Arches

A Quantonics Technical Dialogue Twixt AH and Doug

About Quantonics Ontologies, Insanity,
Quantonics and Quantum Reality

A series of seven emails, four from AH to Doug, and three responses from Doug to AH.

(Minor edits to add links, italics, bold, etc. Some text corrections/alterations/misspelling, etc. Our inserted brackets as apropos.)
(We remediate some of AH's words using our Quantonics Editor. Those remediations appear in dark red text.)
(We use some MT Extra, rtf, Symbol, and Wingdings fonts. E.g., capital 'J' in Wingdings is a smiley face and h-bar 'h' in MT Extra. )
(AH uses some neat smiley faces, but they link back to Yahoo, so we omit them. Those links cause delay problems reading these dialogues offline.)
(In quantum comtexts we quantize some 'o' char's. like this '¤.')



1 of 7 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject: Clarification Needed.
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: FlameProof@yahoo.com
To:

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

Greetings Again Doug!

Many thanks for your congratulations on my use of remediated terms.

AH needs some clarification: Quantonics text definitions of ISOTs imply that isotentative attractors have a distinct character, in contrast to isononpreferential [ISON] and isopreferential [ISOP] attractors, the implication being that isotentative attractors not being simply a transformational intermediary phase between the other two kind of attractors).

In the emergent phase of the ontic-emergent-deemergent-cycle (OEDC), is ISOT twixt ISOP and ISOB qualitatively different from ISOT twixt ISON and ISOP?

Quantonics text definitions state ISOTs are DQ's c¤mplement of tentative Quantons(DQ/SQ), and occur during ontic becoming/unbecoming events.

It seems ISOT twixt ISON and ISOP would not occur during these becoming/unbecoming events because ISOP would not be fully developed at that point, whereas ISOT twixt ISOP and ISOB would occur.

Any help in this regard would be most appreciated.

Aside by Doug:

When AH wrote this email 6.66 years ago, Doug did not have a QELR of 'occur.' If Doug had that QELR then, it may have helped AH significantly. In retrospect, all of this effort is necessary to be able to do our QELR of 'occur' well.

A Doug Quantum~Consciousness Aside:

Nor did Doug realize when he first wrote this aside that his remarks in next paragraph take us a long way toward describing quite well what Doug means by quantum~consciousness:

Relevant commentary there omnistinguishes memes of cognition, recognition, and omniscrimination: essentials of holographic quantum~stagings and genuine metaphorings of quantum~reality and its intrinsic quantum~scintillation of fractal~REIMAR~awarenessings at all scales of reality.

Doug - 24Mar2010.

End A Doug Quantum~Consciousness Aside.

If you find that reading valuable, consider a short Chautauqua into Doug's treatise on What is Wrong with Probability as Value?

28Dec2008 and 25Feb2009 (add links to recent, CeodE 2009, QELRs of 'discriminate' and 'aware;' see other change below...) - Doug.

End Aside by Doug.


Best Wishes,
AH



2 of 7 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject: Re: Clarification Needed.
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:31:40 -0500
From:

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT
Organization: Quantonics
To: FlameProof@yahoo.com

AH,

Again, our apologies, this is way too long, but we felt it necessary to provide some background. Your queries are simply superb! They dig right at core issues of quantum reality as interpreted by Quantonics.

See our responses embedded below -

Audio Head wrote:

Greetings Again Doug!

Many thanks for your congratulations on my use of remediated terms.

AH needs some clarification: Quantonics text definitions of ISOTs imply that isotentative attractors have a distinct character, in contrast to isononpreferential and isopreferential attractors, the implication being that isotentative attractors not being simply a transformational intermediary phase between the other two kind of attractors.

AH,

Allow us to provide a little background regarding from whence this terminology arose.

Our sources are, in rough reverse chronological order:

  1. The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics, by Irving Stein (percepts of preference (classical meme) and nonpreference (his 'non' is Bohrian exclusive; a more quantum meme, i.e., Buridan's ass walking in both/all directions simultaneously; a kind of everywhere, probabilistic quantum associativeness)). Stein only modeled in a single dimension, but his ideas appear to be capable of scaling.
  2. Chaos, by James Gleick (percepts of classical chaos, Feigenbaum's natural constant, population logistics, fractals, etc.)
  3. Gödel, Escher, Bach, and Metamagical Themas, by Doug Hofstadter (percepts preparatory to Gleick; fractals, recursion, Gödel, ).
  4. Order Out of Chaos, by Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers (Classical, but superb. Quantum equilibrium percepts. Two classes of entropy percepts: productive (negentropy to posentropy AKA classically "a negative entropy gradient;" n¤ Maxwell analogue) and nonproductive (posentropy to negentropy AKA classically "a positive entropy gradient;" Maxwell's 2nd law of thermodynamics). Four classes (or more) of multiversal equilibrium transitions.)
  5. ZMM & Lila, by Robert M. Pirsig (Percept of MoQ's Dynamic Quality as "chaos."). There may be others, however, they are n¤t in recall just now.

A good comtext for discussion of your query is quantum measurement. That means we need more background on what a Quantonics view of quantum measurement is. See our 1999JulQQA. Also see our Quantonic Symbols for ISON, ISOP, and ISOT. As yet, we have n¤ ISOB symbol.

Where classical measurement is usually uniparametric and presumed deterministic (classical concepts: one-to-one correspondence, objective independence, one cause and one effect, etc.; "what happens next"), Quantonics' view of quantum measurement assumes an ensehmble of affectors emerging in an ensehmble of comditions, including l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal affectors and other quantons. More simply, quantons among quantons, l¤cal and n¤t, entangled and n¤t, etc., coobsfecting one another.

A possibly difficult hermeneutic: All those interrelationships are quantons. (We have to throw away our natural, classical, analytical tendencies to view, as Stein does, quantons as quantum objects; quantons are Quantonic, n¤t classically objective.)

AH, if you have seen a movie titled 'Pi,' near end of movie, "...where Max is under duress from an Hasidic Rabbi and his followers to give up 'the God number.' Max says, from our recall, 'The number is not what is important. Numbers are not what is important. Interrelationships among numbers is what is important in nature.'"

Poincaré said something very similar, "Now, we daily see what science is doing for us. This could not be unless it taught us something about reality; the aim of science is not things themselves, as the dogmatists in their simplicity imagine, but the relations between things; outside those relations there is no reality knowable." By Henri Poincaré, in Science and Hypothesis, p. xxiv, translated from French in 1905 by J. Larmor, published 1952 by Dover Publications.

Max is distinguishing objects (number) from quantons (interrelationships). So is Poincaré. All those quantons (interrelationships mediated by comtext/quantum_vacuum_flux) are quantum umcærtain as to "whatings happenings nextings." (See our Philosophical Battle Winner, table at page bottom.) Note: where active voice is adequate for classical measurement language, present participle plural (k-now-ings) is more appropriate for quantum measurement language. Quantum measurement corresponds Pirsig's "Direct Experience." Classical measurement predicates singular 'what' happens singular 'next.' (analogous y=f(t); y ordinate values at t0, t1, t2, etc. are predicable) 'What' and 'next' are (t0, t1, t2, etc.) stoppable classical states. Whatings and nextings are anihmatæ, unstoppable quantons or 'k-now-ings.' Those last two sentences fairly well explain what Henri Louis Bergson means by "duration." Our quantons and quanton symbols show anihmatæ, unstoppable Bergsonian duration.

(AH, you did not choose our easiest topic for discussion. ) Also, Pirsig, Glover, et al., do n¤t accept n¤r believe that we can define quantum n¤nactuality (AKA "Dynamic Quality"), so we are n¤t ¤n firm footing with them regarding our ISOX (isox: i.e., ison, isot, isop, isob, et al.) ontologies. However, they imply, and so does Bergson, et al., that we can and do partially (via quantum measurement) "describe n¤nactuality/DQ." That is, SQ partially describes DQ. SQ quanton(DQ,SQ) issi a partial description of reality and reality quanton(DQ,SQ) is a 'complete' description of reality. Observe that we cann¤t use classical 'logic' here. We have to use coquecigrues. Our uses of ISOX, thus, we call "descriptions" of n¤nactuality.

Here is another interesting meme: AH, Doug, and all actual quantum reality, according to our views in Quantonics, are "descriptions" of quantum reality. Earth's description of quantum reality is but ¤ne interpretation of quantum reality. There are unlimited interpretations of quantum reality. This was a major problem in quantum science until Quantonics solved it! Just as there is n¤ single Theory of Everything and n¤ Grand Unifying Theory, we can see there is n¤ limit to possible interpretations of quantum reality. So all hermeneutics are always umcærtain, always (classically) equivocal, always (classically) prevaricative. Classical ideas try to define quantum reality. But n¤ single 'definition' fits (see Gödel). That is why paradice arise from classical concepts, and that is why Kuhn was right about classical science going from one paradigm to another to another... Until we accept quantum reality for its incredibleness, and approach he-r using n¤vel (hopefully Quantonic) memes, we are doomed to classical paradigms, paradice, and endless SOMwittedness.

This issue (from our last several paragraphs) is very, very, very important!

Why? It has to do with c¤mpleteness. (For background here, we suggest you read our archive of Pirsigean Problematic Memes. Browser search for 'complete.' Query, "Is MoQ Complete?" We see this as ~necessary for our discussion here.)

In a nutshell [or in "a nut's hell" — as Thomas C. Greene from The Register recently, 29Agu2002, and humorously pun'd], to make Pirsig's MoQ philosophy "complete," he offers, in our view, a genius level meme: describe reality as a quanton (n¤t his word) of both Static Quality (the known) and Dynamic Quality (the unknown). When we include unknown in reality and our philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, science, epistemology, script notation, etc., of it we make those percepts/memes "complete." Quantum_c¤mpleteness issi quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality).

Our cost of doing that is that we must give up any possibility of full and 'complete' know-ledge (which is a classical subset of SQ itself) of n¤nactuality. We can be partially describing it, but we can never fully 'capture' it in SQ. DQ is SQ's source and parent via quantum parthenogenesis. But DQ may n¤t ever be circumscribed, boxed-in, theory of everything'd, or universal theoried by us who are quantons of both SQ and DQ.

Our ISOX terms can only partially describe n¤nactuality!!! You can invent your own version of Quantonics and it would only partially describe n¤nactuality! Ditto science, philosophy, Zen B., etc.

They (our descriptions) are both our strongest and our weakest foundation for our philosophy, etc. Pirsig and Nature show us there is but ¤ne genuine/real metric for any set of descriptions: is it better than its predecessor? All quantum measurement events look at previous ensehmble comditions/affects and all make those ensehmblings choices, selecting nextings outcomings. Both William James and Charles Sanders Peirce refer this meme, generally as pragmatism.

[Note to students of Quantonics: Our grammar sometimes is and appears, from a classical perspective, "bad." In Quantonics we see classical English language as inadequate for describing quantum reality and thus we are remediating it. See our QELR and QELP. QELRQuantonics_English_Language_Remediation. QELPQuantonics_English_Language_Problematics. If we were to use full remediation of our penultimate sentence above, it would look something like this: "All quantum mæasuræmænt ævæntings aræ coobsfectings prævi¤us ænsæmblings comditionings/affæctings amd makings th¤se ch¤¤sings, sælæctings næxtings outcomings." As you may ch¤¤se t¤ understand, quantum reality is an anihmatæ, included-middle, quantum c¤mplementary, heter¤gene¤us, present participle reality. Classical English language is innately incapable of describing such a reality. Doug - 13Jul2002.]

As you may imagine, "whatings happenings nextings," in a vast ensehmble of quantons which we call reality depend upon ensehmblings of Value choice/decisions at ensehmblings of asynchronous Planck moments. Because quantum choice is Free Will, some tentative/potential attractors may n¤t 'latch' or 'be chosen' "nextings." That describes an ISOT. Perhaps better/plural and present participle, those are ensehmble ISOTings. [Alter first sentence of this paragraph to present participle ensehmblings of Value and ensehmblings of asynchronous Planck moments from their classical singular QELP versions. 29Aug2002 - Doug.] A test of your own grasp of quantonics resides in vicinity of text just prior and just after here. If you intuit how Doug's omniscriptionings and omniscriminationings here offer proto quantum memes of quantum~scintillation...if that is so...you are learning well. It's a subtle test, but a superb one, since quantum~scintillation depends massively on quantum~memes of ensembles, EIMA, crowd~affectings, quantum~partiality, quantum~uncertainty, etc. Doug - 25Feb2009.

A good way to think about an ISOT is using our Quantonic Symbols. One end [c¤mplement] of an isoflux attractor is preferential and its other end [c¤mplement] issi n¤t. When its ISON end experiences quantum measurement/choice/decision/selection, our ISOT becomes an ISOP according to our quantonics ensehmble attractor ontology. (Comsider too, how preference of better Value implies real quantum EIMA ensehmble awareness at all levels of multiversal reality.)

So you may see, ISOTs can/do go all ways: remain ISOTs, isobecome ISONs, isounbecome ISOBs, and become ISOPs. We may offer similar ontologies for all ISOXs and their various transitions. [Key point here: except in extreme proemial, primordial quantum comditions, our ISOXs are always doing quatrocohesive, quatroentropic both l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal heter¤gene¤us, paratehmp¤ral, pragmatehmp¤ral, asynchronous heterobandwidth quantum measurements as parts of larger ensehmblings, and thus comtribute an only-classically-apparent l¤cal selection choice which is EIMA-coinsident much vaster quantum ensehmblings' measurings/choosings/decisionings/selectings. If you fathom what we just wrote in that last sentence, you are a superior student of Quantonics. Doug - 6Oct2002.]

[AH,] This does n¤t agree with your apparent comclusion on transitions. You may wish to push back more.

Please be aware, this is our innovation. It is very close to what we believe quantum savvy scientists intuit. E.g., see our review of Stein's TCoOatFoP. But Stein disagrees with us on many other issues. We think Paul Kwiat might come closer to agreeing with us, but we are unsure. Brian Josephson and Mae-wan Ho also. d'Espagnat too.

6Oct2002 aside:

Recently, we are reading Julian Schwinger's inclusive1 description of his views of quantum field theory. Our comments here, allowing for Quantonics remediation of English language, very closely align Schwinger's views. See Julian Schwinger, pp. 62-64, especially beginning, "In fact, I have described, I have [classically, mathematically, radically mechanistically] obtained, a field— ...," from his untitled 70-page lecture paper, who presented it during early 1960s, and who subsequently deposited said paper at UCLA. To us, Schwinger nearly obtained — n¤t just a field — rather — intuemes very close to what we now call "quantons."

Actually, what Schwinger said he achieved is a (x,t)=dichon(continuityparticle), where 'continuity'2 and 'particle'3 are classical concepts and his is yet somewhat classically mechanical except for how his words say it is "inclusive" and his subseqent "...now are unified in this entirely new conception; if not unified, then transcended...because there is nothing [in previous classical conceptions of reality] that is both discrete and continuous." (Our comments in brackets inside our quotes of Schwinger.) However, Schwinger's intuitions and instincts both grasp some essence of what a quanton is. Today we might call Schwinger's (x,t) a "qubit." If we did, then qubital forces/radiant-emanances' 'interactions' would form a classical 'field.' See Silvan S. Schweber's, QED And The Men Who Made It, p. 363 of 732 pages total, PUP paperback, 1994. Note that quantum fields as described by Schwinger are innately problematic. One example is: absence of anihmatæ quantum phase comsiderations. Another, as Dirac recognized4, is classical unitemporality. Doug - 6Oct2002.

End aside.

29Aug2002 aside:

Update: We should have thought of this when we first wrote this response to AH's query. All quantum reality is essentially ensehmble emergent pr¤cess. Emerging/demerging (see AH's OEDC) actualities have varying and evolving partialities of ISOTness and ISOPness. We can show this as:

emerging_actualitiesquanton(ISOTness,ISOPness).

As we show in our Quanton Primer, all quantons are ensehmble quantum umcærtainty interrelationships. This example of quantum umcærtainties among ISOTness and ISOPness is what we call "Quantum Tentative Persistence," and "Quantum Variable Persistence." See both QTP and QVP. Highly tentative quantum phenomena spend more tihmings in quantum n¤nactuality. Highly preferential quantum phenomena spend more tihmings in quantum actuality. This perhaps better Quantonic view, better explains AH's prescient query. You may wish to go back and ponder that specific query now. Use your BACK button to return here. To further comtemplate ISOTness and ISOPness as quantum umcærtainty interrelationships see our Absoluteness as Quantum Umcærtainty, and substitute ISOTness for C¤mpleteness and ISOPness for Comsistency there. Doug - 29Aug2002.

End aside.

As a counter example, Dr. Jack Sarfatti hates what we are saying. He has called us some very denigrating names.

Realize that our memes are, we think, extremely n¤vel. As such they may be misguided. Our comvictions argue otherwise, but we keep running into arrogant and abusive classicists, e.g., Sarfatti, who still think reality is either/or.  We do not want to be arrogant, but we want to offer our innovative memes, since we think they are very powerful and useful.

Doug.

In the emergent phase of the ontic-emergent-deemergent-cycle (OEDC), is ISOT twixt ISOP and ISOB qualitatively different from ISOT twixt ISON and ISOP?

AH,

OEDC is a superb meme/dual for our ontology! May we add OEDC to our acronym list and attribute you? (AH graciously permitted our use of his acronym.)

Wow! AH, you go right to core issues! Wow! Excellent!

All we have to offer is comjecture.

It appears obvious to us that ISOP-ISOT-ISOB (PTB) is qualitatively omnifferent BTP, NTP, and PTN. How? Quantum measurement may both emerse and immerse. Emersion is creative actualization (posentropies' negative gradients). Immersion is discreative n¤nactualizati¤n (posentropies' positive gradients). But those 'descriptions' are anthropocentric perspectives.

Since we first described our ISOX fluxor memes, we have come to view n¤nactuality as n¤t just pure isoflux. (I.e., it is isoconic based upon least times and least actions; it is associative based upon personal and other reserve energy experiences; its photonic components appear holographic and thus associative/everywhere; etc.) Clearly we intuited that via our ISONs and ISOBs. More recently (see below), we have come to view ISOBs as Nature's negentropy 'memories.' To what might we make an analogy? To us it sounds like Boris Sidis' and William James' "reserve energy." There you have a qualitative omnifference of immense importance. If we are indeed quantum beings, and if Nature is us and we are Nature (along with all other kinds of quantons), then what does it 'mean' to tap into reserve energy? Can we? Should we? Do we? Our answers are, "Yes!" Resoundingly, "Yes!"

What does Nature show us every day (via he-r evolution) that s-he memorizes? Pirsig answered for us, "Better!" If we do n¤t accomplish 'better' we can say that Nature will n¤t enhance he-r memory of us. (See belief comments below.) Sounds like Hindu mythology, d¤esn't it? Very quantum!

Most classicists laugh at what we just wrote. But that is their problem, n¤t ours. Jack Sarfatti rudely calls it "amateur." Now there is something to laugh about.

To answer you well, we must tell you what our beliefs are. We think that is n¤t GOOD, since our beliefs are only SQ. But we admit our SQ is in DQ, and so they are always describing, emersing (better) and immersing (old/n¤t-as-good/tired/worn). Latter distills our beliefs, which as you know fit Zen B. quite well. But Quantonics can let us do something with our philosophy, metaphysics, etc. And that is what we like about it.

We can enforce our quantonics comjectures using quantum memes. Let's roughly c¤mpare our ISOX descriptions to some quantum reality memes:

ISOX

quantum
entropy

quantum
coherence

Quantonics

ISON

negentropy isocoherence(pure) isopure n¤nactuality

ISOB

negentropy (AKA "reserve energy") isocoherence(mem) n¤nactual memory

ISOT

negentropy then pos/mixentropy; pos/mixentropy then negentropy, isocoh/coherence tentative actuality

ISOP

pos and mixentropy isocoh/coh/decoh/mix actuality

Isocoherence/negentropy/ISON/ISOB correspond to comtrarotating n¤nactual quantum c¤mplement blue dotted circles in our quanton symbols.

Coherence/decoherence/mixcoherence correspond our solid unidirectional actual circles/Ss and unidirectional-n¤nirectional blue dotted circles in our quantons' actual quantum c¤mplements.

AH, did we do OK on that one?

Doug.

    Quantonics text definitions state ISOTs are DQ's complement of tentative Quantons(DQ/SQ), and occur during ontic becoming/unbecoming events.

AH,

Yes, we agree.

We assume 'complement' is n¤n-Bohrian, i.e., n¤n-exclusive.

Doug.

    It seems ISOT twixt ISON and ISOP would not occur during these becoming/unbecoming events because ISOP would not be fully developed at that point, whereas ISOT twixt ISOP and ISOB would occur.

AH,

NTPs require ensehmble Valuative quantum measurement ensehmble choices.

PTBs require ensehmble Valuative quantum measurement ensehmble choices.

Too, PTNs and BTNs.

Imagine almost limitless transitions such as these throughout reality. At "nowings" (Platt Holden's "the edge of now") is whenings all these whatings are happenings. (We just introduced another quantum meme: heterogeneous timæs.)

Our Quantum Reality Loop (we hope) implies ensehmbles of these bi-directional ontologies as real. We may look at this another way, suggested by an old friend of ours, Dan Glover, as Direct Experience reality waves sloshing to and fro (li la, divine play). Bergson's élan vital AKA Pirsig's DQ/Lila mediates and inures and imposes these pragmabsolute waves of changæ whose fastest clocks (subatomic) tick at asynchronous Planck rates, and whose slowest (aggregate quantons) clocks (cosmic) tick almost imperceptibly. See our recent Quantum Sensory Bandwidth Perspicuities and Perspicacities. Here faster vis-à-vis slower is our measure of quantum variable persistence (see QTP and QVP). Though this sounds somewhat poetic, it is genuinely quantum. Sadly, most physicists have yet to fathom Nature's underlying quantum beauty (a Mae-wan Ho-esque lament).

When we wrote our description of ISOB, we had n¤t read Jeffrey Satinover's The Quantum Brain, and Kafatos and Nadeau's The Conscious Universe (1990, n¤t 2000 ed.). Had we read them prior, we would have described ISOB's as Bergson's durational/n¤nactual multiversal everywhere associative 'memory.'

7Oct2002 aside:

Satinover's discussion of spin glasses as memories offers another way for us to talk about our Quantonics ISOX ontologies.

We can view quantum reality as what Satinover calls an "energy landscape." Quantum-semiotically, then:

Quantum_Reality_Energy_Landscapequanton(n¤nactuality,actuality)quanton(ison,quanton(isob,quanton(isot,isop)))

Now our learning pathway becomes a little tougher. But it only appears more difficult since we must now redescribe Satinover's fabulous memes, initially in n¤nactuality, and next in actuality. All of our necessary 'iso-' prefixes make our modified Satinover jargon appear, initially at first blush, as quantum nonsense. Just keep reading it over and over and soon your own quantum stage's energy landscape will settle/converge on understanding our quantum redescription.

ISONs quantum isopantomime isopure isospin quantum isoglass with n¤ quantum isobasins of isoattraction5, mimicking Satinover's jargon, "totally unsettled/unconverged isofrustrated quantum isospins." We may view this as a kind of grand tabula rasa of reality's mind/quantum stage/energy landscape.

ISOBs quantum isopantomime isobeing isospin quantum isoglass with reality's isomemeory quantum isobasins of isoattraction, mimicking Satinover's jargon, "partially settling/converging isofrustrating isoenergy landscape of quantum isospins." See our Value_Pattern_Ontology which illustrates isobeing as a stage of a more general ontology.

ISOTs quantum both pantomime (actual, i.e., being) and isopantomime (n¤nactual, i.e., isobeing) quanton 'balls' rolling around quantum reality's Satinoveresque "hill and valley" energy landscapings. While said balls are unsettled/rolling they are tentative. ISOTs partially describe what we mean by quantum reality's anihmatæ included-middle. ISOTs pantomime quantum selection pr¤cesses which are still rolling, still deciding and which have n¤t found their better lowest energy well attractor.

ISOPs quantum pantomime actual (being) quanton 'balls' which have settled/converged (at quantum variably persistent lowest energy basins of attraction: quantum stage solutionings/latchings/frettings). ISOPs have EIMA c¤njugati¤nal interrelationships with other ISOPs via ISOTs and quantum vacuum flux. ISOPs have EIMA comjugational interrelationships with both ISOBs (better EIMA reserve energy) and ISONs (semper flux AKA elan vitale impetus) via ISOTs.

Begin 'Rolling Balls' 15May2010 aside:

Doug's April 2002 ISOx ontology is (ontologies are) superb, but using Satinover's 'rolling balls' energy well (in an classical energy-landscape) as analogous a quantum~hologram is troublesome.

Why?

'Rolling balls' is a classical y=f(t) metaphor.

Why?

'Rolling balls'...roll classically continuously. Classical 'laws' of energy require decay of classical energy 'continuously.' See our QELR of law.

Reality, quantum~reality, is quantized. Quantization enables adiabaticity at levels of individual fermions. For example, electrons.

Formal, analytic 'rolling of balls', adhering classical dialectical canon, is putatively y=f(t) continuous. Same issues as electrons in classical orbits around nuclei, and orbital decay as a classical consequence of 'continuous orbital-circular motion.' Energy of rolling balls decays just as energy of classical electrons decay.

But quantumly, they do n¤t decay! Why? Quantization of orbital energy combined with self~adiabaticity of electrons and individual nuclei. But what are our words sounding like now?

More recently Doug has described quantum~scintillation as individually~adiabatic and quantized.

What we must do then is redescribe ISONs, ISOBs, ISOTs, and ISOPs in a better quantized fashion instead of using Satinover's classical rolling balls metaphor.

Students and O'gadon's should do that as an exercise. It is part of our quantum~gn¤stic due diligence.

Doug - 15May2010.

End 'Rolling Balls' 15May2010 aside.

For assistance in interpreting what we have written above, see Jeffrey Satinover's The Quantum Brain Index and study all his entries under energy landscape. It is contingent upon you to map/transmogrify our Quantonics jargon with Satinover's own jargon. For students of Quantonics, this is a very, very important exercise. Doug - 7Oct2002.

We did not do a full quantum remediation of text in this paragraph. With so many n¤vel terms and pseudo apparent 'over-use' of iso- prefixes and multisyllabic terms, we felt it might be easier for students to grasp, initially, with less remediation. If you are past those issues, try remediating this aside yourself. Compare how it feels both ways.

End aside.

Unsure we fully covered your query, but we feel comfident we addressed most of it pretty well.

If we missed anything, please apprise.

Thank you for an exciting Chautauqua!

Best,

Doug. 



3 of 7 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject: Clarification Completed.
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: FlameProof@yahoo.com
To:

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

Hey Doug!

That was some clarification! I must say I don't think that it could have been put any better, comsidering the circumstances. Thanks.

I feel I have a much better grasp of the ISOX and their role in OEDC (yes, feel free to use this along with my name as credited), thanks to your difficult task. In particular, the statement of PTB [see prior email dialogue for description of these acronym triple codons] being qualitatively omnifferent BTP, NTP and PTN, and the idea of heterogeneous times. Also, thinking about ISOTs using Quantonic Symbols. I hadn't been there yet in the Quantonics Site, so I made photocopies of QSs from the library printer for reference.

Also informative was your statement that you have come to view n¤nactuality as n¤t just pure isoflux, but isoconic, associative and holographic, etc.

I read with interest your review of A Beautiful Mind, and although I haven't seen movie or read book, I did find a lot of resonance there. I do agree that Nash's illness was precipitated by much internal conflict between his emergent quantum memes and his SOM acculturation, and that he didn't handle coobsfection well on "the edge of now" with VES. He eventually recovered, as I understand; do you know how he did that? Seems some sort of reconciliation of the conflict must have been achieved.

You stated that the Quantonics view was that insanity was the quantum c¤mplement of genius. However, it is n¤t clear to me that all forms of insanity (schizophrenia, its forms - catatonia, undifferentiated, etc; Multiple Personality Disorder; chronic depression; bi-polar, etc.) are c¤mplementary to genius. IMO, bright and brilliant sentients (like Nash) usually develop the paranoid delusional form of schizophrenia (and can actually be very creative in a sense), whereas, less bright to dull sentients usually develop simple or hebephrenic [youthful] forms.

Incidentally, one of my early mentors is-was afflicted with the schizo-affective form, which is a combination of paranoid schizophrenia and bi-polar, add to this, that he is a quasi-genius at the least and has an explosive, moody temperament, makes for a quite interesting combination!

Consider for a moment a semi-parallel between Nash and another brilliant mathematician, Theodore Kaczynski, The Unabomber; whereas Nash became schizophrenic, Kaczynski evidently retreated deep, deep down into SOM's Box with only the most tenuous of connections with DQ, and hence, became psychopathic ESQ.

That's It For Now,

AH

P.S. - ¨"A possibly difficult hermeneutic: All those interrelationships are quantons.¨" - Doug

¨"Much clearer now after clarification.¨" - AH



4 of 7 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject: Miscellaneous.
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:48:40 -0500
From:

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT
Organization: Quantonics
To: FlameProof@yahoo.com

Hello AH!

Thank you for your kind remarks on that last lengthy email from us.

We just finished constructing a web page containing our first dialogue sequence. If you want to look at it and verify our minor edits, go to our top page and scroll down to Letters.

We also added your OEDC acronym to our Quantonic Acronyms page, with AH attribution.

In your latest email you wrote, "I do agree that Nash's illness was precipitated by much internal conflict between his emergent quantum memes and his SOM acculturation, and that he didn't handle coobsfection well on "the edge of now" with VES. He eventually recovered, as I understand, do you know how he did that?"

Since reading A Beautiful Mind, we have watched Sylvia Nasar speak about her book on TV. We also watched a re-run of a 60-Minutes show on Nash. Book, Nasar, and Nash appear to pretty much concur that he, like an alcoholic, chose to get well. He did so by forcing himself back into SOM's box. That, in our opinion is unfortunate, except for his apparent 'wellness.'

A n¤vel day is dawning...

You also wrote, "You stated that the Quantonics view was that insanity was the quantum c¤mplement of genius."

We were think-king of our Self-Organizing Net modeling of associative intelligence when we wrote that sentence. Take a look at that page. See on that page how our graphic shows magenta c¤mplementing light blue. Read text.

Also, on our Quantum Stage Stairs page we talk about how schizophrenia, narcolepsy, and autism appear to us as quantum phenomena.

Perhaps that is a better way to talk about insanity, i.e., as quantum phenomena. We feel safe saying that. But, too, genius, as Jeffrey Satinover tells us, is ever-so-close to Holden's "the edge of now," in any sense of proximity to what classicists call "insanity."

N-somias (Downs, Kleinfelters', Turner's, etc.) on Homo sapiens' chromosomes appear to be showing us that Nature is preparing for a quantum leap in sentient presence on Earth. We think chromosomal "abnormalities," including N-somias on nearly all chromosomes, may be showing us Nature in he-r quantum quest for better. That is n¤t a n¤vel meme.

We see what classicists call "insanity" as but one of countless quantum tells of imminent emergence of a n¤vel top sentient on Earth.

Again, we are n¤t experts in psychology/psychiatry. We just offer our own memes and personal experiences and try to use quantum noodling to describe them. Comsider Pirsig, Sidis, Gödel, Turing, Bruno, Pirsig's Brujo, and on and on and on...

We have thought of Ted Kaz. often. In what comtext was he sane?

Pirsig sort of explained this for us. Technology viewed as ESQ is ugly. Ted was attempting to rid our culture of Technologists and their bureaucrats. Galernter, e.g., was one of his targets. In a simple-minded way, it is n¤t such a bad pursuit.

Time for a break,

Best,

Doug.
==
Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
http://www.quantonics.com/
==
==
"Now, we daily see what science is doing for us. This could not be unless it taught us something about reality; the aim of science is not things themselves, as the dogmatists in their simplicity imagine, but the relations between things; outside those relations there is no reality knowable."

By Henri Poincaré, in 'Science and Hypothesis,'
p. xxiv, translated from French in 1905 by J. Larmor, published 1952 by Dover Publications. 



5 of 7 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject: Nash, Ted Kaz. & QTM's Superiority.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: FlameProof@yahoo.com
To:

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

Hola Doug!

You answered my query about Nash's recovery: "He did so by forcing himself back into SOM's Box." That is what I strongly suspected.

You also wrote, "We have thought of Ted Kaz. often. In what comtext was he sane?...Technology viewed as ESQ is ugly. Ted was attempting to rid culture of Technologists and their bureaucrats....In a simple-minded way, it is not such a bad pursuit." I did not keep up with media coverage in detail at the time, but surmise that he was evaluated by legal system psychiatric criteria, e.g., sufficient reality contact at time of crimes. At any rate, he was sentenced to life in prison, not to a mental institution.

As for "simple-minded" justification of his actions, I must say IMO these actions appear as smaller ESQ fighting larger ESQ. Technology is a double-edged sword, both potentially SQ(2nd Good) and ESQ(Evil). Reminds me of a quote an acquaintance was fond of saying (also oversimplified), "Evil has two enemies, Good and Itself, whereas, Good has but one enemy, and that is Evil." The implication being Good having greater structural integrity, and by nature, incapable of destroying Itself from within, e.g., a house divided will not stand; in comtrast to the essential nature of Evil.

Palestinian terrorists(Small ESQ) could be and indeed are, considered by some to be freedom fighters(SQ as DQ's agent of change) against Israel's occupation (viewed as Larger ESQ). In their view, violence may be a temporary necessity(small ESQ mitigated via SQ toward the goal of a Greater Good-DQ; i.e, driving the Israeli occupiers from 1967 war era occupied territories.) Some Israeli supporters have opposing POVs. AH, as a third party observer, also views as in Ted Kaz. , Little ESQ battling Big ESQ, both trapped in SOM's Box, and, in this particular case, in dire need of third party negotiation of a non-violent settlement twixt them, and not ESQ rationalized as mitigated/justified ESQ via SQ toward DQ by either of the two parties.

Doug, I would like to convey a recent personal experience as it relates to QTMs. Time: Sunday Morning, 2am-4am EST; Setting: a suburban residence, specifically, a large kitchen-den area; Atmosphere: small informal, social gathering; Mood: jovial, animate, yet not wild, avg age= mid-late 40s; gathering size/#=approx. 15; Relationships: friends, relatives and acquaintances; Prior Conditions: almost all participants previously consuming alcoholic beverages and premium, high quality sinsemilla within a nightclub environment. Current Conditions at residence: similar.

At one point, (during last third of party) AH was standing in kitchen - visualize 15 sentients gathered (most standing) round a large, long counter. Then imagine at least 12 of the 15 sentients (AH a quiet observer) talking SIMULTANEOUSLY AND LOUDLY! Within a brief timespan, perhaps 30 seconds to one minute, AH was suddenly thrust right at "The Leading Edge of Now"; coobsfecting with VES. Flashing intuemes! Quantum leaps/spikes! AH acutely perceives "real-time" simultaneous conversations as "noise", i.e., "quantum umcærtainty", with each sentient(s) viewed as "islands of umcærtainty", their attractorial coobsfection vectors (ACVs) intersecting/ interacting omniadically-omnirectionally in attractorial coobsfection vector interrelationships (ACVIs).

What appears in this particular comtext from a CTM perspective is "noise" as "meaningless jabber", whereas, from a QTM view, "noise" as "quantum umcærtainty" is seen as meaningful, i.e., inherent within/twixt/without OmniFlux. AH almost instantly correlated "noise" at the macro(kitchen)level with "noise" at the micro(quantum)level, thus discovering a Unifying Quantum Principle (UQP), i.e., Metaversal Isotropism (MI), along with a sub-principle of Isotonic Harmony (IH).

As a result, AH contends that sentients using QTMs are much less likely to experience confusion, fear, paranoia, panic over loss of control and/or identity, etc.(due to the sense of being overwhelmed by "noise") than sentients using CTMs in similar comtexts. As Quanton(SQ,DQ), a sentient using QTMs intuemically [see intueme; essentially quantum memetic intuition] grasps "noises'" natural places in the overall scheme of things, subsumed under a greater "Quantum Umbrella of Understanding"(QUU) as it relates to reality. However, some sentients using CTMs may also have "unconscious" intuemes latently interacting with those CTMs, making them also less vulnerable to effects of "noise". It's just their "quantum correlations" of "real-time" data are not consciously articulated nearly as well as sentients using QTMs. I say this because I know that many, if not all, sentients present at the time most likely were in similar states of mind as myself, hence, were at or very near "the edge of now". All seemed composed and having-a-great-time, in spite of being nearer to VES, and none exhibited any symptoms of "flipping-out", "withdrawal", etc.

[Readers who have seen Ron Howard's A Beautiful Mind movie may correlate that example with what AH is saying above. John Forbes Nash intuited his classically acculturated and propagandized CTMs and thus was unable to manage his extra-actual experiences; rather, Howard made it quite obvious that Nash classically integrated actual and extra-actual without being "intuemically" capable of QTM-managing them. There is also a superb comnection here with Jeffrey Satinover's descriptions of SONs whose biases are reduced to classical 'insanity.' See Satinover's 2001 The Quantum Brain, approximately pages 67-69. See our Quantum Stages as Neural Networks with Reserve Energy. Doug-11Jul2002.]

AH believes this personal/comtextual experience vividly portrays and underscores the REAL-IZABLE SUPERIORITY OF QTMs over CTMs, in sharp comtrast to what Sarfatti and others "thunk" . ("Thunk" is a derogatory analog to the standardized "think", both in the past (passe)sense and as in "a flat, hollow sound", so typical of SOMite thinking(thunking)!

Buenas Dias y Te Veo Mas Tarde,

AH 



6 of 7 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject: Site Discourse; Ted Kaz; Aretê.
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: FlameProof@yahoo.com
To:

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

Hey Doug!

Have some more info on Ted Kaz.; he was indicted in April 1996 for the murders of Scrutton, Murray, Mosser and attacks on Epstein (world renowned geneticist) and Gelernter (Yale computer expert). In Jan 1998, he was given a competency evaluation and found competent by Bureau of Prisons psychiatrist, Sally Johnson. She deemed him competent to stand trial, but PROBABLY also paranoid schizophrenic, as his lawyers contended. Ted was denied "self-representation" and then agreed to a plea bargain. He received life in prison with no possibility of parole or appeal.

I don't quite understand how the psychiatrist came up with her conclusions, and why the court accepted them.

In reference to Quantonics Text, in your discourse with Jon: "Pirsig sees virtue as a static descriptor of 'moral excellence or moral Aretê.' That fits with his position that nature is MORAL because its incremental, tentative judgments (ontological SQ) are iteratively becoming 'better/more good/more excellent.'"

I presume that Pirsig would agree that decremental, tentative judgments would also be MORAL because non-linear diffraction is a transformation of SQ(2nd Good) back into the GREATER 1st Good, DQ.

[Readers please comsider that in Quantonics we do n¤t have what we might wish to call a "great metaphor" of SQ to DQ demerqancy. AH's quote of our "n¤n-linear diffraction (from our Quantum Interpretations page — browser search for 'linear diffraction' there) illustrates just one of our many weak metaphors. Another one which may be better is our own, innovative, Quantonics' quantum square rootings of SQ into DQ. We innovated this metaphor of SQ to DQ (actuality to n¤nactuality) demerqancy based upon our review efforts of A Beautiful Mind and Sylvia Nasar's descriptions of John Forbes Nash's attempts to solve the Riemann Hypothesis using quantum theory, explicitly quantum mechanics which unfortunately requires usage of classical and radically formal, i.e., ESQ, mathematics. For more specifics of our work there see. Now, a terrific quantum epiphany: visualize that fractal, recursive, anihmatæ, plural quantum BAWAM square root as a metaphor of "disassembly" and demerqancy of arbitrarily complex SQ Patterns of Value back into DQ. Further comsider that Pirsig's SODV describes SQ Patterns of Value as probabilities. And comsider how John Forbes Nash said, "Probability is everything!"]

I checked out our dialogue on the Quantonics Site, and must say I was very pleased. Keep up the good work!

- AH



7 of 7 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject: Re: Site Discourse; Ted Kaz; Aretê.
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:01:29 -0500
From:

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT
Organization: Quantonics
To: FlameProof@yahoo.com


Hello AH!

We've been looking for some recent journal papers/articles on "noise."

Our recall is that during last ~25 years some scientists have found that noise enhances our abilities to extract "signals." Perhaps a search on WWW will produce some answers. It appears to us that "party noise" might enhance one's abilities to tap into reserve energy. However, we would follow Feynman's recommendations to his sister, re: how to get her Ph.D. We are SONs, and we know our best means to 'train' quantum biological SONs. [I.e., relentless mental effort with hiatal and unrelated periods of rest.] See Satinover, Kohonen, et al.

When we were doing real-time embedded military applications a couple of decades ago, our local systems theorists thought that signal to noise ratio was an important guideline. We did everything we could to reduce noise to enhance signal. Now it appears, in at least some applications, we should have been taking a different tack. As we recall, noise which enhances signal has something to do with "Cantor dust." In a manner of thinking, noise+signal may be thought of as quantum everywhere-associative k-now-ings.

Speaking of thinking, as you know Quantonics refers itself "...a new/novel way of thinking..." We subscribe to academia's top rag titled 'The Chronicle.' It comes in three sections one of which is titled 'The Chronicle Review.' That section of their 26Apr2002 issue has a superb article (an extraction from his new book) by John Lukacs. His book (which we just ordered) is titled 'At the End of an Age.' His article agrees with our view that 'Modernity' is ending. It lasted ~5 centuries, starting with 16th century 'til now. At his article's end he says, "We have arrived at a stage of history when we must begin thinking about thinking itself." At which we cheer, "Bravo!" Thought you might be interested in reading that article and perhaps reading his book. Something to talk about, and it relates nearly all issues we have been discussing here. Especially your apparent deep interests in MoQ/quantum social applications. On that topic...

Your latest interests appear related to applied MoQ, particularly social applications of MoQ. We, in Quantonics, want to spend time on that problem, which we see as a more "ultimate" problem, but we are caught up in Sidis, reviews for our Sidis work, quantum remediation, quantum studies, CLARIFICATIONs J, etc.

Just recently, while searching WWW, we found a ~1999 web page that we had n¤t seen earlier. We are attaching if for your consideration. It is titled, 'The Nature of Natural Law,' by Rory Fitzgerald. He wrote it for MoQ's Lila Squad of which we used to be 'members.' We left TLS in early-mid 1998.

We made a copy of it for our later perusal, and we have n¤t asked permission to forward it to you, but think it is OK.

Rory appears to be attempting application of MoQ to real world cultural situations, especially legal issues.

Our current over-simplified view is covered mostly by our '-otic' coined terms. E.g., if we look at biotics and antibiotics specifically for Pirsig's MoQ biological level, we can (we did) develop analogues for intellectual [e.g., see intotic], social, and inorganic levels. We anticipate a n¤vel level above intellectual, which we currently call "ascendant." We will coin analogues for it too.

That is essentially our tentative approach. 'Rules' which govern (e.g., Pirsig's moral codes) xotics and antixotics would help us to assess social applications which you and Rory mention and refer.

Another example is Garn LeBaron's paper as it applies to euthanasia as a social pattern Value. Our outcome there is, just like with abortion, individual 'law' reigns. Currently our culture 'thinks' social (religious, legal, medical authorities) reign over individuals' local laws. That change is part of Lukacs' novel "thinking about thinking." What domain harbors thought? Pirsig tells us that domain is more highly evolved than its creator (society), therefore it has higher value and higher moral rank. But intellect may be comsidered individual and group. Then we have to decide which of those outranks. Free will appears to point again at individual rank as higher. Ultimately a society must emerge which balances maximal individual free will against optimal/harmonious societal Value. We believe that Quantonic/quantum thinking is a better way to achieve this, but we have much more work to do before we can demonstrate this.

Too, from our view, Nature does n¤t always move in absolutely "better" directions. S-he sometimes moves in less than "better" directions. If you have studied genetic algorithms, you have some sense of how we see this happening. Ultimately, though, with much trial and error, we believe Nature ultimately arrives at better. As quantonic agents of Nature, our view is that we can, using QTMs, help he-r find more optimal/harmonious paths to better, yet without k-now-ing what that better, really is. How can that be? It is analogous "quantum umcærtainty." 'Now' is always tentative. Choice/chance/changæ offer umcærtain potential for better. Ensehmble selection manifoldly smoothes all Planck rate ensehmble nowings' 'decisionings.'

Too, more recently, we are comsidering an alternative to n¤nlinear diffraction. They may be similar/analogous, but at these times we do n¤t k-now. Our alternative is a simpler quantum meme of emergence/demergence. It involves squaring and square-rooting of wave functions' distribution and probability quantum conjugates and quantum comjugates. See our Riemann Fermionic quanton symbol description and links. Just added some n¤vel stuff there in last couple days.

To make this sensible to lay mentalities, we have to describe, e.g., sociotics and antisociotics in terms of those ontological emergent/evolutionary and demergent/immergent/devolutionary/demerqancy quantum memes. That is our challenge! That is how we are "thinking about thinking." It will probably take many long times; perhaps balance of our recent actualizations.

Another related meme which is more Zen B. (similar to li-la dance; read our 'Lila' review) is that immergence is 'not' a quantum 'worse' meme (E.g., classicists, especially fundamentalists, view immergence one-life-centrically, call it "radically final death," and fear it.). Indeed, to our view, it is a necessary better step to achieve better outcomes in subsequent emergences.

We call ESQ, "ESQ" because it refuses agency of emergence/immergence. Its outcomes are extinction via "there is always decision/choice/chance/change by indecision." William James speaks of something similar in his Some Problems of Philosophy. Pirsig says ESQ may tentatively resist, but it can never hegemonically control DQ. This is why our ISOT meme and its ontological pragma are so important in Quantonics. "Tentative" has multiple sub-memes in our venue.

We do n¤t have time and resources now to do it, but we think Rory offers a good start on mapping MoQ ethical/moral ontology onto current Western cultural mores. We eventually/hopefully will find time to take his paper and go through it with great care and look for parallels twixt it and our more theoretic quantum efforts.

On Ted Kaz...

People who achieve Ted's level of notoriety almost always get railroaded. We think that is what happened to him. Again, we do n¤t know how to think about his morality vis-à-vis MoQ/quantum. [But, readers, we do k-now that Ted Kaz. has a message which is incredibly important for society, and it is indeed problematic that current Western culture chooses to sweep Ted's message under their carpets of sublime fundamental classical ignorance. Doug - 12Jul2002.]

Some good analogues are: Pirsig's Brujo, Pirsig himself, Jesus, Joan D'Arc, Giordano Bruno, etc. Brujo perhaps comes closest, although we are unsure whether he killed. Too, sociopathy appears 'worse' to us. Ted Kaz. could have accomplished his goals better using intellectual antisociotics instead of mail bombs. Just our ill-thought opinion.

Bottom line, we think classical technology is ~ESQ due its classical underpinnings. And quantum technology is here and more, much more is imminent. Environmentalists, et al., we think, will find quantum technologies much more acceptable and appealing. N¤ fossil fuel burning. Most classical infrastructure will simply disappear. Weapons will be n¤ndestructive. And so on... All this is commencing manifestation now, and will bear fruit almost immediately, within next one to two decades. It may last at least a century, perhaps longer. Our opinions/heuristics.

Of course, Pirsig's whole ZMM thesis revolves around a great schism twixt classical/technical and romantic/atechnical belief systems. (Comsider that quantum systems are intrinsically sophist, and thus in Pirsig's terms "romantic.") N¤ philosopher fought this schism more forcefully or eloquently that Johann Georg Hamann. And he did it at classical/technical 'enlightenment's' 17th century birth (its foundations started forming about 25 centuries ago, though, with Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, etc.). AH, you already mentioned Heraclitus who fought similarly at that earlier time. So did Zeno, using his incredibly prescient paradice. Few understood those pre-quantum sophists, however. [Quantonics students may enjoy immensely searching for "Quantonics+Zeno" and reading surrounding texts in those several loci, especially in Bergson's and James' works.]

Of course our view is, that Pirsig's inversion of that [Aristotelian] subject-object scission, and his suturing of their join, and his (somewhat dyslexic; by that we mean he has claimed said "join" is "excluded" in some cases and "included" in others) viewing that join as an included-middle, those remediations essentially "cure" technology versus romance as a classical schism. Simply, QTMs cure CTMs. Rhetoric cures dialectic. Sophism cures classicism. [Students of Quantonics should know that philosophy means Greek-literally love of sophism.] Quantum think-king cures classical thing-king.

AH, you have (we expected this), leapt ahead to application. That is fine! We are just n¤t ready for you yet, except with our current offerings.  We think that if our memes work in a quantum theoretic modeling, then we have foundation for further/subsequent evaluation of application to intellectual and social patterns of Value. We do n¤t seek classical 'proof,' 'absolute verity,' 'reasoned/rational validation,' etc. We seek analogues of Nature, quantum modelings of Nature, and successful better and ethical applications of those. Where some in classical science view Nature as 'the' enemy, we view he-r as our "best" friend.

Our efforts in that vein show in Quantonics via our reviews of, e.g., Bergson, James, Kuhn, and Geertz. What we try to do there is just take our current understandings and use them to make heuristic comments about other folks' writings. It helps us. Unsure it helps others. We hope so.

Best and mtty, AH,

Doug.


Readers,

That ends our latest technical dialogue with AH. Not to worry!
AH continues to offer challenging novel memes for
us to comsider. Watch for more AH-Doug dialogues
on our top page under Letters.

Doug.
==
Doug Renselle
The Quantonics Society
http://www.quantonics.com
==
==
"To behave according to caprice... is merely...bending [our] will to imitate [our] mechanism of [our] intellect. A conduct
that is truly our own, on the contrary, is that of a will which does not try to counterfeit intellect, and which, remaining
itself--that is to say, evolving--ripens gradually into acts which the intellect will be able to resolve indefinitely into
intelligible elements without ever reaching its goal."

Henri Louis Bergson, 'Creative Evolution,' Page 48.

Notes:

Note 1: But comsider how Schwinger, as do all other classicists we know, reverts to exclusive thing-king when it suits his need or inclination.
Note 1 Return

Note 2: I.e., space as a proxy for time; a space-time 'identity.'
Note 2 Return

Note 3: I.e., an Aristotelian/Newtonian object.
Note 3 Return

Note 4: Which was observed sagaciously by Tomonaga in his The Story of Spin.
Note 4 Return

Note 5: ISONs thus describe that 'portion' of n¤nactuality which has n¤ quantum isomemory.
Note 5 Return


To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

©Quantonics, Inc., 2002-2019 — Rev. 18Jul2011  PDR — Created 12Jul2002  PDR
(13Jul2002 rev - Capitalize 'Nature' as appropriate. Correct some punctuation errors.)
(21Jul2002 rev - Change QELR links to A-Z pages.)
(29Aug2002 rev - Add Greene's 'nutshell' pun to Doug's 1st response email.)
(29Aug2002 rev - Subsequent, nearby dated para. alteration.)
(29Aug2002 rev - Add ISOT/ISOP major update.)
(5Sep2002 rev - Remediate quantum comtextual occurrences of both 'change' and 'uncertain[]')
(6Oct2002 rev - Repair minor lurking grammatical mistakes and typos. Add some bracketed comments with dates.)
(6Oct2002 rev - Remediate all quantum comtextual occurrences of 'ensemble,' and 'animate.')
(6-7Oct2002 rev - Add two more asides. Upgrade a couple of existing asides.)
(9Oct2002 rev - Minor typo in above asides.)
(17Oct2002 rev - Repair "Quantum Reality Energy Landscape" quanton: ison -> isop.)
(18Oct2002 rev - Add Associative Memory Ontology anchor to our 7Oct2002 ISOX aside.)
(12Nov2002 rev - Add 'pragmatemporal' link under ISOX discussion.)
(9Jan2003 rev - Add Zenos_Paradice link under dialog email number 7.)
(10Aug2003 rev - Update links to our review of A Beautiful Mind.)
(20Jan2004 rev - Add quantum comtext actual to special 'c¤njugation.')
(31Dec2004 rev - Reset red text. Repair some links. Adjust colors.)
(29Jun2005 rev - Add 'noise' anchor at start of 7 of 7.)
(11Dec2005 rev - Add 'qubit' link.)
(20Aug2006 rev - Minor reformating. Massive respell. Adjust P word links.)
(9Jan207 rev - Edit contact info.)
(9Feb2007 rev - Adjust format. Add 'Isox Ontological Descriptions' anchor to 19Apr2002 email: Doug to AH.)
(8,27Jun2007 rev - Update 2nd email re: completeness and partiality and coquecigrues. Add pragmatism ref. to James and Peirce nearby.)
(8May2008 rev - Reformat slightly.)
(28Dec2008 rev - Reset legacy markups. Change some fonts to gifs. Repair typo of Charl[s]es to Charles and fix a relevant sentence reference with 'penultimate.' Add aside under first AH email.)
(25Feb2009 rev - Add recent QELR terms to above page top change from 28Dec2008. Add 'scintillation' comments near a dated text segment ref. 29Aug2002. Change some symbol, wingding fonts to gifs.)
(24Mar2010 rev - Add A Doug Quantum~Consciousness Aside near beginning of this dialogue.)
(15May2010 rev - Add 'rolling balls' aside under "ISONs, ISOBs, ISOTs, and ISOPs" ontology description using Satinover's a quantum version of his classical metaphor.)
(18Jul2011 rev - Add links to 'fractal' describing "How to do quantum fractals.")

Arches