Classical assess: stability independence excluded-middle EOOOness H5Wness lisrability causation certainty EEMDivity observation : Probability

Frank Plumpton in his 1926 Truth and Probability Essay on Keynesian anti probability notions (Doug compares that to von Mises' pro subjective probability memes) writes:

"...The second view of probability as depending on logical relations but not itself a new logical relation seems to me more plausible than Mr. Keynes' usual theory;..." See Kyburg and Smokler, Studies in Subjective Probability, Wiley, 1964.

Doug interprets Plumpton saying, "Probability does not depend upon 'logical relations,' rather it depends upon transemerqant (quanton(scintillation,quantization)) flux~interrelationshipings." From a Doug note 24May2011.

Of course Quantum~Relativity issi quantum~flux~interrelationshipings and thus implicitly subjective. Too, those interrelationshipings represent evolving real Value in quantum~reality.

Doug - 7Jun2011.

Also,

"...primary and irreducible assumptions are grounded on a basis as much of the aesthetic as of the logical order." Ending clause of Bernard O. Koopman, 1940, in his The Bases of Probability. Koopman concludes with a quanton(aesthetic,logical).

Classically, probability theory founds itself on many archaic beliefs, which we call CTMs, including:

• probability is a theory about a material, objective, logical, rational, reasonable reality
• probability theory is, like all science, mechanical
• mathematics is a valid tool for expressing classical probability
• etc.

Most classical probability theorists believe that classical probability is purely objective.

A few theorists believe that probability theory has mostly subjective aspects, but can still be expressed mechanically using objective tools like mathematics. Perhaps more prominent subjective probabilists include: Thomas Bayes, Emile Borel, Bruno de Finetti, Bernard O. Koopman, Frank Ramsey, Leonard J. Savage, and John Venn.

If you have studied Quantonics well you know that quantum reality exhibits some very n¤nclassical and to any classicist some very queer, strange, and paradoxical phenomena, including:

and so forth...(this list appears, at YE 2004, as unbounded).

Adepts will note absence of a substitution for uncertainty. This is a huge tell for what we are attempting to explain here. Probability is uncertainty! Ramifications of that simple declarative phrase are enormous! You may recall John Forbes Nash's, "Probability is everything!" Everyone else at Princeton ~50+ years ago thought he was crazy when he said that. Allow us to say it a tad more profoundly:

Quantum reality is probability! (Elsewhere and prior we have said, "Quantum reality is radically stochastic.")

"How can that be?"

Let's make a short list of phenomena which quantum probability and heterogeneous animate EIMA probability interrelationshipings aphorize:

• quantization
• scintillation borne of quantization
• quantum uncertainty
• quantum included~middle
• quantum complementarity (con(m)sider how this eliminates any classical notions of 'contradiction')
• quantum relativity
• quantum arbitrary spatial distribution
• quantum coherence
• quantum entanglement
• quantum interference (essentially 'exhibited and n¤t via' self~other network reference quantized interrelationshipings)
• quantum heterogeneity (~absolute pluralism and ~islandic apparitional monisms; see both monism and pluralism; this is delicious: a probability is an islandic monism and its data ensemble is a pluralism! See our recent 2004 What is Wrong with Probability as Value?)
• quantum Fermi~Bose ontologies
• quantum QED~QCD ontologies
• quantum superposition
• quantum OEDCyclings
• Bell's inequalities
• quantum~phasicityings
• quantum measurement 'problem'
• quantum interpretation 'problem'
• etc.

Allow us to offer an example of probability (quantum likelihood) omnistributions as both a monism (distribution) and then as a quantum~coherent~pluralism (omnistribution). Bobby Knight IU B-Ball-Team playing B-ball and Knight imposing his dogma Quantum Coherent IU B-Ball-Team playing B-ball absent outside direction What we see here is, say some quantum uncertainty shown first as a monistic quantum likelihood distribution, and then as same distribution as attracting a pluralism of 51 other QLOs. Should we show latter without its monism, since our ensemble of 51 attractors emerqs it? Let us know what you think, ohr perhaps, thingk. Also fathom how our 51 attractors are neatly ordered for graphic convenience. Imagine them, starting from right, rotated incrementally say five degrees each increment. Imagine them all animated, asynchronously, yet retaining their quasi~monistic quantum physial (n¤t mechanical) homeomorphism. And here is a QLO with each quantum point shown as a 2D fuzzon, each of which is an ensemble attractor of ~unlimited fuzzon QLOs! You cann¤t see it (click on graphic to see detail; there is n¤ monistic distribution shown for this ensemble), and this fuzzon's monism is actually absent, since its ensemble emerqs it. Is that better? Why? Are you a monism classically omnistinct your QLOs? Are you your QLOs with/without your monism? Are you a BAWAM of your actual ensemble and its monism? Your ensemble and its monist emerqancy? Where[ings] issings your monism? When[ings] issings your monism? If you cut your finger and lose (quantum subtract) some blood, are you still you? Why? Why not? Estimate how many QLOs are in a gram of your blood. (Assume, swag, you are a googol of QLOs. Assume you weigh, say 70 kilograms. Surprising, eh?) Can someone make a ~copy of you from your blood? (Recall Molly, a sheep.) If you give (quantum subtract) one of your kidneys to save a relative, are you still you? Why? Why not? How can you perform such miraculous walking, running, working, athletic and dance physical pragma and still retain your quantum physial homeomorphism? How can you whistle and still retain a tune's quantum physial homeomorphism? How do your attractors change when you ad lib? Improvise? Innovate? Invent? Imagine? Dream? What would light's monism and its color attractors look like as we quantum~recursively recapitulate those attractors from 400-750 nanometers? What impact on quantum~phase 'resolution' does your choice of color attractor 'increment' have? Is our question classical? Why? Is light durational? Is it analytic? Can we really analyze light? Does a prism 'analyze' light? Why? Why n¤t? A rainbow? Is a prism a quantum~c¤mputer? Your eye? Does it quantum~m¤nitor light ihn real heter¤~tihmings? What are red's quantum likelihood omnistributionings? Is red analytic? Do classicists assume red is analytic? Should they? Does it make any omnifferencings? Doug - 7-8nov2004.

Classical probability theory appears to be evolving. Its ontology might be viewed like this: purely objective, subjective, either-or objective-subjective, both-and objective-subjective,...

What's next?

We believe quantum probability theory is next.

Why?

Current quantum mechanical theory would not even exist as it is and be incredibly viable as it is were it not for subjective probability theory! Simply, quantum mechanics does not work without probability theory, where less objective and more subjective appear better! For us, this is just more evidence for our own beliefs that quantum reality is mostly subjective and only apparently~apparitionally objective.

What are some examples of this claim?

We offer at least two which show a trial commencement yellow brick road Chautauqua from classical to quantum:

1. classical probability is a non negative, additive set function, with a maximum probability value normalized to unity, and
2. classical probability as a limit of relative frequency. (See first couple of pages of Introduction, Studies in Subjective Probability, Kyburg & Smokler.)

We call number 2 a frequentist AKA empirical view of probability. It is quantumly comtextual, which, to a classicist, is subjective. A logical view denies probability as empirical. A quantum view requires probability to be empirical, explicitly evolute empirical (due heterogeneity, animacy, EIMA, and subjectivity of quantum reality). Logical probability demands EOOO. Quantum empirical probability demands BAWAMings.

So we can say quantum reality is non classically logical, and it is both evolute empirical and subjective. We assert then, quantum probability theories must be quantum real too. See wisdom, and gnosis.

We say, then, number 1, perceived quantumly, is subjective. See our One is Onliest Number.

Quantum reality is n¤t negational! It is quantum c¤mplementary! (Re: number 1.)

Quantum reality is n¤t objectively particulate! It is quantum wave-ic and phase-ic! (Re: number 2.) Also see point.

Our two classical exemplars of probability offer proto-notions of a beginning classical re-cognition of a more quantumesque reality. See omniscriminate.

As you study quantum science, especially if you study it here in Quantonics, you will learn that, metaphorically, probabilities are waves and waves are probabilities and quantum realities are waves (we say, "quantum fluxings and isofluxings") which can and do act (AKA pragma) as immaterial n¤nactuality, immaterial actuality, and material actuality! Quantum reality is quantum pr¤babilihstic!

Further, classical 'zero' and 'one' are ideal, inanimate, immutable classical concepts. In quantum reality, classically ideal '0' and '1' probabilities do n¤t 'exist.' Quantum probabilities are animate, absolute flux. This looms quite profoundly when one realizes that zeroness and oneness themselves are quantum animate, EIMA stochasticities!

So classical probability theory has preliminarily intuited some protoproemial quantum memeos, just as Dr. Stein innovated with his random walk quantum object model.

Trouble is, classical theory is mechanical and objective. Quantum reality is neither 'mechanical' n¤r 'objective.' To us, that means that a viable theory of probability, a quantum theory of probability must give up classical notions of reality.

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : Pr¤babilihty

Comsider:

Classical probability distributions are mechanically numeric.

Quantum pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns aræ n¤nmæchanihcahlly n¤mæric.

Allow us to readily ¤mnistinguish classical notions of probability amd quantum mæmæos ¤f pr¤babililihty.

Classical probability assessment depends upon mechanical ensembles of tautological recurrences.

Quantum pr¤babilihty assæssmænt uhsæs ænsehmble pattærns ¤f sælf-sihmihlar frahctal ræcursi¤ns.

As an example, we can ask a question, "What is the probability of a single, unique event?" Both classically and quantumly, thæræ issi n¤ way ¤f k~n¤wing! Probability assessments require repetition ¤hr apparænt ræpætihti¤n ¤f pattærns. If some pattern only occurs once, (see Doug's CeodE 14Dec2008 QELR of 'occur') it can be said to "not repeat ¤hr appæar t¤ n¤t ræpeat."

Let's discuss classical notions of repetition vis-à-vis quantum mæmæos ¤f ræpætihti¤n.

Classical reality is formal. Classicists both assume and presume putatively that formal process repeats exactly, over and over and over. This is their basis for experimentation, observation, verification, and validation of classical 'laws.' It makes an assumption that 'initial conditions' may be restored over and over as needed to perform 'scientific' experiments.

Quantum ræhlihty issi abs¤lutæly anihmatæ, amd ihts mihddle issi ihncludæd which bælihæs ihntrinsihcahlly any classical notions of ideal formality and repetitive, tautological mechanicity. Ræhlihties' pr¤cæssings nævær ideally, classically, 'repeat identically.' They cann¤t formally 'repeat!' But quantum ræhlihty issi frahctal, s¤ ihts anihmatæ pattærns tændings t¤ sharæ modihca ¤f sælf~sihmihlarihty. Quantum pr¤babilihty ¤mniht¤rs this anihmatæ, EIMA, frahctal~ræcursi¤n ¤f ræhlihty's ¤nt¤l¤gihcal ihnterrelati¤nship pattærns am¤ng quantum æmærgænce, bæc¤ming, bæing, changing, is¤bæc¤ming, is¤bæing, is¤changing, bæc¤ming... Studænts sh¤uld ¤mnistinguish caræfully ¤ur quantum sæmantihcs f¤r quantum æmærgænce amd quantum bæc¤ming. F¤rmær, ihn Quantonics issi ¤mnihquæ, ¤ur quantum mæans ¤f n¤vel quantum æmærgænce (classically 'known' as a single one time 'unique event'). Lattær issi quantum pr¤cæssings ¤f frahctal ræcursi¤n sælf-sihmihlarihty, which issi a quantum bæing~ihn~ahctualihty 'sub_qset' ¤f a m¤re gænæral quantum ¤nt¤l¤gy. As an eample "humans quantum~æmærgæd ~50_q th¤uhsamd yæars ag¤, amd they have bææn quantum bæc¤ming since." That eample ¤f æmærgænce ¤mnistinguished ihtsælf ihn a fihrst ¤ccurræncæ ¤f a Homo sapiæns sapiæns gænomæ. H¤wævær, wæ muhst kææp ihn ¤ur quantum stages that "¤ccurræncæ" as uhsæd hæræ, ihtsælf t¤¤, issi a quantum pr¤cæss. Iht issi n¤t, was n¤t, an ideal classically lisrable-stoppable classical 'event.'

Quantum ¤nt¤l¤gy scalæs. Thuhs wæ can sahy quantum æmærgænce scalæs. A supærb ræhl~lihfe eample ¤f what wæ mæan by quantum æmærgænce issi appæarances ¤f n¤vel n-s¤mias ¤n næarly ahll 23_q paihrs ¤f chr¤mos¤mæs ihn ræhlihty's human gænomæ. At a human scalæ ¤f awaræness, wæ d¤ n¤t ævæn sænse these n-s¤mias, yæt at cællular amd chr¤mos¤mal lævæls ¤f awaræness, they aræ ihndææd pr¤f¤umd! Doug - 11May2004.

What issi m¤st key hæræ issi a quantum mæmæo that quantum æmærgænces, duæ their ¤mnihquæness, d¤ n¤t ræpeat. Why issi that ihmp¤hrtant? Their pr¤babilihty may n¤t bæ assæssed! This issi why y¤u hæar D¤ug sahying that quantum ræhlihty issi a quanton(ihndætærminacy,only_apparænt_dætærminacy). Oftæn y¤u wihll hæar D¤ug ræfer this quantum mæmæo as "radihcahlly st¤chastihc."

As you may be able to surmise, these two kinds of probability aræ vahstly ¤mnihfferænt ¤næ an¤thær. One is ideally mechanical while its quantum anahlogue issi ræhlly n¤nmæchanihcal.

Classical probability drives out any notions of novel emergence. It drives out notions of choice, chance, and change. A serious error of classical judgment arises here when classicists assume their quantum mechanics can assess probability 'mechanically.'

Quantum pr¤babilihty admihts ¤f ch¤¤sings, chancings, amd changings amd p¤tæntial f¤r ræhl n¤vel æmærgænce ¤f ¤mnihquæ amd umpræcædænted ræhlihties. Duhring fihrst dæcade ¤f Millænnium III, wæ have, as yæt, n¤ mæans ¤f ømniht¤ring gænuine quantum pr¤babilihty. Why? Wæ d¤ n¤t have gænæral quantum computers wh¤se qubihts aræ gænæral quantum qubihts. But nature alræhdy has these capabilihties! Where? Ihn, f¤r eample, y¤u amd mæ amd ahll ¤thær bi¤~'l¤gihcal' æmærqs. Nature's bi¤æmærqs aræ quantum computers. See qua.

See our subjectiv and subjective.

See our Bases of Judgment and our What is Wrong with Probability as Value. See our 2004 Quantum Reality Loop Generation III.

See our recent Quantonics' How Classicists View Reality.

Page top index.