Quantonic Questions &
Month & Year
|"How may a student of Quantonics
formulate a quantum memetic analogue of SOM's
classical 'cause-effect' concept? What differences may
we gather to distinguish a classical cause-effect concept
and its quantum analogue?"
applies only to a system which is left undisturbed."
Page 4, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, by P. A.
M. Dirac, Oxford Science Publications, 1958 (1930-1988). Dirac,
in our view, is saying then, that there is no causality! Why?
No quantum system may be left undisturbed. We think his statement
is legacy classical detritus: an assumption that 'zero
momentum' exists in reality. Reality is in abs¤lute motion
and quantum reality is always disturbing itself by ensehmble- 'measuring'
Henri Louis Bergson says it presciently, like this, "But
the determinist, even when he refrains from regarding the more
serious emotions or deep seated psychic states as forces,
nevertheless distinguishes them from one another and is thus
led to a mechanical conception of the self. He will show us this
self hesitating between two contrary feelings, passing from one
to the other and finally deciding in favour of one of them. The
self and the feelings which stir it are thus treated as well
defined objects, which remain identical during the
whole of the process. But if it is always
the same self which deliberates, and if the two opposite feelings
by which it is moved do not change, how, in virtue of
this very principle of causality which determinism appeals to,
will the self ever come to a decision? The truth is
that the self, by the mere fact of experiencing the first feeling,
has already changed to a slight extent when the second
supervenes: all the time that the deliberation is going
on, the self is changing and is consequently modifying
the two feelings which agitate it. A dynamic series of states
is thus formed which permeate and strengthen one another, and
which will lead by a natural evolution to a free act." (Our
bold, color, italics.) See Bergson's Time and Free Will,
p. 171. Notice
Dirac's proemial observation ("system which is left undisturbed")
restated by Henri Bergson as we have emboldened in dark red.
See our QELRs
of choice, duration,
But determinists believe that experiments are sources and
agencies of classical 'truth.'
But experiments "disturb" that upon which determinists
'experiment.' Banesh Hoffmann, agreeing with Dirac, says it like
this, "But experiments are a clumsy instrument, afflicted
with fatal indeterminacy which destroys causality."
The Strange Story of the Quantum, p. 174.
Regular readers grasp how Doug enjoys paraphrasing quantum
titans like Hoffmann. Let's take a business perspective and do
it again here in light of Ernst & Young's and Financial Times'
recent 2006 efforts to awaken global businesses to macroscopic
"But classical businesses are clumsy, decoherent, instruments
afflicted with fatal unrecognized and misunderstood quantum~uncertainties
which destroy business suppositions
See?...This theoretical stuff applies to every day problems...
It isn't obvious at first blush; however, quantum uncertainty
imposes this com(n)clusion on Millennium III business theory:
"Quantum business theory is about omnicomtextual
interrelationshipings' c¤¤pæration. Classical
businesses who continue to focus on control and hegemony shall
Doug - 31Mar2006.
We offer some additional quotes from Max Jammer's first edition,
The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, pp. 90-91, Wiley,
1974. (We acquired a personal copy of this text at, to us, significant
expense. Why? Pirsig used it, among other references, to write
his SODV paper.) Our quotes
are from Jammer's discussions of early versions of interpretations
of Bohr's complementarity. For us they are fascinating. We hope
they are for you too.
"On the occasion of Bohr's seventieth birthday (October
7, 1955) Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, working then at
the Max Planck-Institute for Physics in Göttingen, wrote
a comprehensive article on complementarity and logic. Although
von Weizsäcker was not present at the Como meeting in 1927,
his assistantship to Werner Heisenberg in Leipzig soon brought
him in close touch with Bohr's conceptions of complementarity.
For the purpose of the just-mentioned article, as explicitly
stated here, von Weizsäcker re-read most carefully Bohr's
early papers on this notion and came to the conclusion that for
over 25 years he had misinterpreted Bohr's notion of complementarity,
the real meaning of which he now thought he had discovered. But
when he asked Bohr whether his interpretation (which we shall
soon discuss in greater detail) accurately presents what Bohr
has in mind, Bohr gave him a definitely negative answer. This
historical fact should be a warning to us to be particularly
careful in our analysis of Bohr's original conception of complementarity.
"Bohr's point of departure in his Como lecture was the
statement that the 'essence [of the quantum theory] may be expressed
in the so-called quantum postulate, which attributes to any atomic
process an essential discontinuity, or rather individuality,
completely foreign to the classical theories and symbolized by
Planck's quantum of action...' ...the postulate of the indivisibility
of the quantum of action demands 'not only a finite interaction
between the object and the measuring instrument but even a latitude
in our account of this mutual action' ..." See page 90.
We left out footnotes and ref's. For footnotes and ref's see
What is difficult (omnifficult) for classicists to grasp about
Bohr's quantum complementarity is that it portrays 'individual
constituents' of reality as 'not classically, state-ically, objectively
individuated.' Rather quantum complementarity says quanta
and their ensembles included-middle complement reality and reality
complements quanta. Latter is what is so di fficult for classicists
to grasp since it violates their dialectical
'rules' of 'inertial immutability' AKA 'state,' and 'objective
To compare how MoQites, CRites, and SOMites philosophize,
thingk, think, view,
measure, and monitor reality
see our table
comparing them. Look at all top of table links, please. Doug
- 13Mar2005. Thank you for reading and studying.
"...For, since the interaction between the object and
the instrument, contrary to classical physics, cannot be neglected,
'an independent reality in the ordinary physical sense can neither
be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observations.'"
See bottom of page 90, top of page 91.
Jammer continues to quote Bohr, "'On one hand, the definition
of state, of a physical system, as ordinarily understood, claims
the elimination of all external disturbances. But in that case,
according to the quantum postulate, any observation will be impossible,
and, above all, the concepts of space and time lose their immediate
sense. On the other hand, if in order to make observation possible
we permit certain interactions with suitable agencies of measurement,
not belonging to the system, an unambiguous definition of the
state of the system is naturally no longer possible, and there
can be no question of causality in the ordinary sense of the
word.' This passage...thus leads to the conclusion that space-time
coordination and the claim of causality are complementary features
in the description of physical observation.
"As the preceding quotations clearly show, Bohr's 1927
conception of complementarity referred, above all, to the impossibility
of carrying out a causal description of atomic phenomena which
at the same time, is also a space time description." Page
Readers and students may note how closely this aligns Bergson's
almost half-century earlier comments in his Creative
Evolution and his Time
and Free Will. Similarly, our comments in our descriptions
and solutions to Zeno's Paradice.
Many of you just want us to go directly to an answer,
rather than wading through a swampy morass of linguistic descriptions.
For you, we offer our own Quantonics' simple and devastating
view of classical causality:
Assume that classical macroscopic
causation is a quantum special event. John von Neumann showed,
after significant effort, that, in general, we may not determine
a locus of any specific quantum special event. A further implication
is that we cannot classically determine a time of any specific
quantum special event. Classically, space is time; time is space.
To us, in Quantonics, we infer that von Neumann's result tells
us that we may n¤t know a locus of any causal quantum
special event. If we cann¤t locate a specific cause, then
how can we claim classical causation?
Classical 'causation' requires one-to-one correlation/correspondence
of a single, independent 'cause' and a single independent
'effect.' Quantum reality simply denies any possibility of such
Explicitly, for example, there is n¤ such classical
concept as absolute
'independence5.' For another,
reality is quantum umcærtain due both abs¤lute
flux and c¤mplementarity6.
For another, reality is abs¤lutely quantum anihmatæ and thus classically
unstoppable a relentless, ubiquitous, EIMA,
do not have a 'time' and a 'locus' to look at and 'determine'
classical causation's artifacts! When we look, our 'objects'
of classical observation have already changed (are absolutely
changing), denying us 'observation' of 'specific, independent'
classical 'effects.' Quantum special ævænts
For another, reality is abs¤lutely quantum heter¤gene¤us.
Any quanton has potentially
uncountable ensehmble quantum c¤mplements,
thus denying any capability of assessing classical 1-1 correspondence.
See our n¤vel
Quantonics notion of ensehmble quantum c¤mplements
just added in black text in Note 6 Part
2 below, and our relevant n¤vel notion of ensehmble quantum umcærtainty.
It is impossible to assess "one-to-one
independent correlation/correspondence," if we classically
assume 'real' subluminal (presence of ensehmble quantum
umcærtainty) stoppability. It is possible
to assess "entangled, i.e., dependent, correspondence:"
- quantum coherence:
- (i.e., quantum coherence (BECs),
- partial coherence (e.g. unmeasured/unlatched
- mixed coherence (e.g., measured/latched
- quantum superposition:
- quantum pure superpositionings (e.g.,
isocoherence, ~pure BECs),
- partial superpositionings (bi-refracted
photons in an optical rig, quantum l¤cal gravities,...),
- mixed superpositionings (tsunami, solitons,
zer¤ spin phasicities in atomic nuclei, thoughts,...);
because we need n¤t 'stop' entangled
quantons to locally 'measure/observe' their spin, polarity, et
al., superluminal, ~zero latency (minimum Planck
quantum of umcærtainty; appears
as classical absence of umcærtainty), phase inversions.
We need only animately be assessings/measurings
extents and types of their coherencies, superpositions, etc.
How do we do that? A way is using qubits in quantum c¤mputers!
Classical causation is, in quantum reality,
a quanton(cause,effect), which in Quantonics is always  ensehmble quantum umcærtainty interrelationships,
regardless of which scales of reality we examine: chromodynamic
(quarks, gluons, etc.), subatomic, atomic, mesoatomic, macroscopic,
(Students of Quantonics may criticize,
"Doug, you should have scripted 'a quanton(causings,effectings),'
to which we would respond:" "Students, you are
partially resonant with our own thoughts; however, both
cause and effect are classical terms, and we have already
claimed that we want to use our equivalent of Pirsig's 'Bings
Value preconditions Aings.' And we do that like this, 'quanton/quantons(affectings,outcomings).'"
You observed our conspicuous caprice here in our mixed
co<n,m>textual use of classicalese, which we admit doing
in our first sentence's classical context. Our use of
quantonics script notation to differentiate classical EOOO
dyads from BAWAM omniads (which strictly speaking should be
quantonically both plural and present participle
see, for a proper quantum grammatical example, 'equals')
has its precedent in our Bell
Theorem Study. See near top of page,
our quanton/dichon quatrotomous discussion.)
First, we must recognize that all
classical causes are macroscopic stimuli. As such, they are
quantum plural animate ensehmbles of much smaller, candidate 'causes.' Thus,
it is impossible, in general, to identify which specific
candidate 'cause' is uniquely responsible for any specific
But, in Quantonics, our position is
that reality is n¤ncausal for reasons we describe below. To us, ensehmbles of quantum
reality look at ensehmbles of residual local and n¤nlocal
animate conditions and select what they like best, thus affecting
happenings nextings. Outcomes are always
quantum umcærtain. Quantum chance reigns!
There is n¤ real classical causation because there are
n¤ single specific causes.
It will be to our advantage to look
at both classical 'cause' and 'effect' word forms before we attempt
to answer this month's QQA. However, before we do, allow us to
recall how Doug became so intensely captivated by this classical
Though a lingering concern has haunted
us for decades, our deep curiosity about problematics of classicism's
cause-effect concept began in April, 1992 on a Chautauqua
to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. On a journey there, we were
browsing a small town book store when we found Robert M. Pirsig's
Lila. We were stunned! We read Pirsig's Zen and the
Art of Motorcycle Maintenance many years (late 1970's early
1980's) prior to that and simply did not know Pirsig had written
his second book and published it in 1991.
Purchase of that
book essentially ended Doug's vacation plans. He spent his vacation's
next ten days devouring Lila, rereading it and rereading
it and drawing pictures and taking notes furiously on his (then)
new MacIntosh PowerBook 1401. Pirsig totally enthralled our being.
He still does...like this:
In Lila Pirsig writes about classical causation, classical
"In the Metaphysics of Quality 'causation' is a metaphysical
term that can be replaced by 'value.' To say that 'A causes B'
or to say that 'B values precondition A' is to say the same
thing. The difference is one of words only. Instead of saying
'A magnet causes iron filings to move toward it,' you can say
'Iron filings value movement toward a magnet.' Scientifically
speaking neither statement is more true than the other. It may
sound a little awkward, but that's a matter of linguistic
custom, not science. The language used to describe the
data is changed but the scientific data itself is unchanged.
The same is true in every other scientific observation Phædrus
could think of. You can always substitute 'B values precondition
A' for 'A causes B' without changing any facts of science
at all. The term 'cause' can be struck out completely
from a scientific description of the universe without any loss
of accuracy or completeness.
"The only difference between causation and value is
that the word 'cause' implies absolute certainty whereas the
implied meaning of 'value' is one of preference.
In classical science it was supposed that the world always works
in terms of absolute certainty and that 'cause' is the more appropriate
word to describe it. But in modern quantum physics all that is
changed. Particles 'prefer' to do what they do. An individual
particle is not absolutely committed to one predictable behavior.
What appears to be an absolute cause is just a very consistent
pattern of preferences. Therefore when you strike 'cause' from
the language and substitute 'value' you are not only replacing
meaningless term with a meaningful one; you are using a term
that is more appropriate to actual observation." Pp. 103-104,
Lila, Bantam hardbound 1st ed., 1991. (our
|With parts of what Pirsig writes
above we agree wholeheartedly. Parts of it affected us with great
pause some ten distant years ago. Parts of it (emboldened text),
today, we offer significant Quantonics extensions see
our bold emphasis above and compare it to our enhancements below.
But all of his words hooked us as n¤ others. We knew something
more significant, perhaps unseen by Pirsig, cloaked itself more
deeply inside his own eloquent prose. We glimmered quantum semantics
here. We sniffed quantum prescience, quantum metaphysics, especially
in Pirsig's second paragraph above (except it's first sentence).
Yet we felt Pirsig had fathomed only eddies of a much larger
turbulent sea of countless quantum interrelationships
a much larger quantumesque amalgam of Jamesian and Bergsonian
percepts. And that much larger
amalgam of percepts is what we want to pursue in answering August,
2001's QQA. So let us proceed...
With which of Pirsig's words above do we find most harmony?
"The only difference
between causation and value
is that the word 'cause'
implies absolute certainty whereas
the implied meaning of 'value'
is one of preference."
Why do we sense abundant resonance with that Pirsig quote?
Here is a list to which we will append an ever emerging and growing
plethora of quantum memes:
- Pirsig's quote captures quantum reality's essence.
- Quantum real "value"
as predominantly qualitative, and only apparently "wholly
- It, by claiming reality uses "preference"
to choose incrementally (viz. quantally) better value,
uncloaks a meme that quantum reality measures itself.
- It, by quantonic inference ¤f b¤th "implied
meaning ¤f 'value'"
elicits a cascade ¤f quantum percepts:
- Affective Plurality
- Many l¤cal preferential ch¤ices (ensehmble ch¤¤sings) f¤r
better am¤ng many prec¤nditi¤ns
- Unlimited both l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal
perspectives ¤f many prec¤nditi¤ns
- Heter¤geneity ¤f both l¤cal amd
- EIMA ¤f
both l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal perspectives
(Red texts added 3Jun2003 - Doug)
- Qualitative Hermeneutics
- Many l¤cal interpretations among many ensehmble
- Unlimited b¤th l¤cal amd
n¤nl¤cal interpretations among many preconditions
- Heter¤geneity ¤f b¤th l¤cal
amd n¤nl¤cal interpretations
- EIMA ¤f b¤th l¤cal amd
- Quantum Pragma/action
- Unlimited b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal
pragma/action ensehmble outcomes
of preferred ch¤¤sings
- Ubiquitous EIMA ensehmble quantal
actions arise from reality's ongoing, EIMA-fractal
measurement/valuation of itself (Aristotle
denied this as "sophist
- Heter¤geneity ¤f b¤th l¤cal
amd n¤nl¤cal ¤utc¤mes
- EIMA ¤f b¤th l¤cal amd
- Islandic/comtextual (quantum l¤cal) ch¤¤sings
- N¤vel quantum
¤nt¤l¤gy ¤f affective plural ch¤ices
(qualitative hermeneutic selecti¤n), chances (st¤chastic
affects ¤f many l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal
ch¤ices) and changæs (many quantum pragmatic
and tentative, variably persistent ¤utc¤mes).
- It exposes classical reality's greatest ill and most primal
source of its own philosophical, cultural, and scientific arrogance:
its self delusion of any possibility of "absolute certainty,"
and "absolute causality."
We find minor irritation with that otherwise superb
Pirsig quote. We annotated it primarily via our bold red color
on Pirsig's overtly classical words, and our italics on Pirsig's
"Only" is a classically
monistic definite. "Between"
may imply an ideal classical dichon.
"Implies" and "implied" are classically causal (against which Pirsig
is arguing). "One" is a classically monistic lisr
Now let's treat Pirsig's other quoted text above with which
we have learned, since we last read his book, to now disagree.
We will repeat each emboldened segment and then discuss it, as
"...is to say the same thing..."
Problematics: use of 'the'
is usually classical thelogos; use of 'same'
petitions a classically rational
and tautology;" and use of 'thing'
is a purely classical, objective colloquialism.
"...a matter of linguistic
custom, not science. The language used to describe the data
is changed but the scientific
data itself is unchanged..."
Problematics: use of 'matter'
apparently assumes an Aristotelian,
classically material, substantial, objective reality; use of
'not' appears as an intended
classical objective negation
(see n¤t); use
of 'the' is usually classical
use of 'data' appears classically
state-ic; use of 'unchanged' evokes a classical
concept of stable, immutable reality (Bergson calls these,
"classicism's two great self delusions." Paraphrased.
That is, 1) reality is stable, and 2) objects in reality are
any facts of science at all.
The term 'cause' can be struck out completely from a scientific
description of the universe without any loss of accuracy or completeness..."
Problematics: use of 'changing'
apparently assumes objective change;
use of 'facts' clearly assumes
'science' can know
(apparently) absolute facts
about reality; regarding Pirsig's use of 'completeness,'
see our Absoluteness
as Uncertainty; consider how eliminating 'cause' as a classical
concept dramatically improves one's understanding of quantum
reality which is intrinsically
Based upon several previous months' QQAs2, we assume that classical English is
quantumly/quantonically problematic, and we further assume that
classical 'cause-effect' semantics too are irrecoverably beyond
Let's look at some classical grammatical applications of first
'cause,' and then 'effect.'
'Cause' classical word-forms grammatically applied using
classical Problematic English:
- a classically 'effective' reality is 'causable'
- a classically 'effective' reality is 'causal'
- classical 'causalities' have classical 'effects'
- each classical 'causality' has a classical 'effect'
- classical reality is 'causally effective'
- classical 'causation' is classically 'effective'
- 'causative' classical reality is 'causative'
- classical reality is 'causatively effective'
- a classical 'cause' has a determinate classical 'effect'
- a classical 'effect' is 'caused' by a classical 'cause'
- no classical 'effect' is classically 'causeless'
- a classical 'causer causes' classical 'effects'
- a classical 'causer causes' classical 'effects'
- classical 'causes' are causing classical 'effects'
'Effect' classical word-forms grammatically applied using
classical Problematic English:
- each classical 'effect' has a classical 'cause'
- classical 'effects' are 'effected' by classical 'causes'
- every classical 'effecter' has a classical 'causer'
- classical reality is classically 'effectible' by classical
- classically real 'causes' are classically 'effecting' reality
- classical 'causes' are classically 'effective' on classical
- classical 'causes effectively' classically analyze and synthesize
- a classical 'cause's effectiveness' is classically measurable
- classical 'effectives' are used to 'causally' force classical
- a platoon's classically measured 'effectivity' is enemy kill
- an enzyme 'effector causes effects' in neighboring biologicals
- classical 'effects' are determinate results of classical 'causes'
- most classical 'causatives' are 'effectual'
- a classical 'causative's effectuality' is classically measurable
- a classical 'cause effectually' determines a classical 'effect'
- a classical 'cause's effectualness' is classically measurable
- most classical 'causes effectuate' classical change
- a classical 'cause effectuated' classical change
- a classical 'cause effectuates' classical change
- classical 'causes' may be 'effectuating' classical changes
- classical 'effectuation' of classical change needs classical
Our classical applications of 'cause' and 'effect' and their
word form derivatives are helpful, and intentionally concise.
Our intent here is to illustrate how a classical mind 'thingks'
when it classically uses 'cause,' 'effect,' and their derivatives.
As a TBD, let us commit now (17Sep2001) to our readers to
provide a quantum affects-outcomes analogue of our two tables
above. We will make efforts to accomplish that task prior to
Now let's make a list of classical normatives
which attend Classical 'cause-effect'
- reality is causal:
- localable, isolable,
- reality is not phenomenal nor paraphenomenal (i.e., reality
is not quantum)
- there is no ether (Michelson/Morley 'proved' this; Casimir's
flux "exists not")
- there is no quantum coinsidence,
commingling, cowithinitness, compenetration, etc.
- there is no quantum complementarity (Classically, subjective
reality does not exist; those who say it does are "...charlatans,
deconstructionists, fools, insane, absurd, nonsensical, ludicrous,
- single event determinism:
- single cause, single effect ("A causes
- one cause, multiple effects ("A causes effects Bs.")
- many deterministic single events:
- multiple causes, multiple effects ("As cause effects
- all causes and their specific effects are classically, analytically
knowable and traceable
- no effect occurs
without a lisr cause
(Newton, based upon Aristotelian funda)
- cause-effect, cause-effects, and causes-effects are state-ic
formal/mechanical analytically one or multiple single event interactions:
- cause-effect is an inductive-determinate interaction:
- cause determines effect
- a cause may determine multiple effects
- multiple causes determine multiple effects
- cause-effect is a local interaction
- cause-effect is a single-event-determinate interaction:
- one temporally measurable event associates a cause and its
effect or set of effects
- a cause predicts an effect or effects:
- a specific cause always produces a specific effect
or specific set of effects
- cause-effect interactions are classically certain:
- cause-effect interactions are repeatable
- cause-effect interactions are verifiable
- cause-effect interactions are valid canons of classical reality
- cause-effect is a predicate-logically
(i.e., formally and mechanically) describable interaction
- cause-effect is classically, absolutely certainly, measurable:
(compare to von Neumann's quantum uncertain
- classical cause-effect begs and normatively supposes predicable,
predictable classical measurement capability
- classical measurement implies classical cause-effect is a
valid notion of reality, and vice versa
- classical measurement implies classical analytic stoppability
of reality is a valid concept
- classical measurement implies classical analytic 'zero momentum'
is a valid concept
- effect is change:
- change is:
- unitemporal motion
- unicontextual motion
- lisr motion
- effected change's motions are classically measurable
Our list of classical normatives is extensible in an almost
unlimited way. We have, however, shown enough classical norms
to permit us to develop a fairly rigorous quantum analogue and
from thence to show differences and their philosophical, scientific,
and cultural implications for Millennium III. We plan that as
a future TBD delivery here.
Thanks for reading,
1) Doug still has this Apple laptop! It
still works. It has been repaired once to tighten its display
connector. How many laptops today can do what Apple did with
that architecture and technology? Our average laptop today lasts
no more than 2-3 years! We have consumed in excess of ten different
laptops since our Apple and essentially none has been anywhere
near as good as Apple. All of them have been IBM/Wintel compatibles.
We've had it with that crummy stuff. Our next iteration will
return us to a combo of Apple and Linux/AMD. Yes! We know that
Apple is considering a port to Intelesque machine architecture.
May be a big mistake! Our opinion.
2) I.e., May2000QQA,
Jun2000QQA, and our yet unfinished
Jul2000QQA's Problematic English
Terms and Quantonics Remediation
of English Language, etc.
3) I.e., Aristotelian/Newtonian logical,
substance/material-based analytically objective; Aristotle:
"...reality is syllogistic," Newton: "...every
action has an equal and opposite reaction."
4) Essentially classical objective analyticity:
adheres Newtonian/Leibnitzian integral/differential calculus;
adheres objective monism's arrow of absolute, independent, and
deterministic unitime. See SOM's
Reality Loop and its y=f(t) classical objective depiction
of temporal motion as change.
5) Some folk claim
that Bell's Theorem 'proves' classical causality. We deny this
assessment's validity due quantum dependence of locally/n¤nlocally
correlated/dependent quanton pairs. Entangled pairs of quantons
are n¤t independent! More fundamentally, we deny any possibility
of classical 'proof' due to negation being intrinsically quantum
subjective (due quantum c¤mplementarity whose middles
are included see note 6, below).
6) In Quantonics
we describe two kinds of complementarity:
- 1. Our first version is what we call
classical or Bohrian complementarity. Bohr insisted that we retain
'proper' (i.e., classical) usage of classical language to permit
'unambiguous' (i.e., classical) descriptions of quantum reality.
Thus Bohr retains SOM's wall in his version of complementarity. Bohr's
complementarity is "exclusive" using his word to describe
it. Thus in Quantonics' lingo, Bohr's complementarity is a dichon(complement1,
By mandating exclusivity of his
own complementarity, Bohr retains Aristotle's logical syllogisms,
especially Aristotle's "excluded-middle" syllogism.
This is a most interesting aspect of
Bohr's complementarity. By forcing a dichon (which resides wholly
in what we call "quantum actuality"), Bohr essentially
drives out any need for a quantum unknown (i.e., what we call
"quantum n¤nactuality," "VES," "quantum
isoflux," etc.). This is a popular classical deception,
but happily it is demonstrably fallible. We must include both
its unknown and its unknowable in our descriptions and
understandings of quantum reality. Classical science insists
that we may not describe any aspect of reality which we either
do not know or is unknowable. Classical science insists that
we may only use what we know and what has been discovered.
But consider what discover means. It directly implies an unknown.
We offer a potent observation here.
What did Gödel do to create his Incompleteness Theorems?
He invented provability as a meta notion of proof!
We can do something similar here with
Discover. We can use discoverability as a meta notion of discover.
In a very powerful way meta notions
(we should be saying more quantumly "metamemes" which
are also quantum memeotics) are what allow our quantum stages
to ascend our memeos of reality. We call it "tapping into
reserve energy." Quantum Thinking Modes are metamemes and
memeotics of lesser Classical Thing-king Methods!
Try it yourself on 'know,' 'known,'
See Casti and DePauli's Gödel
for more on meta 'statements.' See: Truth, provability
Also see our Bases
of Judgment, especially level 'True,'
and hierarchy above and below it.
Doug - 4Jun2004, added last sentence
and link on 28Jul2004 - Doug.
To understand quantum reality we must
admit, into our science of it, percepts of both unknown
and unknowable. Our position here is unacceptable to classicists,
and is why we say they are stuck in their church of reason. For
taking that position, classicists call us: "unreasonable,"
"irrational," "deconstructionists," "fools,"
"absurd," "crazy," "metaphysical,"
- 2. Our second version is:
real quantum c¤mplementarity is inclusive (as evidenced
by quantum:thus denying Bohr's own version of exclusive complementarity.
We show our Quantonics' inclusive version of conjugate c¤mplementarity
We show our Quantonics' inclusive version of comjugate
quantum c¤mplementarity like this:
where our plural use of "c¤mplements" represents
heterogeneity of other quantum c¤mplementsn
which have ensehmble affective quantum
interrelationships with c¤mplement1, including
complement1's interrelationships with itself. Plural
of quantons in our script above implies a recursive fractal ensehmble quantum "sweep" of all
comjugal interrelationships for every ensehmbles'
measurement which affects a changæ
in any quantum ensehmble's animate
Quantonics adopts and uses inclusive c¤mplementarity as
its own c¤mplementarity meme. Consider that all
of Quantonics' quantons are c¤mplementarity
umcærtainty interrelationshipings whose middlings are