This is our March, 2006 editorial
Go directly to 2006 March News
If you have time, be sure to watch a 1982 movie, Gandhi, Special Edition. Swept 1983 Oscars...
Ask your family and friends to watch it too.
It is so anticipative of what we see happening, i.e., USA vs. Iraq.
Democrats are looking for an Iraq-strategy. Here it is, in spades!
Warning: you will hate Great Britain after watching this. By association, USA too. Ugh!
Please watch it.
On a very relevant note, there is an excellent article in Financial Times' 2Mar2006 issue, p. 13, titled, 'Neocons: a tragic drama in three acts,' by Jacob Weisberg.
If you want to know what a necon is and perhaps what others view as neocons, read this.
We agree with most of what Weisberg excellently writes except for his lumping Ronald Reagan in with Nazi fascist neocons like Bush, Cheney, et al.
Recall Reagan's approach to Berlin's wall? "Tear down that wall!"
Gandhiesque! By observation n¤t Nazi fascist neocon Bushesque, Cheneyesque, Rummyesque, etc.!
Dialectic does it again: Tragedy of commons 'either-or' 'society-above-individual' sense.
Doug - 27Feb2006 and 3Mar2006.
Pay attention to Lindsey Graham on who can and should own US port operations.
Ignore GW Bu()sh()!
Aren't you finished with GW's and his administration's profound ineptnesses and incompetencies?
Stephen Hadley, without respect, you sir are an idiot, a blithering, blathering, blubbering neocon idiot!!! National Security Advisor??? Ugh! UGHLY!!! Bu()sh() disadministration neocon ugly! Cliché.
Simply, it is becoming more and more apparent, at least to Doug, that we USA individuals cannot trust our own 'government.' We need a complete replacement of executive and legislative branches of government. Republican'ts say they have high regard for GWBush. Bush no longer deserves any regard from any USA individual. Bush is a failure as shown by direct experience. Evidence? He calls his failures "successes." Shame! Shame! A greater shame, a deign to feign: calling your failures "success." Listen to him! UAE port operation in USA is a trojan horse!!! More deign to feign. Watch out!!!
No Muslim organization can be trusted until all Muslims as an Islamic politico-religious human ensemble decry radical Islamic terrorism, publicly, privately, and individually. Pay attention to what Muslims do!!! Ignore what they say! More important: understand what they believe and what they want and need!! Remember Gandhi and British atrocities in India. Remember Gnostic Jesus and Roman atrocities in Europe and Middle East.
Doug - 26Feb2006.
Do you enjoy playing Bridge? Doug used to, but now it's automatic, after playing 1000s of rubbers.
Ever notice how Bridge is classical? I.e., state-ic rules!
Wanna play one kind of quantum~Bridge?
Change one 'rule' to make Bridge more quantum: one does n¤t have to follow trump suit. Now if we can just get those folks at EZBridge to come out with a version that allows John Forbes Nashesque, "varying core game rules." What does that simple change do? It introduces real, macroscopic quantum~uncertainty. Of course, Bridge already has macroscopic quantum~uncertainty built in, e.g., first card lead is a good example. In no-trump that is crucial to whether a played bid wins.
Doug - 26Feb2006.
Classical 'statements' about reality are 'state' ments which assume classical 'state' exists. Classically 'state' means stopped, holds still conveniently and utilitarian-conventionally for analytic 'scientific' observation, testability, assessment, and evaluation.
Use of 'statements' to describe reality, then, from any quantum~hermeneutic~perspective, is problematic.
That explains at least partially why Quantonics is in a evolutionary process of developing Quantum English Language Remediations.
Doug - 22Feb2006.
Classical social systems pursue ideal formal state: "order." - Doug.
Quantum social systems pursue relentless evolutionary change: "adaptive coherence." - Doug.
Spawn of Doug's in process review of Daniel C. Dennett's 2006 Breaking the Spell.
See our comments on his January 20, 2006 'Common Sense Religion,' which appeared in The Chronical Review.
See our review of Dennett's Breaking the Spell.
See Michael Shermer's AAAS Science review of Dennett's Breaking the Spell, titled 'Believing in Belief,' Volume 311, 27January2006, p. 471.
More in main body of TQS News below...
Doug - 12Feb2006.
Are you sure about dialectic? Do you really believe dialectic is how humanity should thingk?
If you do, then we can quite easily state a bottom line.
In order to make our world a livable place, we need to do two processes:
1) kill all the killers, and
When that process is finished, our problems are over!
But isn't that what radical Muslims are saying? Isn't that what catholics tried to accomplish from 300 a.d. to about 1600 a.d.?
What's really neat about it is that all those who decide to kill the killers also have to be killed! Who will be last to choose to kill he-r only remaining Earth cohabitant?
Get it? Dialectic is self-annihilating. Talk about eliminating ESQ...
Beth just said, "Talk about recursion..."
Doug - 8Feb2006.
This morning Imus was praising Chris Matthews as a "genius."
Tonight, Doug is in a process deciding whether to stopping watching "the genius."
Chris, similar EOOO'Reilly, asks his guests questions and then interrupts their answers. It is maddening.
His guests, especially female guests, are 10x smarter than he and he won't allow them to speak. Ugh!
Doug - 8Feb2006
December, 2005 through November, 2006
|JAN||FEB||MAR||APR||MAY||JUN||JUL||AUG||SEP||OCT OCT SE||NOV||DEC|
You are here:
|Google in China,
What is Wrong with Democracy,
Why Digital is Dead,
Gnosticism vis-à-vis Pirsig & Bergson
|Scott C. Smith,
IBM's High GHz PPCs,
|Doug Critiques Sull's
|Doug on novel
|What will happen in
The Da Vinci Code...
Doug's view of
|Free energy!||High Speed Internet,
DMD's Quantum Simplicity,
Classical Sentences, vav
Quantonics Top 20 Pages,
Why Static Truth is Irrelevant
Didactism & autodidactism,
Doug's iPod video
March, 2006 News ("It's my birthday and I'll bitch if I want to..."):
On your continuing interests in Doug's review of Scott Smith's Demarcation Between Science and Non-Science 2001 FPS letter...
For some reason, and we clearly do n¤t understand why, growing interest in our web page review of a Scott-Smith-titled letter Demarcation Between Science and Non-Science, is happening as we write this. For years it languished. In 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 we had few hits on that page. Now, inexplicably and starting about June, 2005 from an Ameritech client in Chicago, hits are doubling almost monthly by people from all over Earth (AU, CA, DE, FR, NL, NZ, SE, UK, and US).
We carefully read and reread that page 20-22Feb2006. We hadn't carefully, seriously revisited it since 2001 as evidenced by page-bottom absence of any revision history except one where Dr. Smith asked us, six months after publication, to remove his original letter's text.
Doug is extremely quantum~comtextually sensitive and aware. Developing QTMs has made him so. Doug coheres to as great extent possible (for him) reserve energy. Why say this? Well, again, something, we understand n¤t what, obsessively urged us to reread that web page. It is probably our recent year's effort on Quantonics' study of religion re: Priori de Sion, terrorism, et al. Until now, we had completely forgotten how our review of Dr. Smith's letter is relevant.
It is almost a direct answer, for us anyway, to problematics in Dennett's new book, Breaking the Spell, which we are reviewing nearby. Said review we have been doing incrementally under our recent 2006 Recommended Reading: Classical vis-a-vis Quantum Religion References. We are just now moving it to its own web page, with links to it from our RR Religion Reference page.
If you are reading Dennett's BtS, we encourage you to also see our 2001 critical review of Smith's Demarcation Between Science and Non-Science.
Some emphatic reminders:
Doug is against both dialectical science and dialectical religion whatever its nomenclature. Doug is against dialectical politics, dialectical democracy, dialectical prose, dialectical whatever...
Doug believes emotion is incredibly higher value than dialectical logic (How did you choose your most recent spouse? Your car? Your house? Your latest enemy? Friend? A meal? Clothing? Movie? Job? TV program? Do advertisements use logic to sell you products? Emotion? Out of your life's total activities which were 'logical?' Emotional?).
Don't you usually choose...
...in your local con(m)text, what is Good vis-à-vis what is 'right?' See...reality issi quantum!
When an electron 'jumps' is it an classical...
...event? A quantum~emotional process?
Notice how 'logic' and 'emotion' require heresy of you, require you to be heretical! Reality demands we make choices. To survive and evolve well, we must omniscriminate! This QTM way of quantal~thinking makes it almost trivial to decide (heretically choose) whether Arab interests should own USA port and other strategic national facilities.
There is always decision (even) by indecision. Quantum reality is absolute quantum flux! You will (we shall) change both quantum~inertially and quantum~stochastically, e.g., aging, regardless what you (we) want. See our QELR of quanta.
Doug entendres quantum science requires, Ihn Quantum Lightings, both e~motion and coquecigrues, both action and theory, both passion and reason, etc., n¤t as classical 'The Enlightenment' (actually an enormous global endarkenment) insists otherwise. Classical science only offers ideal, spiritually empty dialectical either presence or absence of emotion (wrong) | logic (right). Classical religion only offers individual-intellectually-empty anti-individual-socially-positive-dis-emotion and scientifically-antithetical Thomist 'dialectical logic.'
Quantum reality teaches us that ræhlihty issi quanton(æmoti¤nings,c¤quæcihgruæsings). From that Doug intuits Earth as a Cosmic Citizen needs quanton(quantum_religi¤n,quantum_scihænce), and many other similar omniadic quantum~interrelationshipings!
On IBM's (probably) quantum novel high GHz Power processors Doug's quantum~guess at how they work ...
Renewed and vigourous competition is imminent in system and cpu clock rates and IBM has dropped its gauntlet. (To our glee, it appears to us as a quantum~gauntlet.)
What if you could run a system clock without any increased~clock~rate heat penalty? What if you could run a system clock without consuming clock-trace-logic real estate? How would you do that? Lots of basic research required, and we need some quantum memes and memeos, some quantum memeotics and memeologies to proceed...
First you would study Quantonics, like some of IBM's labs already do, and have been doing for almost eight years now.
Second, you would pay attention to what an IBM Fellow, Rolf Landauer (now deceased) did with a very similar (at least metaphorical) memory size and rate storage problem to clock rates and excessive heat. Landauer used quantum reversibility to 'solve' said problem. Brilliance! Absolute quantum better brilliance! From any classical conspective though it is just "subjective crap." That is why we say classicism is dead, already.
Better listen up... quantum~listen~up...
We have been talking and showing , in Quantonics, for a long time about how quantum nature likes to hide. We have also been talking and showing a lot about quantum free energy (which is quantum real) and how to tap it both quantastically (quantastagementally) and via quantum~nonlinear, sort of quantum~flux~rectifying quantologies (e.g., sonoluminescence, etc.). In place of flux in that last sentence, also read 'clock.'
Some links which relate: Iso[bnptV]s AKA Isox, HtTIRE, adiabaticity (several Quantonics pages mention adiabaticity; Web search <Quantonics adiabat>), reversibility, quantum coherence, cohera (especially coherence and isocoherence), entropa (especially zeroentropy and negentropy], our discussions of oscillating neutrinos, rectify, etc. Carefully read and reread and reread... AH's detailed interrogation of Doug on Quantonics Quantologies.
Second, we do n¤t know how IBM is doing their current (lab) working 6GHz multi-cores. It is important for us to say that and for you to know it. We are guessing!!!
Third, even if we are n¤t guessing correctly, we offer an alternative, then... Perhaps better, ..., quantum better. But, we feel some com(n)fidence, since Rolf Landauer's memory power saving approach is and was a better quantum approach!
Here is our most simple quantum memeo: synchronous clocks which quantum~contrarotate consume n¤ power while still being capable of clocking at whatever rate a quantology requires! Doug - 7Feb2006. Think of it like this: "How can a clock clock without consuming power?" Quantonics answers: use bosonic clocking, and alternatively, like neutrinos, learn how to oscillate fermionicbosonic clocking! How much of a clock's duration is required to clock a gated flip-flop? Do we need to use its whole cycle or can we use just part of it? Does an idle clock use power? How often is a clock idle? Our approach permits variable duration clocking!!! There are other ways to do this too, but you EEs probably already grasp those means. We are offering a novel one as a guess, only a guess! John Nash would just love this...
That statement too, is quantum quintessence of: nature's ability to hide, unlimited free energy, and ubiquitous quantum isocon(m)sciousness!!!
A clock like that really hides! Too, it does not radiate: it satisfies all Tempest requirements implicitly! It is apparently adiabatic. It is apparently zeroentropic. And the list of bennies just goes on and on and on and on... Now perhaps you may be able to see why you're gonna be very, very, very sorry you didn't study Quantonics from scratch. Catch-up is Hell, folks! And IBM, to Steve Jobs' keen regret, is gonna smoke its competition!
Just as Doug felt 2006 was gonna be tough for Google and Apple and said "Beth we better unload Google and Apple at end of December, 2005 Google went from Beth's buy at $85 to our sell at $420, and Apple went from Doug's buy at $37 to our sell at $72 Doug had a feeling about Power PC and Apple and went ahead and bought their G5 quad (dually-dually) technology in spite of their imminent Intel technology. We sense, now, that our next purchase in a couple of years will still be PPC.
But who knows...all we really have is real macroscopic quantum uncertainty.
Above text prompted by a 7Feb2006 Financial Times Technology article titled, 'New IBM chip breaks barriers to double speed.'
Doug - 7Feb2006.
On Daniel Dennett's new (publishing late January, 2006) book, Breaking the Spell, 'Religion as a Natural Phenomenon' ...
Warning! This is rated Christian vvv! Beware!
January 20, 2006 issue of The Chronicle, in its Review section offers a Dennett adaptation from his new book, Breaking the Spell (BtS). To us, at first blush, it is another superb piece of work which deserves our attention here in Quantonics. About six times a year The Chronicle offers work like this which we view as worthy of further attention. We are not saying that The Chronicle's other articles are unworthy, just that most of them fall outside our quantum philosophical and metaphysical purview. The Chronicle, simply, is an excellent publication, near top of our list of reading preferences. Six or seven years ago we said that about NYAS' The Sciences, and they stopped publishing it...
First though, Beth ordered Dennett's BtS from Amazon (no Quantonics affiliation), but they won't be shipping until 2Feb2006 (we are writing this starting 20Jan2006), and we should receive it within 3-5 days subsequent. Meanwhile, to brush up on Dennett, Doug rushed over to Barnes and Noble (no affiliation) to see what they had to offer now on Dennett. (Christa gave us a B&N XXXYmass gift certificate which we needed to use.) Doug found several Dennett texts and selected from them, his: 1995 Darwin's Dangerous Idea, DDI, and his 2003 freedom evolves, fe. Both appear relevant our work in Quantonics. Even more interesting is Dennett taking on organized religion in his latest, 2006 work.
Doug (Renselle) has read a tad about Dennett in Dennett's multi-decade prior associations with Doug Hofstadter on a text called The Mind's I - Basic - 1981, which is really a collection of papers by various contributors (about 20 authors, Hofstadter (e.g., 'A Conversation with Einstein's Brain'), Turing ('Computing Machinery and Intelligence'), Dawkins ('Selfish Genes and Selfish Memes'), Smullyan (e.g., 'An Epistemological Nightmare'), Lem (e.g., 'Non Serviam'), Dennett ('Where Am I'), etc.) on issues of 'Who we are as human beings, and what is human consciousness?' In addition to his contributed article, Dennett wrote TME's Introduction and co-wrote with Hofstadter its brief Preface.
We are offering a bit of history here to assess Dennett in 1981, 1995, and 2003 vis-à-vis Dennett in 2006, both more recently and also some 25 years later. Simply: more mechanical then, more spiritual now (and to us, reflectively and proflectively, more quantum now...at least that is how our hermeneutics perceived his article). We'll see if we are on a good track of well-founded anticipation.
Early March, 2006 aside:
Those last three sentences are way off base! Dennett is a died in wool atheist, self-avowed. He is anti religion! Big time! He sees science as a valid means of Breaking the [religion's] Spell. As a result our review is extremely critical of Dennett's BtS opus. End of February, 2006 three chapters are ready for your perusal.
Having studied Dennett's 1995 DDI sparingly, we come to an assessment, albeit tentative: Dennett is an analytic, dialectical, mechanical SOMite living in SOM's cube of colodion mapping all inputs onto a classical causal concrete canonic 'reality.' Darwin too! Darwin's natural selection is seen algorithmically as an ideal machine, predicable in all its nuances. Ugh! As we recall we have similar 'feelings' regarding Hofstadter and Penrose. We simply cannot afford to spend our valuable timings reading these people. As a recommendation, we suggest you use Dennett's DDI bibliography as a means of deciding "what not to read" excepting perhaps William James and Wittgenstein (who, similar to James, grasps heterogeneity of contextings and included~middlings of semantics both of which blow Dennett's classically algorithmic analytical interpretations of Darwin all to hell). Dennett's DDI essentially agrees with fundamental 'Christian's' (un)Intelligent Design. Dennett endlessly sings praises of 'design.' Ugh! He apparently fails to grasp an essential: design precludes selection!!! Design has no means of anticipating emergent n¤vel (i.e., classically zero-probability) change while selection thrives on it and depends upon it to semper fluxio adaptively immanate omniversal evolution. (Our use of immanate is a Quantonics' coinage of immanent, a noun, as a quantum~verb ('verb' QELRed is præg). Let's see how Dennett's 2003 freedom evolves weathers...
Seriously, Doug is now regretting he bought those two Dennett texts. Dennett's freedom evolves is just more naïve dialectical pablum. Ugh!
Yet his article in The Chronicle Review is a great read. Mayhaps Dennett has evolved massively since 2003? Doubt it. Guess we'll have to wait till February to (try to ) read his latest effort.
If our work here appears out of step, allow us some exegetic coherence with our more recent efforts re: Elaine Pagels, Frances A. Yates, William James, Baigent-Leigh-Lincoln, Boris Sidis, Thomas Gospel, Philip Gospel, portions of Nag Hammadi Library, Da Vinci biographers, etc., where those authors have shown that Christianity today is essentially and quintessentially n¤t Jesus' Christianity.
In 2006, Christianity is, in Doug's newly altered view and having read those and other authors, a social, logically positive, mechanical, hive drone cloning, shepherd-flock hegemonistic, Irenæun (Irenæus, ~100-200 a.d.) - Constantinian (Constantine - ~285-337 a.d., Roman Emperor 306-337 a.d.) - Thomist (Aquinas - 1225-1274 a.d.) either-or paternal-master-slave, anti-quantum and thus unnatural 'religion.' A naïve, mechanical, troglointuitive 'religion' for programable minds of poor, uneducated, and 'simple' people which requires 'expert' pedagogic exegetics by paternal (i.e., "corrupt masculine") hegemoniacal 'shepherd' priests, cardinals, bishops, and as Voltaire probably would say, 'rope a dope, "...the first divine was the first rogue who met the first fool...," popes.'
What most 'Christians' hate most today (Dennett's main point, in his The Chronicle adaptation: 'Christians' helplessly without, apparently, being aware of it) is what Christ was during his lifetime:
Like it, like it not, that is what those texts and those authors show and tell us... Actually Jesus, as quoted in Thomas and Philip shows that divine sexuality is a quantum~both~while~and of male (philo, Gk. masculine) and female (sophy, Gk. feminine), father and mother, quanton(XX,XY) in divine beings. Jesus' own quanton(feminine,masculine) evoked mental dilemma and oxymora among most of his apostles. His apostles expected dichon(either, or) and Jesus' offered quanton(both,and)! If you standunder what Doug just wrote, then you will be able to read Philip and Thomas and fathom Jesus' own sophist paradoxes. Here we see a powerful 'tell' of Holy Blood and Holy Grail. Doug.
Roman 'Catholicism' built a n¤n Jesuit, anti Jesus, 'anti Christianity,' and call it 'Christianity.' If you disagree, just read those works. If you want Doug to "go to Hell" for writing it, pray for "Doug to go to Hell," and show us how much of Christian you really are. By-the-way, Doug prays for GW Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfield and all their Republican't colleagues to "go to Hell." Seriously! "But Doug, there is no Hell! Hell is ESQ, and in Quantonics there is n¤ ESQ!" Paraphrasing Miami CSI's Horatio, "It isn't what actually happens that matters, its what people believe happens that matters."
Dennett's new book is gentler, we sense, having read his adaptation 'Common-Sense Religion' in The Chronicle, 20Jan2006 issue. Dennett stands under metaphorings of meme, though he uses that word only one time in his 'Common-Sense Religion.' Given that, we sense he might agree with our, "Truth is an agent of its own evolution."
What really grabbed our attention was to read Dennett and Pagels' harmonize a theme: most Christians are 'roman catholic-'running on automatic (Doug's intentional use of lower case and single quotemarks...):
Let's just distill it here with Doug's own personal view, for what it's worth...
Atheistic classical dialectical 'science' is a sociopathy! Modern 'science' calls itself "the Enlightenment,' but when we look closer we find a 'logical,' exclusive, objects-only spiritless and bone dry Endarkenment.
Pasquali, "Mom, could somebody please turn the Endarkenment switch off?"
Doug and Bethahava, "Pasquali! Just do it! Quantum pragma!"
Doug - 3Mar2006.
See you here again in early April, 2006!