



borne of quantum PNFings' stochasticings' Affectiveness (see affectation) 
Effectiveness based upon classical cause  
Anihmacy (Pendulum unstoppability, Zeno unstoppability, perpetual motion) 
Inanimacy (stop, zero momentum)  
Coobsfection 
Mandate for unilateral observation (in lisr)  
C¤mplementarity  Complementarity/opposition; see in(ex)cludedmiddle below  
Emergence (quantumplural awareness/choice)  Predicable Determinacy (reality is insensate; "choice is heresy")  
Entanglement  Axioms of Independence  
Fuzzon 

Point 
Network Everywhere~Associativeness (EIMA)  EverywhereIndependentDissociation (EEMD)  
Immergence (also see emerscenture)  Immutability (& analytically reducible remanufacturable monism)  
Included~Middle (examples)  Excludedmiddle; Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, et al.  
Interrelationship Ensehmbles  'Interacting' 'manybody' puzzles  
OEDC (also see spin and ontology emergences)  Unitemporal 'interactive' 'manybody' motile rearrangement  
Physial Quantum Coherings of Quantum Individualings  Anthropocentric Objective Society of Objective Individuals  
Qubital Process Interrelationships  Static and Independent Scalar Magnitudes  
Superposition~Coherence 
Addition, multiplication, and other mathematical naïveties  
Uncertainty (quantum umcærtainty ensehmblings)  Uncertainty (classical dichotomous 'opposites;' see dichon, provisionality of ideal state) Doug  13Feb2006.  
(See Hume's Law: "There is no bridge twixt Value and fact.") Value (See Value.)  Truth  
Etc. 

Etc. 


Graphical Weaknesses: 
Our graphic is two dimensional. Quantum reality is at least omnimensional and usually described as a ~Hilbert space. Our graphic is inanimate. Quantum reality is anihmate, indeed it is absolute quantum flux. We ask our students to imagine our graphic anihmated similar to some animations in our Quantonic Symbols, and elsewhere in our Quantonics site. 
Graphical Weaknesses continued... 
Our graphic shows an emphasis on symmetry. Quantum reality is, in general, spatially asymmetric. Consider too that quantum~reality is, in general, evolutionarily atemporal which has manifest implications for asymmetry. Doug  8Aug2012. It is asymmetric in countless other ways too, like chiralty, spin (wobble), FPNs, RH's ½ critical line Möbius reversals, etc. To be more exoteric, our graphic shows ellipses of interrelationship compenetration among quanton_{1} and its tentative preferential quantum c¤mplements. If we estrude (visàvis extrude) those ellipses to circles, we would see a denser picture absent any senses of quantum l¤cality visàvis quantum n¤nl¤cality. In general, some c¤mplements might be absolutely l¤cal, even potentially quantum c¤herent (totally superposed as one c¤herent quantum quanton) with quanton_{1} while others might appear at arbitrary l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal 'distances' from quanton_{1}. So if we drew our graphic more generally, it would n¤t appear as symmetric and tidy (unreal), rather all our ellipses would appear as omniffering sizes and spatial vertex separations. Our graphic is classically spatial. As such we cann¤t show real ensehmble quantum interrelationships. This appears to be a fundamental limitation of quantum actuality. An analogue of this problematic is a qubit or an ensehmble of qubits. We appear fundamentally limited in our abilities to see all (approaching an unlimited number) of any qubit's (or any ensehmble of qubits') quantum c¤mplements. See our HotMeme™ "What is unsaid is far more important than what is said."™ HotMeme™ Qubihts can diræctly sææ their ahctual amd n¤nahctual c¤mplæmænts, but wæ cann¤t (wæ aræ much less capablæ ¤f sænsing quantum n¤nahctualihty than qubihts).
Given our above clarification, students should be aware that macroscopic fermionic modalings can and do quantum~cohere macroscopically! Our abilities to think, imagine, dream, create all depend upon macroscopic 'above ambient' (!!!  huge quantum tell here) quantum coherence of our quantum stages' neurons. See our review of Maewan Ho's Rainbow and the Worm. This issi what ahll¤ws uhs t¤ d¤ quantum computati¤n basæd uhpon ræhlihty wihth¤ut kn¤wing ahll ab¤ut ræhlihty. Ihn a væry largæ way, this issi a quantum~mihraclæ! Why cann¤t wæ sææ qubihts c¤mplæmænts? They have ¤mnihffering pærcæptual bamdwihdths fr¤m ¤urs. Sææ ¤ur Quantum Sensory Bandwidth Perspicuities and Perspicacities page. Another massively affine fuzzonic point we should make here is, "This is an astonishingly fabulous way to think about William James Sidis' short paper on consciousness visàvis subconsciousness." (As a ruse against his father, and classically pretentious (via their naïve realism and naïve localism) academics, employers and media pundits) His paper says they are isomorphic. Can you see now why they are, from a Quantonics' quantum~perspective, n¤nisomorphic? Our quantum actual_complement sensory bandwidth is a tiny 'part' of our quantum n¤nactual_c¤mplementings aggregate sensory bandwidths. See you as a quanton below. Follow links there. 
Graphical Weaknesses continued... 
So here, in this nice little depiction of a quantonic montage of quantum reality we come upon a most basic 'fact' of quantum reality: actuality cann¤t wholly 'describe' quantum reality. Actuality cann¤t be completely describings both itself and its quantum c¤mplementings which we call "quantum n¤nactuality." An analogous Pirsigean metaphor might appear as SQ cannot wholly describe DQ. Static Quality cann¤t be completely describings both itself and its quantum complementings which we call "Dynamic Quality." How can we say that? First, 'describe' offers us some philosophical challenges. Usually those of us who are Occidental culture tend to view descriptions as classically axiomatic. N¤ such entities exist in quantum reality since quantum reality issi abs¤lute flux. N¤ 'description' can hold indefinitely. It can hold tentatively, but n¤t for an arbitrarily long 'time.' Now if by descrihpti¤n we intend "quantum pr¤cess," then we can say that "we can partially descrihbe quantum reality," and indeed that issi what we say in Quantonics. 
Graphical Intent: 
Our graphic shows quanton_{1} described by its anihmatæ ensehmble quantum interrelationships among itself and quantons_{213}. Numbering of quantons is for our graphical purposes arbitrary. In quantum reality, depending upon how we choose to appellate quantons specifically, we find that every quanton, and thus its appellation, is quantumn¤mbærunique and anihmatæ/changing. (Now we glimmer how important quantum computers and qubits are: they are capable of tracking anihmatæ quantons in quantum reality. For direct evidence and experience of this quantum 'fact,' do an internet search on <rat brain flies F22>. Read about that quantum breakthrough at University of Florida and how they did it.) Our graphic shows ellipses of compenetration among quanton_{1} and its tentative quantum c¤mplements. Our graphic shows both quantum n¤nactuality and quantum actuality compenetrating one another. Darkdarkgreen dashed lines illustrate each quanton's and our entire ensehmble's compenetration of both quantum n¤nactuality and quantum actuality. Just as quanton_{1} shows its describing anihmatæ ensehmble quantum interrelationships, we could superpose similar anihmatæ ensehmbles on quantons_{25} and quantons_{1113} to show their own other describing anihmatæ ensehmble quantum interrelationships. Were we to do this, our graphic would be almost impossible to view. Also, be aware that fluxors_{610} may isofluxcompenetrate up to and potentially all quantum reality. 
Heterogeneous Tihmings 
Our graphic shows a subportion of our MoQ II Reality Loop to remind students of Quantonics how absolute (up to) Planck rate parallel and asynchronous fluxes are animating and mediating change among our 13 quantons. Any classicist might l¤¤k at ¤ur graphic and presume that all th¤se quantons aræ sharing OGC, but ¤ur quantum intent is that they d¤ n¤t. Æach has its ¤wn l¤cal quantum comtext. T¤¤, æach has its ¤wn sens¤ry bandwidth. A better way t¤ describe what we mean by that last sentence is t¤ comsider:
A ph¤t¤n's sens¤ry bandwidth 'center frequency' is en¤rm¤usly higher in nature's spectrum than a chimp's. A ph¤t¤n can 'see' and 'feel' electr¤ns amd at¤ms amd ¤ther subat¤mic, at¤mic, amd mes¤at¤mic spectra, where a chimp cann¤t. A planet can 'see' amd 'feel' ¤ther stellar stuff like planets amd aster¤ids, but essentially cann¤t 'see' amd 'feel' chimps amd ants, etc. Similarly, a ph¤t¤n's perspective ¤f heter¤gene¤us tihmings is en¤rm¤usly ¤mnifferent fr¤m a human's amd a planet's, amd etc. A ph¤t¤n still cann¤t detect a Planck cl¤ck's tick, t¤ck, tick,..., but it pr¤bably can 'detect,' 'see' amd 'feel' flux several ¤rders ¤f magnitude ab¤ve amd bel¤w its 'center frequency.' Pr¤bably an Earth cl¤ck, t¤¤, is meaningless t¤ a ph¤t¤n, appearing pærpætually 'still.' S¤ we ask y¤u, student ¤f Quantonics, t¤ imagine æach ¤f ¤ur n¤mbæred quant¤ns ab¤ve as having ¤mniffering temp¤ralities amd bandwidth sensitivities. More to come... 
You as a Quanton: 
Imagine yourself as quanton_{1}. Imagine you as anihmatæ and moving through some comtext, e.g., a restaurant, a theatre, your bedroom, etc. Imagine your ellipses as some of them wax while others wane; n¤vel quantons and fluxors dynamically OEDC (verb) tentative and preferential interrelationships with you as you move and observe your surroundings. Now, opportunity for quantum epiphany! Imagine you as realized by and realizing all those interrelationships. Realize that without that immense number and vast array of anihmatæ Gestalt interrelationships you and they would n¤t "be." (However, you always "isobe.") This is what we mean when we say you are being in It and It is being in you. You are describing It and It is describing you. You and It are being quantum Gestalt! See our Stairways of Evidence for Quantum Stages' Affects cowithin Perceptual Changes. Those anihmatæ quantum Gestalts fundamentally describe what our 'use' of quanton means semantically. Now you may perceive how quantum reality is n¤t propertyesque objective, independent, and stateic, rather codescribing, coobsfecting Gestalt interrelationship quantonic and anihmatæ. For more quantum youesque descriptions and stimulating questions, see our recent, 2004, Ensemble Attractors under our QELR of probability. 
TBD. See our August, 2001 QQA. See affectation.  
Animacy: 
TBD. See Bergson's CE Prereview Comments, "...two great classical illusions..." 
Coobsfection: 
TBD. See obsfect. 
C¤mplementarity:  TBD. See c¤mplement. See two types of c¤mplement. See omnifference. 
Emergence:  TBD. See spin emergence. See ontology emergence. See more recent Fuzzons to Fermion Emergence Ontology. Doug  30Jan2008. 
Entanglement:  TBD. See included~middle_1, included~middle_2, etc. 
Fuzzon:  See point, line, circle, fuzzon. 
Network EverywhereAssociativeness:  TBD. See SON. See Quantum Egg. See Quantum Connection. See Bergson's TaFW Topic 17, right column comments. See EIMA, REIMAR, etc. 
Immergence:  TBD. Also 'classical absolute, final death,' demergence, devolution, unbecoming, isobecoming, etc. See OEDC. 
IncludedMiddle:  TBD. See Aristotle. 
Interrelationship Ensehmbles:  TBD. See Quanton Primer. See Ensemble Attractors. See QLO. See general. See Quantum Ensemble Free Will. See Bergson's Time and Free Will Conclusion on 'multiplicity.' 
OEDC:  TBD. See OEDC. 
Physial:  TBD. Quantum 'Societyings' emerqs animately EIMA network naturally without stateic, 'group' ESQ rules and 'laws.' Any biological is a good example of what we intend here. See law. See our October, 2003 Feuilleton Chautauqua inaugural installment. 
Qubital:  TBD. Photons, (bosonic photons are n¤t qubital in any sense of fermionic omnitoring (moni replaced by omni in 'monitoring') behaviors, however, they are essential in any qubital process since they participate in all QED energy transformations (some would say, e.g., Richard P. Feynman, this is essence of quantum~actuality); what we mean when we say "photons are n¤t good examples of qubits" is that they probably would n¤t be usable as 'bits' in a quantum nqubit 'register'), electrons and protons are good qubital exemplars, due their 'spatially' arbitrary spin 1/2 fermionic 'actualizing,' wobbling QLOs. 
Superposition/Coherence: 
TBD. See Quantum Coherence. See superpose. See Awesome Dirac Note. 
Uncertainty:  TBD. See Ensehmble Quantum Uncertainty. See uncertainty. See duration. 
Value: 
See What is Wrong with Probability as Value. 