|AQ||- Actualized Quanton(s)||
Students of Quantonics may find it useful to visit these references:
|DQ||- Dynamic Quality|
|h-bar||- Least quantum action unit; h|
|ISMs||- Realism, Idealism, Empiricism, Positivism, etc.|
|MoQ||- Metaphysics of Quality (Pirsig)|
|MoQ I||- Same as MoQ|
|MoQ II||- Mechanics of Quanta (classical quantum science)|
|n¤nMoQ||- N¤nMechanics of Quanta (Bohmian quantum scihænce)||Please see our 'science' QELR. Doug - 15Apr2009.|
|O||- Object (substance, matter)|
|S||- Subject (nonsubstance, mind)|
|SE (SÆ)||- Special Event (view as a quantum pr¤cess)|
|SQ||- Static Quality (See QTP.)|
|SODV||- Subjects, Objects, Data, & Values|
|SOM||- Subject-Object Metaphysics|
|SPoV||- Static Pattern of Value (See QTP.)|
|UQ||- Unactualized Quanton(s) (See fluxors. See fuzzons.)|
|ZMM||- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance|
Doug wants to emphasize that in quantum~reality there is n¤ 'the truth.' Why? Classical 'truth' is concrete absence of change. Quantum~reality is absolute change, so we must change 'truth' to truths and truthings, latter as factings which are evolving at up to Planck rates. All of quantum~reality is heterogeneous perpetually changing processings, including truthings!
Doug - 15Apr2009.
MoQ is R = Q = DQ SQ:
Here, we use the symbol
In summary, Pirsig describes DQ perhaps best on page 116 of Lila, thus:
|"The negative esthetic quality of the hot stove in the earlier example was now given some added meaning by a static-Dynamic division of Quality. When the person who sits on the stove first discovers his low-Quality situation, the front edge of his experience is Dynamic. He does not think, "This stove is hot," and then make a rational decision to get off. A "dim perception of he knows not what" gets him off Dynamically."|
Complementarity In quantum scihænce interrelationships among con(m)jugate forms of reality are said to be complementary. The best known example is quantum wave-particle duality. In quantum scihænce wave and particle manifestations of reality are complementary. See 'conjugate.'
Niels Bohr said that if his peers understood complementarity they would be able to communicate unambiguously. He hoped his peers could do this and permit a common view of particle-wave duality. (See page 10 of Pirsig's SODV paper.)
In quantum scihænces' realities (there are many interpretations, i.e., Many Truthings, of these realities; you may see multiple versions here: Quantum Interpretations) we may perceive a very similar dual to that of MoQ Reality.
MoQ describes a reality where DQ creates, discreates, and changes MoQ's actual part of Reality called SQ via QEs' actions (quantum~fluxings' phase~encodings; see fermionta). We can show this symbolically like this
i.e., DQDQ, DQSQ, SQDQ, and SQSQ:
Quantum scihænce describes a reality that uses interrelationships among unactualized quantons (UQs) and actualized quantons (AQs) to create, discreate, and change reality via the action of special events (SEs). We can show this symbolically like this
i.e., UQUQ, UQAQ (say spin +1/2?), AQUQ (say spin -1/2?), and AQAQ:
You can see the obvious duality which exists twixt the two reality descriptions.
In Quantonics we say that DQ and SQ are complementary and we show that interrelationship thus: quanton(DQ,SQ). Similarly we say that UQ and AQ are complementary which we show thus: quanton(UQ,AQ).
As Niels Bohr conjectured, being able to think of reality as complementarity is extraordinarily helpful. Indeed we have shown that MoQ's complementary view of reality is a vivid dual of quantum scihænce's complementary view of reality.
One of The Quantonics Society's goals is to help Earth sentients to gradually convert from SOMThink to MoQThink.
Within this web site, and in Quantonics, we refer to MoQThink alternatively as quantonic thinking. Also in this site we wish to refer, as our need arises, to Pirsig's MoQ also as MoQ I (the Metaphysics of Quality), and quantum scihænce's dual as MoQ II (the Mechanics of Quanta). Henceforth both MoQ and MoQ I shall mnemonically represent Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality. MoQ II is reserved uniquely for quantum scihænce, the Mechanics of Quanta.
Quanton In Quantonics we call a(ny) complementary interrelationship(s) a quanton. We also use quanton as an operator to symbolically express a(ny) specific interrelationship(s), e.g., quanton(wave,particle) which is a particular quantonic interrelationship and quanton(DQ,SQ) which is a quantonic interrelationship of all of Reality's DQ in interrelationships with all of Reality's SQ.
Logic In Quantonics we want to expand and evolve our thinking from the current SOMThink of mostly Boolean, distributive logic. We want to learn to think based on the MoQ axiom of Many Truths. This requires expanded logic, including: Boolean, Quantum, and Galois Groups (GGLogic or gaggles), etc. Quantum logic already exposes non-distributive 'isles of truth,' which you may see graphically represented here: Quantum Logic MoQ.
Completeness & Consistency In Quantonics we must learn to think about completeness in a manner entirely different from the current Western SOMThink. SOMThink teaches us that we may possess absolute knowledge of any system. That's how we hear our great thinkers delude themselves about their goals of GUTs and ToEs (Grand Unifying Theories and Theories of Everything).
But we cannot do that! Why? Because of this:
This is a complementary interrelationship and an uncertainty interrelationship.
A complete GUT or ToE states all truthings about the system. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems show that no system may be complete without being simultaneously wholly inconsistent. See the Decidable Gödel meme at The Memes. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems show that the more complete a system is, the more inconsistent it must be, and vice versa.
MoQThink teaches us that there are islands of local, partial completeness which MoQ II calls 'isles of truth.' It teaches us that the quantonic interrelationships among these isles of truth may and often do appear inconsistent when viewed from within an isle of truth. At the same time the quantonic interrelationships within an isle of truth may be wholly consistent at the expense of its own incompleteness.
Uncertainty MoQThink tells us to forego SOMThink's absolute truth. Instead, accept MoQ's axiom of Many Truths. Quantum scihænce tells us that islands of truth within Reality have quantonic interrelationships with the unknown and with other islands of truth in Reality. Quantum scihænce shows us this unambiguously. All of actualized reality or what MoQ calls SQ is built from aggregations of atomic and subatomic quantons. These quantons experience nonlocal and superluminal interrelationships with other quantons continuously (not in a classical sensethe quantum continuum is granular with action quanta in h-bar increments), guaranteeing statistical uncertainty, at all levels of reality n¤t just subatomic, in outcomes of these interrelationships.
Locality MoQThink teaches us to accept quantum scihænce's dictum and empirical evidence of non-local effects among entangled quantons.
SOMThink teaches us that Objects (particles) may be isolated and studied 'objectively' without any non-local conditions affecting the outcome of any study. This, in general, is n¤t true. Our SOM particulate pattern world deludes us that it is true, but it is n¤t truein generalin the quantonic pattern domain of our quantum world.
The SOM particulate world consists of local and isolable parts of actual Reality. The quantum world consists of non-local and non-isolable parts (quantons) of whole Reality.
Separability and individuation MoQThink teaches us that all of DQ
SOMThink teaches us that any system may be analyzed into separable, individuated parts or particles. Each of those parts has properties which when aggregated fully describes the entire systemand then the system itself separable and individuated. This is classical SOM analysis.
MoQThink teaches us that n¤ system or part of a system may be separated from the rest of Reality. Parts of Reality are in Reality and Reality is in all parts. MoQ and quantum scihænce Reality dictate quantonic interrelationships among all parts of Reality. Gravity is our easiest and best exemplar.
Superluminality In 1934, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen tried to prove, via a gedanken experiment, that quantum scihænce was incomplete because it allows action-at-a-distance. Their argument was that it allowed action-at-a-distance (superluminality) but provided no means for it. They said there had to be hidden variables or something equivalent to allow for superluminality. The absence of means for superluminality as part of the theory of quantum scihænce meant to EPR therefore, that quantum scihænce was incomplete. Of course superluminality was impossible in their (SOM) reasoning! Why? Because it was "unreasonable." Actually the EPR experiment turned against them. Quantum scientists began to see that superluminality, implied by quantum theory, might be real.
Of course today we know superluminality is REAL! Experiments from the 1970s through now, mid-1998 prove the existence of superluminality. Search on Anton Zeilinger and Nicolas Gisin, and see: Anton Zeilinger's Homepage Also see Shimony, Clauser, etc.
MoQThink asks us to not do what EPR did. Don't allow your legacy-addled mindset to put blinders on your thinking. Do not assume that anything is unreasonable.
So, MoQThink teaches us that parts of reality are non-local, non-separable, non-individuistic, and may possess superluminal connections.
That is how we need to think for the next millennium, and not think in the legacy-addled mindset of SOM which hindered EPR's abilities to re-cognize Reality.