Return to Previous Page

A Quantonics Question and Answer
How Scientists and Philosophers Omnistinguish
Classical and Quantum Measurement

July, 1999

MT Extra, rtf, symbol, and WingDing fonts required.

"So, here we have again restated the foundations of classical physics:
the idealization of non-disturbing measurements and
the corresponding foundations of the mathematical representation;
the identification of physical properties with numbers because nothing stands
in the way of the continual assignment of numerical values to these physical properties."

Julian Schwinger, page 34, from his untitled 70-page lecture paper, who presented
it during early 1960s, and who subsequently deposited it at UCLA. See Silvan S. Schweber's,
QED And The Men Who Made It, p. 355, PUP paperback, 1994.

Notice Schwinger's implication that classical measurement and 'number' depend upon and assume-presume
classical stability (which Bergson denigrated mightily): "non-disturbing measurements."
Doug calls it "scalarbation."
As Henri Louis Bergson warned...
This may be classical measurement's most profoundly flawed axiom.

HotMeme"Stability cannot 'measure.'"™ HotMeme™.

HotMeme"Instability measures (omnitors)."™ HotMeme™.

Bergson distilled this as HotMeme"Spontaneity can explain state (stability, inertia, immutability, etc.), but
state cannot explain spontaneity (instability, absolute quantum change)."™

See Doug's embellishment (borrowing from Bergson) of above as "Flux can explain state, but state cannot explain flux."

Allow Doug to say that another way, "Instability measures, however, stability self incapacitates even classical measurement."

A real world classical exemplar is a heating system which uses golden~ratio proportional con(m)trol
vis-à-vis a classical thermostat which is state-ic (stable) binary (either 'on' or 'off').

Quantum~reality's absolute flux, its absolute change is key to quantization and scintillation which is how quantum~reality omnitors hærself.

State doesn't do anything. Its goal is stability. Its goal is certainty. Its goal is determinacy (status quo) via planning. It's bogus!

Change is always doing some evolutionary processings. Instability omnitors, "quantum due diligently assesses evolutionary better."

"Doug what is source and agency of quantum~reality's intrinsic instability?"

Quantization and scintillation of quanta in perpetual quantization~scintillation open cycloidings.

Note that instability is a key enabler™ of quantum~reality's ubiquitous and perpetual intrinsic self~other omnitorings.

HotMeme "Instability measures all. Stability measures naught!"™ HotMeme™.

But Doug, "What manages instability?"


Chaos manages quantum~instability via quantization~scintillation cycles of durational~equilibrium coobsfecting~recursing perpetual n¤n~durational~chaos.

Doug aside - 2Mar2016:

Chaosq issi agencyq of quantum~systemic changeq and evolutionq. Chaosq change~manages equilibrial evolutioningsq.

Classical systems resist change in favor of status quo. In that formal, mechanical, objective endeavor, they try to marginalize chaotic change~agents: Their own undoing...

Also see a QELR of gradience.

End Doug aside - 2Mar2016.

Chaos nissin equilibrium: quanton(chaos,equilibrium) aka quanton(wave,wavicle) aka quanton(~,¤).

See Doug's efforts on quantum~cuneiform.

Doug - 26Dec2011, 4Jan2012.

See Henri Louis Bergson on number. See our Quantonics n¤mbær and physics. (h is for h-bar)

"Gænuine quantum ¤mniht¤rmæntings

( issi )
—abs¤lutæ fluxings—
umst¤ppably anihmatæ EIMA quantons
umst¤ppably c¤¤bsfæctings ¤thær
—abs¤lutæ fluxings—
umst¤ppably anihmatæ EIMA quantons."

Classical measurement cann¤t do that!

See omnitor.

Doug - 26Aug2003.

Jammer says it another fabulous way:

"The fact that every experimental act or measurement precludes the possibility of obtaining additional (complementary) information may also be expressed by saying that every experiment is an interference with nature which effaces some of nature's (otherwise realizable) potentialities."

p. 106
The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics
Max Jammer

Now juxtapose Jammer's distillation of Bohr's complementarity with Banesh Hoffmann's:

"One may (can)not measure frequency (nor phase, nor phasicity, nor holographic phase~encoding) at(in) a(n) [classical] point(instant)." Paraphrased.

Page 153
The Strange Story of the Quantum
Our intraquote parentheses and brackets

Jammer blatantly says that Zeno's paradice are a 2500 year old classical quantum tell of Bohrian complementarity!


Doug has an even better way to describe genuine quantum~omnitorings, CeodE 2013:

What can we say y~our nousq, y~our mindq, y~our quantum~staging does due~diligently?

Doug has answered this another way in his efforts reviewing Carl Jung's Red Book:

Recursiveq, holographicq, antinomialq, complementaryq, meta~memeticq vavingq!

That is quantum~omnitoring. We do~due it perpetually~ubiquitously every day in every way as quantum~beings.
Trouble is, we build formal and canonic walls around it and call it 'dialectic.'
"Tear down y~our walls."

See Doug's Recommended Remediations for Classical Maths.

See Doug's de(omni)scriptions of recursion, hologra[[il][m][ph]]icity, antinomy, and complementation.

This update is spawned by Doug's efforts on Jung's Plate 127 predilection 'Recursion.'


Quantonic Questions & Answers

Month & Year



 Jul 1999

How do scientists and philosophers distinguish classical and quantum measurement?

This is a superb question for Quantonics, for science, and for philosophy. It is superb because it takes those of us interested in philosophy and science directly to core issues of our beliefs.

How one views measurement discloses one's philosophy, one's ontology, one's's beliefs.

Before we begin our effort to di(omni)stinguish modes of measurement, perhaps we should talk a bit about what measurement is.

From an anthropocentric perspective, measurement is what humans do to understand perceived reality. (Also, see percept.)

From a Western cultural scientific perspective, measurement is what experimenters do to discover reality's presumed underlying rules, laws and principles. Measurement discloses that which recurs, and that which recurs is presumed reliable evidence of underlying rules, laws and principles. Classical scientists insist only classical measurement is unambiguous. Therefore they further insist all measurement is classical. We shall see a source of their concern about ambiguity arises from their adopted ontology and its assumptions.

Assuming one may imagine a larger, more multiversal perspective — and allowing a heuristic that humans are not essential to measurement — we may conjecture measurement is what reality does with itself to make, change and unmake itself. Nature's self measurement, quantumly, we refer "scintillation."

Measurement then depends greatly on assumptions about what is measured and what measures what is measured. This issue, what measurement is, is so fundamental it drives all subsequent ontology, metaphysics and philosophy based on it. If one assumes one is measuring 'objects' when indeed one is measuring something else...well, you can see how important it is to choose better alternatives among a possible list of measurement options.

What we know so far, though, tells us our attempts to measure tend to disclose goodness of any chosen approach. Taken seriously, and given time for learning and evolution of process, measurement tends toward better technique and new assumptions.

We want to emphasize a significant point. We think measurement is not just a scientific method or an anthropocentric method. Measurement appears, fundamentally, to be nature's method.

Now let's continue our di(omni)scussion of July's Quantonic Q&A.

For sake of simplicity, allow us to assume only two modes of measurement:

  1. classical measurement
  2. quantum measurement

You might assume then, two categories of beliefs, i.e., both quantum and classical: philosophy, metaphysics, and ontology. However, that is not what we see. Instead, there appear to be classicists and quantum scientists/philosophers who adhere only classical measurement techniques and quantum scientists/philosophers who propound either quantum or both classical and quantum measurement:

From our perspective, taken individually, regardless of their advocacy, our choices appear to have at least these selection values:

classical measurement preference selection values:

  • one reality exists
  • 'object' classifies classical stuff which exists
  • all observed stuff is class 'object' (particulate)
  • all observers are class 'object' (particulate)
  • all observation apparatuses are class 'object' (particulate)
  • observer, observed, and apparatus are local, isolable, separable, and reducible
  • reality is analytic
  • real objects (particles) are analytic functions of time
  • real objects possess properties (attributes, characteristics)
  • all reality may be described by analytic functions of mass, length, time, and gravity (each of which is measurable, but not definable in terms of more rudimentary physical reality)
  • reality is anthropocentric (i.e., humans measure)
  • measurement is ideal, i.e., it may be accomplished unambiguously, absolute fact/truth may be established

quantum measurement preference selection values:

  • reality is quantal
  • quantal stuff may be called: 'wavicle,' 'qwf,' 'quon,' and 'quanton,'
  • quantons express interrelationships, e.g.:
    • wave-particle
    • uncertainty
    • quanton-quanton
    • C¤mplementarity
      • Bell inequalities
      • Bergsonian duration
      • coherence
      • co-inside-nce
      • heterogeneous comtextual hermeneutics
      • included-middle
      • subjective negation
      • etc.
    • self-reference (e.g., fractal ontologies, self-measurement and emergent and n¤vel adaptation)
    • etc.
  • all observed stuff is quantonic
  • all observers are quantonic
  • all observation apparatuses are quantonic
  • observer, observed, and apparatus are unified (i.e., they exhibit: both locality and nonlocality, both isolability and nonisolability, both separability and nonseparability, both reducibility and nonreducibility)
  • reality is stochastic:
  • quantons are probabilistic Planck rate monitoring process (Quantonic description; classical version is 'measurement event') recursive (sorso~nested peaqlo, i.e., REIMAR) ensehmbles
  • quantons express value interrelationshipings
  • all reality may be described by quantons
  • reality is reality-centric (reality measures (i.e., quantum~monitorings) self)
  • measurement is ævænt-ensehmble (i.e., sorso monitoring process ensehmblings) probabilistic (to be as general as possible, please use 'stochastic' in place of 'probabilistic' - Doug - 30Jun2008) and outcomes depend on con(m)text/locality/n¤nlocality, absolute change may be established

both classical and quantum measurement selection values:

  • reality is b¤th classical and quantum
  • classical reality is superatomic (issues of classical notions of quantum uncertainty being uniquely atomic-subatomic)
  • quantum reality is mesoatomic and subatomic (Quantonics explains that quantum uncertainty scales across all reality. See our omniscussion on quantum uncertainty scales.)
  • when in classical reality, do classical measurement
  • when in quantum reality, do quantum monitorings (Quantonic description; classical version is 'measurement')

As you may see, much omniversity of opinion exists regarding measurement vis-à-vis monitorings.

Our preference is for viewing reality as quantum, not classical. Thus, of course, we favor quantum monitorings over classical measurement. Quantum measurement suffers from a problem called decoherence (Note that quantum~monitorings do not suffer from issues of quantum decoherence.). Many folk are working on a concept of quantum measurement which is non-destructive, i.e., which does not alter stuff which is being measured. (An example of how important this is appears in quantum computing. If reading a qubit register destroys its contents, one may not do quantum computing!) If you look at our 24Jul1999 section of Flash, you will see nondestructive measurement of a simple quanton's phase has finally been accomplished.

Begin 22-23May2001 aside:

In our paragraph above, we state, "Quantum measurement suffers from a problem called decoherence." It is important to know that quantum decoherence is a measurement problem. It is n¤t a general quantum reality problem. Quantum reality depends upon decoherence! All actual reality is partially decoherent. It is what Pirsig's MoQ calls "latched reality." It is SQ, or Static Quality.

Our quanton semiotics and notation show decoherent and coherent quantum reality compenetrating one another, e.g., quanton(coherent,decoherent) and as quanton symbol where solid (usually black or dark green) circles represent quantum decoherence, and dotted (usually blue) circles represent quantum coherence and quantum isocoherence.

Reality's means of latching, decohering, and 'creating' and 'emerging' n¤vel actuality is quantum measurement (monitorings). But often we wish to animately measure quantons without causing them to decohere and latch, and to watch their post~decoherence animate quantum~evolutionary pr¤cessings. We are just now learning how to do that. Our animated quantons are semiotics, rather memeotics, for that dynamic process.

Nearly all (very likely all) actuality is both coherent and decoherent (and simultaneously compenetrating VES' isocoherent isoflux => quanton(VESvactuality). For example atoms have both fermionic (decoherent) and bosonic (coherent) spin 'states,' rather quantum spin phasicityings. (See our Quantonic remediation of classical word 'state,' and phasicity.)

End 22-23May2001 aside.

Rev 8Jan2001: As you may have read elsewhere in Quantonics, until recently, quantum science had two large remaining 'problems:' measurement and interpretation. We recently used Pirsig's MoQ and our own QTMs to solve these 'problems' and a related John von Neumann quantum wave function 'collapse' problem. See:

One of our favorite quantum measurement sites is Paul G. Kwiat's. Paul is a J. R. Oppenheimer Fellow with US government's LANL. Paul's mentors are both dynamic heavy hitters whom we mention elsewhere on our site:  Raymond Chiao, and Anton Zeilinger's Homepage.

If you want to pursue quantum measurement concepts further, you may wish to visit Paul's web page: The Tao of Interaction-Free Measurements

How MoQites View Reality How CRites View Reality How SOMites View Reality
How MoQites Monitor Reality How CRites Measure Reality How SOMites Measure Reality


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

©Quantonics, Inc., 1999-2030 Rev. 2Mar2016  PDR — Created 16Aug1999  PDR
(17Jul2000 rev - Add link to James' comments on two legs. Add anchor to views of how to measure.)
(8Jan2001 rev - Add links to other pages on quantum measurement.)
(9Feb2001 rev - Repair link to 24Jul1999 Flash.)
(22-23May2001 rev - Add 22May2001 aside near page bottom.)
(5Nov2001 rev - Alter page top title format. Repair Problematic Pirsigean Meme index.)
(15Jan2002 rev - Add top of page frame-breaker.)
(23Jul2002 rev - Change QELR links to A-Z pages.)
(26Sep2002 rev - Remediate all quantum comtextual occurrences of 'ensemble.')
(1Oct2002 rev - Add delicious Schwinger quote at page top. Add some black text. Resize page and border.)
(2Nov2002 rev - Add link to Zeilinger's Home Page.)
(11Jul2003 rev - Extend quantum measurement selection value interrelationships.)
(26Aug2003 rev - Add 'Genuine Measurementing' quote near page top.)
(7Feb2004 rev - Remove legacy red text.)
(23Jun2004 rev - Add 'what measurement is' link to our 'What is Wrong with Probability as Value?')
(30Jul2004 rev - Add 'bot classical and quantum' measurement link to our QELR of 'hologram.')
(18Mar2005 rev - Add page bottom table of MoQ CR & SOM views and measurement heuristics.)
(19Mar2005 rev - Update 'quantum measurement stochasticity.' Release table constraints.)
(18Apr2005 rev - Add 'absolute change may be established' link. Correct some red text typos.)
(2Jun2005 rev - Add page top Jammer quote on measurement.)
(13Dec2005 rev - Remove legacy red text. Repair some QELR. Add some red text and lots of new QELR links.)
(3Oct2006 rev - Add page top title and QQA date. Adjust colors.)
(10Sep2007 rev - Reset legacy red text.)
(30Jun2008 rev - Reformat.)
(19Apr2009 rev - Update Zeilinger's homepage.)
(17May2010 rev - Reset legacy markups. Make page current. Add anchor to 'Jammer Quote' of "...precludes the possibility...")
(25May2011 rev - Add 'Nature Measures Herself' anchor. Add "Nature's self measurement, quantumly, we refer 'scintillation.'" commentary.)
(26,28Dec2011 rev - Add page top red text omniscussion of classical 'stability' vav quantum~instability. Add 'Measurement Stability vav Instability' anchor.)
(4Jan2012 rev - Add commentary on chaos' role in managing instability.)
(12Mar2012 rev - Add 'Stability re Measurement' anchor near page top.)
(17Jul2012 rev - Add page top 'chaos' link under text describing instability as an enabler of quantum~measurement, monitoring, omnitoring, ¤mnit¤ring, and ømnitøring.)
(19Jul2012 rev - Reset legacy markups and add another "What manages instability?" 'chaos' link near tight groupings of HotMemes™ near page top.)
(3Sep2012 rev - Add 'What Manages Instability' anchor.)
(2Dec2014 rev - Reset legacy markups. Adjust colors. Make page current.)
(2Mar2016 rev - Add Doug aside on chaos as perceived quantumly vav classically.)