of

Dialogue with Renée Weber

in

Chapter 4

of

Lee Nichol's

26-28Jun-2,13-16Jul2006 Status
(Extended revisions commencing 2Jul2006; mainly due metainnovations
involved and omnifficulties expressing them well. We intend to
dwell here on issues of quantum~phase~encodings until we are satisfied
that a decent *grundlagen* has emerqed. This issi n¤n
trivial quantum~pr¤sæ. Too, it represents essential
primitive hermeneutics and semiotics of quantum~reality's quantonic
descriptionings. Generally, we can say, "Quantum reality
is dynamic phase-mental phase~interrelationshipings vis-à-vis
classical reality is static state-mental 'state-event' interactions.
Doug.)

??-??2006 Status

Initial progress statement - 26-28Jun-2,13-16Jul2006...

You may recall how this sequence of research reviews started out as a QQA asking "In what ways are Quantonics' breakthr¤ugh, n¤vel descriptions of quantum reality h¤l¤graphic? H5W? H5W n¤t?"

We've come a long way since we first wrote that query. Allow us to summarize where we believe Quantonics is now in mid-2006 on that question. Our purpose in doing so is to compare Quantonics' memeos of a flux~based quantum~holographic reality to Bohm's apparently more classical conspectives of an implicate-explicate-ordered holographic (hologramic) reality. Two key words here are Quantonics' flux vis-à-vis Bohm's order. Order implies classical 'state,' for us, and flux implies absence of state. Where 'state' is a "holds still" type of classically-stoppable h-bar-zeroed inertial order, flux is a dynamic type, rather emerscence, of quantumly~unstoppable h-bar affective change~durational ¤rdær.

So how do we get ¤rdær out of flux? We are assuming Bohm's work is his showing us how we get 'order' out of 'state' and 'holomovement flow.'

Essential to our Quantonics description
¤f quantum~¤rdær
are memeos of quantum~phase, ~phasicity
(be sure to read all of that QELR's text), and ~phase~encoding.
Of course it is rigorous to say, "we cann¤t have phasicity
without flux." Indeed, then, quantum~phasicity is a metameme
of quantum~flux and quantum~fluxings' Quantonic interrelationshipings
which we refer "quantum~phasicityings." Succinctly then,
**Bohm SIOD HotMeme™** "

**A
Quantonics Breakthrough: Explication of quantum relativity as
phase~encoding!**

Too, it is essential to blurt out Quantonics' innovative solution
to one of classical science's greatest 'problems**:**' **how
can 'science' unify relativism and quantumism?** Quantonics
shows us that quantum~reality's phase~encoding *is* quantum~relativity!
Quantum reality, according Quantonics, is flux~relative. Quantum
reality is interrelativities of quantons(isoflux, flux) which
we call quantum~phase~encodings. No classical need to mechanistically
unify Einstein's bogus relativity and classical science's bogus
classical mechanics. Nonmechanical quantum~flux~reality is, at
its most nascent and primal roots, flux~relative! Doug - 31Oct2006.

Our analogue of Bohm's implicate order, assuming his implicate order corresponds QVF AKA n¤nactuality, is what we call "isoflux." In this dialogue Renée Weber refers what we call "isoflux" as "emptiness, silence."

We need
to offer a fine affine here**:** Quantonics offers heterogeneous
memes of *silence*, including**:** actual silence, and
n¤nactual silence. In Bohm's model we might call these
"explicate silence," and "implicate silence."

We ask our readers and students to view actual silence as flux
cancellation in actuality. It looks like this, using classical
'zero' offset 2D transverse sinusoids**:**

Solid black on right side of lower graph represents what we
mean by actual silence. Actual flux can cancel to make apparent
'emptiness.' But it is only apparent, isn't it? Actually it takes
double energy (assuming 2D transverse sinusoids), in appropriate
phase~interrelationshipings to make an apparition of 'no energy,'
'flux absence,' 'energy emptiness,' 'flux silence,' doesn't it?
(Please ponder how we are making a bunch of other assumptions
too, when we make a 'state' ment (n¤t a phasement)
like that. For example, most actual flux issi n¤t idyllically,
uni~wahvæ~n¤mbær,
'stable' and classically mono frequent as illustrated above. Unstable
*real*
quantum fluxings almost always mix to emersce, at least partially,
n¤n canceling phase~encodings. Fathom how important our
phrase "at least partially" becomes. **That which is
phase~encoded is that which becomes actual**, *that* which
we can, have qua to,
'ømniht¤r.' That which issi n¤t
phase~encoded, remains 'silent.' And what is that which remains
silent? QVF, n¤nactuality,
DQ, etc.)

Now take another epiphanous mind~reembodying quantum leap forward. Visualize your mind as a quantum stage which phase~encodes reality!

Do you wish that your mind do less phase~encoding? More?

Do you perceive here a metaphoristic analogue of "more
phase~encoding" and increased *qua* for "tapping
reserve energy?"

Now realize that dialectical mind denies quantum~phase~encoding
'exists.' Then, what is your first step toward learning to "tap
into reserve energy?" Yes, *that*'s a step in your own
personal quantum Chautauqua toward *better*!

Something similar happens omnimensionally, and n¤ntransversely
in isoflux, but energies involved are almost beyond fathomable.
We show it primitively as a single Planck quanton like this**:**

Our blue-dotted contrarotating generators represent quantum~reality's
isoflux complement of our animate Planck quanton. You may imagine
isoflux 'silence' transversely by imagining our flux 'silence'
above as blue-dotted. Here is another way to view it**:**

You might imagine blue-dotted generator rotating counter-clock-wise
and green dotted generator rotating clock-wise, wraithing apparent
silence. Contrarotating generator waves cancel, and thus offer
n¤ phase~encoding. If contrarotating waves are dotted we
are 'silencing' n¤nactual isoflux (due *absence* of
quantum~n¤nactual iso~phase~encoding of n¤nactual
isoflux). If contrarotating waves are solid we are 'silencing'
actual flux (due *absence* of quantum~actual phase~encoding
of actual flux). (Our sentences are making beau coup assumptions...
keep that in mind. Big ones**:** both generators are running
at 'same' frequency and they are 'perfectly' phase 'locked' 180
degrees out of phase with (__full__ 180^{o} phase~encoding,
"n¤ phase~encoding," i.e., full energy~canceling**:**
"silencing") each other. You may fathom some classical
vis-à-vis quantum linguistic issues with those words.)
If we showed our silence spectrum distribution to right of those
two signals it would appear 'black' as in our third-to-last graphic
above.

If your quantum~stage is commingling ours at this phase~interrelationship,
we imagine, even sense, how you may be wondering how we can use
what Doug has written so far to do useful stuff. Some examples
will include**:** how do we show classical 'science's' undefinables
— mass, length, and time, and possibly gravity — as
quantum~phase~encodings? How about their interrelative derivatives
as quantum~phase~encodings? We *have* your interest... You
just had glimmers of *Quantum Lightings*™, didn't you...?
Good! Now *those* are *better*shipings.

Before we show you some "useful stuff," allow Doug to share some personal memeos which have borne much anxiety for Doug since he started his personal quantum Chautauqua at least 20 years ago.

Doug
saw that classical 'science' had major problems whose bases are
founded in, established in, dialectic. Doug learned this from
his own empirical studies, but Robert M. Pirsig's opus acted as
a proactive mentor for Doug and pushed Doug into real quantum~pragma.
What Doug found was that, "Yes, classical science is dialectical,
but it has some proemial notions of quantum perspectives of reality."
A key classical notion is 'frequency.' We are using that notion
here to help you (and us, including Doug) begin to understand
how important Paul Pietsch's *Shufflebrain* memes —
our version of them, our quantum memeos — of holographic
phase~encoding are. Especially as they relate to Bohm's holomovement
when we view it as Quantonically quantum.

Aside —

"SIODHotMeme™"Essentials for Understanding Quantum Reality™:SIODHotMeme™.Dialectic distorted classical science's nascent, formative

notions of frequency. How? Dialectic blinds its practitioners to. Classicists cannot noodle real quantum flux! They lackessential quantum flux realityquato do so. And they made a huge mistake. They needed a 'catholic,' i.e., universal, uni-flux analogue (which they call "time") of frequency (usually shown as wt, i.e., omega-tau; notice how omega-tau classically and scalarbatively specifies, as Pietsch describes it, "location of amplitude," AKA classical 'phase,' a stopped scalar metric (n¤t quantum, quantonic~interrelationshipings); read carefully classical vis-á-vis quantum phase; quantumly, we can fathom there is n¤ classical scalar 'amplitude,' and there is n¤ classical scalar 'location;' why? quantum~flux is Bergsonian durational:always fluxing—fluxing all; classical location and amplitude are quantumly irrelevant—due their suppositional stoppability AKA 'zero momentum:ideal classical absence of Planck rate flux;' dynamic flux interrelationshipings AKA phase~encodingsarequantum~relevant), so classicists used their dialectical thingk-king methods (DTMs) to 'create,' and 'invent' a radically mechanical idealnotion of frequency. Essence in grasping what Doug is saying here is that classicists assume reality is analytic, simply:ideally stoppable objective independence. Quantumists assume, simply:absolutely~animate flux coinsidence. Latter takes many emerqancies, e.g., quantum~superposition with and without quantum~interference, with and without quantum~entanglement. Doug -- 14Jul2006.In QuantonicsOur comments in Bergson's final

Time and Free WillTopic 35 appropriately extend that paragraph's exegesis. Doug - 18Sep2006.End

SIODHotMeme™Essentials for Understanding Quantum Reality™:aside.SIODHotMeme™

Now
pause a moment and think about what Doug just wrote. Classicists
essentially deny absolute flux, but they need a classical analogue
of that which they deny (Brownian motion unsettled Einstein, significantly.
Plus he claimed 'the vacuum is empty.'). Hmmm... Does *that*
fascinate you? We believe it should.

Well, then, what is this classical analogue (scalarbation;
note that all classical 'variables' have to be stopped to 'measure'
them) of flux? Mechanical, dialectical, unitime. Scientists use
it like this**:** y=f(t). That 't' looks like our rotating
generators above. It ('t') is a mechanical clock, a mechanical
analogue of real quantum flux.

"How did they invent it?"

Objectively they intuited space and spatial extensity. Classical objects 'fit' in space, Descartesian 'space.' <x,y,z>! Classical objects immutably 'move' in 'space.' So their rate (time change) of movement, classically-dialectically-intuitively, is delta-space/space! Classically time (AKA mechanically invented flux) is space rate of change.

For Doug that classical notion is bogus, for almost innumerable
'reasons.' Our site lists most of those, at least ones we are
k~*now*~ings about. Please do not expect us to regurgitate
them here. Read Bergson's *Creative Evolution* and his *Time
and Free Will* if you desire bases and due diligence for our
indictment. See our A-Z QELRed terms, our acronyms, our coined
terms and our QELPed terms.

Classicists could intuit space and delta-space/space as 3D1T.
(Note that Leibnitz, near his life's ending, began to see that
this was wrong**:** he began to see that reality is not objective,
and that we needed to take a more subjective approach to our work.)
Einstein, despite Leibnitz' caveats ran with an objective 3D1T
and set 'science' back at least a century in doing so. We are
just now digging out from Einstein's great *faux pas*.

If one dialectically chooses 'space' and 'spatial extensity' as bases for objective reality one digs a hole so deep as to almost disallow extraction. Quantum reality to our rescue! Why? Classical 'science' can only 'measure' state when it uses space and delta-space/space as its objective primitives.

Quantum reality shows us there is a primitive whose classical
dialectical, mechanical, objective __apparitions__ are**:**
space and delta-space/space.

"Doug, what is that?" Flux!

Let's continue our little dialogue further and review some classical meta-apparitions borne on notions of space and delta-space. (For a scrumptious adventure, read Irving Stein's The Concept of Object as the Basis of Physics.)

Irving Stein helped Doug see a quantum memeo which he had not
grasped prior**:** flux is quantum reality's primitive meme
for all classical measurables. Stein used space-rate to proxy
mass and energy. That is a classical approach which begs Doug's
epiphany that quantum flux
proxies all reality! And that epiphany fits a metameme of flux
as a proxy for Bohm's holomovement and Pietsch's phase~encoding.

Now we may offer "useful stuffings."

Recall that Pirsig's MoQ offers quanton(DQ,SQ) and Quantonics offers quanton(is¤flux,flux) as quantum m¤dalings of rælihty. Yes, you may view both SQ and flux as actual and you may view both DQ and is¤flux as n¤nactual.

Further you may view DQ and isoflux as __unlatched__ (quantum_n¤nactual~)
flux and SQ and flux as __latched__ (quantum_actual~) flux.
See our quantum essence.

Quantumly mass, space, and time, indeed all reality, are quantum~phase~encodings
of flux which manifest in and as latched flux. We can say, "...latched
flux is phase~encodings and phase~encodings are latched flux."
Rather than saying "latched flux," we prefer "latchings
of flux." Now let's make all this incredibly flux~simple**:**
** SIOD
HotMeme**™ "

If our Hot Meme™ is valid, then we can say mass, space,
time, and you and Doug and all actual reality are quantum phase~encoding
metamemes of reality. Measurement! And its quantum dual**:**
omnitorings!
Comprehensively, *All*!

Classicists among you will say, "OK, great. But what can
we *do* with this?" We should be able, capable, have
*qua* to show that mass, space and time and their parables**:**
distance, velocity, acceleration, gravity, temperature, and so
on..., may be represented fabulously as quantum~phase~encodings.
And, folks, *that* is our bridge from classical to quantum!
Really! Acceber, we found it! Wow! We found Led Zeppelin's Bridge!
Wow! Finally! Wow! (Doug had powerful reserve energy intuitions
that our Bohm research was gonna pay off. It has! Manifestly,
it has! Middle~include us your pneumatic accolades please...Doug
- 6Jul2006.)

Now take two and more 2D sinusoids and show us how we can use their quantum~phase~encodings to illustrate massings, spacings, timings, distancings, velocityings, accelerationings, gravityings, temperaturings, and so on...

There. You have it!

Dan, you should be happy now. We are almost straddling...

More to come here as we show you our own, continuing efforts on this...

We are almost ready to continue with our Research Review of
Bohm's *Super-Implicate Order Dialogue* (*SIOD*).

Now we have a tad of foundation on Quantonics' quantum memeos of actual and n¤nactual 'silence.' That provides us with means to compare Quantonics' 'silence' with Bohm and Weber's notions of 'silence.'

Our analogue of Bohm's explicate order, assuming his explicate order corresponds actuality, is what we call "flux."

Bohm's explicate order unfolds from his implicate order. Quantonics flux emersces from isoflux. How? We offer a candidate fermionic emergence ontology.

What we want to accomplish right here is an exegesis of Quantonics flux as memeos of quantum~phase, ~phasicity, and ~phase~encoding using simple sinusoids as quantum~m¤dals of flux.

Doug - 26-27Jun2006.

Quantonics, Inc.

1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368

Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730

USA

1-317-THOUGHT

(26Aug2006 rev - Repair Doug's typo of fau[s] pa[x] to faux pas. Correct grammatically 'me' to 'Doug.')

(18,22Sep2006 rev - Add Bergson

(24,31Oct2006 rev - Add 'partially' link to 2006 TQS August News anchor 'Extreme Phasements of Partiality.' Add 'Quantonics Relativity Breakthrough.')

(4Dec2006 rev - Italicize Bergson's book titles. Reset legacy red text.)

(25Feb2007 rev - Add 'Phasicityings' anchor.)

(5Mar2007 rev - Repair spelling of 'heterogeneous.')

(14Jun2007 rev - Add 'Understanding Quantum Reality as Holographic' anchor.)

(12Feb2008 rev - Add 'superpose,' 'interfere,' and 'entangle' links under our description of 'understanding quantum reality.')

(25Dec2009 rev - Make page current.)

(23Jan2011 rev - Add 'silence' anchor. Make page current. Reset legacy markups.)