The Greeks Gave Us Our Dominant

Western Culture and Thinking.

It is an Inherently Weak,

De Facto Method of Thinking.

Essentially, it is Boolean Logic.

"...I will argue that all local, separable theories,

including general relativity, are empirically false when applied to the kinds of

microphysical interactions examined in the Bell experiment;

or rather, that they would have to be false if one elaborated them into theories capable

of describing such microphysical interactions...

local, separable theories are fundamentally incompatible with quantum mechanics,

because of their separable [e.g., Boolean] manner of individuating systems and states...

We confront here a radical physical holism at odds with our classical intuitions

about the individuation of systems and states..."

pp. 227-8, by Don Howard,

'Holism and Separability,' Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory,

UND Press, 1989

 

(Site author's note: I love Howard's quote above. It is one of my favorites and personally,
for me it is a quote filled with almost unlimited potential enlightenment.

However, it stimulates my own effable effuse — "but..." "macrophysical is microphysical!"
Macro is micro, not in a classical reductionist sense, but in a quantum holistic sense.)

PDR 19Jul1999

---

Acronyms used in this treatise:

DQ	- Dynamic Quality
MoQ	- Metaphysics of Quality (Pirsig)
MoQite	- An adherent of MoQ philosophy
MoQland	- Where MoQites philosophically reside
O	- Object
S	- Subject
SODV	- Subjects, Objects, Data, & Values
SOM	- Subject-Object Metaphysics
SOMite	- An adherent of SOM philosophy
SOMland	- Where SOMites philosophically reside
SPoV	- Static Pattern of Value
SQ	- Static Quality
ZMM	- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

What is wrong with SOM's Boolean logic?

1. SOM's most important problem with logic is that it is suppositional.
2. Classical suppositional logic is inductive and deludes its practioners that foundational suppositions about historical/past causes, in general, induce unitemporal and unitime-predictable 'effects.'
3. Classical suppositional logic denies quantum-sentient special event ontologies of: choices, chances, and changes at all scales of reality.
4. Suppositional logic, via its inductive determinism, denies quantum awareness at ensehmble 'nowings,' which admit stochastic ensehmble choosings at 'nowings' which evoke plural outcome ensehmble affectings based upon plural preconditions ensehmble 'nowings' awareness-mediated/mediating by both l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal ensehmble choices/choosings and absences of ensehmble choices/choosings.
5. SOM's most important problem with Boolean logic is its underlying presumptions.
6. Boolean logic assumes one logical dimension (in one assumed 'real' global/universal context): its formal conclusions may only be either true or false. It declares any conclusion of both true and false, "absurd."
7. It assumes reality's actual part is 'reality.'
8. It assumes 'objects' exist.
9. It assumes logical objects exist if they "stand for" 'real' objects.
10. Boolean logic assumes that logical 'objects' are isolable, separable, and individuated.
11. Boolean logic assumes that logical 'objects' possess internal (thus 'local') properties which are observable, in isolation.
12. Most adherents use it as their de facto logic for general thinking and dialogue and get facile, insensate results.
13. Boolean logic prevents adherents from perceiving real stuff as anihmatæly commingling and interpenetrating (all of reality does commingle and interpenetrate — Boolean logic is incapable of operating on real stuff which anihmatæly commingles and interpenetrates - Why? - Aristotle's 2nd and 3rd syllogistic laws, i.e., contradiction and excluded middle, explicitly deny anihmatæ commingling and interpenetration - they deny quantum reality! Aristotle's syllogisms are the facile parent of modern boolean and propositional logic.).
14. It deludes adherents that 'objective' analysis and synthesis of actual reality is possible.
15. It is based upon Aristotle's flawed assumptions (e.g., S-O schism) in his syllogism model of logical argument. Note that every axiom in Aristotle's syllogistic logic is a tautology. Yet, we know for certain that in actual physical reality n¤ two anythings are ever equal! (See Hans Christian von Baeyer's article, 'Tiny Doubles,' in the September/October, 1997 issue of, The Sciences, pp. 11-13.) Further, we know n¤ thing equals itself longer than a few Planck moments!
16. Boolean logic is based on contradiction (AKA Sheffer stroke, '|,' Binary Alternative Denial, BAD) and opposition (re: Aristotle's syllogistic logic). Assuming Planck ubiquitous rate change throughout all reality — quantum reality claims assessment of contradiction — in a more general quantum reality — is impossible. In order to do proof by contradiction, Boolean logic depends upon an assumption of inanimate and steady classical 'state.' Where classical reality assumes 'state,' quantum reality denies any classical concept of 'state.' In order to provide classical 'state,' Boolean logic and all classical mathematics must 'stop' reality (This was Zeno's main point in his four paradice.) using classical formal notation like y=f(t). There we see 'y' is a classical object whose classical properties are known at some classically stopped analytically homogeneous time, t. There, we also see classicism's identity or '=' sign, which declares both sides of it "identical" for as long as classical scientists or mathematicians need them to be. Where classical reality may be conventionally and anthropocentrically 'inanimate,' quantum reality is absolutely and ubiquitously 'anihmatæ.' Quantum reality cann¤t hold still, n¤r be held still. For philosophical underpinnings of our comments here see good coverage in our review of Henri Louis Bergson's Creative Evolution, and his Time and Free Will. Also see our powerful argument against classical proof by contradiction in our Pirsigean Problematic Memes' Is Proof by Contradiction Proof?
17. To achieve classical contradiction, Boolean logic assumes negation is classically, radically formal. However, Henri Louis Bergson, et al., have shown resoundingly that negation is, rather, classically subjective (think about it). Any classical 'not' is quantum c¤mplementary. (However, ) In order for Boolean logic to work formally on physical objects, it has to assume negatives of classical objects 'exist.' H5W is 'not' you? H5W is 'not' Earth? H5W is 'not' Milky Way? H5W is 'not' Universe or Multiverse? Read Bergson's prose on 'negation is subjective.' Bergson's prose agrees wholly with modern quantum science! Quantum 'nots' are quantum c¤mplements. A quantum c¤mplement of you is potentially all reality as a quanton(reality,you)! In other words, your 'not' is classically subjective. We can say something similar regarding where or any other meme. For Boolean logic to work, where is <x,y,z>, and minus_where is <-x,-y,-z>. In Boolean/classical logic there is only one, state-ic "minus_where." So where's minus is -where! But how many other wheres can one be that are n¤t where? This latter example may be used on any natural, physial meme. It demonstrates obviously how quantum reality's real negati¤n is subjective and how classical thing-king attempts a sheigmful deign of feign that negation is physically objective. It shows how classical logic is specific, n¤t general. It shows how classical Boolean/Cartesian CTM thing-king fails massively, in general. Now add another anihmatæ aspect of quantum complexity: is where classically 'where' or is it quantum whæræings?
18. Boolean logic is distributive logic. (Vis-à-vis quantum logic is n¤n-distributive, n¤nfactorizable, comtrafactual definite, orthomodular, n¤n-commutative, et al., logics. Note that quantum reality was discovered by (SOM's "logical absurdity" of) n¤n-commutativity of a Poisson bracket of a quanton's position and momentum. Classically it looks like this: p•m - m•p = [p, m] i•. From our Quantonics perspective it looks like this:
    
    

    p•m omnifferencings m•pquanton(p,m)		•

    
    )
19. Also see our SOM Connection under our Buridan Review. Both show at a more theoretical level what is wrong with SOM's Boolean logic.
    

Caveat: please do n¤t take our quote of Heisenberg as showing his global () classical naïveté!!

 

Philosophical Presumptions:

Absolute	Deduction	Heterogeneous	n¤nl¤cal	Reducible
Affect	Definite	Homogeneous	No/Not/Negation	Reversible
Boolean	Determinate	Homology	Objective	Rhetoric
Causal	Dialectic	Ideal	Observable	Schism
Coherent	Divisible	Induction	One	Separable
Commingle	Distributive	Interrelationships	Paralogy	Tentative
C¤mplement	Effect	Isolable	Persistence	Time
Commutative	Equal	Length	Preference	Truth
Context	Factor[iz]able	l¤cal	Property	Uncertain
Contradict	Falsifiable	Many	Quantity	Value
Contrafactual	Gravity	Mass	Quality	Zero

Item	Term	Presumption
	Absolute	Definition: Absolute* ( Also see our Quantonics remediated absolute.) Philosophy. a. Something regarded as the ultimate basis of all thought and being. Used with the. b. Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.   SOM: SOM presumes that absolute truth is accessible by anthropocentric intellect using rational thought and logic. SOM presumes that, in general, an objective question about any SOM 'object' may be answered unambiguously either true or false. The concept of one universal, knowable truth is axiomatic to SOM. SOM's two prime axioms are: Logical, objective truth is absolute. Quality is relative. MoQ: MoQ presumes that singular, absolute truth is n¤t comsistently accessible by finite sentient intellect. A meme of many truths is axiomatic to MoQ. A many truths meme is based on Pirsig's two prime axioms: Quality is absolute (p. 341, ZMM Bantam paper) Logical truth is relative, and there are many logics and corresponding truths, from which we infer many l¤cal logical truth islands commingling and interpenetrating other l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal logical truth islands. (See ZMM, Lila, and esp. SODV.) MoQ's meme of many truths, one may infer many comtexts. In MoQ we can show absolute truth is inaccessible via an uncertainty principle between comsistency and c¤mpleteness of any arbitrary comtext. Per Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems (see Decidable Gödel Meme at The Memes), a more c¤mplete comtext is less comsistent, and a more comsistent comtext is less c¤mplete. In MoQ, an absolute system must be simultaneously c¤mplete and comsistent. By a MoQ uncertainty principle, n¤ comtext is absolute, therefore finite sentient intellect may n¤t comsistently access or assess absolute truth. (Author's note: MoQ's DQ is undefined. We can describe it, but we cann¤t define it. DQ is n¤t a comtext. To make it a comtext would be to define it. MoQ's SQ constitutes l¤cal aggregations of SPoVs in l¤cal quantum comtexts.) return to term list
	Boolean	Definition: Boolean* adjective Of or relating to a logical combinatorial system treating variables, such as propositions and computer logic elements, through operators AND, OR, NOT, IF, THEN, and EXCEPT: information retrieval involving Boolean searching. [After George Boole.] SOM: Classical binary logic is used almost exclusively as legacy SOM default rational thought technique. George C. Boole formalized classical binary logic in early-mid 19th century. Its predecessors include: analysis/synthesis - analysis assumes that any real whole may be broken into constituent parts each of which is ideally individuate, separate, isolate; - synthesis assumes that constituent parts may be assembled to form a new whole contradiction conflict of opposing primary, and secondary forces in a (Boolean) logical argument about any properties of (ideal) logical objects dialectic (dialogical dialogue ) logical (SOM-absolute) truth achieved by contradiction via logical argument constructing: noncontradicting theses, and contradicting antitheses dichotomy, disjunction, disunion, scission, etc. these terms are essentially equivalent in a logical world to a term dialectic described nearby induction - use of particular (SOM) facts to make general conclusions - use of historical evidence to predict future events opposition see contradiction schism in SOM, a fundamental division of all reality into either Subject or Object syllogism Classical deductive, or Aristotelian, logic is a predecessor to SOM's Boolean logic. Source reference documents tell us that classical logic concerns itself with formal, objective properties but not objective facts. Aristotle taught his students that any logical argument could be reduced to a sequence of three logical statements including two premises and one conclusion. Aristotle called this a SYLLOGISM. He formulated three basic laws for all logical thought: a law of identity - (A is A); a law of contradiction - (A cannot be both A and not A); and a law of an excluded middle - (A must be either A or not A). (See the MoQ notes on Aristotle's syllogism below.) tautology a logically true (always), logically empty statement based upon an either/or dichotomy, e.g., either A is true or A is not true MoQ: MoQ subsumes Boolean logic as one of its many classes of logic. From a MoQ perspective SOM thinking is so primitive that we like to say, "SOM is just a lot of classical Boole." Quantum reality, as an example, simply cann¤t be described using a very limited SOM-Boolean logic. MoQ on Aristotle's syllogism - Aristotle's laws have deluded SOMites for (~23) centuries! Given input from his antecedents: Parmenides, Plato, Socrates, etc., Aristotle based his syllogism on a Subject-Object reality scission (vis-à-vis a union of S-O and further augmentation as SQ in MoQ). His law of identity assumes ideal logical objects which are ideally measurable and observable, i.e., isolable, separable, individuate. This law holds only approximately in a macro realm and it does n¤t hold at all in a quantum realm. His law of contradiction does n¤t hold in general. Actualized physical patterns of value in a real multiverse commingle, interpenetrate and are actually co-within one another to a greater or lesser extent, in general. His law of an excluded middle does n¤t hold, again, in general for reasons already stated. Yet SOM's delusion goes on. MoQ will bring this delusion to an end during Earth's third millennium. MoQ on schism - MoQ mends SOM's Subject-Object reality schism by unifying all of SOM's S-Os as SQ. SQ constitutes all actualized reality as a single class called Static Patterns of Value. return to term list
	Commingle	Definition: commingle* verb commingled, commingling, commingles verb, intransitive To become blended.   verb, transitive To cause to blend together; mix.   Synonyms - Interpenetrate, Co-within, etc. SOM: SOM assumes real stuff may be analysed into distinct, separate, individuate 'objective' parts. In SOM, these parts do not commingle or interpenetrate, nor are they co-within one another. Boolean and Aristotelian logics do not work, in general, on parts that commingle and interpenetrate. This conclusion permits aware SOMites to anticipate a collapse of our whole rational foundation of SOM as a premier Western philosophy! MoQ: MoQ assumes reality composes thus: All unknown, partially describable, undefinable, unactualized reality, AKA DQ All known and unknown, actualized reality, AKA SQ See our Map of a New Reality. MoQ further assumes that all of DQ commingles, interpenetrates and is co-within SQ. By extension all of SQ may commingle and interpenetrate itself via DQ. return to term list
	Distributive	Definition: distributive* Mathematics Of or relating to a rule that the same product results in multiplication when performed on a set of numbers as when performed on members of the set individually. If a × (b + c) = a × b + a × c, then × is distributive over +.   SOM: SOM assumes a single ascertainable truth in an unlimited universal context. SOM assumes de facto Boolean distributive logic. SOM assumes A*(B+C) = A*B+A*C. MoQ: MoQ assumes many truths and complex quantonic interrelationships among an unlimited number of multiversal comtexts. MoQ subsumes SOM's Boolean logic and also uses other types of n¤n-Boolean, n¤n-distributive logic including: quantum orthomodular gaggle etc. return to term list
	Ideal	Definition: ideal* noun 1. A conception of something in its absolute perfection. 2. One that is regarded as a standard or model of perfection or excellence. Philosophy adjective a. Existing as an archetype or pattern, especially as a     Platonic idea or perception. b. Of or relating to idealism.   SOM: SOM's ideal is absolute truth in a knowable universe where value is an unworthy subspecies of that assumed absolute truth. MoQ: MoQ's ideal is absolute Quality in a forever changing and thus statically unknowable multiverse where Value reigns over many comtextually relative truths. Truth is a subspecies of Value in MoQ. In MoQ, truths are just one class of emerging and changing Static Patterns of Value. They come in infinite varieties. MoQ tells us that l¤cally, within very limited and less c¤mplete but more comsistent macroworld comtexts — l¤cal ideal, absolute truth may be approached, but n¤t achieved as a limit. This limited absolute truth is always subject to change imposed by DQ and competing islands of truth in MoQ reality. Truth is always a DQ-changeable Static Pattern of Value. (Author's note: SOM philosophy delivers bogus statements of fact. By contrast MoQ's Quality delivers emergence and change. As I said above, "Truth talks — Quality walks!" Doug Renselle.) See our SOM ISMs page on idealism. return to term list
	Interrelationships	Definition: interrelate* verb, transitive & intransitive interrelated, interrelating, interrelates To place in or come into mutual relationship.   SOM: In SOM interrelationships are formal, determinate, classic-Boolean-logical, local, definable, known, etc. In SOM, interrelationships are limited. They may only exist between whole individuated 'objective' parts of larger wholes. SOM's requirement for Boolean logic constrains interrelationships among its parts of wholes. In our Quantonic view, SOM's Boolean requirement derives demonstrably from its underlying presumed philosophy of a subject-object schism. MoQ: In MoQ, interrelationships are quantonic. In MoQ, interrelationships are unlimited. SOM's idea of whole objective 'Parts' fades away and we replace it with Pirsig's Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs). In MoQ SPoVs may be co-within other l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal SPoVs, and they may affect other l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal SPoVs with which they are both co-within and n¤t co-within. SPoVs in MoQ are described and affected by both their observable latching into actuality and their unseeable DQ c¤mplements of which there may be an infinity. We show some n¤n-distributive and other characteristics of quantonic uncertainty interrelationships like this: quanton(comsistent,c¤mplete), quanton(deterministic,n¤ndeterministic), quanton(l¤cal,superluminal), quanton(SQ,DQ); prefer quanton(DQ,SQ), quanton(truth,reality); prefer quanton(reality,truth), quanton(absolute,relative), quanton(particle,wave); prefer quanton(wave,particle), quanton(energy,time), quanton(bandwidth,duration), quanton(timelike,spacelike), etc. Here we see each pair of terms shares complex combinations of uncertainty, c¤mplementarity, complexity, etc. See our new pages on Quantonic notation: Quanton Primer Quanton Notation Interrelationship Models Rev. 20Sep99, added preferred order quantons above. N¤t sure why yet, but it appears useful to place terms more static to right of comma, and terms closer to DQ/n¤nactuality on left of comma. Also, absence of space after comma is significant. It indicates commingling, interpenetration. On 18Sep99 we introduced a new SOM term to distinguish twixt Quantonic interrelationships and classical relationships. We call it a dichon. Here are examples: dichon(true, false), dichon(up, down), dichon(right, wrong), dichon(good, bad), dichon(left, right), dichon(black, white), dichon(true, false), etc. These are dichotomies based upon classical bivalent thought. Space after comma is significant. It shows SOM's classical, innate, Aristotelian assumption of objective locus, separation, isolability, individuicity, analyticity, etc. Not to be cute, but we could show another type of SOM logic like this: fuzz(true, false). In this case fuzzy logic simply moves us from bivalence to infinite-valued SOM logic. Neither approaches quantum logic's more realistic: islandic, n¤n-distributive omnivalence.   SOM sees its substance based S-O dichotomy as either/or. Take any adjective in SOM and consider how SOM interprets it: either/or, versus, contradictory, opposite, etc. SOM's dialectic cuts all its language into primitive, bipolar, naive, Church of Reason pairs. SOM disallows any included middle. A SOM 'thing' is either evil or good, right or wrong, black or white, up or down, true or false, etc. SOM is versus thinking. SOM dialectically denies anything can be both good and evil. End Rev. 20Sep99. return to term list
	Isolable	Definition: isolable* also isolatable ( Also see our Quantonics remediated isolate.) adjective Possible to isolate: isolable viruses. Synonyms - Separate, Individuate, etc. SOM: SOM assumes its constituent 'objective' parts are isolable, separate, individuate and characterized by properties each part possesses. MoQ: MoQ assumes SQ (all SPoVs in actual reality) is n¤n-isolable from DQ. DQ creates and changes all SPoVs in SQ and thus forms interrelationships among all SPoVs in SQ. MoQ assumes both DQ is in SQ and SQ is in DQ. return to term list
	l¤cal	Definition: l¤cal* ( Also see our Quantonics remediated l¤cal.) adjective 1. Two def's: Of, relating to, or characteristic of a particular place: a local custom; local slang. Of or relating to a city, town, or district rather than a larger area: state and local government. 2. Not broad or general; not widespread   Author's note: in quantum science, we say that l¤cal affects are mediated and that they diminish with distance (i.e., inverse square, et al.). Einstein imposed a requirement that 'local' interactions are limited to light speed, or to say it another way, he told us superluminal interactions are "unreasonable." SOM: In SOM, constituent 'objective' parts are local, and unaffected by properties of nonlocal parts. MoQ: In MoQ, l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal are quantons, with quantonic interrelationships, i.e., quanton(l¤cal,n¤nl¤cal). Static Patterns of Value in MoQ have potential affective interrelationships with all of MoQ reality l¤cally and n¤nl¤cally (latter corresponds to action-at-a-distance also called superluminality in quantum science). return to term list
	N¤nl¤cal	Definition: n¤nl¤cal ( Also see our Quantonics remediated n¤nl¤cal.) adjective A good definition here is a quote from Nick Herbert's, Quantum Reality, p. 214, Anchor paperback: "A nonlocal interaction is, in short, unmediated, unmitigated, and immediate." N¤nl¤cal interactions do not diminish with distance, "They are as potent at a million miles as at a millimeter." N¤nl¤cal interactions are not delayed in time. "Nonlocal influences act instantaneously." N¤nl¤cal interactions are unmediated. "...no amount of interposed matter can shield this interaction." He tells us n¤nl¤cal interactions are n¤t limited to light speed. SOM: SOM assumes no action-at-a-distance. Therefore, no nonlocal part may affect any other nonlocal part. MoQ: MoQ assumes all (i.e., DQ-SQ, SQ-DQ, and SQ-SQ) interactions and interrelationships may be both l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal. return to term list
	Objective	Definition: objective* ( Also see our Quantonics remediated object.) adjective 1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality. 3. Two sub-def's: Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal. noun 1. Something that actually exists.   SOM: SOM assumes reality divides into no more than two categories, variously known as: substance-nonsubstance, object-subject, matter-mind, etc. SOM presumes factual, analytic truth flows from unilateral observation of local, isolable properties of local, isolable SOM objects. SOM presumes its objective realm's complement, its subjective realm, offers no objective properties which one may observe, thus its subjective realm is unclassifiable and offers no objective value. MoQ: MoQ reality unifies SOM's subjects and objects into a single class of patterns which constitute one of two MoQ categories: Static Quality. In MoQ use of words 'subjective' and 'objective' only takes users back into SOMland. We try to avoid using these terms except when we are helping SOMites transition into MoQland. Instead of 'subject/object' we call MoQ's constituents of Static Quality, 'Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs).' MoQ presumes value emerges (mediated by DQ) from interpenetrating, co-within, commingling interrelationships among both quanton(l¤cal,n¤nl¤cal) and quanton(isolable,n¤nisolable) SPoVs. In MoQ reality, interrelationships among SPoVs are quantonic. Quantonic interrelationships express at least some following: uncertainty, c¤mplementarity, complexity, etc. return to term list
	Observable	Definition: observable* ( Also see our Quantonics version obsfect.) adjective 1. Possible to observe: observable phenomena; an observable change in demeanor. 2. Deserving or worthy of note; noteworthy: an observable anniversary. noun Physics. A physical property, such as weight or temperature, that can be observed or measured directly, as distinguished from a quantity, such as work or entropy, that must be derived from observed quantities. (Author note: This is a classical physics definition. It assumes physical objects contain innate objective properties.) See Quantonics' QELR of physics.   Thanks to MicroSoft Bookshelf and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved. SOM: SOM presumes all internal properties of all objects in objective reality are observable in local isolation. MoQ: MoQ presumes all Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs) in actual reality have potential, comtext-dependent quantonic interrelationships with all other SPoVs co-within and via DQ. When a comtext is chosen for observation of a SPoV its c¤mplement(s) are n¤t observable in that particular comtext, but may be observable in other comtext(s). return to term list

*Thanks to MicroSoft Bookshelf and The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms marked * are from these sources.

Arches