1 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Question.
Date:	Fri, 14 Dec 2012 3:26PM (EDT)
From:	FlameProof@yahoo.com
To:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT

Hey Doug!
 
   Have some questions.  Is 'ascendancy' predominately non-linear 
EIMA recapitulations?  Are epiphanies 'markers' for ascent? You list
yours in chronological order, was there a lot of non-linearity tween those
dates?                                                                  
                                             Happy Quantonic Holidays,
                                                     ~Dale

2 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Re: Question.
Date:	Sat, 15 Dec 2012 7:09AM (EDT)
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@yahoo.com

Repeat Dale's question:

Hey Doug!
 
   Have some questions.  Is 'ascendancy' predominately non-linear 
EIMA recapitulations?  Are epiphanies 'markers' for ascent? You list
yours in chronological order, was there a lot of non-linearity tween those
dates?                                                                  
                                             Happy Quantonic Holidays,
                                                     ~Dale

. . .

Doug's response:

Dale,

I can answer this simply without exegesis, but I sense you may want more.

Simply, yæs, yæs, yæs.

In quantonicsese 'ascendancy' is moving 'higher' in reality's spectrum. We have two quantal energy spectra (in our understanding): isoflux, and flux. 'Higher' in each of those carries omniffering semantics. Moving from flux to isoflux is (in our understanding) a very high energy (ascendancy) maneuver. It is a move from SQ to DQ while realizing quanton(DQ,SQ).

Carl Gustave Jung would say it is a move from "the spirit of this time," [SOTT] to "the spirit of 'the' depths ('the' dark)." [SOTD] Note that Jung's Topos in Doug's semasiology is unconscious (DQ), subconscious (subconscious as: comma~nospace as a quantum~complementary, Sophial, gnostic grail), and conscious (SQ). Jung in his Red Book describes immanent spiritual ascendancy as moving from SOTT via Sophia (as grail's feminine wisdom) into SOTD. Doug is unsure Jung viewed quanton(SOTD,SOTT)?! I want to assume he did.

In Doug's view 'higher' in energy isn't necessarily 'higher' in Value. We see quantum~sophism's (feminine wisdom's) abundance as 'many ways of seeing reality' in our New Ways of Think_qing. Fathom also other spectral candidates, especially "emotion as Value." Com(n)sider when "less is more" as an exemplar.

Recent work on QELRs of evolution and transmutation as described in terms of equilibria and chaos shows us that moves 'higher' and 'lower' are radically quantum~comtext sensitive (rqcs: many ways of seeing). Directly: higher is in lower and lower is in higher: quanton(higher,lower), quanton(DQ,SQ), etc. This complementarity_q is generic linguistically as quanton(any_noun,any_noun). Latter epiphany_q is thanks to a 1/2 hour conversation I had (with Neelie) Friday morning from 9:30 to 10:00.

Doug is describing a Bohmian quantum~hologram, so EIMA, nonlinearity, plus ubiquitous and perpetual recapitulation are physially (naturally) intrinsic (in Quantonics).

For Doug, epiphanies are his most profound "markers of ascension," but we need care here. That is Doug's way of seeing things, not the way of seeing things. For Doug, Quantonics is viable, and more important in Doug's opinion: strategic.

All change, quantal change in any quantum~hologram is always carrying partials of nonlinearity as quantons(chaos,equilibria). Compare classical linear monism vav quantum nonlinear quantized heterogeneity, graphically:


and...


See if that helps your noodle,

Doug.
Best wishes for holidays!
~=~=~

3 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Questions.
Date:	Sat, 17 Dec 2012 1:22PM (EDT)
From:	FlameProof@yahoo.com
To:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT

Hey Doug!
 
   1- You have a mathematics degree and worked as a software engineer, what made you philosophically inclined?
   2- Did you [by choice] choose to read Pirsig's ZAMM by chance?
   3- How did you become interested in Bergson?
   4- Why has your work on Chaos-Equilibria [C-E] been so omnifficult?
   5- How does C-E interrelate with Quantonic's DQ-SQ looping ontology?
   6- How does C-E coobsfect human sentients? In context-sensitive ways?
   7- Is Chaos non-linear? Equilibria linear?  Is Reality predominately non-linear?  
       Wouldn't Chaos insure Absolute Change?  Whereas Equilibria would insure
       some degreeings of stasis?  Is this why you have stated that Chaos is master
       of Equilibria?
 
                                                                    Quantum Regards,
                                                                    ~Dale

4 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Miscellaneous.
Date:	Sat, 17 Dec 2012 4:01PM (EDT)
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@yahoo.com

Dale,

These are very good queries!

Your mind is doing fine. [Dale has been under powerful prescribed medications for several years now. Doug.]

Study this page.

Meanwhile, I'll work on your queries. Probably do one per email over next several days.

Stay well,

Doug.
~=~=~

On 12/17/12 1:22 PM, Audio Head wrote:

Hey Doug!
 
   1- You have a mathematics degree and worked as a software engineer, what made you philosophically inclined?
   2- Did you [by choice] choose to read Pirsig's ZAMM by chance?
   3- How did you become interested in Bergson?
   4- Why has your work on Chaos-Equilibria [C-E] been so omnifficult?
   5- How does C-E interrelate with Quantonic's DQ-SQ looping ontology?
   6- How does C-E coobsfect human sentients? In context-sensitive ways?
   7- Is Chaos non-linear? Equilibria linear?  Is Reality predominately non-linear?  
       Wouldn't Chaos insure Absolute Change?  Whereas Equilibria would insure
       some degreeings of stasis?  Is this why you have stated that Chaos is master
       of Equilibria?
 
                                                                    Quantum Regards,
                                                                    ~Dale

5 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Miscellaneous.
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2012 9:15AM (EDT)
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@yahoo.com

Dale,

See embedded response below, answer to query 1.
. . .

On 12/17/12 1:22 PM, Audio Head wrote:

Hey Doug!
 
   1- You have a mathematics degree and worked as a software engineer, what made you philosophically inclined?

Dale,

While you are waiting for other answers, study this too: Chaoequil Issues.

When I was five, I pondered my own death.

When I was about six I knew I wasn't supposed to be here...didn't know what to do about it.

Pre adolescent ... somehow I knew 'christianity' was phony. Preachers were just actors following a script: liars. My baptism was a complete joke, etc.

In HS I tried to think about advanced academic studies.

When I was at Purdue, I took a philosophy 101 course. Compared to all else it seemed to me to be my calling, but you can't make a living at it. I decided on EE and later under professor duress switched to MA. I was fascinated by diffy-Q and nonlinearities. They seemed mirrors (Autiot: Marys) of reality and thus any philosophy of reality. I think that set of exemplars desnouers my philosophical inclinations.

Emergence of more exemplars have emerged [recursively], steadily, since then...ever growing...ever evolving.

Doug.
~=~=~

   2- Did you [by choice] choose to read Pirsig's ZAMM by chance?
   3- How did you become interested in Bergson?
   4- Why has your work on Chaos-Equilibria been so omnifficult?
   5- How does C-E interrelate with Quantonic's DQ-SQ looping ontology?
   6- How does C-E coobsfect human sentients? In context-sensitive ways?
   7- Is Chaos non-linear? Equilibria linear?  Is Reality predominately non-linear?  
       Wouldn't Chaos insure Absolute Change?  Whereas Equilibria would insure
       some degreeings of stasis?  Is this why you have stated that Chaos is master
       of Equilibria?
 
                                                                    Quantum Regards,
                                                                    ~Dale

6 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Miscellaneous.
Date:	Sat, 19 Dec 2012 12:22AM (EDT)
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@yahoo.com

Dale,

See embedded answer 2 below:

On 12/17/12 1:22 PM, Audio Head wrote:

Hey Doug!
 
   1- You have a mathematics degree and worked as a software engineer, what made you philosophically inclined?
   2- Did you [by choice] choose to read Pirsig's ZAMM by chance?

Dale,

In quantonics quantum~chance is process~multiplicately~affective,..., thus quantized affectationings have myriad unintended (unplanned, unpredictable, (again) chance, etc.) outcomings.

Hard to imagine, but WWW didn't exist in 1978. Thus I heard about ZMM. I read about ZMM. I saw it in book stores. I th~ought about whether I should read it. I had multiple other texts competing for my attention. (Gödel, Escher, Bach may be an example, as I recall.)

I eventually quantum~selected ZMM mostly out of curiosity.

It was a Good multiplicately~affected, quantum~temporally~durational due diligent quantum~choice. An (many) affective, qualitative quantum~choice. I doubt my, then unsaid, efforts would have emerged as they have had I not read ZMM, although as I said prior, I think my future held some promise in philosophical endeavors. (A lab experience at Magnavox in about 1970 changed my scion. I overheard an omniscussion twixt a lab director and a then prominent consultant (Rudy Schallo (sp?), PhD. on 'quantum.' I hadn't realized until now that experience greatly affected, partially~holographically, durationally my 'years later ZMM selection.')

Key here, I proffer, is that I had 'no' classical predicate 'plan' to read ZMM. My 'intention' was affective~quantum, 'not' methodic, classically-effective. My decisionings were sophist, evoked by many qualitative affective facets of my being's multiplicately~affected durationally~evolving predilectionings. My decisionings were about likelihoodings of plausibilityings of my choicings. My Bergsonian~durational selectionings, via many evolutionary quantum~hologra[[il][m][ph]]ic processings, were 'not' based on state-ic independent classically atemporal (i.e., classical time as continuous, linear, and analytically stoppable) dialectical either-or binary thing-king.

That is too verbose, I agree, but I sense presence of your gauntlet,

Doug.
~=~=~

   3- How did you become interested in Bergson?
   4- Why has your work on Chaos-Equilibria been so omnifficult?
   5- How does C-E interrelate with Quantonic's DQ-SQ looping ontology?
   6- How does C-E coobsfect human sentients? In context-sensitive ways?
   7- Is Chaos non-linear? Equilibria linear?  Is Reality predominately non-linear?  
       Wouldn't Chaos insure Absolute Change?  Whereas Equilibria would insure
       some degreeings of stasis?  Is this why you have stated that Chaos is master
       of Equilibria?
 
                                                                    Quantum Regards,
                                                                    ~Dale

7 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Miscellaneous.
Date:	Sat, 19 Dec 2012 9:00PM (EDT)
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@yahoo.com

Dale,

Query 3 Answer embedded below:

On 12/17/12 1:22 PM, Audio Head wrote:

Hey Doug!
 
   1- You have a mathematics degree and worked as a software engineer, what made you philosophically inclined?
   2- Did you [by choice] choose to read Pirsig's ZAMM by chance?
   3- How did you become interested in Bergson?

Dale,

I think I first read about Bergson when I read first time Prigogine and Stengers' Order Out of Chaos late 1980s early 1990s. They have a brief ref. to Bergson. (somewhat inaccurate IMO)

When I started Quantonics Web Site in 1998 I visited (Reed College in Oregon:) Rhett Savage's (now extinct) web site "H is for h-bar." He sicced me onto Mae-wan Ho's fabulous the Rainbow and the Worm.

Mae-wan and I corresponded briefly. I reviewed her book, a 1993 first edition, in about 1998-1999. She had rather glowing remarks re Bergson, and her comments were, for me, very quantum. I ended up reviewing three of Bergson's books, and they (similar as you) helped me to formulate A New Quantum~Philosophy which is still evolving.

As much as I love (1928- ) Pirsig...Bergson kicks his ass in spades! As Mae-wan is a modern quantum~biologist, Bergson (1859-1941) was a quantum~biological~philosopher 100 years prior! Bergson was a Jew (quantum~intuitive due Autiot influence). Pirsig, I think, was a Norwegian-Swede or similar (struggled with quantum stuff).

I'm still learning from Bergson. Of all Quantonics' high Value quantum hits Bergson now is most popular...especially in China. Russia too! Not in USA, however. LOL.

There is more...but that's enough,

Doug.
~=~=~

   4- Why has your work on Chaos-Equilibria been so omnifficult?
   5- How does C-E interrelate with Quantonic's DQ-SQ looping ontology?
   6- How does C-E coobsfect human sentients? In context-sensitive ways?
   7- Is Chaos non-linear? Equilibria linear?  Is Reality predominately non-linear?  
       Wouldn't Chaos insure Absolute Change?  Whereas Equilibria would insure
       some degreeings of stasis?  Is this why you have stated that Chaos is master
       of Equilibria?
 
                                                                    Quantum Regards,
                                                                    ~Dale

8 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Miscellaneous.
Date:	Sat, 20 Dec 2012 7:05AM (EDT)
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@yahoo.com

Dale,

See answer 4 embedded below:

On 12/17/12 1:22 PM, Audio Head wrote:

Hey Doug!
 
   1- You have a mathematics degree and worked as a software engineer, what made you philosophically inclined?
   2- Did you [by choice] choose to read Pirsig's ZAMM by chance?
   3- How did you become interested in Bergson?
   4- Why has your work on Chaos-Equilibria been so omnifficult?

Dale,

Dialectically 'chaos' is a 'state.' Dialectically 'equilibrium' is a 'state.' Dialectically chaos, equilibria, and all other reified reality, by canon 'law,' cannot 'evolve.'

Dialectically 'chaos' is 'opposite' 'equilibrium.' Classical binary alternative denial: BAD AKA classical negation's 'contradiction.' Negation cannot 'be' in quantum~reality due quantum~complementarity of only positive flux.

In quantum~reality flux cancellation takes classical negation's (axiomatic) 'place.'

Begin aside 30Aug2013:

Clearly Dale is challenging Doug's credulity in this dialogue, and that is much appreciated.

However, Doug too needs to challenge himself...endlessly...

In that vein Doug has been reading a biography of Dirac by Helge S. Kragh titled Dirac: A Scientific Biography, CUP 1990. Helge is two years Doug's junior.

Helge's bio of Dirac is (so far) excellent, even though it is classical. Why? Science is classical: objective, formal, quantitative, mechanical, linear, continuous, etc.

In Chapter 2 'Discovery of Quantum Mechanics,' Helge uses a classical term (among many others) 'amplitude.' Use of that term made Doug think_q of his own words just above, and a quantum~corollary for amplitude:

In quantum~reality flux rate takes classical amplitude's (axiomatic) 'place.'

Dirac's Heisenbergian adventure post 1925 into Poisson Brackets evoked Doug's response above.

End aside 30Aug2013.

Quantumly 'chaos' is a process (flux), an evolutionary process (flux): variable rate absolute change (flux). Quantumly 'equilibrium' is a process, an evolutionary process: variable rate stochastic uncertainty. Key here is seeing, "Cha¤s are ihn equilihbria and equilihbria are ihn cha¤s: n¤n classically 'contradictory,' n¤n classically negatable quantum~flux~complementation." AKA "Sophism." Quantum~redemption!

Quantumly 'chaos' is complementary 'equilibrium.' Compare down and up. Compare wrong and right. Compare east and west. Compare position and momentum. Etc. Quantum~HotMeme™ "Either-or n¤ more!"™ Quantum~HotMeme™.

Dialectically theory is "value-free." I.e., classical 'science' is value-free. Classical 'science' says, following Hume, "There is 'no' bridge twixt fact and Value." See Doug's January, 2007 TQS News for detail.

Quantumly reality is 'not' dialectically "value-free," rather is holographically~pragma~empirically "Value~full." View pragma here as roughly: transmutative interrelationshipings' ubiquitous and perpetual scintilla enabled by ubiquitous and perpetual quantization of flux. See graphical QVH loop in QVH Table.

But Value is radically quantum~flux~interrelativ[[e][ity]] (rqfi) and radically quantum~comtext sensitiv[[e][ity]] (rqcs): quantum~holographic. For example, a hot stove is great for cooking but horrible for sitting (Pirsig). A bullet is good for shooting animal protein and horrible for shooting humans. All of reality is flux Value~relative like that. Much omnifficulty(ings). "Flux can explain 'state,' but 'state' cannot explain flux." Bergson, paraphrased. See QQA on 'measure.'

More challenging ... both chaos and equilibria have evolving gradience(ings). Value has evolving gradience(ings). We can measure monitor (omnitor) (inter)relative Value based upon rqcs and relative flux rates and their gradience(ings). But gradience of Value has gradience too (gradience of gradience, GoG) so it too is Value (inter)relative. We see manifesta of systemic fractal~recursion very similar, e.g., velocity (Value) vav acceleration (gradience of Value).

That scratches surface of our chaoequil omnifficulties. Exegesis of 'how' quantum~reality 'works' in those terms is non trivial (perhaps only for Doug). I understood none of this two years ago!!! Of late, gradually, I am becoming one with it...

I am working on it, (a never ending story...)

Doug.
One may only become one with one's soul, gradually and alone...(paraphrasing Jung in 'The Desert' and 'Experiences in the Desert' Liber Primus, Red Book). Pure Gnosis.
~=~=~

   5- How does C-E interrelate with Quantonic's DQ-SQ looping ontology?
   6- How does C-E coobsfect human sentients? In context-sensitive ways?
   7- Is Chaos non-linear? Equilibria linear?  Is Reality predominately non-linear?  
       Wouldn't Chaos insure Absolute Change?  Whereas Equilibria would insure
       some degreeings of stasis?  Is this why you have stated that Chaos is master
       of Equilibria?
 
                                                                    Quantum Regards,
                                                                    ~Dale

9 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Miscellaneous.
Date:	Sat, 21 Dec 2012 12:54PM (EDT)
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@yahoo.com

Dale,

...I am separately copying this answer to Steven and Neelie so they can share my holiday gift to you, with you...

Steven and Neelie...this is my holiday present to Dale for all his hard work with and in Quantonics for last eleven years.

This query is superb since it answers a question, "What is quantum~reality." There is also, apropos today's Mayan apparently non event, a PS from Carlo Suares. Yum!

See Answer 5 embedded below:

On 12/17/12 1:22 PM, Audio Head wrote:

Hey Doug!
 
   1- You have a mathematics degree and worked as a software engineer, what made you philosophically inclined?
   2- Did you [by choice] choose to read Pirsig's ZAMM by chance?
   3- How did you become interested in Bergson?
   4- Why has your work on Chaos-Equilibria been so omnifficult?
   5- How does C-E interrelate with Quantonic's DQ-SQ looping ontology?

Dale,

From a Quantonics 'New Quantum Philosophy' perspective, we have two essential notions: quantization and scintillation (quanta and scintillation of quanta).

Ontologically Doug assumes quanta are intrinsic in nature. Without quanta we have n¤ scintilla, i.e., quanta self~other scintillate: interrelate, i.e., flux_q fux_q flux_q a la Jung's quantum~libido. Our two best existing exemplars are QED and QCD. QED is about photon~electron scintillation. Feynman said, "QED explains all actuality." Then he qualified, "We don't actually know that."

QED does explain transmutative evolution of 'existing' actuality. Transmutation and evolution are impossible without quanton(scin,quan). To extend QED in actuality we can include radiation: alpha, beta, gamma, etc. But we may also include those mutative quantum~processes in our enthymemes of quanta and scintilla. Broadening QED's scope to include radiation appears to Doug as a viable meme.

So QED is about evolution of actuality. (E.g., human: birth, being, dying, unbeing and loop perpetually...)

QCD is about ontological looping (Aleph's) creation~discreation of actuality: creatio ex nihilo aperio and creatio nihilo ex vivo aperio. I.e., creation from nothing laid bare and creation of nothing from life laid bare.

When we extend DQ~SQ's looping ontology to view it in terms of QED and QCD we get Quantonics' Gen III reality loop and Quantonics' QVH Table loop. Plus.

Think of SQ as actuality which can be transmuted~evolved (QED) and as actuality which can be created from n¤ 'thing (DQ) (QCD).'

CE (Chaos Equilibria) are complementary. Like this: quanton(chaos,equilibria). (Quantum flux~hologramically,) Chaos is in equilibria and equilibria are in chaos..."without contradiction"...without classical negation...without classical opposition and binary alternative denials. (This is metaphoric of Jesus' farewell discourse (God is in us and we are in God) and Pirsig's "mind is in body and body is in mind, without contradiction." Jung does something similar, like this: quanton(unconscious,conscious) where Jung's version of our quanton's comma~nospace represents Sophia (our grail channel to G¤d) as 'subconscious' middle~inclusive wormhole which enables nous' scintillation of conscious and unconscious! Latter is think_qing. AKA quantum~th~¤ught. Doug calls this "straddling.")

(Pirsig with Doug renditioning) "Reality issi Quality issi Value issi quanton(DQ,SQ)." Those interrelationshipings evolve and transmute: Value evolves and transmutes. Value issi quanton(chaos,equilibria).

Classical 'value' is dichon(chaos, equilibria). Succinctly 'value' is ESQ! (This addresses one of your oldest queries.)

Classical 'value' canonically denies both quanta and scintilla, and thus spawns ESQ. Pirsig called it "being stuck" which is just a phrase for classical concrete.

Chaos can be high rate (high gradience) change. Chaos can be low rate change. Equilibria may include ensembles of high and low chaos as gradience.

An example of chaos at subatomic scale is quantum comjugation (scintillation) of an electron by a photon. Modulation of electron's energy by a photon which induces a adiabatic quantum~leap we may refer "quantum~chaos." We, too, may refer it "quantum~scintillation." Electron prior modulation may be described as "in equilibrium." Electron after it has leapt to an new energy level may be described as a "new equilibrium." Now just imagine what is going on in both of your retinas just now as you are reading this.

Ditto sound. Balance. Heat. Smell. Touch. Thought. Emotion. Decisioning.

Consider photon torpedoes.

Doug can go through similar descriptions for QCD's gluons and quarks and their ontic creation of quarks. Again, creation of quanta then subsequent scintillation of quanta [Aleph, DQ]. Gluons are bosons and quarks are fermions, and all are quanta and scintillate one another.

But creation needs a much higher kind of scintillation than what mutates and evolves actuality: Higgs boson AKA 'The God 'particle.'' Doug's version is G¤d's 'wavicles.' Without Higgs bosons (G¤d's) wavicles, there is n¤ creation via quantum scintillation of DQ (isoflux, Aleph) into SQ (flux, Yod): TBCS (DQ) -> UD -> DUD (neutrons) and UDU (protons) (SQ). This loop is ubiquitous and perpetual.

In Quantonics we call that quantum~reality, Dale,

Doug.
PS - Considering today is supposed to be a Mayan calendar date of 'ending...?' I thought this quote apropos:

"Thus the so called Spirit of God [Jung's Spirit of the depths.] acts like a steam roller every time Yod [SQ] does not play the game properly. And that action is one of the facts of life we know best: wars, destructions, disasters of all sorts, both in the outer world and in our own inner life; our frustrations and failures; the annihilation of our achievements; and the terrible refusal of life in response to our hopes and our projects. But from these ruins, these misfortunes, rise the triumphs of ever-fertile life. In order that the new may spring forth without ceasing, must not the old, also without ceasing be destroyed? This destructive [and creative (loop)] aspect of life is essentially the activity of Aleph [DQ]: the action of non-temporal life against the continuity of existence, with its resulting violence and despair." Carlo Suares, Cipher of Genesis, first ed. March, 1970, p. 82. Brackets and first line Italics are Doug's and no other alterations to quote. Doug - 21Dec2012.

Doug, near end, would have written, "...against the quantized nonlinear continuity..."

Fourth Turning is happening and above describes it, IMO. Kondratieff Winter is upon us and above describes it. What about Mayan event? Is it in there?

Dale, can you rewrite this (adapt it) in terms of Doug's above omniscription of quantum~reality in terms of chaos and equilibrium; in terms of quanta and scintilla?
~=~=~

   6- How does C-E coobsfect human sentients? In context-sensitive ways?
   7- Is Chaos non-linear? Equilibria linear?  Is Reality predominately non-linear?  
       Wouldn't Chaos insure Absolute Change?  Whereas Equilibria would insure
       some degreeings of stasis?  Is this why you have stated that Chaos is master
       of Equilibria?
 
                                                                    Quantum Regards,
                                                                    ~Dale

10 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Miscellaneous.
Date:	Sat, 22 Dec 2012 7:52PM (EDT)
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@yahoo.com

Dale,

See embedded answer 6 below.

On 12/17/12 1:22 PM, Audio Head wrote:

Hey Doug!
 
   1- You have a mathematics degree and worked as a software engineer, what made you philosophically inclined?
   2-  Did you by choose to read Pirsig's ZAMM by chance?
   3- How did you become interested in Bergson?
   4- Why has your work on Chaos-Equilibria been so omnifficult?
   5- How does C-E interrelate with Quantonic's DQ-SQ looping ontology?
   6- How does C-E coobsfect human sentients? In context-sensitive ways?

Dale,

If we generalize one graphic (a recent one) which I linked earlier, it offers Doug's view of your query. Take a look:



Double pointed 'recursion' arrows represent Doug's quantum~redemptive fractal~recursive coobsfection in humans, if we view each human as A Reservoir of Wave Functions viewing another human viewing his viewer. It applies to all senses, not just vision. It is also a very primitive m¤dal of a quantum~computer's inner workings and its sensory quantons.

Only one more to go...but it looks like a challenge...,

Doug.
~=~=~

   7- Is Chaos non-linear? Equilibria linear?  Is Reality predominately non-linear?  
       Wouldn't Chaos insure Absolute Change?  Whereas Equilibria would insure
       some degreeings of stasis?  Is this why you have stated that Chaos is master
       of Equilibria?
 
                                                                    Quantum Regards,
                                                                    ~Dale

11 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Miscellaneous.
Date:	Sat, 26 Dec 2012 9:23AM (EDT)
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@yahoo.com

Dale,

See embedded Answer 7 below...

On 12/17/12 1:22 PM, Audio Head wrote:

Hey Doug!
 
   1- You have a mathematics degree and worked as a software engineer, what made you philosophically inclined?
   2- Did you [by choice] choose to read Pirsig's ZAMM by chance?
   3- How did you become interested in Bergson?
   4- Why has your work on Chaos-Equilibria been so omnifficult?
   5- How does C-E interrelate with Quantonic's DQ-SQ looping ontology?
   6- How does C-E coobsfect human sentients? In context-sensitive ways?
   7- Is Chaos non-linear? Equilibria linear?  Is Reality predominately non-linear?  
       Wouldn't Chaos insure Absolute Change?  Whereas Equilibria would insure
       some degreeings of stasis?  Is this why you have stated that Chaos is master
       of Equilibria?

Dale,

Succinctly, yæs, n¤, yæs, yæs, n¤, yæs.
(Six issi one, two, three twos, two threes, three palindromic 1,2,3s (quanton(yny,yny) and
quanton(yn,quanton(yy,ny)), six ones...and wonderfully in this case: all issi palindromic: ynyyny (one as a wholism_q).)

Interpretant hermeneutic phenomena of quantum~nous engaging quantum semiosy.

Let's detail them one at a time:

a. Is Chaos non-linear?

o Quantization and scintillation of quanta 'guarantee' this.
o I.e., change is quantum~reality's only 'certainty.' Cærtaihnty!
o However, and QR's saving grace: absolute quantum~change is stochastic so 'uncertainty' isn't 'absolute.'
   What does this 'mean' for chance? Whatings happenings nextings? Complementarity_q certainty,uncertainty!
o These memeos_q bear heavily on memes of equilibria_q and chaos_q...and their gradiencings_q...and their entendres.

b. Equilibria linear?

o Only apparently from any classical con spective.
o Smootheness of reality's flow is an apparition since quanta are so fast our senses are somewhat incapable...
   E.g., we aren't aware of our own intra hologramic cellular apoptosis and resurrectionings.
   Equilibrium appears as 'state.' State appears linear which Bergson says is a classical 'stability'
   delusion (and 'state' cannot explain flux).

c. Is Reality predominately non-linear?

o See a. (We do n¤t know about DQ-isoflux. Doug assumes their iso~quantization, and
   Higgs boson begs inferences of scintilla.)

d. Wouldn't Chaos insure Absolute Change?

o Yæs. Key here is gradiencings of chaos mastering equilibria.
o Too, change is (and chance and choice are) radically relative to any
   referencing-referring coobsfective (rqcs) view's comtext anywhere in any hologram.

e. Whereas Equilibria would insure some degreeings of stasis?

o Classical stasis is stoppable state.
o Quantum 'stasis' AKA equilibrium is absolute change with low(er) gradiencings of chaos.

f. Is this why you have stated that Chaos is master of Equilibria?

o Doug assumes actual quantum~evolution is perpetual and ubiquitous.
o Chaos is 'master' of always~changing aspect of quantum~evolution.

Details are a library of effort over many secula.

To any classically-retarded mind, above is: "...perverseness, prevarication, equivocation, nonsense, absurdity and so on..."

Happy holidays, Dale,

Doug.
Dale, I will probably want to use this with credits to you in my next round attempt at Chapter IV, Segment (topic) one. I assume you approve. Let me know.

I appreciate your gauntlet's straining my self~credulity.
~=~=~

 
                                                                    Quantum Regards,
                                                                    ~Dale

12 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	C-E Recap.
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2013 12:21PM (EDT)
From:	FlameProof@yahoo.com
To:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT

Hey Doug!
 
     I've studied your responses to my queries and thinkq I've absorbed most
of them into my quantum stagings.  Many thanks...you've obviously put a lot
of th-ought into C-E.  Much clarification on some cloudy issues, especially
classical stasis vav quantum "stasis"
     Also, informative were roles of quantization-scintilla; QED-QCD...chaos
as absolute change, equilibria as stochastic uncertainty, both quantum
complementary.  Noted was your omnifficult challenges of Value's rqfi-rqcs
and even more challenging evolving gradiences, both inter and intra(GoGs).
     A question:  does discreation follow similar but reverse pathwavings as
creation?  
     It is rare that I see an acronym so aptly representative that it creates a
double synonymous semantic, i.e. binary alternative denial.
 
                                                            Quantum Regards,
                                                             ~Dale

13 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Miscellaneous.
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2013 5:42PM (EDT)
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@yahoo.com

Dale,

In my opinion you have added query 8 to your list. Do you agree?

If you agree, then I will answer 8 serially.

   1- You have a mathematics degree and worked as a software engineer, what made you philosophically inclined?
   2-  Did you by choose to read Pirsig's ZAMM by chance?
   3- How did you become interested in Bergson?
   4- Why has your work on Chaos-Equilibria been so omnifficult?
   5- How does C-E interrelate with Quantonic's DQ-SQ looping ontology?
   6- How does C-E coobsfect human sentients? In context-sensitive ways?
   7- Is Chaos non-linear? Equilibria linear?  Is Reality predominately non-linear?  
       Wouldn't Chaos insure Absolute Change?  Whereas Equilibria would insure
       some degreeings of stasis?  Is this why you have stated that Chaos is master
       of Equilibria?
   8- In light of questions 5 through 7, does discreation follow similar but reverse
      pathwavings as creation?

Your 8th  query is superb since it nicely pulls other questions together in a coherency.

You can get an idea of what my response will look like by imagining C-E doing
transmutations which are omnissipative vav generative (consider Doug's
A Quantum Cuneiform Primer). Imagine (fuzzon to) fermion ontology in
reverse, sort of similar what you suggest. Clearly that primer must be expanded
to extend its semasiology to include actuality to non actuality C-E evolutionings.

As always, Quantonics is incomplete... My successors have plenty of work ahead...

As I wrote responses to 1-7 I was thinking of evolution within 'actuality.' I haven't
thought about devolution from actuality back into n¤n actuality from any C-E
complementarospectivings.

We need to introduce some novel memeos here, for example: iso omnissipation.

Doug.
~=~=~

14 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Miscellaneous.
Date:	Sat, 16 Jan 2013 3:18PM (EDT)
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@yahoo.com

Dale,

That quote of Gödel "Time does not exist," is an interesting notion (classical) and a Value~able memeo (quantum).

I cover most of this in more detail under my QELR of 'atemporal.'

I want to show a brief summary here so that you can more easily wrap your noodle around it...better.

Words which attend classical notions of time:

• time is monistic (One Time Fits All, OTFA)
• time is space rate (moronicity of classical science based in dialectic)
• time is a space identity (moronicity of Einstein)
• time doesn't exist (classical atemporality)
• time as a space rate proxy is stoppable
• evolution in a stopped or stoppable actuality isn't possible, or at best has to be stoppable too
• if time doesn't exist, momentum doesn't exist...think about it (classical notions of 'zero momentum')
• zero latency action at a distance is impossible (moronicity of Einstein; he claimed axiomatic, "action takes time")

Words which attend quantum memeos of time:

• time is pluralistic (Many Timings Fit All, MTFA)
• time is many fluxings (conceivably one time for each quantum, and ensembles of those)
• time is a change metaphor
• since change_q is absolute time as changings exist absolutely
• atemporality means:
  • some quantum~transmutations happen without delay (zero latency, e.g., electron adiabatic leap to higher level)
  • time is immeasurable n¤n actuality (in quantum~vacuum flux AKA isoflux)
  • actual processes which happen atemporally, i.e., adiabatically, without using time, also do n¤t use any energy and thus are 100% efficient
  • actual processes of photons which 'tunnel' use zero time while tunneling...offering a physi[c]al result of traveling faster than light
    (ask yourself, "How many biophotons in our brains tunnel as part of their actual thought processings?" When you flex an arm?)
  • action at a distance (quantum~correlation) exists_q
• all of quantum~reality is in absolute motion, therefore any 'notion' of zero momentum, any 'notion' of stoppability is bogus

As you can see classical notions of time are inutile and thus very low 'value.' Quantum~memeos of time are almost unlimited in Value and potential.

Doug.
~=~=~

15 of 15 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Miscellaneous.
Date:	Sat, 17 Jan 2013 8:31AM (EDT)
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@yahoo.com

Dale,

D-part of OEDC has to do with chaoequil issues of 'reversibility.' In general, in any classical sense, quantum~reality isn't
reversible (isn't y=f(+-t)) due quantization.

I recently updated QELR of 'reversible' to touch on these philosophical issues. Here is a graphic:

Doug will fledge all of those here as our QELR work on equilibrium evolves. (More revisions as of 26Nov2012 - Doug.)

A large issue is classical history (a monism) vis-à-vis quantum history (a plethoric heterogeneity of ensembles of wave function energy~wellings). Classical history is usually thought about as, assumed as a single history, a unitemporal (y=f(t) and y=f(-t) history; a simple classical minus sign can 'reverse history'). As a result of that assumption, retraceability of history appears 'reasonable.' Quantum~history leaves an quantized entropy trail, and has many timings (pluralism) none of whose histories is monistic in any classical sense. Con(m)sider how all 'histories' are evolving, n¤t monistically-unitemporally dead and stable and frozen ESQ as classicists polemicize. Quantum~memeo of hist¤ry begs general irreversibility except for very short and local temporal durations in coherent and isocoherent wave~functional subsystems (See Doug's coining of Isot and compare Ison and Isop). Doug asks you to view subsystems as used here as EWing of EWings. This example shows us that quantization and its bedfellow scintillation manifest hologra[[il][m][ph]]ic ephemera of manyings of everythingings everywhereings and everywhenings. Quantum systems therefore are generally irreversible. Try to imagine a system similar this as classically reversible (note classical-reversibility-disabling red and green quanta and blue~dotted isoflux energy tapping):

Doug - 24,26Nov2012.

One powerful aspect of this image is that it shows quantum~cuneiformic quantal ensembles interrelating with isoflux. Very OEDC.
Imagine ontological processings in actuality which chaoequilly evolve into transitions (transmutations) back into isoflux.

That's about as good as it gets,

Doug.
~=~=~