Return to Previous Page

If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

Quantonic Questions & Answers

Month & Year

Question

Answer
Apr2000 
Does classical change omniffer from quantum/Quantonic change? If omnifferences exist, are they culturally and philosophically important for Millennium III?

Here is our April, 2000 Quantonic Question and Answer, QQA.

Let's answer first question: "Does classical change omniffer from quantum/Quantonic changæ?"

Mimicking our previous approaches to our QQAs, one may distinguish among SOM, CR, and MoQ. We want to compare classical Subject-Object Metaphysical views of change to classical Cultural Relativism's views and also to Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality views of change.

Before we start, allow us to review basal philosophical and metaphysical conventions of all three in a nice neat table.

Belief Category Its Philosophy Its Metaphysics
SOM (Classical ISMs in great variety. Most derive from classical assumptions.)

Reality is:

  • pre-existing,
  • substantial,
  • innately decidable,
  • objective,
  • quantitative,
  • closed,
  • homogeneous,
  • homological,
  • unilogical,
  • immutable,
  • monistic (or some dichotomous derivative of a monism),
  • bivalent,
  • everywhere-dissociative, independent
  • excluded-middle-differentiable,
  • excluded-middle-integrable,
  • continuous,
  • posentropic (Maxwell's 2nd 'law')
  • mechanically, formally coherent
  • stoppable, (can measure at tn)
  • state-ic (analytic staticity)
  • local,
  • isolable,
  • separable,
  • reducible (via ideal conceptual analysis),
  • analytic and determinate,
  • anthropocentric (unilaterally observable),
  • etc.

One may assume a single, monistic context for all reality. Given that single context, one may assess homological, unilogical, absolute truth assuming reality is substantial and thus objective. Substantial reality denies 'existence' of that which is not substantial. These assumptions create an innate and implicit dichotomy: exists versus exists-not. This dichotomy

  • sources SOM's paradice, and
  • spawns SOM's formal propositional syllogistic logic which it calls "dialectic."

SOM declares all sophisms and paralogisms FALSE. SOM declares all which does not 'exist' FALSE. Moral and ethical issues may be resolved dialectically.

Being, to SOM, is unilogical, homological, and bivalent. 'One' is SOM's monistic regnant. SOM assumes one existence, one birth, one life, one death, one dichotomous heaven or hell.

See Robert M. Pirsig's and Irving Stein's remarks on classical change at our Flux is crux.

CR (a derived ISM of SOM) Reality: inherits SOM's philosophy, but views all as ideally 'relative' constituents of a whole, closed, relativistic reality. One may assume any view of reality one chooses, and no view is any more privileged than any other view. All views of reality are relative to one another. Thus, based on these assumptions, there is no absolute truth, indeed, there is no absolute 'anystuff or anyphenomena.'
MoQ (A phil¤s¤phical parent-m¤del ¤f quantum reality.)





















       Phasic

Reality is:

  • b¤rn ¤f a wh¤lly undefinable amd unkn¤wable, but partially experienced amd describable 'pure flux,'
  • quantonic,
  • intrinsically m¤ral,
  • value-patterned interrelati¤nships (that are c¤mmingling, c¤mpenetrating, coinsiding, etc.) amd thus quantum-l¤gically uncertain,
  • qualitative,
  • ¤pen,
  • heter¤gene¤us,
  • paral¤gical, see coquecigrues
  • s¤phist,
  • mutable amd ev¤lute,
  • pluralistic (multicomtextual),
  • ¤mnivalent,
  • everywhere-ass¤ciative, c¤mplementary
  • quantal,
  • at least quatroentropic, see entropa
  • at least quatrocoherent, see cohera
  • unst¤ppable (abs¤lute change)
  • phase-ic (stochastic phasicity)
  • self-referent,
  • both c¤hesive amd individually aut¤n¤m¤us,
  • phasemental
  • quantum included-middle: (i.e.,
    • b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal,
    • b¤th is¤lable amd n¤nis¤lable,
    • b¤th separable amd n¤nseparable,
    • b¤th reducible amd n¤nreducible, etc.),
  • phase ensemble st¤chastic,
  • reality-centric (c¤¤bsfecting),
  • etc.

One may assume changæ is abs¤lute. An¤ther way t¤ say that is, "Flux is crux!" Abs¤lute changæ always changæs amd changæs all. All value patterns are tentative, privileged, reality Value/Quality judgments. N¤vel value patterns are intrinsically m¤ral, m¤re highly ev¤lved, amd tentatively 'better' than their ¤lder, passé antecedents. One may assume reality is quantum-islandic ¤r multic¤mtextual, heter¤gene¤us, paral¤gical, etc.

All kn¤wn amd kn¤wable reality is class Patterns_¤f_Value. Vastly different fr¤m b¤th SOM amd CR, M¤Q's Patterns ¤f Value (what we in M¤Q call Static Quality ¤r SQ, ¤r Static Patterns ¤f Value ¤r SP¤Vs), c¤mmingle/c¤mpenetrate/c¤inside reality's quantum pure flux which Pirsig appellates 'Dynamic Quality,' ¤r DQ. In Quant¤nics we sh¤w this c¤mmingling DQ-SQ Quality/Value interrelati¤nship as a quant¤n(DQ,SQ), amd in ¤ne ¤f many p¤ssible graphical ways ¤r quantum semi¤tics, like this:

where blue d¤tted is DQ amd dark green/black s¤lid is SQ.

Where SOM amd CR b¤th pred¤minantly adhere classical dialectical bivalence, M¤Q ad¤pts quantum rhet¤rical ¤mnivalence.

Being t¤ M¤Q is paral¤gical, heter¤l¤gical, and ¤mnivalent. Being is a l¤¤p ¤f ...is¤being t¤ being t¤ is¤being t¤ being... iterati¤ns. Phases ¤f being are: emersi¤n, gr¤wth-changæ, changæ, diminishment-changæ, immersi¤n.

Now one may use this foundation to compare SOM's, CR's, and MoQ's respective views of 'change.'

Let's adopt a wider format here so we can show three columns of comparisons. If you will concur, reader, we want to extract vocabulary from our three philosophies above and use those vocabulary constituents to compare SOM's, CR's, and MoQ's views of changæ as relevant to each vocabulary term or phrase.

Term or Phrase SOM view of Change CR view of Change MoQ view of Changæ

pre-exists

  vis-à-vis

     unknowable

SOM says a closed material reality pre-exists. (9Mar2001 - Doug:) SOM tells us that classical reality is absolutely knowable, pre-existing, material, substantial, objective, and absolutely non-emergent. 'Exists' is SOM's means of assessing all 'real' objective truth. Fundamental truths 'exist' and since their 'existing' bases are assumed permanent, fundamental truths do not change. Only that which exists is knowable. CR is similar to and derived from SOM, with classical relativity enfolded. MoQ tells us that changæ is reality's ¤nly abs¤lute. In Quant¤nics we say, "Flux is crux." We assume reality's s¤urce ¤f abs¤lute changæ is wh¤lly unkn¤wable. We assume we can describe its affects amd ¤ur changing interrelati¤nships with it. Reality's abs¤lute changæ affects n¤vel ¤utc¤mes amd many comtexts and many truths. We call these changing kn¤wables "actuality." All ¤f actuality changæs under impetus fr¤m its quantum abs¤lute-change c¤mplement which we call "n¤nactuality."

substance

  vis-à-vis

     flux

SOM teaches that reality is substantial. Substance is immutable, impenetrable, localable, isolable, separable, reducible, and pieces of it are mutually exclusive. CR pretty much adheres SOM dogma. MoQ and ¤ur Quant¤nic extensi¤ns t¤ it teach us that reality is b¤th unlatched flux and latched flux in c¤mplementary interrelati¤nships.

decidable

  vis-à-vis

     uncertain

SOM says reality is homogeneous and monistic, thus analytic and continuous. As a result reality is deterministic, causal, and inductive. Objective outcomes in SOM are decidable. CR differs from SOM only by saying that objective outcomes are relative to individual points of view of relative observers. MoQ amd ¤ur extensi¤ns say that reality is heter¤gene¤us amd pluralistic. Each n¤vel ¤utc¤me depends up¤n incremental prec¤nditi¤ns wh¤se natures are st¤chastic. Thus quant¤nic ¤utc¤mes are event ensemble pr¤bable, but single event uncertain.

objective

  vis-à-vis

     quantonic

SOM says reality is objective based upon unchanging, immutable material substance underlying all reality. CR agrees that reality is objectively real, but views of object properties are relative, with no view more privileged than another. MoQ amd ¤ur extensi¤ns say that reality is quant¤nic. There are n¤ objects, since fundamental reality is flux ¤r changæ. Quant¤nic interrelati¤nships as amd am¤ng all quant¤ns represent M¤Q reality's Quality amd Value.

closed/immutable

  vis-à-vis

     open/evolute

SOM as fundamentally derivative of monism is closed, conservative, and thus immutable.

(9Mar2001 - Doug:) 'New' in SOM is rearrangement of 'existing' materials. SOM manufactures new.

CR says views of open or closed reality are relative, but has no basis for distinguishing them.

MoQ amd ¤ur extensi¤ns t¤ it are intrinsically an quantum heter¤gene¤us ev¤lute pluralism which endlessly generates n¤vel changæ. Gr¤wth ¤f an ev¤lute pluralism is unlimited and thus its 'plenum' is ¤pen t¤ endless changæ amd gr¤wth.

(9Mar2001 - D¤ug:) 'N¤vel' in MoQ is a recursive fractal ¤nt¤l¤gy ¤f emergence amd immergence am¤ng reality's actual amd n¤nactual c¤mplements. It is a Lila dance ¤f ubiquit¤us animate emergence amd demergence. It l¤¤ks s¤mething like this: (need wingdings f¤nt)

Recurse
(emersi¤nbeingimmersi¤nis¤being)

MoQ emerscentures 'n¤vel.'

homogeneous/
monistic/one

  vis-à-vis

     heterogeneous/
     pluralistic/many

SOM's homogeneous, unilogical monism denies real change.

(9Mar2001 - Doug:) We may depict SOM's monism or absolute One Global Truth (OGT) in One Global Context (OGC) like this:

  • "one" conventional view of
  • "one" closed reality/universe in
  • "one" substantial context.

SOM reality thus is a classical homogeneity of one absolute view of one absolute classical context in a closed universal classical homogeneity.

By 'view' we usually mean unilateral, anthropocentric observation.

Classicists (SOMites) view substance as inanimate.

CR adheres classical physics' view of change which is unitemporally functional, temporally monistic, and limits change concepts to mechanical motion.

(9Mar2001 - Doug:) We may depict CR's relativism or Contextually Relative Truths (CRT) in One Global Context (OGC) like this:

  • "many" relative, incommensurable views of
  • "one" closed reality/universe containing
  • "many" substantial contexts.

CR reality thus is a classical heterogeneity of many relative views of many relative classical contexts subsumed in a closed, universal classical homogeneity.

By 'views' we usually mean unilateral, anthropocentric observations.

Relativists (CRites) view substance as inanimate.

MoQ amd ¤ur extensi¤ns t¤ it insist that reality is plural. (9Mar2001 & 2Apr2001 - D¤ug:) In Quantonics we use many as ¤ur general term f¤r plurality, multiplicity, ¤r heter¤geneity. In SOM and CR contexts many is classical (e.g., in CR it is analytic, quantitative, but heterogeneous which distinguishes it from SOM). However, in MoQ comtexts many is quantum.

We may depict MoQ's quantum paral¤gism like this:

  • "many" ¤pen quant¤ns ¤f reality in
  • "many" quantum multiverses with
  • "many" emerging quantum comtexts.

MoQ reality is thus a quantum heter¤geneity ¤f many ¤pen amd c¤¤bsfecting quantons.

Our Quantonics extensi¤ns t¤ Pirsig's MoQ deny anthr¤p¤centricity ¤r ¤ther uniquely l¤cal unilateral ¤bservati¤n(s). Our versi¤n ¤f MoQ says reality is "reality centric." Quantum reality is self aware and panaware. Quantum reality ¤mnilaterally c¤¤bsfects itself.

Paral¤gists (MoQites) view quantons as animate.

Plurality demands animate, quantal, incremental, heter¤geneous changæ. MoQ time is multitemp¤ral, i.e., many heter¤geneous times. But times are n¤t ¤ur ¤nly means ¤f changæ assessment. An infinite variety ¤f b¤th latched amd unlatched quantum flux each express their ¤wn amd endless superp¤siti¤ns ¤f qualitative changæ. All physical measurables (plus ¤thers yet unkn¤wn t¤) SOM calls "fundamental," in MoQ have many quantum qualitative:

  • dec¤herences,
  • partial c¤herences,
  • c¤herences,
  • is¤c¤herences, amd
  • superp¤siti¤ns ¤f all ab¤ve.

Thus we say, using SOM physical jarg¤n, "MoQ has many truths, many times, many distances, many gravities, etc."

quantitative/
unilogical

  vis-à-vis

     qualitative/
     paralogical

SOM axiomatically declares all classical objects have quantitative, unilogical, homological properties. Classical science depends upon 'objective persistence' to 'repeat' experiments and 'predict' results. This classical objective persistence is SOMitic immutability and unchangeability uncloaked! Further, SOM declares these objective properties may change as analytic, continuous, differentiable, integrable, etc., functions of homogeneous classical time. SOM says there is one time, one global context, and one uniquely assessable truth based on those assumptions. Unilogical? "One!" In SOM all is one (fundamentally monistic), or one's only possible analytical, cut-out, derivative(s): dichotomy,...,n-chotomies. From this we infer SOM's unilogy, its homology.

CR axiomatically declares all classical objects have quantitative, polylogical, heterological properties. CR has no unique position on SOM's unilogic, since it assumes all logic is relative to any anthropocentric observer. CR's change depends on anthropocentric observation of relative classical things. Clearly, from a SOM perspective, CR either denies persistence of objective properties, or CR denies persistence of objective observers' contexts, or both. CR thus becomes philosophically dyslexic here. If CR's answer is "both," then it appears to support MoQ, but we know CR claims no view has privilege over any other view. MoQ denies this, claiming newest views quantally and incrementally affected from preconditions offer reality's 'better' judgment over previous view(s).

Rev'd. in dark red, 2Apr2001 - Doug.

MoQ amd ¤ur extensi¤ns t¤ it generally deny b¤th SOM's p¤siti¤n amd CR's p¤siti¤n. (Specifically, we can create b¤th SOM amd CR l¤cal c¤ntexts which appear, l¤cally, abs¤lute. But these are just tw¤ ¤f reality's unlimited quantum isles ¤f changæ/truth.)

MoQ amd ¤ur extensi¤ns t¤ it, claim reality's c¤nstituents are quant¤ns (MoQ/Quant¤nic Value interrelati¤nships) wh¤ have n¤ '¤bjective' pr¤perties. They ¤nly have qualitative interrelati¤nships with ¤ther quant¤ns, amd that these interrelati¤nships ev¤lve, generally, t¤ward 'better.' But 'better' is quantum n¤nl¤cal amd islandic. S¤ we can say reality's judgment is many 'betters.' And all ¤f th¤se are changing f¤r 'better.' Quantum reality's many isles ¤f 'better,' impr¤ving l¤cal truths appear paral¤gical t¤ SOM amd CR. Why? SOM denies M¤Q's many truths. CR denies MoQ's n¤vel, quantal, incremental privilege ¤f emersing 'betters.'

bivalent/
dialectical

  vis-à-vis

   omnivalent/
   rhetorical
   (Here, view
   'rhetoric'
    in its original
    philosophic
    sense, i.e.,
    a serious
    and semiotic
    means of
    under-
    standing.)

SOM's bivalent, dialectical truth derives from its assumption of an analytic monist pre-existing foundation.

Here we see SOM's greatest Achilles heel. SOM claims that we can use classical objective symbols to represent reality 'dialectically.'

That assumption says we can write propositions like this:

A = B + C

and assess absolutely their 'truth.'

What must be true for our proposition to hold for all classical homogeneous analytical time? None of A, B, C may change! If any of A, B, or C change in any way, our classical proposition may not be assessed absolutely TRUE/FALSE.

Quantum actually, A, B, and C all change, so SOM's dialectic, in general fails due to its assumption of persistence, its denial of change (let alone quantum reality's absolute change).

This story is a long one. We cannot cover it all here, but we can tell you, reader, that SOM's assumptions about contradiction, truth assessment, falsifiability, significates, objective properties, etc., all fail in general, in quantum reality.

CR shares some classical SOM legacy, but we also see it as not totally blind as SOM is.

Where SOM is certainly blind, we see CR as dyslexic and potentially unaware of its own natural evolution/change toward a more MoQ/Quantonic/quantum philosophical perspective of reality. As long as CR denies absolute privilege of new value over precondition value it aborts its own possible future evolution and change toward 'better.'

MoQ's many truths are ¤mnivalent. We cann¤t use SOM dialectic t¤ describe quantum ¤mnivalence because dialectic's assumpti¤ns garner s¤phisms (Planck rate flux m¤tivated, self-referent, self-aware, multic¤mtextual taut¤l¤gies). When SOM uses dialectic t¤ ¤bserve ¤mnivalent quantum reality, s¤phisms emerse, but SOM declares them all "FALSE."

But they are quantum islandic (¤r multic¤mtextual and thus intrinsically n¤nabsolute truths).

This is why Robert M. Pirsig l¤ves rhet¤ric! He rec¤gnizes SOM's en¤rm¤us limitati¤ns. He invented MoQ t¤ use rhet¤ric amd tentatively cure SOM's limitati¤ns.

Rhet¤ric assumes pluralism, ev¤lute, qualitative, heter¤gene¤us, islandic, quantum, Value-interrelati¤nship reality.

Instead ¤f SOM's:

A = B + C,

rhet¤ric utilises m¤re n¤vel incremental quantum semi¤tic s¤mething like this:

A  B  C.

excluded-middle

  vis-à-vis

     included-middle

SOM's dialectic depends ultimately on Aristotle's syllogistic laws. One of those three laws is what Robert M. Pirsig calls "SOM's analytic knife."

It is Aristotle's 'law' of excluded-middle. This law is SOM's source of implied objective separability and isolability. It says A is not both A and not A.

We are unsure of CR's view of 'middles.'

MoQ denies SOM's excluded-middle, in general.

MoQ's reason is quantum reality's alternate view ¤f 'middles' which says this:

A is b¤th A amd n¤t A.

Stated thusly, we may experience ¤ne ¤f reality's quantum epiphanies, amd see quantum reality's intrinsic included-middle am¤ng all quantons.

This s¤urces Niels B¤hr's declarati¤n (which classicist Einstein called, "absurd") ¤f quantum c¤mplementarity. In ¤ur A is b¤th A amd n¤t A ab¤ve, we sh¤uld write m¤re c¤rrectly
A is b¤th A amd c¤mplement A.

continuous

  vis-à-vis

     quantal

SOM says reality is an analytic homogeneous objective continuum. TBD MoQ amd ¤ur extensi¤ns t¤ it say reality is a st¤chastic heter¤gene¤us quantal c¤hesi¤n.

stoppable

  vis-à-vis

     unstoppable

(New 29Nov2000)

SOM says reality may be stopped while we look at it; SOM assumes reality will 'hold still' for our convenience. See Bergson's Creative Evolution, Chapter IV for ample discussion of this SOM problematic. TBD

MoQ amd ¤ur extensi¤ns t¤ it say reality is unst¤ppable abs¤lute changæ, which Bergson calls "vital impetus," ¤r "elan vital." Pirsig's DQ is abs¤lute changæ. Reality shall n¤t h¤ld still f¤r ¤ur c¤nvenient ¤bservati¤n. This explains ¤ur (amd William James Sidis', et al.) call f¤r a n¤vel, animate phil¤s¤phy amd science t¤ supersede amd subsume SOM's inanimate philosophy and science.

See our Zeno's Paradice.

local

  vis-à-vis

     both-local-
     and-n¤nlocal

SOM declares "one global closed immutable context (OGC) fits all axiomatic propositions," therefore all concepts are unilocal to OGC.

Poincaré showed us 100 years ago that no SOM object is persistently local, just due to relentless planetary, stellar, galactic, etc. flux.

CR places a limit on objective speed. CR denies any superluminality as "absurd."

MoQ amd ¤ur extensi¤ns t¤ it teach that many ¤pen changing c¤mtexts f¤rm reality's c¤mplement which we call "actuality."

N¤te: we say "Reality issi b¤th n¤nactuality amd actuality. N¤nactuality c¤mplements reality's actual c¤mplement, amd vice-versa. I.e., Actuality c¤mplements reality's n¤nactual c¤mplement." 2Apr2001 - D¤ug.

Comcepts/percepts (i.e., quantons) are b¤th l¤cal in s¤me islands amd n¤nlocal in ¤ther quantum islands ¤f reality amd l¤cality amd n¤nl¤cality are relentlessly changing. In additi¤n t¤ that quant¤ns c¤mmingle their n¤nactual c¤mplement which m¤tivates changæ amd facilitates n¤nl¤cal amd p¤tentially superluminal interrelati¤nships.

isolable

  vis-à-vis

      both-isolable-
      and-n¤nisolable

SOM declares classical objects are isolable via Aristotle's three syllogistic laws. TBD

MoQ amd ¤ur extensi¤ns t¤ it describe b¤th is¤lability amd n¤nis¤lability in terms ¤f quantum c¤hesi¤n. Quant¤ns may value a variety ¤f c¤hesive interrelati¤nships:

  • dec¤herence,
  • partial c¤herence,
  • c¤herence,
  • is¤c¤herence, amd
  • superp¤siti¤ns ¤f c¤mbinati¤ns ¤f ab¤ve.

separable

  vis-à-vis

   both-
   separable-
   and-
   n¤nseparable

SOM declares classical objects are separable via Aristotle's three syllogistic laws. TBD Ditt¤, substituting separability f¤r is¤lability.

reducible

  vis-à-vis

     both-
     reducible-
     and-
     n¤nreducible

SOM declares classical objects are reducible via Aristotle's three syllogistic laws. TBD Ditt¤, substituting reducibility f¤r separability.

analytic/
determinism

  vis-à-vis

     stochastic/
     ensemble-
     determinism

SOM says reality's change is essentially temporal motion based upon objective functions of homogeneous unitime, i.e., y=f(t). Also see our SOM Reality Loop.

In our latter graphic, substitute 'motion' for 'change.' This is SOM's view of change! To SOM analytic, deterministic motion is change!

TBD

MoQ amd ¤ur extensi¤ns t¤ it teach that reality's changæ is heter¤gene¤us, plurally ubiquit¤us, amd massively parallel but asynchr¤n¤us.

Quantons make st¤chastic, n¤n-causal, n¤ndeterministic Value ch¤ices based up¤n penultimate (where 'last' is next "edge ¤f n¤w") Value ensemble pr¤babilistic prec¤nditi¤ns.

Here it is imp¤rtant t¤ view each 'ch¤ice' as a separate indeterminant event, but when aggregated in ensembles, st¤chastically ¤ffers ensemble determinism.

See ¤ur MoQ I and MoQ II Reality L¤¤ps. Respectively Metaphysics ¤f Quality (I), amd Mechanics ¤f Quanta (II).

anthropocentric

  vis-à-vis

     reality-centric

SOM says anthros may unilaterally observe classical objects while they persist/hold still.

One of SOM's unstated, innate assumptions is that observed objects do not co-observe observers or have causal co-effects on observers.

SOM essentially is anthropocentric and not reality-centric.

CR appears not highly evolved in this area of philosophy.

We know, however that CR is, like SOM anthropocentric.

Here, unf¤rtunately, Pirsig sh¤ws a bit ¤f his anthr¤p¤centric classicism. He agrees with Protagoras that, "Humankind is the measure ¤f all things."

N¤w think ab¤ut that. Either humans pre-existed as s¤me SOMites claim, ¤r humans cann¤t 'exist' because they were n¤t 'at' primal reality t¤ measure reality amd create themselves, ¤r s¤me ¤ther sentient was present t¤ measure ¤ur first humans wh¤ then displaced that pr¤t¤sentient amd became "...the measure ¤f all things."

Our extensi¤n t¤ MoQ ¤f ¤ur Quant¤nic assumpti¤n ¤f reality m¤deled as quantum heter¤gene¤us ev¤lute pluralism denies any monistic protosentient.

Our extensi¤ns t¤ MoQ teach that reality, all ¤f reality is c¤-aware, self-aware, amd c¤¤bsfecting. Is¤flux may emerse quantons via self-measurement amd c¤-measurement.

MoQ with ¤ur extensi¤ns t¤ it is reality-centric. (This is n¤ntrivial t¤ explain, but we discuss it in multiple l¤cati¤ns elsewhere "In Quant¤nics.")

Dear reader,

Bottom line, SOM's change is simple analytic deterministic unilogical bivalently-assessable (fuzzy or discrete) mechanical 'motion.' CR either adheres this SOM view or is dyslexic as we describe above. MoQ says abs¤lute flux/changæ affects amd n¤n-causally st¤chastically changes all quantum reality.

Second part of our question for April, 2000: "If differences exist, are they culturally and philosophically important for Millennium III?"

If you agree with our comparisons above, how can you classically say "No?"

For those of you who made it this far, and want to pursue this even further, see our web page titled Classical vis-à-vis Quantonic Time. This page is superb! Especially see our Time Meme comparisons twixt Quantonics and Classical at page's bottom.

Look around you. Listen to what people are saying. Watch changæs in our ways of life. See our sequence of graphics depicting cultural changæs: MoQ, SOM, & CR Compared, Battle Winner, and Next Iteration.

Thanks for reading this complex material. We appreciate your effort, and we wish that you have grown through that effort.

Expect many future revisi¤ns t¤ this page. It is a quant¤n. It is alive amd still emersing Value!

Many truths t¤ y¤u,

D¤ug. (22May2000 — Sorry this is over a week late! But y¤u sh¤uld be enj¤ying ¤ur n¤vel, very recent amd pr¤v¤cative reviews, especially B¤ris Sidis' Philistine and Genius.)

Definitions:

Definition - Innate: Here, we mean a classical concept as axiomatic to a philosophy. A concept is designed in, anthropocentrically, as philosophical genetic code. (SOM appeals to humanism and anthropocentrism.)

Definition - Intrinsic: Here, we mean a comcept/meme as natural, part of an underlying reality which its philosophy attempts to describe. (MoQ appeals to an undifferentiated (quantum isocohesive) isoflux isocontinuum, a n¤nactuality, a n¤napparent n¤nphysical space (e.g., Vacuum Energy Space, Quantum Vacuum Flux, Zero Point Flux/Energy, etc.), something greater than itself. ð Rev. 29Mar2001 PDR.)

Return

Return to Previous Page

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., 2000-2019 — Rev. 19Jul2011  PDR — Created 21May2000  PDR
(23May2000 rev - Add links to our Quantum Connection's anchor: Flux is crux.)
(23May2000 rev - Embolden key words under comparisons. Add bullet lists. Correct typos, etc.)
(23May2000 rev - Qualify our use of 'rhetoric' to align Pirsig's use.)
(23May2000 rev - Extend MoQ remarks on 'included-middle.')
(23May2000 rev - Extend MoQ remarks on 'stochastic-ensemble-determinism.')
(23May2000 rev - Extend MoQ remarks and add links to 'reality-centric.')
(26May2000 rev - Revise SOM Metaphysics description to "Moral...resolved dialectically.")
(29May2000 rev - Add link to 'substance' vs. 'flux' comparison. Correct some grammar.)
(29May2000 rev - Change time to its plural under MoQ/heterogeneous.)
(3Jun2000 rev - Add paragraph and link to Classical vis-à-vis Quantonic Time Memes.)
(29Nov2000 rev - Add 'stoppable' to category SOM philosophy with link to Bergson on stoppage.)
(30Nov2000 rev - Add useful links to 'Term SOM, CR, and MoQ Views.' Correct prior typos.)
(8Mar2001 rev - Add link to our novel MoQ, CR, & SOM comparison table. Correct typos.)
(29Mar2001 rev - Update page bottom def's of 'innate' and 'intrinsic' for heuristic and Quantonic lingual currency.)
(2Apr2001 rev - Replace all classical 'no' prefixes with quantum 'n¤' in MoQ/Quantum/Quantonic comtexts.)
(2Jul2001 rev - Add page top English language remediation notification. Remediate Belief Category MoQ at page top.)
(10Jul2001 rev - Remediate MoQ View of Change column contents.)
(19Jul2001 rev - Add quantum semiotic link to Planck Quanton semiotic.)
(21Jul2001 rev - Add anchor to MoQ Philosophy section of top table.)
(13Aug2001 rev - Add a 'phasic' ID tag under 'MoQ Philosophy Table.')
(14Dec2001 rev - Add top of page frame-breaker.)
(21Jul2002 rev - Change QELR links to A-Z pages.)
(4Sep2002 rev - Add SOM bullet item on 'dissociative.' Add MoQ bullet item on 'associative.')
(4Sep2002 rev - Remediate quantum comtextual occurrences of 'change' to 'changæ.')
(4Sep2002 rev - Remediate quantum comtextual occurrences of 'changing' to 'changing.')
(26Jan2004 rev - Reset legacy red text.)
(18Oct2005 rev - Add SOM's Knife anchor under 'excluded-middle.)
(5May2006 rev - Add 'phase' QELR link and 'phasemental' coined term link. Release page constraints.)
(22Sep2006 rev - Appropriately update some occurrences of 'differ' to 'omniffer.')
(13Jul2008 rev - Reformat page.)
(24Feb2009 rev - Add link to recent QELR of 'aware.' Change wingding font to gif.)
(19Jul2011 rev - Add 'fractal' link to "How to do quantum~fractals.")

Arches