it. Think about how Einstein's relativity makes 'independent'
classical time solipsistically codependent on itself. Scientists'
~dyslexic notions of time uncloak "science's" own absurdities:
homogeneity, stoppability, analyticity, globality/universality,
localability, isolability, separability, reducibility, and perhaps
most 'absurd' of all is a notion of classical temporallystoppable
simultaneity
(If there is only one time, how can it ever be simultaneous?
Stronger: how can that one time be stopped? Notice how
similar this classical 'scientific' absurdity is to a mathematical
notion of absolutely stopped and stable '1' as timeless and context
free and all ones are 'identical' to all other ones. See our
One is Only.), etc.) Red text
update 3Feb2005  Doug. See more of this update below!


'time'...continued... 
 J. C. Maxwellian time and entropy
 Time as a spatially extensive, unilogical, irreversible arrow
(due his 2^{nd} 'law')
 Newtonian time
 Time as a spatially extensive, unilogical, EOOO,
y=f(t) or y=f(t) reversible arrow
 Time as classically analytic, thus quantitative, numerable,
and lisr
 Einsteinian time
 Time as limited by light speed
 Time as limited by classical human sensory bandwidth
 Minkowskian time, derived from Einstein's theories of relativity
 Diracian classical time
 "Causality applies only to a system which is left undisturbed."
Page 4, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, by P. A.
M. Dirac, Oxford Science Publications, 1958 (19301988). See
both Bergson and Irving Stein below.
 Causality implications: temporal homogeneity, analyticity,
identity, stoppability,
denial of abs¤lute
Planck rate quantum flux.
Page top index.


'time'...continued... 
 Bergson on classical time
 Maewan Ho paraphrases Bergson's view of classical time similarly
to this, "...classical time is an infinitely divisible,
homogeneous, quantitative, numerable (i.e., synthetic), spatial
extensity."
 Classical time is analytic, homogeneous, spatiallyextensive,
numerically multiplicate, conveniently stoppable for purposes
of measurement, meaningless twixt measurements, representable
as a discrete numeric scalar magnitude, etc.
 Pirsig on classical time
 "Substance doesn't change." Page 305, ZMM,
Bantam paperback, 1982
 Implication: classically, 'unispatial motion' is
time (See time as space rate, above.) See forward.
 Irving Stein on classical time
 "Thus, what is called determinism[/causality] turns
out to be [classical] analyticity or [classical] identity and
what is called [classical] change appears to be inexplicable
in classical physics; i.e., change appears to be only the
existence of time." Page 35, and Stein says further,
"...to define the concept of change, classical physics
then can produce no basis for a concept of change. Such a
basis can only be produced, if at all, by another physics, such
as quantum mechanics. A concept of change, itself, will then
probably be considerably different from how we normally understand
it. It is not that I deny that change exists, but simply that
I do not find it, as yet, a coherent concept — certainly
not in classical physics." Page 38, The
Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics, Peter
Lang Pub., 1996. Our brackets, ellipses and bold.


'time'...continued... 
 Margenau on classical time
 "Or take a concept like time. It is a quantity indicated
numerically by a clock; it is also that elusive thing which troubled
St. Augustine and is sometimes vaguely defined as the independent
variable in the laws of mechanics, or as distance divided by
speed in uniform motion. The point is that a scientific observable,
to be completely useful, must be understood in two different
ways, one referring to direct experience, the other to related
theoretical constructs. Hence it must possess two different kinds
of definition, one operational or 'epistemic,' the other constitutive
in the sense that the nonoperational meaning of the term is
constituted or established, as it were, by relations to other
concepts. An operational definition of force is in terms of dynamometer
readings, a constitutive one specifies it to be mass times acceleration.
By virtue of the first the scientist is able to measure, by virtue
of the second he can reason about forces." P. 34, Scientific
Indeterminism and Human Freedom, by Henry Margenau, Archabbey
Press, 1968, 1^{st} ed.
 Errol E. Harris
on Newtonian classical time
Page top index.


'time'...continued... 
 Giambattista Vico (16881744) on origins of classical time
notions
 "Jove [notice comnection
here to Jahweh, Jahveh and Yahweh], king and father of men and
gods, is placed above all the rest, but beneath Saturn, who,
since he is father both of Jove [Jupiter] and of Time, has a
longer annual course than all the other planets." Extracted
from paragraph number 730, of The New Science, by Giambattista
Vico, first edition published 1725, third edition published in
1744, Naples (subsequently translated/republished by Bergin and
Fisch, 19478; bracketed paragraph numbers in TNS are
theirs).
 And from paragraph 732, "The theological poets gave
beginnings to chronology in conformity with their astronomy.
[This appears to hold, fairly generally, for other Earth civilizations:
GrecoRoman, Egyptian, Mayan, etc.] For that same Saturn, who
was so called by the Latins from sati, sown {fields},
and who was called Chronos, or Time, by the Greeks, gives us
to understand that the first nations (all composed of farmers)
began to count their years by their harvests of grain."
Ibid. We substituted braces for Giambattista's brackets in that
last quote, thus intraquote brackets are ours. His intraquote
parentheticals.
What we see here is a legacy planetary model for time, with homogeneous
spatial rotation/peregrination rate as an implied 'identity'
for time. On Earth, then, we may surmise evidence is strong for
a decoherent classical concept/idea[l] of 'time' as space/space which has endured for centuries, probably
millennia.
And is it not of even greater interest to ponder whither Earthfolk
denied Jove his own Jupiterian 'Time.' Would that Jove adhere
Earthchauvinistic 'time?'


'relative times'
...continued... 
Relative 'times:' AKA 'paratemporality:'
 Times as plural, but yet classically objective, lisr,
stoppablystable/inanimate, and independent (classically 'time'
is the normative 'independent
variable')
 Times as paratehmp¤ral, 'sidebyside' measurables:
 Sequentially relative classical events, e.g., "paradigms"
 Parallel relative classical events
 See Kuhn
 Times as Culturally Relativistic within OGC
 Hermann Hesse on Relative time, "We immortals do not
like things to be taken seriously. We like joking. Seriousness,
young man, is an accident of time. It consists, I don't mind
telling you in confidence, in putting too high a value on time.
I, too, once put too high a value on time. For that reason I
wished to be a hundred years old. In eternity, however, there
is no time, you see. Eternity is a mere moment, just long enough
for a joke." Hesse, quoting one of 'the old ones.' Page
111 of 248 total pages, no index, Steppenwolf, Bantam.
1981, 26^{th} printing.
Doug  1Nov2005.
Page top index.


'tihmings'...continued... 
Quantonics 'tihmings:'
AKA 'pragmatehmp¤rality:'
 Most important of all... Quantonics' tihmings
aræ unst¤ppable. Both classical time and classically
relativistic times are classically 'stoppable;' students of Quantonics
should, n¤...must, weigh
amd comsider how Einstein's paratemporal
relativity requires time to classically stop! (I.e., his
objective classical mathematics forced a radically formal subtraction
which imposed a classical zero time.) And even more important
than that is how Einstein's relativity sets homogeneous time's
point of 'stoppability' as light speed! And light speed is essentially
calculated as dx/x, since Einstein has no classically coherent
concept for time as anything but a space, x, identity.
Quantum tihmæ tihcks
at uhp to Planck's ratæ amd
keeps on tihcking at uhp
to Planck's ratæ.
If you even slightly fathom what
that means, you may commence
imagining why we aræ spending
so much effort on this issue of
heter¤gen¤us quantum tihmings,
heter¤gen¤us quantum tehmporalities.
T¤ quantum leapfr¤g this
wh¤le pr¤blem, just d¤ what
Doug has d¤ne: realihze that
at 'classical light speed,' Planck's cl¤ck issi
stihll tihcking.
Quantum tihmæ, quantum tihmings, d¤
n¤t classically STOP!!! T¤ bæ acc¤mplishings
this quantum leapfr¤gging
epiphany, l¤¤k at
¤ur Quantonicquantum
sensory bandwidth perspicacities and perspicuities.
Our quantonic vihew here
d¤es n¤t invalihdate
quantum relatihvity! It invalihdates Einstein's classical relativity
based upon his insistence on a deluded notion of classically
temporal stoppability!


'tihmings'...continued... 
 Tihmings as pragmabsolute
quantum action
 Tihmings as heter¤gene¤us
 One might argue here that quantum
tehmp¤ral hætær¤gæneihty
might offer potential
for a classical notion of simultaneity.
We can quite easily belie and tentatively refute any such notion.
How? Let's make our answer slightly more subtle using our own
Quantonics script, and then offer more detailed exegeses linguistically:
quantons(tihmings_comtetings_{iq},tihmings_comtetings_{jq})
Exegetically first, that quantonic subtlety:
Ahll quantons aræ quantum umcærtainty
ihnterrelati¤nshipings.
Therefore, n¤ possibility 'exists' for
any classical notions of simultaneity.
Exegetically second, quantum
ræhlihty issi abs¤lutæly anihmatæ, mahssihvely heterogæne¤uhs, ænsehmblings
¤f
REIMAR
flux. Wæ can qubihtahlly ømniht¤r
iht, but wæ can nævær
classically 'stop' it to analyze it! Quantum
ræhlihty
issi 'unstoppable.'
See classical portion of this update just above. Doug  3Feb2005.
 Tihmings as anihmatæ zer¤
rate t¤ Planck rate, i.e., 10^{43} changæs per quantumrelative
(i.e., animately c¤mplementarily amd
omnifferentiallyrelative)
zer¤changæ
reference quantum flux
 Tihmings as c¤mplementary
 includedmiddle tihmings
 quantum c¤njugati¤nal visàvis quantum
comjugational
tihmings
 Tihmings as at least quatr¤t¤m¤us
(in quantumentr¤py, c¤hesi¤n, etc.)
 Tihmings as quantum is¤flux
derivative
 Tihmings as classes of
quantum ¤mniflux ihnterrelati¤nshipings (!!!)
 This bullet uncloaks quintessences of quantum tihimings
 Imagine an ensehmble of probability
distributions (PDs); better, perhaps an
ensemble of quantum likelihood omnistributionings (QLOs)
Imagine them arranged, say with commonclassicallylatched extrema;
with commonclassicallylatched modes; in a lineage of parallel
2D extensities; and so on...
N¤w ihmagine a l¤cal
c¤mtext ¤n æach
amd c¤mnect them with blue d¤tted issi¤flux
ellipses.
Call æach ¤f those a class ¤f "quantons
¤f c¤mplementary tihmings."
Depending
¤n h¤w many PDs y¤u
ch¤se t¤ sh¤w,
y¤u sh¤uld n¤w
have n+1 classes ¤f tihmings' ihnterrelati¤nshipings. Here is a graphic showing ensemble
PDs (QLOs) representing
quantum~pastings, ~nowings, and ~futurings:
That graphic illustrates many quantum memeos. You are aware
that we already mentioned ¤ur Quantonicquantum
sensory bandwidth perspicacities and perspicuities twice
previously under our time QELR.
Notice how our graphic shows flux is ihn
flux. Pastings, nowings, futurings are ihn
pastings, nowings, futurings. Quantum reality's temporalities
share quantum~included~middlings and are flux~animate~EIMA
fractal. Time is
ihn flux and flux is ihn
time. Mass~energy are ihn quantum~timings~flux
and quantum~timings are ihn mass~energy.
Ditto space, gravity, and any other measurablemonitorable you
can imagine.
Notice too, how this graphic vivifies quantum~temporal~uncertainty.
If John von Neumann had seen this graphic prior to attempting
to classically lisr
a special quantum event, he would have grasped immediately ad
oculos why his efforts would never succeed. And we
are only showing quantum~actuality. When we complement above
with quantum~n¤nactuality, our memeos explode with Value
and facilitation of miracles previously viewed classically as
"impossible." Doug  20,21Sep2005.
Examples always help: Imagine PDs for ephemera of chaos
of Earth's rotation and orbit and Sol's Milky Way orbit. Apply
our imaginings to those. Do similarly for your body's electron
orbits (including their acausal, "uncausedcause,"
biophotonicaffected quantum jumps) around their atoms visàvis
your body's cellular apoptosis cycles (ontological
OEDC ~orbits).
Aræ any ¤f th¤se
ihnterrelati¤nshipings
ihnsignificant? W¤uld y¤u
bæ y¤u with¤ut
them? W¤uld realihty
bæ real with¤ut them?
 Tihmings as OEDC
transitions
 Tihmings as b¤unded by
Planck rate flux and zer¤ rate flux
(See our 2002:
Quantum Sensory Bandwidth
Perspicacities & Perspicuities.)
Page top index.


'tihmings'...continued... 
 Tihmings as quantum entr¤pic
 p¤sentr¤py tihmings
(quantum fermi¤nic dec¤herence)
 zer¤entr¤py tihmings
(quantum b¤s¤nic, BEC, fermi¤nicelectr¤npair
c¤ntrar¤tati¤n, etc.)
 negentr¤py tihmings
 is¤flux¤r
c¤ntrar¤tati¤n,
 is¤space,
 is¤time,
 is¤mass,
 is¤energy (AKA free energy, QVF,
etc.),
 is¤temperature,
 is¤pressure,
 etc.
Thus y¤u can/may imagine h¤w quantum n¤nactuality
is negentr¤pic and ¤ur list ¤f actual c¤mplementary
comjugates
here d¤ n¤t 'exist' from any classical perspective
of actuality; as a result:
 is¤spaceabsence_of_space
(which appears, classically, as "non space"),
 is¤temperatureabsence_of_temperature
(which appears, classically, as "absolute zero"),
 and so on...
 mixentr¤py/partialentr¤py tihmings
(quantum c¤mplementary mixtures of all of above)


'tihmings'...continued... 
 Tihmings as quantum c¤herent
 dec¤herent tihmings (quantumfermi¤nicity,
etc.)
 c¤herent tihmings (quantumb¤s¤nicity,
reversibility, s¤lit¤nicity, superfluidity,
etc.)
 is¤c¤herent tihmings
(quantumis¤reversibility, tunneling, includedmiddle,
entanglement, c¤rrelati¤n, c¤¤bsfecti¤n,
superluminality, comjugationalsuperp¤siti¤n,
etc.)
 mixc¤herent/partialc¤herent tihmings
(quantum c¤mplementary mixtures of all of above; comjecture:
partial quantum c¤herence memes may explain quantum gravity
amd thus quantum antigravity,
quantum ph¤t¤n reflecti¤n/transmissi¤n
st¤chastics (e.g., emissions normal to glass, 1:25
reflection rate — see Feynman's QED, p. 19), Andreev
retr¤reflecti¤n, etc.)
 Bergson on quantumesque tihmings
 Maewan Ho paraphrases
Bergson's view of quantumesque time similarly to this, "...[quantumesque]
tihmings aræ
an indivisible, heterogeneous, qualitative, durational, quantum
c¤hesive (i.e., n¤nsynthetic), sympatheticmultiplicity."
 Tihmings' quantumsens¤rybandwidth
perspicacities and perspicuities
 Tihmings as b¤unded by
human sens¤ry bandwidth
 Tihmings as b¤unded by
augmented (i.e., 'scientific') human
sens¤ry bandwidth
 Tihmings as b¤unded by
Natural sens¤ry bandwidth
 Tihmingsquanton(is¤¤mniflux,¤mniflux)
(See is¤flux.)
 Tihmings as directionless and
free of any classical notions of scalar amplitude (See forward.)
 Erwin Schrödinger on time, from his, 'On the Reversal
of Natural Laws,' "The probability density is the product
of two solutions of a diffusion equation and is thus bilinear
as in quantum mechanics, and since the two solutions differ only
in the direction of the time t, the product has no specified
time direction." Apparently paraphrased by Walter Moore
in his Schrödinger, p. 259, CUP 2001 paperback.
If we were quantum physicists, perhaps quantum physical mathematicians,
we would be revisiting Schrödinger's wave
equations using non spatial quantum~hetero~temporalities. We
would start by heterogeneously temporalizing his Laplacian operator
and an attending independent time partial outside it. We might
treat those novel temporal avatars as peaqlos.
See Quantonic
Time Primer. See Classical
visàvis Quantonic Time.
Page top index.


'through' 
TBD.
Classical objects only exist
in, have interactions with, and pass 'through' a homological
and analytic actual reality. Classical reality denies
any quantum paralogical and c¤mplementary nonactuality.
See locus.
Page top index.


'to' 
As preposition, see of.
In quantum comtexts, use 't¤.'
Page top index.


'transition' 
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'transition' amd
remerq all
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'transihtion.'
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'transition' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences
with 'transihtion.' Also
'transihtionings.'
Classical 'transition' is analytic, stateic,
mechanical, deterministic, EEMD
manufacture of a new form, i.e., some thing transitioned from
its former objective self into some new objective form. We can
apply similar classical notions to locus visàvis form.
Shape visàvis form. All classical transitions obey 'laws' of conservation.
Classical transitions are causal. That means strict causation.
Event A causes effect B with 11 correspondence. This is essence
of classical science: predictability. All classical science
rests on a notion of repeatable verifiability. Any non repeat,
for whatever 'reason' invalidates predictability for a particular
scientific hypothesis.
But does quantum reality ever repeat anything, in general,
exactly? N¤!
But Doug, but, but, but... Why?
First, let us say that quantum reality only appears to repeat.
Planetary orbits. Que stick striking a ball. Baseball bat hitting
a baseball. Gun shooting a bullet.
Appearances are misleading. (Evidence: Parmenides,
Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas,
Buridan, Newton,
Einstein, and this
list goes on and on and on...) If repetition were a physical
reality, shuttle's Challenger and Columbia would not have crashed.
From whence arises apparition of classical verifiable repeatability?
Quantum reality is selfsimilar and selfreferent and changædriven
by abs¤lute
quantum flux and thus issi ensehmble sophisms: enormously
heterogeneous emergent pr¤cessings.
But quantum emergent pr¤cessings are n¤t 'analytically
determinate' and thus verifiably repeatable! They are n¤t
classically scientific! They are chaotic, acausal.
They, in general, exhibit n¤ndeterministic periodic flux.
NPF. But it's much more complex than that. Abs¤lutely
anihmatæ
ensehmble quantum sophisms, what
we call "quantons,"
aræ also EIMA,
c¤¤bsfective,
c¤aware, quantum
¤nt¤l¤gical.
Quantum reality is 'not' classically manufacturing itself
according to some grand book of Platonic forms, and Aristotelian
categorical laws. Quantum reality issi endlessly emerscenturing
itself. Always changing, changing all.
That's what we mean in Quantonics when we say "transihtionings."
Page top index.


'transmutable'
'transmutability'
'transmutabilityings'
'transmute'
'transmuted'
'transmuter'
'transmutes'
'transmutation'
'transmutationings'
'transmuting'
'transmutings'
'transmution'
'transmutioning'
'transmutionings'

: Transmute, etc.
Our classical strawman denies, canonically, mutability let
alone transmutability. Our dialectical model of classical reality
essentially denies transmutation as defiance of canonic classical
notions of: state, formal and mechanicalmaterialhylicobjectivity,
excludedmiddle, stability, Bergson's "movement of immobilities,"
etc. Immobilities 'cannot' selfother mutate, let alone transmute
which is why Doug claims classical thingking will never invent
real AI.
Classicists treat scintillation as mechanical 'interactions'
 "objectivestriking, hitting, bouncing, and reflecting"
 statetostate events without describable interintraextra
process. See Doug's coining of per
intera.
Classical thought adheres dialectic and its constituent
dialecta as ideally and 'scientifically' objective.
: Trahnsmutæ,
etc.
Why is our QELR of 'transmute' so critical regarding our individual
hermeneutics of quantum~reality?
All phenomena which happen,..., occur
in quantum~reality are due scintillation
of quanta. Every scintillation of every
quantum in its interrelationshipings with other quanta and ensembles
(EWings) of quanta are transmutative. This is essence of perpetual
transmutative chance,
choice, and change
in quantum~reality! QCD
is gluon~quark~electron creation
n¤nactuality~actuality transmutation scihæncæ of scintillation
of quanta. Quarks come in six flavors: TBCSUD. Up
and Down quarks are used to scintillate~build~transmute atomic
nuclei from quark tricodons. QED
is electron~photon actuality~transmutation scihæncæ
of scintillation of quanta. QED are quantum phenomena many that
fall within human sensory
bandwidth limitations. Our perceptions of these phenomena
are bases of what we fathom as "our QREONings'
individual reality." Every scintillation of every quantum
produces transmutative phenomena! Seeing, hearing, touching,
feeling, thinking...all are phenomena borne of quantum~scintillation
processings. All are pneumatic and thus positive energy
stochastic quantum~wave~wavicles. They are 'not' hylicpsychic
classical 'waveparticles!'
So quantum~transmutation is at very heart of chaos
and equilibrium. Quantum~transmutation borne of quantized~scintillation
is at very heart of quantum~evolution.
Begin Aside 7Sep2012 :
Regular readers see Doug writing, "Iht
issi ihn us and we are ihn
Iht." Write it again, Sam! "Chaos
is ihn equilibria and equilibria
are ihn chaos." Former phasementing
is omniversal in scope, with Iht quantumly semiotizing isoflux AKA
quantum~vacuum and all of its scintillated fermionic~bosonic
creation. Some refer Iht, without
classical reification, G¤d.
All of what this aside covers simply isn't possible in a classical
objective, formal, mechanical, closed, (compare close
visàvis open),
linear, circular, verifiable, provable, predicable, etc., 'reality.'
For what humanity knows and understands now~ings, only
a quantized, scintillating, hologra[[il][m][ph]ic reality can
do what quantum~transmutation empirically shows us in our every
day lives. If only we could see... If only we could believe...
Try think_{q}ing about that like this:
 Chaos is high~gradience~equilibrium, and
 Equilibrium is low~gradience~chaos.
Equilibrium is a measure
of rates AKA gradiences of transmutation. Equilibrium issi ihn chaos, and chaos are ihn
Equilibria. A quanton(chaos,equilibria): quantum~antinomial~complementarity
of chaos and equilibrium! Doug's quanton's comma~nospace is a
quantum~interpretant of quantum~antinomial~complementarity,
"without contradiction."
See...it depends upon how we look at reality, how we hermeneut
it (how we omni~interpret it). Classical is 'not' a good way
to look at reality.
Why? It isn't quantum!
Allow Doug to con(m)tinue that meme of "...how we look
at reality..."
What are classicists' similars to equilibrium and chaos? Doug
immediately th~ought of potential energy and kinetic energy.
Both of those are problematic since classicists show them as
areas under transverse curves. Too, classicists say that (claim
that) we can add and subtract those areas. However, quantum~energy
is quantized~flux rate, not area under a curve. Fluxes do
not mathematically add and subtract, rather they phasistically
interrelate. Given entanglement
and interference, they phase~relatively cancel
(Hyde,
hide) and superpose (Jekyll, show). See Doug's QELR of entangle.
See QELR of negate.
Given those caveats Doug had an insight born of classical
ideas of total energy and action. Total energy_{c} is
arithmetic sum of potential and kinetic energy areas under their
curves. Classicalaction is canonically arithmetic 'di'fference
twixt them.
Doug doesn't know yet how to interpret quantum~action,
but it appears related to memes of phase~cancellation.
It does appear relevant Rolf Landauer's technique for
increasing adiabaticity of RAM readwrite cycles to lower their
energy consumption. But would we call that "quantum action?"
Don't know...quantum flux which tunnels appears to n¤t
lose n¤r omnissipate
energy...very interesting...if I recall well Landauer used quantum~tunneling
to lower RAM wastage of energy.
It is evident that, in this case, "...how we look at
a real problem..." is a very big deal, and QTMs appear
hyper CTMs in that regard.
Is quantum~action quanton(chaos,equilibria)?
Perhaps. A clue here may be how Doug's comma~nospace does
quantum~complementarity as Quantonics
Interrelationshipings. Quantum~action may be just one of
many "all at once" hologra[[il][m][ph]ic phenomena
assessed
by a quantum~computer. That explains much in terms of nearly
instantaneous affective outcomes borne of quantum~computation.
There appears to be a story here, but Doug doesn't know yet
what it is...
Doug  8Sep2012.
Doug calls "Iht issi
ihn us and we are ihn
Iht," coinsidence. William
James calls it compenetration. Fritjof Capra calls it
interpenetration. Bergson interfusion. And so on...
Most famous human on earth, a master of Autiot,
said it like this, "I am in you and you are in me. 'Iht issi ihn
me and I am ihn Iht.
Therefore Iht issi
ihn you...'" That person said
if you don't understand "What I just told you..." (logos,
the account) you are living in Error.
In quantum~reality what do we call this memeo which is so
omnifficult for hylicpsychics to understand?
"Quantum~antinomial~complementarity." In quantum~maths
it appears as a quantonic~hologra[[il][m][ph]ic middle~inclusion.
It is what Pirsig meant when he so brilliantly uttered (narrated),
"Mind is in body and body is in mind," [Lila,
1991] without
contradiction (paraphrased on Doug's recall). "Without
contradiction" means "quantum~antinomial~complementary."
Only, as far as Doug knows, quantum~flux can do that.
Classical dialectic
depends upon 'contradiction'
to assess verifiable 'proof.' Dialectic is, therefore, manifestly
bogus. It lies. It claims it can 'prove' based upon contradiction. It uses objective
'excludedmiddle,' an Aristotelian
syllogistic abomination (called "excludedmiddle")
to 'do' contradiction among
other facile machinations.
Doug.
End Aside 7Sep2012 .
This level of pneumatic think_{q}ing is necessary
to understand and fathom quantum~reality. Classical hylicpsychic
dialectical garbage thingking just doesn't cut it, folks!
Doug  8Dec2011.
Quantum~think_{q}ing adheres quantal~scintillation:
absolute and perpetual rqcs~change.
Doug's quantum~reality m¤dalings are holographic~hologramic
and their comstituents are hologra
as EWings of fractal~recursive~self~other~scintillating
quanta. Doug uses holographic~hologramic here autsimilar genome~phenome.
Holograph is to genome as hologram is to phenome. Hologral EWings'
peaqlo~fluxings
comstitua are to their physial emerqancy as genome is
to phenome. AI is intrinsic to quantum~transmutation. All quantum~scintillation
is: aware, comscious,
and to some extent intelligent. We must admit that quantum~awareness,
comsciousness, and intelligence
scale, transmute, and evolve with quantum~complexity.
Doug's QELR of transmute is enthymeme~partial
and parcel of our quantum~philosophical evolutionings of quantum~equilibria and their
associated quantum~chaos.
So, Doug, "How else can we think_{q} of transmutation
regarding quantum~chaos and quantum~equilibrium?"
Your query offers much omniscience through your own individual
prescience, your proemial~nascence.
Often, when we broach complex philosophical issues like this,
Doug goes back to Bergson. Keep in mind that Henri Louis Bergson,
among many of his facets, was a Jew and a gnostic. Doug has gradually
been able to eke out Bergson's gnosis.
Allow Doug to exegetize portions of Chapter IV of his Matter
and Memory (ref. translation of M&M by N. M. Paul and
W. S. Palmer, MIT Press, 1988).
Doug wants to concisely show Bergson's gnosis in his first
three 'facts' from Chapter IV, quote:
 "Every movement, inasmuch as
it is a passage from rest to rest, is absolutely indivisible."
p. 188. (This is a Bergsonian gnostic interpretation of Jesus
the Jew's phasementing to his Disciples' query, "Lord what
is the sign of our living Father in us?" Jesus responds,
"Movement
and rest." Doug  3Dec2011)
 "There
are real movements." p. 193.
 "All
division of matter into independent bodies with absolutely determined
outlines is an artificial division." p. 196.
(I.e., classical independence and separation are delusion. Doug
 3Dec2011)
Obtain, in Doug's view, rqcs~movement and (apparent) rqcs~rest
represent what quantum~transmutation means semasiologically.
If that is so, then Doug can say movement and rest represent
quantum~change, and quantum~change comsists of equilibrium and
chaos alternating one another in a perpetual process of quantum~rqcs~evolution.
Distilled:
 movement corresponds chaos,
and
 rest corresponds equilibrium.
Just as Doug has omnistinguished classicaltransmute and quantum~trahnsmutæ, he can usee those descriptions
to assist his distillations of classicalchaos from quantum~chaos,
and classical equilibrium from quantum~equilibrium. Too, as we
shall transemerq,
trahnsmutæ issi quantum~quintessence
of chaos and equilibrium. Thence all of those are quintessence
of quantum~æv¤lution!
This 'transmute' QELR will grow and evolve indefinitely.
Doug  1,3,8Dec2011, 12Feb2012, 10Mar2012, 9May2012, 17Jul2012,
7Sep2012.


'true' 
TBD.
See our Bases of Judgment
and our What is Wrong
with Probability as Value?
Page top index.


'truth'
Synonyms  classical:
 absolute certainty
 authenticity
 concrete specificity
 dialectic
 dialectical certitude
 dogma as social positivism
 eitheror
 orthodoxy
 positiveness
 probity
 reality
 unambiguous
 unequivocal
 veracity
 verisimilitude
 verity
visàvis
falsity
 etc.
Synonyms  quantum:
 appears as classical equivocation
 appears as classical perversion (Banesh Hoffmann, TSSotQ)
 appears as classical prevarication
 both~all~while
~and~many
 flux is quantum real
 quantum truth as an agent of its own evolutionary absolute
change
 quantum uncertainty
 rhetoric
 subjective, ensemble, animate likelihood omnistribution
 etc.
Etymology:
"n. 1137 treuth, quality of being true; faithfulness
developed prior 899 as Old English." Barnhart Concise
Dictionary of Etymology, p. 837,

: Truth, truths, truisms, etc.
"Truth is defined by the conformity
of intellect and thing." Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Question 16, article 2. EBGB I & II.
This is a supreme height of 'thingy' Aristotelian bogosity:
'thingking."
This partially explains why Heraclitus, Hamann, Bergson, Pirsig,
Renselle, et al., hold classical 'intellect' (DIQ)
in such low esteem.
:
Truth,
truths, truthings,
etc.
Doug did his first cut at classical vav quantum 'truth' in
2001. Doug just performed a similar effort on Emet, which is
Qabalic for 'truth.' Doug's effort there is well worth your time
if you want another benchmark for quantum~truthings as interpreted
by students of Qabala nearly four thousand years ago. Please
visit Doug's Sepher~Yetsiral Hologralexology™ of Emet.
Doug  2Apr2015.
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'absolute truth' amd
remerq all
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'abs¤lute truth.' Quantonics ch¤¤ses
t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'truth' amd remerq all
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'truth,'
and 'truthings.'
Quantum reality is a plural, presentparticiple reality. Quantum
'truth' issi
'truthings.' Quantum 'truth' issi an agent of its own changæ
with impetus from abs¤lute quantum flux.
Our substitution of 'hbar' (h)
MT Extra font characters for occurrences of more classical 'h'
reminds students of Quantonics that quantum truth
is quantal, quantized,
thus anihmatæ
amd an agent ¤f its ¤wn changæ.
Where classical truth is assumed global or universal and may
be assessed 'certainly,' quantum truth
is islandic amd may
be assessed
¤nly quantum umcærtainly.
Where classical truth is presumed absolute, i.e. one truth
fits all contexts or one truth fits one universal context, quantum
truth may ¤nly be assessed
as an umcærtainty
interrelati¤nship between comsistency amd
c¤mpleteness. As quantum islandic comtexts gr¤w
in n¤mbær,
quantum c¤mpleteness increases, but quantum comsistency
decreases. Thus abs¤luteness ¤f truth
may be highly comsistent f¤r small amd
l¤cal comtexts, abs¤luteness ¤f truth is c¤mplementary amd
thus highly inc¤mplete. Similarly, abs¤luteness
¤f truth may be highly c¤mplete
f¤r large amd
multiple l¤cal amd
n¤nl¤cal comtexts, abs¤luteness ¤f
truth is c¤mplementary amd thus highly incomsistent.
Als¤ comsider quantum
persistency ¤f tentative/variable quantum truth (See QTP
and QVP visàvis
absolute persistence of classical truth).
More recently, during 20032005 we are commenting on good
visàvis truth elsewhere
and to greater comprehension. See our 20032004 Feuilleton
Chautauqua. It is a fairly long and challenging read...
As a result of that Feuilleton Chautauqua, we have placed
classical notions of truth in a much much broader quantum comtext
of a hierarchy which looks like this now (nearer top is more
highly evolved, nearer bottom of list is less highly evolved):
 Emergent Good (we call this quantum stochastic choosings,
chancings, and changings,
CH^{3}ings, selectings
emergent quantum noveltyings)
 Dynamic Good (we call this quantum dynamic quality, DQ, agency
of change and
absolute evolution )
 Static Good (we call this being, which is quantum tentative
persistence, QTP, of bosons and fermions)
 Likelihood (see Probability as Value link just below; corresponds
futurings; a priorai)
 Plausibility (corresponds nowings; a iamai)
 Probability (pretty much quantum from here on up; corresponds
pastings; a posteriorai)
 Provability (pretty much classical from here on down)
 Truth (provisional based upon classically ideal proof)
 Proof (provisional based upon classically ideal falsifiability)
 Falsifiability (depends on contradiction)
 Contradiction (depends on objective negation)
 Negation (depends on objective independence and ideal formal
opposition)
 Lisrability (primitive classical notion: objective
independence)
 Stability (primitive classical notion: reality holds
still)
See our recent Bases of Judgment link just below.
Here is another, inverted,
distillation of that page:
Classicists theorize and practice truth as stable. Bergson
and Pirsig showed us how n¤ truth is stable, rather truth
is an agent of its own change, its own quantum absolute change.
This Bases of Judgment table distillation shows us how low in
a hierarchy of Value our modern quantum mentors place truth.
It is nearer bottom than top! That table's hierarchy distilled
bottom (1) to top (14) looks like this:
©Quantonics, Inc., 20042030 by Doug Renselle 

1. stability,
2. independence,
3. negation,
4. contradiction,
5. falsifiability,
6. proof,
7. truth, 
bottom
A Failed Classical Truth Hierarchy
"Scalarbation" 
SOM's
Box Denies Dynamic Quality 
E
V
O
L
U
T
I
O
N

8. provability, 
A Gödelian N¤n 'Logical' Transcension 
Gödel's
Pre~Quantum Subjunctihve Leap Requires
Recursion 
9. probability,
[was:
a posteriorai]
10. plausibility,
[is:
a iamai]
11. likelihood, [ought: a futuriorai]
12. static^{careful} good,
13. dynamic good,
14. emergent good. 
Coquecigrues
A Quantum Value Ascension
top (evolute interim)

MoQ's
Quantum Animate EIMA
QLO Bazaar 
©Quantonics, Inc., 20042030 by Doug Renselle 

In this inversion of our previous bullet list, we see that
truth is trapped twixt a crippledinvalid classical notion of
proof and a prequantum memeo of provability. Simply, absolute
truth is a bogus classical notion. Most classicists wave
it about as a semaphore of ultimate Parmenidean, Platonic, Aristotelian
sentience. But that is wavingabout classical dialectic,
isn't it? Essentials, fundamentals of classical dialectic loiter
in lowest seven levels of our judgment hierarchy. Dialectic resides
appropriately in judgment's cellar. It corresponds social judgment:
ESQ, what some classicists (e.g., Polanyi, et al.) call explicit
knowledge AKA 'positive knowledge.' Quantum 'logic,' what we
have chosen to refer quantonically as "coquecigrues,"
which is quantum rhetorical sophism (a classical 'monster' of
'nonlogic'), emerges in probability and for now culminates in
emergent good...
Doug  913Nov2004  we borrowed Doug's review text words
from our review of Polanyi's
Study of Man.
An 11Oct2008
Quantum~Gn¤sis Aside:
When Doug superposed these following words (light blue text
just below) on our existing quantum memeos of truthings, Doug
was a year away yet from his mid~2005 quantum~stage adventures
into quantum~gnosis. What is
remarkable here is that during Doug's 2003~2004
Feuilleton Chautauqua, Doug didn't realise it, but he was
emerscing
grundlagen for what he now calls "Quantum~Gnosis."
Doug's Quantum~Adventures™ in retrospect appear
almost impossible, let alone deeply fathomable. How did Doug
evolve from Pirsig's MoQ
in mid 1980s to Quantum~Gn¤sis in mid 200Xs? One way of
quantum~staging
this using QTMs,
is that most of Doug's mentors, without Doug fathoming it, appear
to have their own quantum~predilections re gnosis: Heraclitus (See Heraclitus'
the
account and the
logos.), Bergson, James, Pirsig, Pagels,
GRS Mead, Gaffney,
Chaldæans, Peratæans, Valentinæuns, Naassenes,
Essenes, even more ancient Ophites (i.e., serpentine
stone regarded as hermaphroditic; 'Y' as a grail (grale) which
can quantum~recursively swallow its own tail (tale); 'V' of 'Y'
as cup (a 'half' AKA haploid) of hermaphroditic stone) in which
"all things mix in all things"), et al.,..., and now
Doug.
Doug wants to mark following paragraphs as his mid~2004 proemial
precis of what he n¤w~ings, CeodE 2008, and k~n¤w~ings
means by "Quantum~Gn¤sis," even though Doug
did n¤t kn¤w, even anticipate that when
he wrote these words:
MoQites will want to ascertain that we compress "static
good" from Pirsig's
MoQ hierarchy of SQ. Let's show its levels here, too, classicAristotleABSIinverted
(Please read all of our October,
2003 News (it is long yet fairly easy; link just above shows
results) to understand a ~2500 year evolution of this Value subhierarchy):
12.a. AtomicInorganic
12.b. Biological
12.c. Social
12.d. Intellectual
Notice that
12 is a SQ (Yod_{q}) recapitulative recursion of 114
which is SQ (Yod_{q}) and 114 is a SQ (Yod_{q})
recapitulative recursion of 12! Please standunder that DQ (Aleph_{q})
is vital impetus of quantum recapitulative recursion! It is a
bit like Gershwin's musical recursion in Rhapsody in Blue with
Gershwin playing it on a piano as an agent of DQ (Aleph_{q})!
12 harbors all of what is necessary to emerscitect 114! 114
harbors all that is necessary to emerscitect 12! This is a fullblown
exemplar of quantum recursion more colloquially known as "sophism."
12 is like a quantum chromosome of 114! 12 is in 114 and 114
is in 12! All that is in DQ (Aleph_{q}) and DQ
(Aleph_{q}) is in all that! It is a simile of
you looking at reality quantum recursively and reality looking
at you quantum recursively. See our recent, 2004, you as a
monism, you as a monism
and pluralism, and you as a pluralism emerscitecting a non
explicit monism.
To relevantly quote
Carlo Suares in his Qabalic [quantum~]hermeneutics of OT's Song
of Songs, "As the tree is in its seed, so is the meaning
of the Song of Songs in its title." Quantum~paraphrased
with ostentation_{q} by Doug, "As any wavings_{q}
(quintessencings_{q}) issi ihn
its waviclings_{q} (residue_{q}), s¤ issi
any hologramings'_{q} emerqancyings_{q}
ihn its holographings_{q}."
What_{q}
becomes_{q}
very (i.e., veritably_{q}) evident_{q} here_{q}
issi how_{q} Song of Songs issi about_{q}
truthings_{q} of Qabala
describing (using
reality's Autiot)
Cosmic~Realityings'
energyings_{q} recursively_{q} expressing_{q}
themselves_{q} ihn fractal_{q}
terms_{q} of self_{q} and other_{q} networkings_{q}.
Regarding 12.d. Intellectual, in Quantonics we claim classical
society (as a composite social object culturallymanufacturedsynthesized
of individual classical human objects) has n¤ intellect,
i.e., classical society cann¤t think, it cann¤t
even thingk,
as classical individuals do; classical society 'legally'
runs on
automatic (i.e., "social 'principle' as 'state' ruling
something 'not' itself," a Chaldæan oracle...); we
claim classical individuals can only 'thingk,' so we say "Individual
Intellect" here, and in our quantum version we just abbreviate
it to "Individual." It is valuable
to our adventure's_{q} ostentation_{q} CeodE
2014 to offer better_{q} exoteric_{q}
omniscriptionings (via script_{[[c][q]]}) of individual,
intellect, and society:
Classical:
Individual_{c}
Intellect_{c}
Society_{c}
Quantum:
Individual_{q}
(In Quantonics remediated script,
Ihndihvihdual
)
Intellect_{q}
(In Quantonics remediated script,
Ihntællect
)
Society_{q}
(In Quantonics remediated script,
S¤ciety
)
How can we do that? Quantum individuals know how to
quantum
cohere, quantum culturally. Quantum society is n¤t
an objective construct! Quantum society is n¤t a mechanical
production borne of synthetic assembly of objective parts. Due
CTM's disablers,
classicists are fundamentally incapable of quantum cultural coherence.
Classicists view themselves as objectivecogindividuals in a
classically objective societal formation. Quantum society emerges,
recursively. Its individuals are in it, and it is in its individuals,
quantum coherently.
These last few paragraphs are essence of Robert M. Pirsig's
MoQ commingling Maewan Ho's quantum~Bergsonian hermeneutics
with Doug's quantum spin.

Doug added red text in blue text box to make a Chaldæan
quantum~gn¤stic recapitulative nexus twixt now and then.
From this juncture forward in Quantonics' hopefully unbounded
futurings, let it be said that this is what Doug learned, hermeneuted,
intuited as "Quantum Gn¤sis."
Please observe that n¤whræings
ihn that text did Doug use a word,
'gnosis.' What is amazing to Doug, is how those paragraphs, CeodE
2008, in retrospect so obviously describe what Doug means by
"Quantum~Gn¤sis."
Indeed, gentle reader, quantum~gn¤stic~truthings
are potent! See potentia.
Doug.
End 11Oct2008 Quantum~Gn¤sis Aside.
See: absolute,
axiom, certain,
fact, law,
principle, rule,
tautology.
See our Bases of Judgment
and our What is Wrong
with Probability as Value?
Page top index.


'two' 
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'two' amd
remerq all
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'tw¤.'
Classically 'two' counts two lisr
objects.
Quantumly 'tw¤' is quantum_2. Viz. tw¤ anihmatæ Planck quantons divided
by ¤ne Planck
quanton. See quantum
tw¤ m¤deled using Planck quantons.
Page top index.

©Quantonics, Inc., 20012030 