|Term or Phrase
||SOM view of Change
||CR view of Change
||MoQ view of Changæ
|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."
|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
|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
||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.
|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.
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)
SOM's homogeneous, unilogical monism denies
(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
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)
- "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
- "many" quantum multiverses with
- "many" emerging quantum comtexts.
MoQ reality is thus a quantum heter¤geneity ¤f
many ¤pen amd c¤¤bsfecting
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
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
- partial 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."
|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
in its original
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
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,
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.
SOM's dialectic depends ultimately
on Aristotle's syllogistic laws. One of those three laws is what
Robert M. Pirsig calls "SOM's analytic
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
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
A is b¤th A amd c¤mplement A.
|SOM says reality is an analytic homogeneous
||MoQ amd ¤ur extensi¤ns t¤
it say reality is a st¤chastic heter¤gene¤us
|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
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.
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
|SOM declares classical objects are isolable
via Aristotle's three syllogistic laws.
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:
- partial c¤herence,
- is¤c¤herence, amd
- superp¤siti¤ns ¤f c¤mbinati¤ns
|SOM declares classical objects are separable
via Aristotle's three syllogistic laws.
||Ditt¤, substituting separability
|SOM declares classical objects are reducible
via Aristotle's three syllogistic laws.
||Ditt¤, substituting reducibility
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
In our latter graphic, substitute 'motion' for 'change.' This
is SOM's view of change! To SOM analytic, deterministic
motion is change!
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
Here it is imp¤rtant t¤ view each 'ch¤ice'
as a separate indeterminant event, but when aggregated
in ensembles, st¤chastically ¤ffers
See ¤ur MoQ I
and MoQ II Reality
L¤¤ps. Respectively Metaphysics ¤f Quality
(I), amd Mechanics ¤f Quanta (II).
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
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
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.
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.")
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
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
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