©Quantonics, Inc., 19982029 — Rev. 14Aug2008 PDR — Created 14Apr1998 PDR (1 of 2)
Term:  Atom Laser  
Term Source:  A team of researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, led by Wolfgang Ketterle first used a phrase 'atom laser.' See, Science magazine, Atom Laser Shows That It Is Worthy of the Name, 13Feb98, p. 986.  
History: 
Term: Atom Laser  a device which emits coherent atoms visàvis an optical laser which emits coherent photons. Scientists predicted lasers early in our 20th century, and actualized them second half of our 20th century. In parallel, quantum science advanced for about 100 years beginning near 19th century's end. Quantum science holds that all is a superposition of quantons. So in that sense, quantum science predicted that atoms could 'lase.' Term etymology: Dates 


Analogues:  Coherent behavior, Bose Einstein Condensates (BECs), stimulated emission, lockstep behavior, Optical Lasers, quantum correlation, etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  Quantonics sees atom lasers as a way to build products more efficiently and better.  
Rationale: 
An atom laser meme is a powerful meme. Just as optical lasers can emit photons, atom lasers can emit atoms. Things are built from atoms, so atom lasers might be able to build things. Quantonics says it is better that we can imagine, invent and evolve a technology meme where anything can be built one atom at a time, almost perfectly. Old ideas of factories taking enormous space and capital resources fades. We might use atom lasers to build nearly everything we need in our abodes. We could purchase atom laser compatible designs, not finished products. We can purchase information and actualize it where we need it. Imagine: when we visit another star system, we take our atom laser equipment and designs with us, not finished equipment. 

Symbology:  TBD.  
Local Definitions: 

Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  Designer atoms, artificial atoms, etc.  
Interpretations: 


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  We are no longer limited to 118 natural elements! We can design our own elements!  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: Decidable Term etymology: Doug Renselle invented this phrase to show that Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems are also about decidability. 

History:  'Decidable Gödel' originated here (as far as we know) on our Quantonics site in April, 1998.  
Analogues:  Certain, provable, proof of unprovability, etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  In Quantonics we use a Decidable Gödel meme to incrementally justify a reality of many truths and many contexts. We also use this meme as an adjunct to a Quantum Logic meme via a conjectural statement about dependent interrelationships of consistency and completeness as c¤mplementary comjugates which form a mathematical uncertainty principle.  
Rationale:
Rationale:
Rationale:
Rationale:
Rationale:
Rationale: 
In Quantonics we understand we cannot know absolute truth about all of reality from a perspective of any arbitrary, local context we may abide. Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems arouse curiosity and interest of many folk from diverse disciplines. Gödel showed finite intellect may not know absolute truth via finite models of reality. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems often leave one with a feeling of despair. Gödel himself committed suicide (by gradual selfstarvation), and some speculated that he felt absolute despair when he proved that our knowledge via any single model of reality was necessarily incomplete. In Quantonics we see hope rather than despair from Gödel's theorems. Incompleteness and inconsistency are kin to (quantum) uncertainty, and they enrich reality's fabric rather than stigmatize it. In Quantonics any prospect of knowing everything absolutely is Static Hell. Note 1. Conversely, Dynamic Valhalla is, after unlimited effort, assurance there will still be change and something new to learn and experience. Gödel used Western cultural philosophy, SubjectObject Metaphysics (SOM), and its classically derived mathematical tools to construct his theorems. His SOM bias caused him to make a very large assumption. Ask yourself this question: What context did Gödel assume when he invented his theorems? Douglas Hofstadter in his famous book, Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, (GEB) distilled Incompleteness Theorem one thus:
This statement is intentionally or unintentionally elliptical. Hofstadter's omitted ellipsis is: '...in an unlimited (complete) context.' Note 2. "Whoa," you say! How could both Douglas Hofstadter and Kurt Gödel have left out such an important ellipsis? Hofstadter didn't, sort of... Elsewhere (in GEB and Metamagical Themas) he frequently uses phrases like, "in some imaginable world," to inexplicitly declare (a limited but within) an unlimited context. But in his verbal reformulation of Gödel's first theorem he did leave an ellipsis out. One might say this blatantly shows mathematical predilection toward absolute truth for a single encompassing context. Some mathematicians insist mathematics can be free of context by assuming one large, unlimited context! Some mathematicians assume if a formal system works in an unlimited context, then they know it works everywhere! Some mathematicians assume under those conditions a formal system is absolute! Kurt Gödel says, "No!" We must remember, our mathematics — i.e. mathematics Western Culture uses today — was developed with a combination of mostly Greek and some Arabian concepts. Greeks are also developers of our predominant culture, SOM. SOM also tells us we can know absolute truth, i.e., we can objectively assess and assert provable absolute truths about any universal system. An implication: SOM also assumes a single universal context. Perhaps now we can see why Gödel committed suicide. He adopted SOM's principle of universal context, and using that presumption, he knocked a key foundation element from under all of mathematics. Imagine having to face all of those mathematical idealists after committing such a treacherous act. Pythagoras killed one of his disciples (Hippasus) for less (discovering irrational numbers)! As we shall see, any system that:
is complete. However, Gödel shows us, any complete system is inconsistent. Note 3. But, Western culture's modern mathematics still carries an implicit SOM delusion that it can absolutely prove statements using formal mathematical systems. Note 4. What do we mean by two words 'consistent' and 'complete?' A consistent system:
A complete system:
Gödel's theorems say:
Theorem one says any formal system, since it includes an unprovable axiom — thus it cannot state this specific truth — is necessarily incomplete. Theorem two says any formal system, since it cannot state and prove its own consistency, is necessarily inconsistent. Imagine the impact of this and disbelief of mathematicians everywhere (many are still trying to ignore it). This strikes a devastating blow to SOM's very heart. Western Culture's mathematics in Kurt Gödel's time and aspracticed predominately today emerged from a great SOM assumption of absolute truth in one universal context. (If you doubt my words here, read a recent book, Fermat's Enigma, 1997, by Simon Singh, where he states repeatedly mathematicians still hold to their sacred and discoverable Platonic 'absolute truth.') To continue this Platonic adherence modern mathematics of necessity must be context free. We may speculate that is why Gödel/Hofstadter left off an ellipsis. If we assume completeness is a valid proxy for context, it is indeed provocative consistency of a formal system shares a conjoint interdependence on context. In Quantonics we speculate Gödel's theorems are another dual of quantum science's uncertainty principle, which we generalize to cover a wide range of Quantonic uncertainties. Douglas Hofstadter disagrees with us as you can see at: Note 5. We think Gödel's theorems are dealing with an uncertainty of quanton(consistency,completeness). Our intent is for this quanton to show consistency and completeness are complementary interrelationships and thus interdependent co<n,m>jugates. Mimicking Heisenberg, if we use quantum science's notation and represent consistency with a symbol Cn and completeness with a symbol Cm, this may follow:
What we see here is an inequality similar to one which Heisenberg discovered between quantum theoretical uncertainty in position of a quanton and its momentum. We speculate an uncertainty relation between mathematical consistency and completeness simply tells a similar story when we are more certain about system consistency, we are less certain about system completeness and vice versa. As we study various fields of discipline we discover uncertainty principles abound (which is commensurable with stating, "...quantum c¤mplementarities abound..."). They appear to be an inherent part of our natural multiverse. What is most important in our rationale here is a local fact we cannot know with certainty both aspects of an uncertainty interrelationship simultaneously (assuming our discussion is classical and what we just said assumes a Maxwellian posentropy comtext — see our quantum aside below). We can know them more certainly when we observe them one at a time from different contextual perspectives. If we know one better, we know its complement moves toward an extreme conjugate interpretation. Another way we look at this uncertainty interrelationship is from a perspective of increased context. For example, when we compare Earth's context to a context of any multiverse we see Earth's context as VERY limited! Thus, we may infer Earth's context is VERY incomplete! We can surmise Earth's context allows for relatively high consistency, which indeed is what we observe. Our Quantonics position is this apparent high consistency local to any necessarily incomplete system is part of what drives a SOM delusion of a potential to know absolute truth. As a result we have become, as Hofstadter calls us, Earth chauvinists. Any apparent consistency of our Earth context deludes us our multiverse is wholly consistent. But our uncertainty principle tells us our multiverse taken as a whole is much more complete than Earth's tiny and local context. We must surmise our multiverse is thus VERY inconsistent! So we live on a tiny 'isle of truth' called Earth which probably is very different from local contexts in other parts of our multiverse.
A discipline of Quantonics asks its students to expand their thinking. A Decidable Gödel meme shows us we can decide much in a New Philosophy. We can decide mathematics is uncertain, yet still and forever invaluable. We can decide absolute truth is a kind of Static Hell. We can decide an unending adventure of choice, chance, and change is a better kind of Dynamic Valhalla. A Decidable Gödel meme helps move us to a different realm of Pirsig's New Philosophy and its concomitant expanded thinking. * * * * * * * * Footnote 1: Those of us in Quantonics averse to classical science's unsubsumed legacy, say "Don't go there! Stay out of classical Static Hell." We do so by adopting a New Philosophy, a Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ I) and a new science, a Bohmian nonMechanics of Quanta (nMoQ II). Footnote 2: Solomon Feferman refers to an equivalent of this omitted ellipsis as an assumed, "...global notion of truth." See Feferman's Penrose review at: http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche207feferman.html Readers of that Feferman link should be aware that Turing's machine assumes 'haltability.' Students of Quantonics are keenly aware that Bergsonian duration and quantum~reality both claim any classical notions of 'haltability' are bogus, in general. Quantum reality is n¤t 'haltable. Also see Zeno of Elea on 'stoppablity.' Doug  4Apr2008. Footnote 3: Why? This is not too obvious. But stated simply, Gödel's reason is that a complete system would have to state a truth that it is a consistent system. As we will see below, Incompleteness theorem two says any system which truthfully asserts its own consistency is inconsistent. Footnote 4: As an example, see CRC's 1999 Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, page 741, "Gödel's..." CRC states Gerhard Gentzen used transfinite induction to prove arithmetic is both consistent and complete. This is really strange considering Gödel's theorems. 'Transfinite' suggests many truths. However, induction is a predictive recursive process based on repetitive historical evidence (i.e., by recurrence). This shows us a significant problem in mathematics since induction depends on mathematics own finite, local context which is never stated. Induction, in general, depends on one local, finite context. Just like Euclidean geometry, arithmetic will not work in all contexts. We can easily contrive contexts in which arithmetic will not work. Plus Gentzen's proof, like Gödel's, is a sophism — yet no mention is made anywhere of many truths/many contexts. In SOMitian formal mathematics, sophisms are innately selfcontradictory and thus false! And, our missing ellipsis intentionally or unintentionally, again, does not appear. Also, if you look at Gödel's Completeness theorem you will note his 'complete' model is locally complete (like a digital computer), not nonlocally complete (like our quantum multiverse). So, there is still much confusion about consistency and completeness, even among experts. We think all of this occurs because of SOM's assumption of (attainability of) global absolute truth in one unlimited context. However, mathematicians never state SOM's assumption explicitly. Curious, eh? I see some people with brooms, some symbol dust, and toes raising edges of carpets. J Footnote 5: See Douglas Hofstadter's comments in his Metamagical Themas, p. 475. "...where in trying to produce all the truths expressible in a formal system or all the members of a semantic category, you wind up with either an incomplete system or an inconsistent system...Some people choose to see tradeoffs such as these as more examples of a kind of 'uncertainty principle:' you can't have both total correctness and total novelty. You must take your pick. This 'eitheror' quality, however, has very little to do with the quantummechanical substrate of our world. It just has to do with statistical phenomena in general." Begin Rev. 21Oct99 PDR  Read Doug Hofstadter's nexttolast sentence again! Think about it. Read it again. What is Doug doing here? If you read our work on SOM Logic and our SOM Connection under our Buridan Review, and if you agree with our conclusions there, you know what Doug is doing in his nexttolast sentence above. Plus, you know he is a SOMite, par excellence! Doug just showed us unambiguously his own SOM biformal bias in his use of "either/or." Doug assumes reality is SOMitian 'either/or,' not quantum 'both/and.' Doug inheres Aristotle's antique syllogistic laws. If Doug did do that in his statement above, we may assume his conclusions about consistency and completeness not being an uncertainty relationship are at least questionable. End Rev. 21Oct99 PDR 

Symbology:  TBD.  
Local Definitions:  TBD. 
Term:  Emerscent  
Term Source:  Paul Douglas Renselle, in his white paper, The Next Millennium: the Emergent Systems Epoch.  
History: 
Term: Emerscent  since June 1996. Emerscents as specific kinds of memes is not a new concept. Nanointralifeform immersibles originated at least as early as our 19th century. Term etymology: Renselle combined emergent and ascent during first half of 1996. 

Analogues:  Nanomachines, nanobiomachines, nanoscale, etc.  
Interpretations: 


Quantonics Use: 
Quantonics sees emerscents as a controllable way to quantumcorrelate bioforms with any other bioforms, equipment, or devices that have emerscents installed. In Quantonics and MoQ we adhere to Pirsig's New Philosophy dictum that known patterns are in Quality. Emerscents are a Quantonic means to emerge new connections to Quality's direct experience from within and cowithin lifeforms. One good example to imagine is intentional superluminal communication among a group of Homo sapiens distributed across a city, planet, solar system, or galaxy. Note: Mitochondrial DNA may already do an uncorrelated version of this via correlated quantum subsystems between mother and child. 

Rationale:  Emerscents provide one potent vector into bioqualitymanagement. Emerscents offer unlimited possibilities to: correct genetic defects, extend longevity, communicate between life forms, stage entertainment immersion, etc. Possibilities are limited only by imagination.  
Symbology: 


Local Definitions: 

Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term:  Meme  
Term Source: 
Term: Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene. Term etymology: 'meme' appeared first in The Selfish Gene in, e.g., this text:
In this quote you see Dawkins' connections to MoQ's cultural and intellectual Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs). He says, in essence, Pirsig's intellectual SPoVs are memes born of social SPoVs! Here we see Dawkins' own duality with Pirsig's MoQ. A large driving force of our Quantonics organizations and this site is a concept of meme. A N¤vel Philosophy, Pirsig's MoQ is a n¤vel meme. N¤vel memes are direct expressions of MoQ's Dynamic Quality! In our presentations to various academic organizations, we describe examples of how memes emerge, latch, become more static, and then (usually after becoming exclusive, as early Millennium III societies are doing now in 2004) fade away only to be replaced by more, better, n¤vel memes. Here, again, we see another dual with MoQ I Reality Loop. 

History:  Since ~1976. See term source above. Read footnotes to new edition of The Selfish Gene to discover how meme has become a meme.  
Analogues: 
Viruses, prions, phages, bacteria, agents, emerscents, worms, etc. (Memes propagate and mutate just like viruses. Ideas are potential memes which have not found means to propagate and mutate.) 

Interpretations: 


Quantonics Use: 
One goal of Quantonics practitioners is to invent, identify, and propagate new memes for a third millennium. Perhaps a most important new meme identified thus far is Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality: a new way of thinking for Millennium III. 

Rationale: 
Memes are a way to break SOM's bonds; its classical mindset. Memes help Quantonics practitioners to leap out of a classical legacy. SOM thinkers fear memes. SOM thinkers often reject memes. Memes are just one test of our style of thinking to show whether we think in SOMland or MoQland. 

Symbology: 


Local Definitions: 

Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: Paradice Found  paradice is Renselle's coined plural of paradox. Term etymology: From Pirsig's words in Lila:


History:  
Analogues:  Paradoxes found, etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  In Quantonics, we use a quanton as its interrelationships and its own referent. Any quanton is intentionally selfreferent.  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: Quantonic Questions  Used first by Paul Douglas Renselle in his study of Quantonics. Term etymology: Quanton is believed coined by Mario Bunge of McGill University, Canada sometime between 19781988. See an email from Hans Christian von Baeyer below. Since then we have found Nick Herbert in his Quantum Reality used a term 'quon.' So Quanton may be seen as quANTon. Others use an acronym qwf for an equivalent quantum wave function. Thus in Quantonics, we see quanton, quon, and qwf as terms expressing a similar concept of waveparticle duality, complementarity, and interrelationships. Especially we see quantons as interrelationships visàvis classical and objective 'attributes' or 'properties.' Here is an email to Doug from Hans Christian von Baeyer telling an etymology of quanton:


History:  In mid1997 a meme of Quantonic Questions first occurred to Renselle when he realized certain kinds of questions clearly disclose differences in an MoQ  Quantonic mindset juxtaposed to a SOM  classical mindset.  
Analogues:  Classical logic visàvis quantum logic, SOM thinking visàvis MoQ/Quantonic thinking, Distributive logic visàvis Nondistributive logic, SOM logic visàvis ggl (generalized Galois logic) or gaggle, etc.  
Interpretations: 


Quantonics Use: 
Examples of Quantonic Questions:
Example Answers:


Rationale:  A goal of a new philosophy, a Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ) and Quantonics is to move Western culture from its current SubjectObject Metaphysics (SOM) legacy to a New Philosophy. When we try to show interested people what we are talking about, we find asking Quantonic Questions helps. SOM answers to Quantonic Questions belies possible SOMtutored bias of any person being interrogated. Similarly, MoQ answers to Quantonic Questions may illustrate a beginning of Quantonic understanding.  
Symbology:  Note that this Quantonic Questions symbol is a quanton. You may attribute both Boolean and quantum logic (nondistributive islands). You can sense musical particles and waves. You can see connectors for complex interrelationships. You may infer complementary conjugates (e.g., a black hole or VES center).  
Local Definitions: 


Footnotes: 
1. All multicellular life forms on Earth are systems whose cells are continuously dying and being replaced by new cells. Cell death is called apoptosis. ( See a special web site dedicated to a topic of apoptosis at: http://www.apopnet.com/ ) Cell birth is via division or more technically: eukaryotic mitosis (chromosomal division) and cytokinesis (cytoplasmic division). In a modern Homo sapiens all cells in a body experience complete replacementrecycling about twice each year. So, a technically correct Quantonic answer is "Yes," we are both/and alive and dead and living and dying. 2. In MoQ and Quantonics we say there are, "Many truths." What we mean is there are many contexts — our multiverse is not unicontextual as SOM insists, but indeed is multicontextual. Each context may have its own local (Boolean, distributive) sets of truths or logic. So when you say, "I tell the truth," your assumption is you are doing so within your presumed context of truth. Your local truth could be false in another context. Beware! This is not identical to Cultural Relativism! Learn our MoQ Credo:
3. SOM and Western classical science teach us there are two ideal sexes: male or female. That's it! Any other appearance or genetic configuration is a disease or abnormality. 'Physicians' often surgically alter physical aspects of these "abnormal" beings. Unfortunately, given physicians' current genetic surgical incapability, they must leave patients' genetic code ascreated. So, genetically these patients are unaltered, but physically they are in essence mutilated from any genetic intention. In Quantonics, we know physical surgical alteration without prior genetic alteration is wrong and backward. But also in Quantonics we say what is most wrong is how we think about this problem. Again, our inherited SOMthinking is inadequate. SOM culture continues to impose its legacyaddled will on physicians, us, et al. Nature creates many variations on its sex theme. Maleness and femaleness appear as extreme ends of a sexual spectrum. In its middle are herms or hermaphrodites. Halfway between herms and males are merms. Halfway between females and herms are ferms. (See 'The Five Sexes,' by Anne FaustoSterling, in The Sciences magazine, March/April 1993, New York Academy of Sciences.) Actually its spectrum is not discrete as these sentences imply. Sexuality is more like a continuum. We don't know for sure, but it appears probable no Homo sapiens can be declared pure male or female. Quantonics says do not alter natural sexuality, but if we must, alteration needs to be both genetic (first) and as final resort surgical (last). Nature evolves Homo sapiens' chromosomes as we speak. Certainly genetic alteration of a zygote is preferable to genetic alteration and perhaps surgery of a newborn. Today we see Downs syndrome as trisomia 21. We also see trisomias on chromosome pair 23, humans 'sex' chromosome. Even more interesting, we see quatra, penta, hexa, etc. somias of both X and Y on pair 23. Scientists name these syndromes: Kleinfelter's, Turner's, Tfem, etc. 4. In Quantonics, from a simple twocontext perspective of SOM and MoQ we adhere Pirsig's tutelage: In SOM, its ISMs are copious and most SOM ISMs teach at least some truths may be perceived as absolutely obtainable by anthropocentric intellect. In our Western culture, to adhere nonabsolute truth is to adhere cultural relativism. But it is very interesting aspracticed SOM of our predominant Western culture pursues absolute, objective truth as a goal and says subjective truth is unobtainable and/or relative. To distill this in MoQese, SOM says absolute, objective truth is a goal and subjective truth is relative and should be ignored or discarded as insubstantial. Bottom line, SOM says cultural relativism adheres relative truth. (Note: This is how we infer an "or" answer above.) In MoQ, SOM's ISMs evaporate because MoQ unifies Subject and Object into a single class of Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs). In MoQ, Quality is unknown, undefinable, but describable, recognizable agent of all SPoV evolution. MoQ's two most highly evolved levels of SPoVs are first, social SPoVs, and then, evolved further above, intellectual SPoVs. MoQ's intellectual and social levels correspond to SOM's Subjective realm. So MoQ says its equivalent to SOM's subjective realm is more highly evolved than SOM's most worshiped and revered: absolute objective (substantial) truth. To distill this in MoQese, MoQ says Quality is absolute (agent of creation and change), and truth (there are many truths in MoQ) is relative, but locally dependent upon context. (Note: this is how we infer a "Yes" answer above.) Bottom line, MoQ adheres both absolute quality and many local, contextdependent truths. In MoQ, our multiverse is morally absolute. In MoQ, we say cultural relativism adheres no absolute value, and worse it adheres no absolute nor local truth, and thus chaos reigns. Cultural Relativism is both amoral and immoral (via denial of absolute ethical change and acceptance of absolute chaos/disorder). For more on this subject, see: 

Links: Other MoQ & CR Info 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale: 
If quantum communications give us a capability to talk with anyone, any time, any where in our known universe, with whom might we speak? Just for fun, we calculated or estimated a possible number of planets in our Milky Way and in our known universe (as opposed to a multiverse of which our known universe is just one of an infinite number of universes) which might have life (very) approximately as complex and developed as Homo sapiens. We asked this question and then tried to answer it by estimation: How many humanlike life forms could there be in our known universe? Here are our results: An answer to this marvelous question depends upon your beliefs, attitudes, knowledge of our universe and many other implicit parameters. Many Earth dwellers suppose Earth is the only place in our universe supporting life. Many of us who are more optimistic intuit life is abundant and ubiquitous in our universe. Those are two extreme views. We will probably not know an answer in Earth's next few hundred years or even its next few millennia. We must view our potential futures much differently, though, depending upon which of two views we elect. If we choose a pessimistic view, i.e., we are the only life in our universe we then have a large responsibility to preserve this one, precious, precarious repository of life. Our first imperative should be to colonize first our solar system and then other nearby solar systems. Why is this so important? Because we know our planet is vulnerable to inevitable catastrophic damage from large interstellar objects. It happened before and it will happen again. A recent comet Shoemaker impact with Jupiter is chilling evidence of this reality For fun and to exemplify one approach to this speculative problem, let's calculate (estimate) a mass of life in our known universe using Earth's estimated life mass ratioed to an estimated mass of our solar system. Then let's apply our ratio to an estimated mass of our universe and estimate a number of sentient, humanlike forms in our universe. Then we can estimate things like how many planets might exist which have sentients in our universe. Our numbers used below come from another page on this site titled Imagining a Largest Internet. See that page to verify our numbers and their sources used below.
Given those assumptions, we get numbers that look like this:
Our numeric notation used above is called scientific notation. Interpret our symbols like this:
To summarize, 6•10^9 is a current (1998) approximation of Earth's human population. That is 6 billion people, or 6 with nine zeroes after it thus: 6,000,000,000. If an exponent is negative, using a same Earth population example its exponent would have a minus sign thus: 6•10^9 and would appear in decimal format as 0.000000006 (eight zeroes in front of six). A most recent estimate I have seen for our last line above is from a book by John Gribbon entitled In the Beginning. See his last page (255 of his paperback) where he references other astronomers' estimate of 10^20 planets in our universe that may have life like ours. Clearly my estimate is much larger, but not too bad considering we probably used a different method than one used by astronomers. 

Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale: 
If quantum communications give us a capability to talk with anyone, any time, any where in our known universe, with whom might we speak? Just for fun, we calculated or estimated a possible number of planets in our Milky Way and in our known universe (as opposed to a multiverse of which our known universe is just one of an infinite number of universes) which might have life (very) approximately as complex and developed as Homo sapiens. We asked this question and then tried to answer it by estimation: How many humanlike life forms could there be in our known universe? Here are our results: An answer to this marvelous question depends upon your beliefs, attitudes, knowledge of our universe and many other implicit parameters. Many Earth dwellers suppose Earth is the only place in our universe supporting life. Many of us who are more optimistic intuit life is abundant and ubiquitous in our universe. Those are two extreme views. We will probably not know an answer in Earth's next few hundred years or even its next few millennia. We must view our potential futures much differently, though, depending upon which of two views we elect. If we choose a pessimistic view, i.e., we are the only life in our universe we then have a large responsibility to preserve this one, precious, precarious repository of life. Our first imperative should be to colonize first our solar system and then other nearby solar systems. Why is this so important? Because we know our planet is vulnerable to inevitable catastrophic damage from large interstellar objects. It happened before and it will happen again. A recent comet Shoemaker impact with Jupiter is chilling evidence of this reality For fun and to exemplify one approach to this speculative problem, let's calculate (estimate) a mass of life in our known universe using Earth's estimated life mass ratioed to an estimated mass of our solar system. Then let's apply our ratio to an estimated mass of our universe and estimate a number of sentient, humanlike forms in our universe. Then we can estimate things like how many planets might exist which have sentients in our universe. Our numbers used below come from another page on this site titled Imagining a Largest Internet. See that page to verify our numbers and their sources used below. Assumptions:
Given those assumptions, we get numbers that look like this:
Our numeric notation used above is called scientific notation. Interpret our symbols like this:
To summarize, 6•10^9 is a current (1998) approximation of Earth's human population. That is 6 billion people, or 6 with nine zeroes after it thus: 6,000,000,000. If an exponent is negative, using a same Earth population example its exponent would have a minus sign thus: 6•10^9 and would appear in decimal format as 0.000000006 (eight zeroes in front of six). A most recent estimate I have seen for our last line above is from a book by John Gribbon entitled In the Beginning. See his last page (255 of his paperback) where he references other astronomers' estimate of 10^20 planets in our universe that may have life like ours. Clearly my estimate is much larger, but not too bad considering we probably used a different method than one used by astronomers. 

Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale: 
If quantum communications give us a capability to talk with anyone, any time, any where in our known universe, with whom might we speak? Just for fun, we calculated or estimated a possible number of planets in our Milky Way and in our known universe (as opposed to a multiverse of which our known universe is just one of an infinite number of universes) which might have life (very) approximately as complex and developed as Homo sapiens. We asked this question and then tried to answer it by estimation: How many humanlike life forms could there be in our known universe? Here are our results: An answer to this marvelous question depends upon your beliefs, attitudes, knowledge of our universe and many other implicit parameters. Many Earth dwellers suppose Earth is the only place in our universe supporting life. Many of us who are more optimistic intuit life is abundant and ubiquitous in our universe. Those are two extreme views. We will probably not know an answer in Earth's next few hundred years or even its next few millennia. We must view our potential futures much differently, though, depending upon which of two views we elect. If we choose a pessimistic view, i.e., we are the only life in our universe we then have a large responsibility to preserve this one, precious, precarious repository of life. Our first imperative should be to colonize first our solar system and then other nearby solar systems. Why is this so important? Because we know our planet is vulnerable to inevitable catastrophic damage from large interstellar objects. It happened before and it will happen again. A recent comet Shoemaker impact with Jupiter is chilling evidence of this reality For fun and to exemplify one approach to this speculative problem, let's calculate (estimate) a mass of life in our known universe using Earth's estimated life mass ratioed to an estimated mass of our solar system. Then let's apply our ratio to an estimated mass of our universe and estimate a number of sentient, humanlike forms in our universe. Then we can estimate things like how many planets might exist which have sentients in our universe. Our numbers used below come from another page on this site titled Imagining a Largest Internet. See that page to verify our numbers and their sources used below. Assumptions:
Given those assumptions, we get numbers that look like this:
Our numeric notation used above is called scientific notation. Interpret our symbols like this:
To summarize, 6•10^{}9 is a current (1998) approximation of Earth's human population. That is 6 billion people, or 6 with nine zeroes after it thus: 6,000,000,000. If an exponent is negative, using a same Earth population example its exponent would have a minus sign thus: 6•10^{}9 and would appear in decimal format as 0.000000006 (eight zeroes in front of six). A most recent estimate I have seen for our last line above is from a book by John Gribbon entitled In the Beginning. See his last page (255 of his paperback) where he references other astronomers' estimate of 10^{}20 planets in our universe that may have life like ours. Clearly my estimate is much larger, but not too bad considering we probably used a different method than one used by astronomers. 

Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use: 
Consciousness as one type of a class of DQ quantonic interrelationships, something like this:


Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: quantum parthenogenesis Term etymology: First used by Doug Renselle, on 29June1998, in his comments on Dr. MaeWan Ho's book, the Rainbow and the Worm. 

History:  
Analogues:  Virgin birth, bootstrap, selfreproduction, etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Quantum Science:
Classical Science:


Quantonics Use: 
In Quantonics, looking at early Quality Events, we see a need for most rudimentary unlatched SPoVs to be coaware, to be able to intertwine, commingle, interpenetrate and emerge new, more complex latched and unlatched SPoVs/quantons. Looking even further back we presume if there were not multiple, primal quantons in reality's beginning, then  there might have been only one. If that were true and if that SPoV were selfaware it might have been capable of quantum parthenogenesis. 

Rationale:  Quantum parthenogenesis permits a bootstrap of actualization of reality if there was (or, as Wheeler and Feynman warily conjectured, is) only one primal unlatched SPoV or quanton.  
Symbology:  TBD.  
Local Definitions: 

Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 
Term: 


Term Source: 
Term: xxx Term etymology: xxx 

History:  
Analogues:  , etc.  
Interpretations: 
Philosophy:
Science:


Quantonics Use:  
Rationale:  
Symbology:  
Local Definitions: 