N¤te t¤ users/students
¤f Quantonics: We start using s¤me ¤f ¤ur
n¤vel Quantonics English Language Remediati¤n
f¤r Millennium III here starting 9Jul2001.
Some classical 'o's' we replace with Quantonic/quantized '¤'s'
Assume a more classical context when you see 'o's,'
and assume a m¤re quantum comtext when y¤u see
'¤'s.' D¤ug.The greatest strength
of this graphic is its comparison to our other reality l¤¤ps.
By looking at this loop and then examining MoQ I Reality l¤¤p,
y¤u may distinguish
Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality fr¤m Subject-Object Metaphysics'
tiny l¤gical b¤x
which Pirsig calls a "Church of Reason."
Similarly, y¤u may c¤mpare quantum science's M¤Q
II Reality l¤¤p t¤ this ¤ne.
Again, y¤u will see much difference twixt SOM's Reality
l¤¤p and Mechanics ¤f
but y¤u will see much similarity in MoQ I and M¤Q
In b¤th M¤Q l¤¤ps y¤u
find ¤ur reality l¤¤ps c¤mmingling
(MoQ I Reality L¤¤p),
quantum Vacuum_Energy_Space/Kn¤wn (M¤Q
II Reality L¤¤p).
This c¤mmingling is s¤urce ¤f change, abs¤lute quantal,
look at SOM's reality loop above. There is no way for its loop
to break out and change.
That is how SOM deludes induction, causality, paradice, and most
of SOM's other ills.
SOM has a knife for reduction, and its own subject-object schism,
most everything else, but it has no knife for change! It has no
to cut its reality loop and thus break out of its endless, homogeneous
Without a knife, though, SOM is incapable. A dilemma!
What to do? Invent a knife!
What is SOM's knife? Analysis!
Integral and differential calculus!
But what does SOM have to do to apply its analytical knife to
It has to stop reality! It has to make reality hold still while
SOM's analytic knife makes its cuts.
SOM needs a quiescent reality and static symbols like its equals
sign to depict still and immutable reality
while its analysis cuts. To observe any object's function of time
at any arbitrary 'point' in time,
SOM must stop reality. SOM claims it can 'frame' reality like
a picture or a snapshot.
But quantum reality never stands still. One may n¤t 'st¤p'
quantum reality t¤ obsfect
19N¤v2000 C¤mments added after reading Bergson's
Creative Evolution. Doug.
SOM, as we can see in its Reality Loop above, isolates
deterministic, inductive iterations
of human objective (y=f(t)) intellect in a box called, "The
Henri Bergson argues against this.
He tells us our intelligence commingles his élan vital,
his source, whose existence classical metaphysics
denies. Speaking of Platonic and other SOM ilk thinking, Bergson
"But this method has against it the
most inveterate habits of the mind. It at once suggests the idea
of a vicious circle [SOM's reality loop]. In vain, we shall be
told, 'You claim to go beyond intelligence:
how can you do that except by intelligence? All that is clear
in your consciousness is intelligence. You are inside your own
thought; you cannot get out of it.'"
Looking at SOM's loop above, it becomes clear why Bergson
tells us this.
SOM is stuck! Its intellect is stuck, looping in its own contrived
Church of Reason.
It cannot and will not see out of its SOM church/loop/box,
so it concludes, "You cannot go beyond intelligence."
SOM does not realize that what it calls, 'substantial
What we see in our graphic above is not intelligence!
We see formal, operationally conditioning, troglodytic tautologies.
We see Aristotle's tautologous syllogisms:
A = A
A is either A or not A
A is not both A and not A
We see SOM dependence on a ridiculous
identity concept (=) which is naught but conjuring.
We see SOM's either/or knife. We see SOM's excluded middle.
We see one truth, one context, one logic, and homogeneity.
All for the sake of establishing logical contradiction, so that
proponents may assess absolutely,
"True or False, Yes or No!"
emerge from phenomena which arise from its self-declared and self-imposed
non-existence and the unknown.
Those paradice arise because SOM insists its box is the
BOX, yet its box has no
other contexts with which to deal with phenomena arising outside
There is no reality outside SOM's box! So says SOM!!
SOM's paradice arise when SOM uses its knife to cut its real substance
logical syllogistic pieces, but retains its homogeneous loop continuum.
In doing so, SOM
makes two critically wrong assumptions:
1) reality is substance which
may be analytically reduced, and
2) time is a homogeneous continuum.
Similarly, Henri Louis Bergson says it thus, paraphrased
(see pp. 273-4 of CE
1) Classicists delusionally
assume reality is stable, and
2) Things in reality are independent.
Appraise how paradice arise from SOM's closed reality
loop by juxtaposing these two graphics:
Our other Reality Loops show loop-commingling of both
known (latched patterns of energy),
and unknown (unlatched isotropic energy flux) from which arise
a new, cohesive identity concept (), many truths, many
contexts, many logics, many times, and heterogeneity.
In our other Reality Loops, there are no paradice! Unknown yes,
but paradice, no!
A significant weakness in this model is our change
arrow. SOM's concept of
change is unclear and incoherent, just as its concepts of mass,
length, time, and gravity
are all unclear and incoherent. In SOM m, l, t, and g are all
measurable, but remain undefined.
Our green arrow of time shows unidirectional time, adhering Maxwell's
2nd law of thermodynamics.
Yet classical science's own Newtonian object representation in
our loop above, y=f(t),
is wholly reversible in stark contrast to Maxwell's 2nd law.
Classicists call this a "Paradox!"
we consider time as yet lacking satisfactory definition.
After we wrote this statement first in early 1998, we reviewed
During that review effort (October, 1998) we experienced
an epiphany, A DQ Moment.
disclosed to us our intuition of classical physics' mass,
length, time, and even gravity as
derivatives of Pirsig's DQ or its equivalent quantum flux. So
we define for our own purposes: m, l, t, and
M¤re recently in Quantonics,
we investigated Mae-wan Ho's interpretati¤n ¤f
time and her
reference (and reverence) t¤ Henri Bergson's ¤wn
descripti¤n ¤f time. Bergson's time fits what we
Pirsig's new phil¤s¤phy, MoQ, and it fits what
we kn¤w ab¤ut
¤ur new science, quantum science. Watch f¤r new
and text here in Quantonics during February, 2000,
See these files devel¤ped fr¤m ~1Jan2000 thr¤ugh
~1Jun2001 (at least ¤ne is ¤lder) :