Return to Quantonics English Language Remediation Index Page                                  Arches

If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

Quantonics' Quantum Remediation
English Language
Millennium III
by Doug Renselle
: 20Jul2002


Alphabetical Reference Index Quantonics English Language Remediation Pages
©Quantonics, Inc., 2002-2029

( says, "You are here!")

Master Index

Index to Quantonics English Language Remediated R Terms
Most recent additions-revisions marked add and rev.
See just below reality's quantum~radicals!
reason rectify
reduction relative
remediation repeatability reproduction response
  reverse reversibility
right rule    


English Language Problematic

Quantonics' Quantum

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2029


Etymology: "Before 1398,..., meaning able to reason,..." See Barnhart's Dictionary of Etymology.

Synonyms - classical:

  • analytic,
  • cerebral,
  • logic,
  • ratiocimetric,
  • reason,
  • thought,
  • etc.

Synonyms - quantum:

: Rational, rationale, ratiocinate, ratiocination, ratio, etc.

Rational usually means classical patterns of thought which adhere objective, substantial, material, physical Aristotelian syllogisms.

Rational means we can reason, syllogistically ratiocinate (measure by comparison) assess physical reality through state-ic measurement principles whose essence is in classical indefinables mass, length, and time. You may wish to add gravity (though bogus, as Einsteinian acceleration) to that list.

: No existing classical words (of which Doug is aware, though enthymeme comes close,) carry a quantum semantic for 'rational.' We can just remediate like this, rati¤nal, rati¤nale, etc. Add 'rational' link. Doug - 5Dec2009.

An immediate query arises when we compare classical CTMs and quantum QTMs, and one of you asked this: "Is rational the same as logical?"

Classically, "Yes." Quantumly "N¤."

Why? Classical reality is innately (by human 'design') logical. Quantum reality is n¤t in any classical sense 'logical.' Quantum~logic (an oxymoron) is, rather, coquecigrues.

Doug has prepared a detail comparison list of classical and quantum logic at our coquecigrues link in next left column.

Doug - 8May2007.

Page top index.



Synonyms - classical:

  • being actual
  • being true, truth
  • exists objectively
  • exists factually
  • exists materially
  • exists substantially
  • concrete existence
  • absolute truth as:
    • always states truth (consistent)
    • states all truths (complete)
  • etc.

Synonyms - quantum:

  • emergent change
  • qualitative evolution
  • subjective affectation of animate Value
  • Dynamic Quality (Pirsig)
  • absolute change as:
    • always changes (consistent)
    • changes all (complete)
  • etc.

Etymology - classical:

"reality n. 1550, from Middle French réalité, and directly from Medieval Latin realitas, from Late Latin realis real..." See Barnhart.

Reality is humans' and probably all multiversal sentients' greatest enigma!

A human attempting to offer exegetic and exoteric descriptions of reality is incredibly more omnifficult to imagine, let alone accomplish, than an ant attempting to explain to his herd what a human is.

It appears that our exegetics and exoterics are limited to incremental, yet naturally moral, progress of explanatory and descriptive OEDC(apparent_accretionings)... Human genetic evolution (e.g. N-somias replacing~accreting bi-somias in lieu of many chromosome pairs) and human cellular(self_resurrection,self_euthanasia) are superb natural exemplars here.

And so, that is what we do, that is what we are doing...trying our level best to be in quantum processings of better descriptionings of our personal heuristics and hermeneutics of reality.

We perceive at least three kinds of Earth chauvinistic, human contrived interrogatory notions, memes, and memeos of reality, all from mostly Western (occidental) cultural perspectives and conspectives:

  1. What is reality? Define reality!
  2. What is classical reality? Define classical reality!
  3. What is quantum reality? Describe quantum reality!

Number one we answer too simply with our ant vis-à-vis human and human vis-à-vis reality metaphors.

Two and three we answer using Quantonics' now fecund QELR approach...

Doug - 27Mar2005.

: Real, reality, etc.

What is classical reality? Simply, what is classical reality?

Classical reality is a closed, inanimate-stable, analytic, dialectical (objective), continuous, concrete, determinate (causal-effective, a posteriori), homogeneous, oppositional (EOOO, contradictory), bivalent, locus specific, quantitative, interactive, other-referent, EEMD, posentropic reality.

Classicists, SOMites, nearly all folk of Western culture at Millennium III's commencement believe that reality may be correctly and ontologically defined as Aristotelian, Thomist, Cartesian, Newtonian, and Einsteinian. We offer a list of classical words those folk used to define their interpretations of classical reality, in increasing order of classical reality assessment capability:

  1. stable (Bergson's first classical delusion)
  2. independent (Bergson's second classical delusion)
  3. oppositive (depends upon first two delusions)
  4. contradictory (depends upon third delusion)
  5. falsifiable (depends upon fourth delusion)
  6. capable of proof assessment (requires falsifiability; even classical thing-king views 'proof assessment' as problematic and thus 'proof capability' can only garner provisional assessment of proof)
  7. veritable, true (requires 'proof')
  8. capable of provability of 'truth' (Kurt Gödel's metanotion of proof; a quasi transcension into viable descriptions of quantum reality)

Students of Quantonics recognize that list as SOM's Bases of Judgment with Gödel's meta statement of provability tagged on.

There is a huge list of classical assumptions which attend that basal set of judgments, and our English language is built almost entirely on a pretext that those classical assumptions are correct — classical beliefs about classical reality include notions that reality is:

  • classically notional, semiotic
  • classically putative, assumptive, presumptive, suppositive, axiomatic, propositional, tautological, etc.
  • classically reasonable, rational, logical, and technological
  • classically mechanical, methodic, y=f(t) motional, and formal
  • classically ideally negational
  • classically reversible as both y=f(t), and y=f(-t)
  • classically capable of ideal notions of empty, null, naught, void, etc.
  • classically dialectical, dichotomous, dichonic, Ockhamistic, and ideally either-one-or-the-other
  • classically analytic, and analytical, inductive, and deductive
  • classically measurable, and viewable; see our QQA on measurement
  • classically spatial, extensible, numerable, and space-proxied unitemporal
  • classically manufacturable, reproducible, repeatable, ideally cyclic, and synthetic
  • classically true, and classical truth, classically veritable, verifiable, and valid
  • classically absolute: always states the truth (classically consistent) and states all truths (classically complete)
  • classically objective, substantial, and material
  • classically and unambiguously, ideally pointlike
  • classically judgmental (see our list of SOM's Bases of Judgment above)
  • classically stoppable, state-ic, event-ic, inanimate, immutable
  • classically lisrable
  • classically local, no action at a distance allowed, force-interactively-associative
  • classically identical, and identifiable (Aristotle's sillygism 1)
  • classically negatable (Aristotle's sillygism 2)
  • classically middle-excluded (Aristotle's sillygism 3)
  • classically 1-1 correspondent (directly contradicts classical assessment capability number 2 above, and Aristotle's sillygisms)
  • classically causal-effective (directly contradicts classical assessment capability number 2 above, and Aristotle's sillygisms)
  • classically J. C. Maxwellian posentropic only (directly contradicts classical assessment capability number 2 above, and Aristotle's sillygisms)
  • classically certain, predictable, and determinate
  • classically conservative, closed, Maxwellian-posentropic
  • classically homogeneous
  • classically convenient, and conventional (singular, one size, one context, one actuality, one time, one radical beginning, one radical ending, one Theory of Everything, one Grand Unifying Theory, one truth fits all) See our SOM Connection. See our Aristotle Connection.
  • classically, arbitrarily and infinitely, divisible (a classical, infinitely divisible, SOMitic-but-not-CRitic, monism)
  • etc.

That list when fully 'extended' represents a fairly comprehensive 'definition' of classical reality.

Cultural relativists define reality as essentially heterogeneous interpretations of our above lists. See our MoQ, CR, & SOM comparison table.

Doug - 27Mar2005.

: hl, ræhlihty, etc.

What is quantum reality? Simply, what is quantum reality?

Quantum reality is an open, animate, quantal~scintillating, flux~essential, stochastic (QLOistic), rhetorical (sophist), affectional (selective CH3, evolutionary), heterogeneous, n¤n negative (BAWAM, affirmative), loci~arbitrary~superpositional, qualitative, phasistic, self~referent, REIMAR, mix~entropic, mix~coherent reality.

Quantumists, MoQites, and a few folk of quantum persuasions at Millennium III's commencement believe that reality may be hermeneutically and ontologically described as Heraclitean, Suaresian, Hamannian, Jamesian, Bergsonian, Bohmian, Capraean, Pirsigean, Bentovian, Zoharian, Mae-wan Hoean, and Zukavian. We offer a list of classical words those folk use(d) to describe their hermeneutics of quantum reality, in increasing order of quantum reality descriptive~metaphorical capabilities:

  1. quantum absolute animacy
  2. quantum quantons in quantum reality have arbitrary spatial, temporal (students, please open this link to fathom deeper quantum hermeneutics of a posteriori and a priori quantum~temporalisms below), energy~material, gravitational, sensorial, etc. quantum likelihood omnistributions
  3. quantum~positive (quantum reality is probabilistic~likelihoodistic; all stochastics are non negative quantum metaphors)
  4. quantum~complementary, antinomial~complementarity, radical hologra[[m][ph][il]]icity, radical middle~inclusion, radical everywhere~associativity, etc. See antinomy.
  5. quantum~uncertainty: radical quantum~stochasticity, radical quantum~relativity, radical quantum~instability, radical quantum~comtext sensitivity, etc.
  6. REIMARings descriptionings
  7. quantum~sophist rhetoric, pragmalogic, and coquecigrues
  8. Absoluteness of change assessed stochastically as quantum uncertainty (Changed "...of change assessed stochastically..." 16Oct2012 - Doug.) (Kurt Gödel's metanotion of proof; a quasi transcension into viable descriptions of quantum reality)
  9. a posteriorai probability (proemial memes of quantum entropa and quantum cohera lurk here)
  10. a iamai plausibility (plausibility is what we mean by "nowistic stochastics;" plausibility assesses nowings' affectations with nuance influence from pastings' affectations plus expectations of futurings' potential affectations - Doug - 6Jun2006.)
  11. a priorai likelihood (proemial memes of quantum entropa and quantum cohera lurk here) (Just a reminder: ai suffixes on Latin temporalities are intended as linguistic participlings. Doug - 27Jan2007.)
  12. Static Good - Physial uncertain quantum recursive persistency born of and mediated by Dynamic Good
  13. Dynamic Good - Physial absolute quantum flux; see QTM
  14. Emergent Good - Physial novel emerscenture, Requires emerscent linguistics, requires acceptance of quantum evolution as real

Students of Quantonics recognize that list as Quantonics' version of quantum reality's Bases of Judgment subsuming quantum metaphors of Gödel's meta statement of provability with Quantonics' version of quantum analogues of SOM's Bases of Judgment tagged on.

Thæræ issi a huge list ¤f quantum~ihnterrelati¤nship~attrahct¤rs which c¤ihnsihde that æmærqant wavæ ¤f jihudgmænts, amd — quantum bælihæfs ab¤ut quantum ræhlihty mihddle~ihncludæ mæmæs that ræhlihty issi:

  • quantumly mætab¤lihc
  • quantumly mæmætihc, mæmæ¤tihc
  • quantumly ræcursihve, ræcapihtulatih, ændless scintilla ¤f bættærings
  • quantumly c¤quæcihgruæs wihth quant¤l¤gy
  • quantumly n¤nmæchanihcal, bi¤n¤nihc, anihmatæ æmærqancy
  • quantumly p¤sihtih
  • quantumly æntr¤pihc
    • p¤sæntr¤py (quantum n¤nræværsible) (quantum~gn¤stihcahlly this issi matærial hylihcihty)
    • zær¤æntr¤py (quantum ræværsible) (quantum~gn¤stihcahlly this issi herænt psyche~pneuma as s¤ulful ahctualihty AKA bæing)
    • nægæntr¤py (quantum is¤ræværsible) (quantum~gn¤stihcahlly this issi is¤c¤herænt pneuma as spirihtual n¤nahctualihty AKA n¤nbæing)
    • mihxæntr¤py (mihxtures ¤f ahll kinds ¤f quantum æntr¤pa) (quantum~gn¤stihcahlly this issi dihvinihty "grail~mihxing ahll things ihn ahll...")
  • quantumly capablæ ¤f n¤næmpty mæmæs ¤f quantum ræhlihty
  • quantumly quantonic b¤th~ahll~while~amd~many
  • quantumly æv¤lutæ, æmærscænturing pr¤babilistihc~n¤wistihc~lihkælih¤¤dihstihc (problems here with inverse QELR of 'likelihoodistic;' 'di' QELRs as 'omni;' that's bad; needs work!)
  • quantumly moniht¤rable, amd c¤¤bsfæcting
  • quantumly l¤ci ambigu¤uhs, n¤mærable, amd flux-pr¤xied heter¤tehmp¤ral
  • quantumly æmærscænturable, æmærscing, æmærscænturing, æmærscihtecting
  • quantumly umcærtain, (and from any classical conspective-) -pærværse, -equihv¤cal, -prævarihcatih (Feynman said, "absurd")
  • quantumly abs¤lutæ: ahlways changæs (quantumly comsistænt) amd changæs ahll (quantumly c¤mplæte)
  • quantumly subqjæctihvæ, qualihtatihvæ, amd fluxing; sææ subjectiv, subjective, quality
  • quantumly fuzz¤nihc
  • quantumly valuati¤nal (sææ ¤ur list ¤f Quantonic's Basæs ¤f Jihudgmænt ab¤ve)
  • quantumly umst¤ppable, dynamihc, pr¤cæss æv¤luti¤n
  • quantumly n¤nlisrable
  • quantumly l¤cal, ahcti¤n at any ¤mnistancings mamdatæd, æværywhere~ihncludæd~mihddle~wavæ~st¤chastihc-ass¤ciatihve
  • quantumly n¤nihdæntihcal
  • quantumly n¤nnægatable
  • quantumly mihddle-ihncludæd
  • quantumly c¤herænt, quantum c¤herænce, at læast:
    • dæc¤herænt (quantum fermi¤nihc tæntatihvæ amd præfæræntial ahctualihty; sææ isot amd isop)
    • herænt (quantum b¤s¤nihc tæntatihvæ amd præfæræntial ahctualihty)
    • is¤c¤herænt (quantum is¤nihc n¤npræfæræntial n¤nahctualihty; sææ ison)
    • mihxc¤herænt (mihxtures ¤f ahll kinds ¤f quantum c¤hera)
  • quantumly entropic, at least:
    • posentropic (quantum fermi¤nihc tæntatihvæ amd præfæræntial ahctualihty
    • zeroentropic (quantum b¤s¤nihc tæntatihvæ amd præfæræntial ahctualihty)
    • negentropic (quantum is¤nihc n¤npræfæræntial n¤nahctualihty
    • mihxentropic (mihxtures ¤f ahll kinds ¤f quantum entropa)
  • quantumly affæctati¤nal
  • quantumly ænsehmble umcærtainty, st¤chastihcihty
  • quantumly æmærgænt, ¤pæn
  • quantumly heterogæne¤us
  • quantumly plural, heuristihc, hermæneutihc
  • quantumly ihndihvisible (due quantum~coherence, arbihtrary quanton(is¤spathial,spathial) peaqlos, amd quantum~ihncludæd~mihddle) anihmatæ EIMA pluralism
  • etc.

That list when fully æv¤lved amd æmærgæd ræpresænts a fairly c¤mprehænsihve dæscrihpti¤n ¤f quantum ræhlihty.

"Hey Doug! Just what is quantum~reality?"

Bethahavah's favorite description is this one:

Quantonics HotMeme™ "Quantum~reality issi gn¤stic~feminine~energy which issi conscious,
and can't make up its mind,
which explains why reality issi uncertain everywhere.
"™ Quantonics HotMeme

Doug - 27Mar2005.

Quantonics Description of Reality, QELRed
Paraphrased from Errol E. Harris' Description
Quantonics Description of Reality, unQELRed
Paraphrased from Errol E. Harris' Description

"Ihn Quantum scihænce, spacæ, tihmæ amd mattær aræ each manihfestati¤ns ¤f quantum is¤flux amd quantum ræhlihty issi ænvisagæd as quantons ihmmærsed ihn a quantum æmærgænt~dæmærgænt c¤mplæmænt ¤f b¤th n¤nahctualihty amd ahctualihty. Iht issi æssæntiahlly a Quantonic anihmati¤n, ihnnovatæd by th¤se wh¤ sharæ mæmæs amd mæmæ¤tihcs ihn a quantum kabal. Space, time, mass, temperature and all classical measurables ahll bæc¤mæ, ihn quantum ræhlihty, sihmple manihfestati¤ns ¤f quantum flux, ihts c¤hera, amd ihts æntr¤pa. Classical matter, extensity and change pærcæihved quantumly aræ sihmply flux. Quantum ræhlihty issi b¤th n¤nahctualihty amd ihts quantum c¤mplæmænt ahctualihty. N¤nahctualihty issi is¤flux which can manihfest as pr¤t¤ fuzz¤ns. Fuzz¤ns aræ partihahlly æmærscænt anihmatæ EIMA quantonic ihnterrelati¤nships ¤f quantum lihkælih¤¤d ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns which surr¤umd tæntatihvæ is¤flux attrahct¤rs ihn n¤nahctualihty. Tæntatihvæ fuzz¤ns straddqle quantum n¤nahctualihty amd ahctualihty amd bæc¤mæ amd æv¤lve quantons whæn they pr¤t¤~latch n¤velties amd gr¤w~latch ihncræmæntal changæs basæd ¤n their pr¤t¤ quanton attrahct¤r(s).

"Quantum ræhlihty via ihts anihmatæ EIMA hætær¤gæneihties eliminatæs any classical notions of paradice."

"In Quantum science, space, time and matter are each manifestations of quantum isoflux and quantum reality is envisaged as quantons immersed in a quantum emergent~demergent complement of both nonactuality and actuality. It is essentially a Quantonic animation, innovated by those who share memes and semiotics in a quantum kabal. Space, time, mass, temperature and all classical measurables all become, in quantum reality, simple manifestations of quantum flux, its cohera, and its entropa. Classical matter, extensity and change perceived quantumly are simply flux. Quantum reality is both nonactuality and its quantum complement actuality. Nonactuality is isoflux which can manifest as proto fuzzons. Fuzzons are partially emerscent animate EIMA quantonic interrelationships of quantum likelihood distributions which surround tentative isoflux attractors in nonactuality. Tentative fuzzons straddle quantum nonactuality and actuality and become and evolve quantons when they proto~latch novelties and grow~latch incremental changes based on their proto quanton attractor(s).

"Quantum reality via its animate EIMA heterogeneities eliminates any classical notions of paradice.

See isoflux, quanton, OEDC, simplicity, cohera, entropa, percept, perspect, Quantum Essence, fuzzon, emerscent, EIMA, QLO, isot, Quantonics' Reality Map & Loop Generations I, II, III, and Loops MoQ I, and MoQ II, etc.

Quantonics' reality descriptions added 23May2005 - Doug.

Page top index.


Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'reason' and remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'reas¤n,' and 'reas¤nings.'

Classical reason is analytical. Classical reason tends to generally apply positive-dialectic and -formal logic and -formal logics' concomitants: temporal and spatial stoppability with objective independence — in its 'reasoning' methods.

Classical positive (aka societal) reason is necessary to groups and individuals who wish to control other individuals, groups, organizations, societies, and nature. Without positive reason, "one loses control."

"Might it not be true, perhaps,
that [classical] reason, the supposed liberator of the human mind, is no
more than the repository of ancient prejudices and habits of mind that
no general validity whatever?"
by Henry D. Aiken,
The Age of Ideology,
pp. 20-21, 1962 ed., Mentor
(paperback, total 283 pages).
(Our brackets.)

Quantum philosophy answers, "Yes."
Emphatically, "Yes!"

See Doug's fairly comprehensive "Quantonics on reason." Doug - 13Dec2008.

Ihn Quantonics wæ bælieve there aræ many kinds ¤f physial reas¤nings. All aræ changings. Our vihew issi that, quantum c¤mtextually, ensehmbles ¤f kinds ¤f reas¤nings may bæ ~st¤chastihcally

(in Quantonics we remediate stochastics as quantum~st¤chastihcs whose quanta include: a posteriorai, a iamai, and a priorai AKA pastings, nowings, and futurings)

Doug - 21Jan2006.

assessed b¤th quantum l¤cally amd quantum n¤nl¤cally ahs bætterings. One kind which wæ pr¤m¤te issi quantum~reas¤nings. Quantum (Quantonics' versi¤n ¤f quantum, i.e., more qualitative, both quantitative and qualitative, more subjective, more sophist and rhetorical) reas¤nings ihnfuse amd emerq m¤re subjectihve amd hermeneutic mesothos quantum memes. Examples aræ quantum~: ihncluded~mihddle, abs¤lute changæ anihmacy, everywhere~ass¤ciativity, n¤nl¤calability, n¤nis¤lability, n¤nseparability, n¤nreducibility (see lisr), n¤nc¤mmutativity, n¤ndistributivity, n¤nfact¤rizability, superlumihnality, superfluihdity, supergravihty, c¤herence, ihslandicity, amd s¤ ¤n... (FYE: quantum reas¤nings ehmbrace n¤ti¤ns ¤f EIMA.) Update quantum~reasonings promotion. Add n¤væl coined mesothos link. Doug - 2Jul2014.

See Bergson and Zeno on classical reason's notions of stoppability and independence. Also see our Prereview Comments to Bergson's Creative Evolution.

See logical positivism. Search internet for comparisons among societal "positive law" and more quantum "natural law."

Page top index.


We are deferring quantum~comtextual QELR of this text for 30-60 days to allow newbies to, we believe more easily, read its partially classicalese.


  • make 'right' (classical)
  • make 'correct' (classical)
  • distill (classical)
  • cleanse (classical)
  • conversion (~quantum)
  • change (~quantum better)
  • emergence (~quantum)
  • evolution (~quantum)
  • etc.


"rectify...1392...rectification...before 1400..." Essentially from Latin 'rect' which means 'right.' Classical absolutist notions of 'right' represent 'ideals' and 'concepts' which Pirsig despises as absolute, DQless 'virtue.' See Barnhart.

This QELR requires much effort... As of 28Mar2005 it is still in its infancy, but weighing its importance, we are publishing it for your study, as is...tentatively in light blue background... Doug.

: Rectify, rectification, etc.

Classical rectification requires objectivity, analyticity, determinacy, etc.

Given that, if you are familiar with Edison vis-à-vis Tesla re: DC power and AC power...

Electrical engineers, even given their mostly classical thus objective predilections, have some extraordinary quantum metaphors in their methods of signal and power rectification. If we pay attention to their work and QTM~adjust our hermeneutics, heuristics and memeotics of their work, we can see novel Quantum Lightings. We need to use just a little classical math here to help explain our gist:

An_AC_Signal can-be-expressed-transversely-as sin(t). Our use of explicates and adjusts frequency and our use of t spreads frequency 'clock-like' over classical uni-time. One wavelength of sin(t) looks, a transverse dichon(1T, 2D), like this:

Here are four transverse (a state-ic 1Time, 2Dimension-Flatland) cycles of it which we shall use to demonstrate half- and full-wave rectification, graphically.

It is omnifficult; however, try to imagine our waves here as quantum~animate, EIMA, omniversal, quanton(NT,ND) peaqlos. Now compare how MoQites monitor it vis-à-vis how SOMites dichons(1T, 2-3D) 'measure' it.

Quantum hermeneutics of that picture vastly omniffer classical interpretations, e.g.,

  • Classically amplitude matters, but quantumly rate matters while amplitude is irrelevant.
  • Classically 'state' matters, but absolute quantum~emerscent~change matters while classical 'state' (an illusion of classical stability) is irrelevant.
  • Classical absolutely certain metrication and ratiocination of 'zero' and any 'number' matters while quantum uncertainty of zer¤ and any n¤mbær is relevant.
  • Classical Aristotelian tautological idealization of 'identity' matters, but quantum impossibility of 'identity' is relevant.
  • Classically negation is real, analytic, dialectical, and objective, but quantumly~stochastic~absence~of~negation matters while classically ideal tautologous negation is irrelevant (see aside). Similarly, we can list countless comparisons of classical interpretation vis-à-vis quantum hermeneutics.
  • Etc. (See our Jammer table and Jammer list for more.)

Important aside:

See de Finetti's remarks on "what probability is," and most relevantly it is positive; keep this positive, i.e., n¤nnegative, aspect of quantum reality firmly embedded in your quantum stages as we proceed. Notice that our classical sine wave above assumes 'zero exists' and that sine can be positive, then negative, then positive, etc. Do real quantum waves alternate positively and negatively? Physically, H5W is nature's 'zero' reference? Hmmm...? Perhaps quantum waves are all positive and quantum relative?

A further clarification here: social positivism is classical consensus. Consensus relies on classical notions of truth (recall how classical 'science' is about what is true and 'classical philosophy,' antithetical its own appellation, is about 'truth') based upon proof based upon falsifiability based upon contradiction based upon negation based upon objective independence based upon stability. Quantum probability as quantum positive refutes all of those classical notions as n¤n~quantum~real. See our 2004 Bases of Judgment.

Some Doug parentheticals added to both emails...

Subject: Re: Reality As Positive.
From: Doug Renselle
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:51:23 -0400
To: AH@FlameProof

Audio Head wrote:

Hey Doug!

Have a question:  If Reality is positive, then where do electrons with negative charges fit in?  Evidently negative charges are labeled with minus signs as matter of convenience in distinguishing tween positively charged quanta.(?)  It  appear that negative charges do exist and are not absent in a subtractive, canceling way. (For me, ' negation as subjective'  has been a meme rather difficult to grasp; in fact, Bergson in general is hard to decipher).

                                                     Quantum Regards,

                                                    ~AH - 29Mar2009.


Unsure you can get a copy to read, but you should read Studies in Subjective Probability, by Henry Smokler and Howard Kyburg.

Especially see p. 93 (paperback) article by Bruno de Finetti, titled, 'Foresight: Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources,' 1937.

Be sure to read authors' book introduction, and read it thoroughly. Pay special attention to beginning of paragraph two of said Intro.

At page 93...

Be sure to read translator's note, forward, and introductions in addition to quite a long treatise by de Finetti. Well worth one's effort.

I can only get you started on this one since there are so many ways to look at this. Quantonics site covers most issues which I know about.

First of all, a classical notion of negation is an artifact of dialectic dualizing a monism. Imagine a 2D transverse flux (See graphic just above.). Imagine how classicists arbitrarily place an ordinate-abscissa cross on top of said wave and saying waves above said abscissa are 'positive' and waves below abscissa are 'negative.' That is merely convention. They should have assumed there is n¤ cross. (Tear down SOM's wall!!!)

Said cross builds a wall amidst a wholly positive flux and relabels half of it positive and other negative. Key enabler here is to realize that cross is merely convention. It is merely an assumption. Similar to an assumption that reality (perhaps only parts of reality) can be negated. But we may n¤t negate flux. See Doug's QELR of 'cancel.'

Pick up a coffee cup. What is its negative? Where is its negative? When is its negative. Look at you in mirror. Where is your 'negative?'

Electrons are flux. Flux is positive. Charge (which you have seen Doug almost intuitively avoid describing) is an artefact of dialectical convention. (A massive 'con' job on humanity - Doug.)

Read Bergson's CE topic 39 over, and over, and over and over... (Doug appended another email response to AH on how to read, Quantonics style, just below this one.)

Read Doug's QELR of 'rectify.' (We are in that web page now!) Ditto 'positive,' and 'negative.' It might help, though it is long, to read all of our review of ACT2 of Hoffmann's TSSoTQ again. I use these memeos of quantum reality over and over there.

Read Doug's page on Absoluteness as Quantum Uncertainty. Notice x graph of consistency and completeness at page top. All positive! No negatives! (Note how uncertainty is always positive. Note how Bell inequalities are always positive. Note how physicists call spin "up" and "down." Why didn't they call spin plus and minus? Even negentropy isn't negative, AH. We do describe entropy slopes as positive and negative, but that is only residue of classical cartesian convention. Some authors have resorted to using productive vav dissipative: see Prigogine and Stengers' Order Out of Chaos.)

All we can have in quantum~reality is cancellation and other variations on phasistic~interrelationshipings: mixings of all classes of flux and classes of their entropa and cohera.

If you need more, please do not hesitate to say so.


Doug's Quantonics Style - How to Read for Understanding:


You wrote, "I find Bergson hard to decipher."

I am going to use our last brief dialog (your query above, and my answer) under our QELR of 'rectify.' I think our tentative~partial resolution of this issue is crucial for all who visit. If that is a problem for you, say so.

Do you recall Feynman's advice to his sister about, "How she should read for real understanding?"

I find, personally, all authors have a omnique, individual style. One of our biggest challenges when we read someone like Bergson is to learn his style. I had a terrible time with Geertz, James, Hamann, d'Espagnat, Hesse, Hume, initially Stein, and so on... Part of problem is Bergson's French was translated by dialectic-soaked Victorian English males. Pogson dug Bergson better than any of them. Feynman's approach helps: read until you do not understand, go back to where you thought you were on firm ground, reread from there. It's sort of a reading 2-step, but I view it as quantum~recapitulation and self referent recursive...a process of feeding quantons incrementally to our quantum stages' hologramings.

Rereading Bergson, over and over and over...will help you get inside his head. He uses many con(m)textings but doesn't tell his readers when he switches. This was Doug's biggest challenge in reading Bergson. (Too, he is intuitively gnostic. For dialecticians gnosis is "absurd." Gnosis breaks dialectic. "See this egg?" Diderot.)

Another good technique is to rewrite paragraphs that are omnifficult word by word, sentence by sentence in a good analogue of what you sense author is attempting to say, using your local style. (A kind of respin grammatical parsing. Except, if you are attempting to understand, do not allow your respinning to move too far from author's raw semantics. Of course, that takes your judgment, which induces its own uncertainties back into your spin of whomever. You will find your learning experience vastly enhanced, regardless.) Compare. Refine. This process will enfold Bergson's hologram into yours. You will become a holographic partial superposition of you and part of Henri Louis Bergson. I do this hologram enfolding all the time n¤nactually with Maggie, Jade, Laura, etc. I do it actually with Beth, you, et al. In a way, one makes one's mind (hologram) grow by adding other minds. This is a very powerful 'technique' (quantique) since it allows one to build many holographic rooms in one's memory palace and that offers a plethora of con(m)textings for multicomtextual hermeneutics.

A friend of mine from my old SCS, Inc. days (1978-1993), a physicist from Purdue named Eric Bolinger, once told me that he read Shakespeare in its old English just due this issue. If you can read that stuff and get inside Shakespeare's head then you probably can read anything. Ditto other languages, like Hebrew-Arabic and say Cantonese (ideogrammatic).

Those are just suggestions. You have to feed your quantum stage what you want it to pneumatically attract as an energy well in a huge multiverse of energy wellings. As Bergson writes in his TaFW, nature gives us free willings to beings doings thatings.

Every moment you spend with Bergson is worth more than ten moments in Quantonics. You'll have to trust Doug on that, until you grasp its essence.

Best always,


end aside.

But there is some, though slight, quantum essence, if we QTM~look for it, even in a more naïve classical conspective. A good example here is how we mathematically represent our graphic.

One way is as we have shown it: sin(t). Even though mathematics claims for itself "context freeness," it expresses, solipsistically, heterogeneous interpretations (maths too, heterogeneously, like Kuhn's scientific paradigms, cann¤t help but be, due their insistence on SOM Bases of Judgment, contextually schizophrenic), a possibly greatest example being Euclid vis-à-vis Riemann.

Another is Asin(t), which classically (non-quantumly) adjusts our signal's quantumly~irrelevant amplitude. Thingk about that. Think about that...

Another is sin(t)±C, which (if we visualize classical spatial axes of ordinate as signal vertical locus...) offsets our signal on our axes' ordinate (...and with time, t, horizontal as our classical spatial axes' abscissa), and time, t, spreading our signal spatially. Ummm..., let's see now, where is that wave? It's locus is spatially arbitrary? How can that be 'true?' (Banesh Hoffmann cogently asked,) "How can we classically measure it at a point?" (Henri Louis Bergson presciently asked,) "How can we measure an animate process at a point?" And we can infer from Bergson, "If negation is subjective, what do 'negative' cycles of a sine wave really mean? Do they 'exist?' Mayhaps classical dialectic deludely manufactures them!" Quantonics versions of quantum philosophy and quantum n¤nscience say, "Hoffmann and Bergson offer better viewings of reality than do 'classical philosophy' and 'science.'"

In our latter case, if t didn't change, we would see a vertical bar and perhaps see slight bar intensity changes (perhaps probabilistically darker, denser-slower change, on ends, lighter, less-dense-more-rapid change, in middle) as our signal goes up and down.

Now key query: "If our signal is sin(t) or Asin(t), but not sin(t)±C, what is its average classical power-energy?" Look at our four cycles above.

This answer is classically notion-simple. But when we look at our classical 'problem' quantumly, using quantonics' QTMs, we see some rather incredible memes.

Classically, without any C offset, our signal appears on our axes' abscissa varying ordinately 'positively' and 'negatively.' If we integrate our signal classically, we have a classical 'zero' result (like velocity of a bike perigrinating a 'circle'). Notice how classicists do not view this type of integration as any violation of temporal context. Why? Classically, there is only one 'time,' and, it, like our signal is state-ically 'transverse.'

What is important, in our view and metaphorically, is that classicists' notions of ideal classical objective 'positive' and 'negative' applied in our example show that average energy 'nonexists' in this case, yet we still 'know' that energy is present as flux. Our TV and radio signals compenetrate our beings and we assume 'nonexistence' of them until we see and hear their 'rectified' projections in and on our radios and TVs! They aren't there, yet they are there!!! Quanton(n¤t_there,there), not dichon(not_there, there)!!!

Further, in order for classicists to extract power from our signal, they have to rectify it. (Details of this are nontrivial, but essentially half-wave rectification wipes out negative half cycles of our signal leaving a net positive power result. Full wave rectification inverts negative half cycles (our signal now looks like a bouncing ball) and extracts more power from them.) Here is our four cycle wave half-wave-rectified, graphically:

Here it is full-wave-rectified:

Essence: power hides even in (some) classically ideal-zero-offset signals. To see that power and use it we have to rectify it. These two sentences offer a rather deep classical metaphor of quantum reality! Recall how Heraclitus said, "Nature loves to hide." And Pirsig said SQ frets~latches hidden, hiding, cloaked DQ.

Do you perceive any other subtleties here? Let's make a list of perhaps more obvious ones:

  • classical half-wave rectification retains a pulse-width-modulated 'frequency' and divides 'peak-to-peak amplitude' by roughly two to four,
  • classical full-wave rectification doubles 'frequency' and divides 'peak-to-peak amplitude' by roughly two,
  • classical probability densities vary approximately with types of rectification,
  • classical Aristotelian, Newtonian, Einsteinian analysis insists that our doubled frequency must 'certainly,' in a stoppable, zero momentum reference frame (i.e., our 2D graphic), reverse 'direction' at a classical point in zero classical unitime, (Is this related to our quantum pendulum study? Click our yellow update box there. H5W? Is it important? Why?)
  • etc.

If you are a reasonably adept student of Quantonics our metaphor should hit you like a bolt of Pirsigean lightning about now.

You should be able to see vividly now what our Planck quanton shows! Bosons are 'rectified' quantum isoflux: isoflux contrarotation rectified into unichiral, integer-spin rotation! Fermions are (using Quantonics' QTM hermeneutics and heuristics) spin one-half, pendulus, Möbius rectifications of unichiral boson pairs (See our 2005 fermionta.). Of course zero-spin chiralty free 'isotons' appear also. See quantum spin emergence. Latter may need some clarification after our work here. Broad brush it shows a QCD TBCSUD quark ontology in novel Quantonics' Lightings.

Recall that 9Jan2000, when we first created that animation above, we admitted that we did not know how to graphically show Nature's rudimentary perpetual motion bosons and fermions. But just now, we do know, we are k~nowings aren't we? What is wrong with our animation?

But keep in mind that our work here is still and yet classical. We are only discovering how even classical notions have quantum tells when we put those notions under scrutiny of QTMs and transmogrify them into quantum memeos.

Our half- and full-wave rectification examples show DQ-zero offset signals rectified and SQ-latched as ~direct current (DC) power. DC emerging from alternating current (AC) is a classical metaphor of quantum emergence! A quantum tell! (A very similar metaphor arises when we compare classical signal modulation and demodulation 'techniques.')

To say it more quantumesquely, "Apparently hidden power emerges from zero offset signals when we rectify them." That sentence is a metaphor of quantum emergence! It is a metaphor of our saying, "Bosons and fermions emerge from quantum isoflux when we quantum~rectify it!"

Let's keep using classical notions to evoke some more quantum philosophical memeos, OK?

Let's make a list of classical notions and their comparative quantum memeos:

Classical Notions


Quantum Memeos
Positive as objective opposite of negative See our QELRs of negative, object, opposite, positive.
Negative as objective opposite of positive Ditto.
Rectification as mechanical, objective change
Rectification as frequency division & doubling
Zero offset sine wave as 'zero' average power
Average power as area under a transverse wave Quantum energy AKA 'power' is flux rate.
Signal amplitude as a power proxy Quantum flux rate is a power analogue.
Signal time as a space proxy

Quantum timings and spacings, quantum gravityings and energyings, etc., are all symptoms of quantum flux.

Fermionic wobble (spin 1/2 flux) emerqs what classicists refer as 'space.'

Classical 'time' has no analogue in quantum reality since quantum timings emerq phenomena of EIMAings, superluminalityings, actionings at omnistancings, acausalityings, entanglementings, interferencings, holographicityings, adiabaticityings, cohera, entropa, etc.

Nonconceptual Very high flux rates as essential quantum adiabaticity, zeroentropy
Nonconceptual Quantum isoflux as ideal isoadiabaticity, negentropy
Nonconceptual Quantum isoflux as contrarotationally hidden
Quantum isoflux rate (wave number) as energy proxy
Quantum~rectified isoflux as space, time, mass-energy, & gravity proxies

Quantum~rectification manifests at least as quantum modalities of wave~probability~likelihood rectification:

  1. self-self-interference via nonlinear entanglings agencies
  2. self-other-interference via nonlinear entanglings agencies
  3. other-other interference via nonlinear entanglings agencies
  4. self-self-noninterference absent nonlinear entanglings agencies
  5. self-other noninterference absent nonlinear entanglings agencies
  6. other-other noninterference absent nonlinear entanglings agencies
  7. etc.

Colloquial 'rectifiers' (usually, again colloquially, 'diodes') are "nonlinear entanglings agencies." However, there are countless others, including: mitochondrial DNA, meiosis, human growth via exponential (base 2) cell multiplication, prisms, beam splitters, diffraction gratings, QCD fermionta, lasers, candle flames, black holes (inverse rectification, a Doug heuristic), and so on.

Etc. Etc.

: Rectify, rectification, etc.

Page top index.


Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'recursion' and remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'recursi¤n.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'recursion.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'recursi¤n.'

Classical recursion assumes reality is stable and objects in reality are independent. Classical recursion further assumes reality is inanimate/stoppable, excluded-middle, analytic, etc.

Recursion requires self reference.

Can an object refer itself? How would a classical object refer itself? If an object is axiomatically independent from other objects, their middles (said object and others') are, by Aristotelian syllogistics excluded. But is an object middle-excluded from itself? A dialectical logician will say "That's nonsense!" Why? A is A! But it is dialectically nonsense to say that A is in A.

Classical 'logic' cannot even begin to talk about real issues in quantum reality.

But guess what? Mathematicians go ahead and write A is f(A), which is mechanical self-reference. How can they do that? By assuming that A on left of A=A is an analogue of A on right side of A=A. They break an axiom of independence. "For convenience."

They do this when they write equations too. Some people call it "elegance."

Why do mathematicians do this? To allow, mechanically, and formally, and dialectically an object to "gain access" (via objective 'indirection') to its own 'properties.' They call it "assignment." You can put an object in a temporary holder and 'operate' objectively upon it.

But what if A is durationally changing? What if A is not contextually nor temporally stable? Can you put it in a temporary holder? Can you stop it?

Why do not mathematicians assume that a temporary holder for A is "not A?" Isn't "A is not Temporary_A" dialectically true?

This is only one of countless ways in which mathematics breaks its own 'rules' for convenience while sweeping issues we address here, conveniently, under a carpet. If you want more like this to read, for example, see Davis and Hersh's The Mathematical Experience and Simon Singh's Fermat's Enigma.

Why do mathematicians do this? It has utility. It's spit and bailing twine to make their mechanical 'systems' work. But it isn't real. Why? Can we put you, classically, in a temporary holder which isn't you but is axiomatically independent of you?

We'd like to see that one... (Actually, that is likely to be pure essence of quantum~teleportation, folks! (Those same quantumly~retarded classical mathematicians will deny that) We won't actually 'ship' 'the' object, rather we will stem~cellesquely 'repeat' it at "a distance." If a customer fails to pay, we will simply 'unrepeat' said teleported item. Doug - 18Jul2009.)

All of this is part of an exegesis of why a dialectical, mechanical, Aristotelian 'A' simply has no means of self-reference, so if it really cannot self-refer, it cannot really recurse.

There are countless philosophical issues here, like "can an object, A, see itself, and does A only see other, and does B affect A's affecting B?" Then ask "when?" Then ask "where?" Then ask "how?" Then ask "who?" Then ask "what?" Then ask "why?" Lots of problems, beau coup problems! Next step? Ask "H5Wings?"

So formal computers are actually modeling 'objects' which are unreal. Why? In said computer A can be in any number of 'places' (temporary holders) simultaneously. In classical reality that is canonically "impossible." Most 'di' stinguish this situation as "logical" versus "physical." But you never hear them say that their 'logic' is invalid (using dialectic we have to conclude that 'logical' is opposite 'physical' do we not? mathematically, that, friend, is a dialectical contradiction), do you? We can go on and on...

Doug - 30-31May2006.

Quantum recursi¤n assumes reality is anihmatæ and quantons in reality have quantum c¤mplementary, included-middle, unstoppable interrelationshipings.

Quantum reality is self~other~recursive! When one recurses quantumly, one quantization~coobsfectings whatings one is recursings (typically an medly of ensemble~attractorings). Quantized coobsfectionings involve quantum~ensemble selectionings via quantized CH3ings of all wave~functionings in said ensemble. This is a way to thinkq about a quantum~n¤væl wMBU™ tool called Quantization of Free Will. See graphic just below, too. 20Oct2009 - Doug.

Responsibility Among Ensembles Quantized Ensembles Coobsfectively~Quantization~Interrelating Self~Other~Referently

Re Responsibility Among Ensembles, see quantum~ego.

M¤daled digitally, we hermeneut a kind of h¤l¤graphic data scintillation.

Gives n¤væl semantic head to quantum~n¤mbær, ..., my G¤¤d?

Doug - 20Oct2009.

How? Quantum reality's:

all meet our quantum recursion generalities shown just above:

  • animacy
  • c¤mplementarity
  • middle~inclusion
  • everywhere~ass¤ciativity
  • c¤¤bsfection
  • herent aut¤n¤my (A is both A and not A: a laser beam can be 'ihn' glass while glass issi ihn a laser beam yet both are quantum~autonomous one another; magnetic domains are ihn steel and steel issi ihn magnetic domains; polarized (c¤herent) wave energy issi ihn tsunamis and tsunamis are ihn polarized energy...)
    we also call this coinsidence, compenetration, interfusion, copermeability, interpenetration, and so on...
  • etc.

Quantum reality measures (issi quantum~monitoring) herself, ubiquitously, always. We are describing an absolutely animate, omnimensional quantum~hologram.

Doug - 30-31May2006.

For application, and descriptions of relative importances of these terms, see our 7Jun2002 Möbius 3-Primæ Fermion.

See our Quantum Fractals.

See addition, differentiation, division, integration, multiplication, square, square root, and subtraction.

Page top index.


Classical problematics: analyticity, radically mechanical reducibility, ideal quantitative decrease in amount and size, lisr, etc., via mechanical subraction, division, cutting, severing, scalpeling etc. Implies its ideal classical 'opposite.'

Quantonics currently ¤ffers n¤ quantum 'analog of classical reduction,' except our weak brethren called: quantum divisi¤n-dihvihdæ, ¤mnifference, mihnus amd a special case ¤f quantum squaræ r¤¤t. But they are so unlike classical reduction as to be useless in comparison.

Quantum reality issi n¤n 'reducible' in any classical sense. (Another major SOM-blindfolded quantum meme.)

Aside - 8Oct2005 - Doug:

A terrific example of our last sentence, which appears 'classically normative,' is a hologram. One may n¤t 'classically reduce' a hologram's projection by cutting part of said hologram's holograph away.

All of quantum reality is just like that holograph and its hologram: irreducible in any 'classical' sense.

Why? Every quantum~phase~encoding of any holograph quantum REIMARs all other quantum~phase~encodings of that holograph.

Quantum~reducibility here, then, appears only as loss of hologram resolution due loss of some, perhaps most, of its holograph.

We see how quantons are much more survivable than dichons.

Doug - 8&31Oct2005.

End aside.

Too, we should savor Carlo Suares' remarks on this topic:

Aside - 10Jul2010 - Doug:

"Our many sided sciences make almost daily discoveries—or inventions—of collaterals which by mere impact of observation acquire the status of distinct branches, thereby splitting further our already scattered body of knowledge. In spite of the increasing hold of mathematics on departments as far apart as optics, philology, biology or ethics, it cannot and will never discover a basic postulate befitting the simultaneous existence of a universe and of man."

Classical mechanical reduction AKA 'analysis,' simply does not work. This is real SEP of failure of SOM, failure of classical dialectical formal thingking.

As we write just above, "Holograms may not be formally reduced." Quantum~reality is a massive hologram of hologramings.

Classical reduction requires Aristotle's syllogistic 'middle-exclusion,' but none of quantum~reality may be 'middle-excluded.' Classical maths' axiom of independence, like geometry's axiom of identity, is just bogus! Indeed, Aristotle's 'sillygisms' (identity, contradiction, and excluded-middle) are just bogus! See Bergson's two illusions-self-delusions of formal thought. Suares understands... Autiot intuits... Gnosis guides... Heads up! Rent and purchase is underway as we write! Towers of dialectical Babel are coming down...

Doug - 10Jul2010.

End aside.

Mae-wan Ho describes classical reality, mimicking Bergson's words, "An infinitely divisible quantitative homogeneity." Her explicit and Bergson's implicit uses of "infinitely divisible" are classical reduction. They are what mathematicians mean by continuity, a continuity which may be cut up (reduced) into arbitrarily smaller and smaller axiomatically independent 'numbers,' 'scalars,' 'pieces,' 'parts,' and 'particles:' classical 'objects.'

Mae-wan Ho describes quantum reality, again by paraphrasing Bergson, "An indivisible qualitative heterogeneity." By "indivisible," Bergson means literally "objects in reality are not classically independent of one another." He also observes how that statement imposes hermeneutic subjectivity upon all non classical, (quantum-) real applications of 'not.'

Astute readers will note that Doug is guilty here of bending Mae-wan's words to our Quantonics advantage. Her actual remarks are about Bergson's notions of qualitative heterogeneous tihmings. But tihmings in a real sense are essence, quintessence of quantum reality! So we unabashedly, shamelessly bend her words...and we are immensely grateful for them...

Before we proceed, let's discuss 'duction.' Induction, deduction, reduction, production, reproduction, and so on... 'Duct' carries an innate d-cut. 'Duct' is like a classical Pirsigean knife. SOM's knife of axiomatic independence. SOM's knife of lisr. SOM's knife of Aristotle's identity, contradiction, and excluded-middle syllogisms. 'Duct' is d' cut which begs and belies predication. How does it 'give the lie' to predication? It says that objective independence drives out all interrelationships except objective, mechanical interaction. (A major impact here is classical science's ignorance regarding gravity and their inabilities to 'unify' gravity with other classical 'forces.' Quantum gravity issi n¤t a classical 'force' interaction! It, rather, is a partial quantum correlative coherence interrelationship. An ~analogy is quantum spin. This is, in our quantum opinion, Newton's only quasi-success. Newton's other classical work, from a quantum perspective, is mostly bogus. Perhaps we should more gently say, "naïve.") By doing that, d' cut drives out quantum awareness and quantonic ¤nt¤l¤gical ensehmble interrelative c¤¤bsfective ch¤¤sings, chancings amd changings. D' cut drives out quantum reality! D' cut drives out quantum realities' most awe inspiring miracles like: comscious indihvihdual free will, emergent ev¤lution, c¤herent superp¤sing em¤ti¤n AKA l¤ve, bi¤l¤gical life, qualitative senses, adventure, physial ethics, physial m¤rality, physial understanding, physial k-n¤wing, reserve energy quantum c¤mplementation, s¤luti¤ns to virtually all classical 'impossibilities,' amd so on...

Our emboldened phoneme words are basic classical implements in radical mechanics' fool boxes. Whenever you see 'duct' thingk 'd' cut' and add another implement to SOM's fool box.

Two of our quantonics acronyms summarize these aspects of SOM's d' cut wall: EOOO EEMD.

Quantons aræ n¤n classical in any d' cut sense. They cann¤t bæ classically reduced! Why? Their middles aræ ihncluded by BAWAM EIMA st¤chastic flux quantum macr¤sc¤pic distributi¤n. All quantons aræ b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal; b¤th here amd everywhere heter¤-tehmp¤ral-simultane¤usly. When any ¤ther quanton measures them, they tentatively "comtext squeeze" int¤ said measuring quanton's l¤cal comtextings. (They do not classically, von Neumannesque 'collapse!' That is a passé classical state-ic, hyper-stoppability notion.)

Quantonics' memes which 'come closest to analogues of classical reduction' aræ ¤nt¤l¤gies where p¤rti¤ns ¤f actual bæing transihti¤n t¤ is¤bæing. An eample is where quantons, s¤mæh¤w, have bæc¤mæ dihchons amd thuhs æntær pr¤cæssings ¤f bæc¤mings etinct (Hæræ, f¤r n¤w, wæ can ¤nly ¤ffer a classihcal mætaph¤r ihn quasi-quantonicsese: 'etinction' appæars as a ræturn t¤ isoflux, amd further æmærgænce ¤f that partihcular quanton quiesces (isot ihndæfihnihte pærsistænce); iht may bæ, pr¤bably wihll bæ, 'rævihved' c¤wihthin m¤re highly æv¤lving quantum comtexts; ihts æv¤luti¤nary hist¤ry, wæ surmise issi memeorized; hæræ wæ can sææ, acc¤rding t¤ ¤ur Quantonics værsi¤n ¤f quantum flux ¤nt¤l¤gy, that ESQ garnærs abs¤lutæ EEMD amd dæprihves any ESQ flux ihts EIMA flux 'n¤urishmænt.' S¤rt ¤f lihkæ bæing ign¤red at y¤ur family's dinnær table...).

Als¤ quantum n¤mbærs which dæcræhse wihth l¤ss ¤f ænærgy (flux coumt), may bæ th~¤ught ¤f as quantum subqtrahcti¤n. But ihn this casæ nægati¤n issi 'subqjæctihvæ' amd 'smahller' quantum n¤mbærs aræ quantum-subqjæctihvæly amd quantum-qualihtatihvæly 'smahller.' (E.g., ihf iht issi 'zær¤' dægrææs t¤day amd iht was 'twihce' as c¤ld yæstærday, h¤w c¤ld was iht yæstærday? :)

As s¤¤n as wæ æntær any quantum ¤nt¤l¤gihcal aræna, wæ als¤ æntær a quantum aræna ¤f væry c¤mplex ihssues rægarding quatr¤c¤heræncies (quantum c¤hera), quantum quatr¤æntr¤pa (quantum æntr¤pa), amd quantum tihmings...pluhs a plæth¤ra ¤f ¤thær quantum ihssues. Why? This issi Nature's m¤st es¤tærihc 'playgr¤umd.' Iht issi he-r 'stuff' ¤f cræati¤n amd ¤mniscræati¤n. Many ræhlms where 'classihcal angels fæar t¤ træhd.' (Quantum s¤phists pr¤ceed wihth vig¤ur.:)

See addition, differentiation, division, integration, multiplication, square, square root, and subtraction. Also see n¤mbær. See an ¤nt¤l¤gy example. See entr¤pa. See cohera. See tih.

Page top index.



  • descri(pt)be (noun & verb)
  • associate (noun & verb)
  • recall (noun & verb)
  • attribute (noun & verb)
  • synthesis (noun & verb)
  • interconnection (radically mechanical; "metrically invariant")
  • inclusion (radically mechanical group theory)
  • familial
  • analogous
  • etc.

: Relate, relative, relativity, etc. Classical notions of relating as description, relating as association, relating as recall, relating as characterization, relating as synthesis, etc.

Classical relativity is objective. It is dialectical. It is analytical. Relative objects in classical reality adhere Aristotle's radically mechanical syllogisms: identity, contradiction, excluded-middle. Thus classical objects' relativities must be radically mechanical objective 'properties.' They must be observable and measurable objective properties. That means they must be localable (and thus stoppable), isolable (and thus stoppable), separable, and reducible (requires stoppability, if ideal analyticity is to be retained). We call latter "lisr."

Einsteinian relativity, by his own adherence to his local-naïve-realism, had to retain a semblance of ideal objectivity. As Don Howard explains for us in his 'Holism, Separability, And The Metaphysical Implications Of The Bell Experiments,' Einstein could find only one way to do this was via a classical notion of invariant metrical interval.

Bottom line here: classical Einsteinian relativity is objective by design. Einstein's design of his theories of (special and general) relativity depends enormously on his local and naïve principles of Aristotelian and Newtonian science. Some examples are: humans can measure, humans do measure, only humans measure, measurement depends upon observation, observation can be unilateral, measurement is objective based upon shasb (notions and possibilities of 'subjectiv(e)' measurement do not 'exist' and thus are classically theoretically bogus), all of what we have learned from measurement and theory — and have placed in rules, axioms, principles, and 'laws' and know-ledge data bases — are enough for us to be capable of describing reality, etc. Simply classical 'state' is simple. Static reality is simple. Reality conveniently and conventionally holds still: retains state. See Henri Louis Bergson on comparisons of static and dynamic simplicity. See Doug's more recent (CeodE 2011) What is Simple? What is Complex? Why? Explain.

Einsteinian classical relativity theory is about analytic and synthetic state interactions among (actually 'between' since classicists do not yet know how to calculate 'among;' this classical problematic refers itself as "the many body problem") static objects.

Implications? Einstein blew it! He is and was wrong, period. Reality is not ideally, classically objective. Reality is not a local and naïve realism!

Einsteinian relativity is just wrong, folks! There are no ideal propertyesque lisrable state-ic 'objects' in reality. Indeed, reality is not ideally classically-objective. Reality is not state-ically, inertially simple.

: Ihnterrelatæ, ihnterrelatihve, ihnterrelatihvihty, ihnterrelati¤n, ihnterrelati¤ns, ihnterrelati¤nings, ihnterrelati¤nship, ihnterrelati¤nshipihc, ihnterrelati¤nshipihcihty, ihnterrelati¤nships, ihnterrelati¤nshiping, ihnterrelati¤nshipings, etc. We need, here, a straightforward, single phasement description of what Quantonics means by quantum~relativity:

"Quantum relativity is [Vv]alue as quantum flux relativity." and "Quantum~relativity issi [Vv]alue as quantum~complementarity." Doug - 4Feb2006, 'value' rev 21Jan2012.

Here is a DNAesque exemplar:

We call them "quantons." Quantons are quantum~complementary quantum flux interrelationshipings. Quantons are holographic, animate, EIMA, REIMAR, sorso~fractal, emergent, emerging, emerscent, emerscenturable, emerscitectible, emerscitectural, fuzzonic quantum~flux emersos interrelationshipings.

What we are looking for here is n¤t those flux 'lines,' rather their ensemble, enthymemetic, and epigenic interrelationshipings which we call quantum~complementary~phase~encodings.

Begin 24Jan2012 Aside:

Quantization of quantons abduces quantum~relative~complementation of all scintilla as quantons. We can list as many exemplars as there are quantum~phenomena borne of reality's quantization~scintillation ubiquitous ontic~evolutionary fluxings:

  • up issi ihn down and down issi ihn up,
  • right issi ihn wrong and wrong issi ihn right,
  • malspel issi ihn gospel and gospel issi ihn malspel,
  • perfection issi ihn imperfection and imperfection issi ihn perfection,
  • happiness issi ihn sadness and sadness issi ihn happiness,
  • chaos issi ihn equilibrium and equilibrium issi ihn chaos,
  • love issi ihn hate and hate issi ihn love,
  • life issi ihn death and death issi ihn life,
  • etc.

Intensities of those Value complementations are evolving quantum~processings themselves: impossible as stoppables for classical scalarbation.

Those exemplars offer linguistic exegeses of quantum~complementarity as no formal dialectic ever could.


End 24Jan2012 Aside.

Quantum reality quantum~flux~relatively encodes phase, n¤t space. Said encodings we call "hologra." Why? Their phase encodings are EIMA quantum~iso~equi~pragma~potent: i.e., holographic! Perhaps we can show that graphically better like this:

View and assess that large red ensemble QLO as a many processings'
enthymemetic epigene: partial quantum~fluxings~relativistic reality!

Doug - 29Oct2007.

Classical analysis cann¤t accomplish, let alone explain that. Rather, a classical explanation looks like those transverse 2D lines in our drawing above. But that drawing is classical dialectical reality's EOOO dichonic SQ 'opposite' (rather 'a' apparently 'state-ic' quantum~complement) of what quantum reality really phase~encodes. Classical reality is ESQ. Classical reality leaves out DQ! Classical reality is n¤t real. Classical reality's 'objective properties' are n¤t real!

Quantum reality is quanton(DQ,SQ). I.e., some animate version of our drawing plus its quantum phase~encodings complementings. Now, think-king about them holographically makes all easier to grasp in any quantum perspective.

Let's do an example:

Take a musical score. Quantum complement it. How? Well, there are at least three ways apparent to Doug: temporally, tonally, and tonal-temporally. Probably there are countless others (hint, hint, phase-encodingly; Fourierly; Picassoesque cubically; etc.). Gershwin did a kind of quantum complement using temporal recursion of similar 'faster' patterns recursing 'faster' patterns recursing patterns. Bach too. (If you do not have a copy get (has to be) Glenn Gould's thirty Goldberg Variations with two Aria (alpha and omega); listen while reading Richard Powers' The Goldbug Variations. No one else even approaches Gould's skills, style, power, articulation, dynamic range, quantum~essence, etc.)

OK! Play notes, play notes and their temporal complements using complementary instruments. Ditto their tonal complements. Mix. You just moved eons closer to quantum reality in that simple exercise! Remember Miles Davis? He used to say that he tried not to play notes, rather to play notes' nots. As Doug remembers he called it "playing 'd background," a kind of musical Gestalt.

End example.

From a Bohmian, Pietschean holographic, hologramic, holomovement perspective, quantons are quantum flux phasicity~encodings.

Classically we would refer them as Fourier 'analyses.' But that is a bad way of thing-king about it! Analysis stops reality and measures flux classically using what we call "scalarbation."

Quantum reality is unstoppable, and quantum flux may n¤t be held still and 'measured at a point.'

Now let's wrap all that up by using quantum~relativity to describe holograms:

"Quantum hologramings are essential quantum fluxings' relativityings: we call them 'quantum~phasicityings~encodings.'"

Quantum relativity is quantum phase encoding. Quantum iso~omni~phase~encoding issi quantum complementarity. There are n¤ classical 'opposites,' only real quantum complements: quantum reality issi hologra of hologra of hologra...

Doug - 2-4Feb2006.

Ihn Quantum ræhlihty quantons d¤ n¤t classically 'relate,' they aræ ænsehmble abs¤lutæly anihmatæly quantumly ihnterrelatings. Our m¤st gænæral ¤mniscrihpti¤n as ¤f 2005q f¤r quantum ihnterrelati¤nshipings issi REIMAR.

Quantum ræhlihty sahys "flux issi simple." Wæ sahy, "Flux issi crux." Quantum~flux is simple. Classical 'state' is complex. Why? Explain.

Quantum ræhlihty sahys "flux issi st¤chastihc." That mæans b¤th pr¤babilistihc amd lihkælihoodihstihc. Iht mæans b¤th subqjæctihv(e) amd qualihtatihvæ. Iht mæans gænæral absænce ¤f classical negat amd gænæral præsænce ¤f quantum p¤siht. Quantum wavæs~flux aræ st¤chasihtc. Quantum st¤chastihcs aræ n¤n nægatihvæ. See positive and negative. See our 2004 What is Wrong with Probability as Value?

Quantons aræ flux. They aræ at læast quatr¤æntr¤pihc, quatr¤c¤herænt flux. See entropa and cohera. Quantum flux manihfests ihtsælf ihn ahctualihty as b¤s¤nihc flux amd fermi¤nihc flux. B¤s¤nihc flux can ahctualihzæ as zær¤ amd ihnteger spihn. Fermi¤nihc flux can ahctualihzæ as spihn 1/2 (e.g., t¤p-bott¤m-charmæd-strange-quarks, uhp-d¤wn-quarks, electr¤ns, neutrons, pr¤t¤ns, etc.), amd systæmihc ræsihdual spihn 1/2. (nuclæi, at¤ms, amd aggrægatæs ¤f th¤se, etc.) Quantum flux n¤nmanihfests ihtsælf (iht hidæs, sælf-cl¤aks) as is¤flux ihn n¤nahctualihty. Ahll these 'kinds' ¤f quantum flux can b¤th passihvely amd ahctihvæly 'mihx' ihncluhsihvely wihth ¤næ an¤thær! Ahll ¤f quantum ræhlihty issi n¤n 'state-ic' REIMAR ænsehmbles ¤f ahctihvæ amd passihve ihnterrelati¤nshipings ¤f vahst amd ubihquiht¤uhs quantum flux!!

F¤r c¤mparihs¤n purp¤ses hæræ wæ may uhsæ a qu¤te fr¤m Banesh Hoffmann's The Story of the Quantum, 1947 GPC and 1959 Dover, "Where de Broglie had used relativistic waves in ordinary space and time, Schrödinger had used nonrelativistic waves in a fictional space." Quantonics uhsæs wavæs (fuzz¤nihc QLOs) as c¤¤bsfæctih ihnterrelati¤nings. Wavæs apparænt t¤ uhs n¤w, aræ n¤t objectively 'relativistic,' rather, they aræ quantumly ihnterrelati¤nshipihc amd abs¤lutæly quantum parthæn¤fluxihc: æmærqing, æmærqant, æmærscænce, æmærscænt, æmærscænturable, amd æmærscihtectable ihn a quantum_æmærs¤s_hlihty quantons(n¤nahctualihty,ahctualihty).

Doug - 25-28Feb2005. (2nd 'or' 3rd applied usage of our coined 'parthenofluxic' here; described using other Quantonics' coined terms)

Page top index.


Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'remediation' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'remediati¤n.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'remediation.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'remediati¤n.'

Classical remediation puts those who have somehow leapt from SOM's box, back in SOM's box.

Quantum remediati¤n all¤ws students ¤f Quantonics t¤ escape SOM's box, amd c¤mmence a quantum Chautauqua thr¤ugh a much greater quantum reality. Quantum remediati¤n applies emerscenture percepts amd intuemes t¤ spawn quantum memes amd inn¤vate n¤vel emerqs.

Students ¤f Quantonics include in their Chautauquas new ways ¤f think-king using QTMs amd c¤mmencing a life l¤ng pr¤cess ¤f discarding general use ¤f legacy CTMs. QTMs all¤w students ¤f Quantonics t¤ access Sidis' 'reserve energy,' ¤r what we call "quantum flux."

Page top index.


Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'repeatability,' 'repeatable,' 'repetition,' and 'repeat' amd remerq all quantum c¤mtextual ¤ccurrences with, e.g., 'ræpæatability' amd 'ræpætition,' plus their present-participle quantum anihmatæ versions, e.g.: ræpæatings amd ræpætitionings.

Classicists assume stable, inanimate physical (classical) reality may be posed and analyzed in zero momentum unicontextual, homogeneous, OGC reference frames.

Quantonics' versi¤n ¤f quantum science assumes quantum realihty issi anihmatæ, c¤mpenetrating, heter¤comtextual, heter¤gene¤us (quantum ensehmbles), amd absent any 'OGC reference frames.' All quantum c¤mtexts aræ abs¤lutely anihmatæ amd their ihnterrelati¤nships (quantons) with ¤ther quantum c¤mtexts aræ nævær 'repeatable.' Their p¤tential self-similarity amd QTP ¤nly ¤ffer what we call quantum ræpæatability. Quantum ræpæatability suffers (actually enjoys) abs¤lute quantum umcærtainty under QVF's abs¤lute mandate f¤r evolutionary emerscence.

This quantum remediation, among many others in Quantonics, is devastating to classical science. Why? Classical science depends upon 'verification' and 'validation' of experiments using classically deluded notions of 'repeatability.'

See truth. See verity. See fact. See law. See What is Absurd. See Science as Humor.

Page top index.


Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'reproduction' and 'reproduce' amd remerq all quantum c¤mtextual ¤ccurrences with 're(e)merscence' amd 'remerq,' plus their present-participle quantum anihmatæ versions: re(e)merscencings amd remerqings.

Two main themes of classical 'reproduction' are classical manufacturing and biological fecundation. Both notions are classically mechanical. They are objective, and depend upon ideal mechanical lisrability and mobile (i.e., capable of objective, analytic, causal motion), but immutable EEMD.

Quantum reality does n¤t classically reproduce he-rself! S-he is in quantum processings of reemerscenturings he-rself, via quantum anihmatæ EIMA emerscence.

See emerq, emerscenture, emerscitecture, emerscence, remerq.

Page top index.


Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'response' amd remerq all quantum c¤mtextual ¤ccurrences with 'resp¤nse.'

Where classical responses are usually stable, repeatable, effected and quantitative 1-1 correspondent EEMD causal, quantum resp¤nses aræ heter¤gene¤us-ensehmble, st¤chastic, EIMA, anihmatæ.

Page top index.


TBD. Classical problematics: dichon(not_reverse, reverse), either/or, EOOO, opposition, versus, contradiction, objective negation (i.e., classical, Bohrian complement), etc.

Page top index.


TBD. Classical problematics: dichon(not_reversible, reversible), Maxwell's 'laws' of thermodynamics, reality as only posentropic, adiabaticity (e.g., quantum tunneling is adiabatic, however it is n¤t wholly posentropic), arrow of time, reality as unitemporal (a key and problematic Einstein assumption in his classical special and general theories of relativity), etc.

Perhaps our most key issue here, with classical notions vis-à-vis quantum memeos of 'reversibility,' may be illustrated via this simple comparison:

  • classical 'opposites' are generally-, mechanically-, analytically-, formally-, canonically-, objectively-reversible, however,
  • quantum c¤mplæmænts aræ, ihn genæral, n¤n ræværsible.

You want it even simpler? Try this:

  • dichon(not_A, A) is reversible, however,
  • quanton(n¤t_A,A) issi, ihn genæral, n¤t reversible.

Why? Classical dialectical logic demands objective stability ('zero momentum' at best, and 'stoppable mobility' at worst) and lisr independence (middle-exclusion). Classical dialectical logic also canonically demands that all equivalence relations: identity, reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc., and linear relation properties: factorizability, distributivity, commutativity, etc., be-are valid. Quantum reality demands quantum~l¤gic, which we remediatively rename coquecigrues. Coquecigrues breaks all classical logic, massively.

Simply, quantum~reality is unstoppable and all middles are, to some scope of affect, included. Where classical reality is 'state,' quantum reality is 'flux.' See our QELR of phase.

Let's l¤¤k at quantum entr¤pa amd c¤hera:

entr¤pa c¤hera ræværsibility
zer¤entr¤py herence quantum_ræværsible
p¤sentr¤py dec¤herence quantum_irræværsible within human perceptual bandwidths
negentr¤py is¤c¤herence d¤ n¤t k-n¤w; ihn a sense issi ræværsibility
mixentr¤py mixc¤herence ihnteresting amd phen¤menal mixtures ¤f ab¤ve, e.g., superc¤nductivity, magnetism, neutrinos oscillating their zer¤~ and p¤s~entropies to tunnel masses like planets, tsunamis, amd superfluids

Classicists make enormous errors of judgment when they assume classical reversibility is valid. In general, classical reversibility is invalid, for reasons offered above. Too memeos of quantum~ræværsibility are wholly unlike and omnisimilar classical notions of 'reversibility.'

Further quantum~advancements in quantum~equilibrium, ~gradience, ~[a]symmetry, [a]temporality have made it evident we need more QMVings and QEVings on classical vav quantum reversibility. Here is a list which can offer bases for further classical vav quantum QELRing of reversibility here:

Aspects of [IR]Reversibility:

  • equilibrium
  • gradience
  • symmetry vav asymmetry
  • temporality vav atemporality
  • certainty vav uncertainty
  • monism vav pluralism
  • unitime vav heterostochastic timings
  • scalar phase vav quantum~phasings
  • thermodynamics
  • analysis vav complementation
  • quantitative vav qualitative
  • closed vav open
  • effectuation vav affectation
  • etc.

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.

Doug - 26Jun2011 through 4Jul2011. 24,26Nov2012 - Doug.

Page top index.


See 'wrong.' In quantum reality there is n¤ dichon(wrong, right)! In that dichon's stead we anihmatæ quanton(better,w¤rse). We als¤ sh¤w that anihmatæ quanton as BAAM(better,w¤rse).

We will eventually distinguish quantum/Quantonic 'right' fr¤m classical 'right' using ¤ur Quantonics f¤nt.

Here it is 28Sep2003, 2+ years later, and we are now ready to do that remediation!

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'right' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'right.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'right.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'right.'

Classical dichon(wrong, right) is an objective, radically mechanical, causal, state-ic, stoppable, absolute, excluded-middle, single-scalar, measurable, repeatable, verifiable, valid, logical-moral-ethical assessment.

Quantum quanton(wr¤ng,right) sh¤ws a quantum ihnterrelati¤nship which issi: anihmatæ, ihncluded-middle, everywhere-ass¤ciative, st¤chastic, BAWAM, subjectihve, rhet¤rical, ensehmble, Value assessment.

To a classicist, indeed to all classicists, agreement consensus (one sensible judgment fits all; communis vitae fits all; communist sense, catholic sense, herd mentality fits all...) may be established for all to adhere. Science has its axioms, facts, and laws and backs them up with a disciplinary matrix (a totalitarian hegemony) to assure all 'competent scientists' adhere a valid common, normal scientific sense. Sects have their religions. Corporations have their constitutions and by-laws. Union-sense. Common sense.

So when any classicist looks at a situation, we can expect that classicist to be capable of assessing it as either right or wrong.

T¤ a quantumihst, quanton(wr¤ng, right) has umlihmited hermeneutics f¤r any gihven c¤mtextual sihtuati¤n. 1000 ¤mnifferent hu-w¤-mans wihll ¤ffer nearly as many ¤mnistinct views. We call this "many truths," amd "many quantum truths." Amd æach ¤f these quantum truths issi anihmatæ amd ev¤lving amd an agent ¤f ihts ¤wn amd ¤thers' quantum changings.

Page top index.



Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'rule' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'rulæ.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'rule.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'rulæ.'

Classical 'rules' hold still. They are ESQ. They are state-ic. They are innately inanimate. Classicists rank this long term 'rule' stability as supreme import in developing their 'abyss of stasyss' theories.

H¤wever, n¤w, in Millennium III's first few years we rec¤gnize that nature/reality nævær h¤lds still (only sometimes apparently to classical minds). Thus, if we want t¤ describe nature/reality better, we must inn¤vate 'rulæs' which adapt t¤ quantum comtexts amd their ensehmble paratehmp¤ralities and pragmatehmp¤ralities. Quantum/Quantonic 'rulæs' may bæ Planck rate dynamic (amd ensehmbles ¤f l¤wer rates/¤ctaves there¤f). Quantum 'rulæs' aræ stindyanic. They aræ EEE-able. They aræ emersible.

Our descripti¤ns ¤f quantum rulæs, axi¤ms, et al., uncl¤ak a large part ¤f Quantonics' pragmadigm shear f¤r Millennium III. We call it a "quantum tsunami," based up¤n its imminent amd en¤rm¤us impact ¤n Earth's s¤cieties amd cultures.

See: absolute, axiom, certain, fact, law, principle, tautology, truth.

Page top index.

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2029

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2029 Rev. 223Apr2016  PDR — Created 20Jul2002  PDR
(10Apr2001 rev - Add 'rule.')
(13Jun2001 rev - Add 'remediation.' Change all occurrences of 'replace' with '
(20Jun2001 rev - Add 'rule.')
(4Aug2001 rev - Add 'right.')
(3Apr2002 rev - Add 'reversibility.')
(4Apr2002 rev - Alter 'reversibility.')
(7Jun2002 rev - Add 'recursion.')
(20Sep2002 rev - Remediate all quantum comtextual occurrences of 'animate' on this page.)
(26Sep2002 rev - Remediate all quantum comtextual occurrences of 'ensemble.' Add link to 'Quantum Fractals.')
(12Nov2002 rev - Add 'paratemporal' and 'pragmatemporal' links under 'rule' remediation.)
(5Sep2003 rev - Add 'response.' Reset legacy red text.)
(7Sep2003 rev - Add 'reproduction.')
(15Sep2003 rev - A reader searched for our QELR of 'reduction.' We had to add it in a tentative TBD emerqancy.)
(We encourage our students to request QELRs which they 'need' and 'want.' We shall do our best to help.)
(28Sep2003 rev - Extend 'right.')
(13Oct2003 rev - Reset legacy red text.)
(2Nov2003 rev - Add 'repeatability.' Extend 'reversibility.')
(12Nov2003 rev - Reset dates and red text.)
(22Nov2003 rev - Add 'reason.')
(29Dec2003 rev - Add 'thingk' link.)
(24Feb2004 rev - Reset add's. and rev's. and red text.)
(10-27Feb2005 rev - Reset table constraints. Adjust colors. Add page top indices. Add 'relative.')
(23-24-??,27,29Mar2005 rev - Add 'rectify-??.' Add 'reality.' Modify 'rectify;' see red text.)
(1,3Apr2005 rev - Continue work on 'rectify.' A work in progress... Repair some errors... Repair minor typos and term misuse under 'reality.')
(20,25,30Apr2005 rev - Replace 'steps' with red text under 'reality.' Update 'reality.' Reset some red text.)
(23May2005 rev - Update 'reality' with a Quantonic description paraphrase of Errol E. Harris.)
(17Jun2005 rev - Reset red text.)
(17Sep2005 rev - Repair quantum sec. of 'relative.' Add 'parhenoflux' link.)
(8,31Oct2005 rev - Update 'reduction.')
(30Nov2005 rev - Update 'reality.')
(19-21,25Jan2006 rev - Reset legacy red text. Reformat page top. Update 'reason.' Repair some QELR problems under quantum 'Reality.')
(2-4Feb2006 rev - Update 'relative.')
(19,27Mar2006 rev -Repair QELR 'omni' issues. Reset legacy red text.)
(30-31May2006 rev - Update 'recursive,' 'recursion.')
(6Jun2006 rev - Update 'reality.')
(25Jul2006 rev - Reset pink updates.)
(18Aug2006 rev - Add 'Recursive' anchor under 'Recursion.')
(3Oct2006 rev - ID 'quantumly evolute' QELR issue with 'likelihoodistic.' Need to spend time on this.)
(17,22Nov2006 rev - Update 'reversibility.' Reset legacy red text. Change some quantum~comtextual hyphens to tildes under 'reason.')
(27Jan2007 rev - Update, slightly, 'Real.' Adjust page format, slightly. Reset legacy red text markups.)
(5Feb2007 rev - Add 'simplicity' link under 'Quantum Reality.')
(5Mar2007 rev - Repair typo of 'heterogeneous.')
(8May2007 rev - Add 'rational.')
(12Aug2007 rev - Reset legacy red text.)
(24Oct2007 rev - Update Classical vav Quantum notions and memeos under rectify. Update some other empty cells in that table.)
(29Oct2007 rev - Repair minor punctuation error under 'relativity.')
(20Nov2007 rev - Update 'reversibility.')
(18Dec2007 rev - Add 'Problematics' link at page top.)
(30Oct2008 rev - Replace wingdings and symbol fonts with gifs. Reset legacy markups.)
(17Nov2008 rev - Repair typo in description of epigenic drawing under 'relative.')
(8,13,20Dec2008 rev - Add 'sillygism' link. Add 'Quantonics on reason' link. Add 'Quantum Awareness' anchor.)
(31Mar2009 rev - Add AH-Doug dialogue on 'What is Positive?' under 'rectify.')
(18Jul2009 rev - Update 'recursion.')
(20Sep2009 rev - Add intra page 'wave' links to recent QELR of 'wave.')
(5Dec2009 rev - Add 'rational' link.)
(23Jan2010 rev - Update 'quantum entropy' for quantum~gnosis under QELR of 'Reality.')
(1Feb2010 rev - Add 'Logical Versus Physical' link under 'recursion' issue of 'Recursion requires self reference..')
(27Mar2010 rev - Add 'commutativity' link under 'reversibility.' Reset legacy markups.)
(10,20Jul2010 rev - Update 'reduction' with Carlo Suares remarks on said classical notion. Reformat page.)
(6Jan2011 rev - Update 'quantum reality' with Doug's quote of Beth which appeared first on our index page. Doug moved it to here.)
(30Apr2011 rev - Add "Quantum~flux is simple. Classical 'state' is complex. Why? Explain." link under QELR of 'relate.')
(27Jun2011 rev - Reformat table size under 'reversibility.')
(4,18,19Jul2011 rev - Add aspect list under 'reversibility.' Add another 'fractal' link to "How to do quantum~fractals." Add a 'simplicity vav complexity' link under 'relativity.')
(1Aug2011 rev - Update 'reality' to include memeos of 'scintilla,' and 'quantized~scintillation.')
(21,24Jan2012 rev - Add [Vv]alue links under quantum~relativity. Add complementation aside under relativity.)
(23Feb2012 rev - Update 'quantum~uncertainty' facets under 'quantum~reality' list of facets of quantum~reality.)
(8Mar2012 rev - Add more 'radicals' under 'reality.' Reset legacy markups.)
(17Jul2012 rev - Add link to new remediation of 'chaos' under 'relate.')
(16Oct2012 rev - Under 'quantum reality' change "Absoluteness as quantum uncertainty," to "Absoluteness of change assessed stochastically as quantum uncertainty." Change issi absolute. Uncertainty issi stochastic. Doug.)
(24Nov2012 rev - Update 'reversibility' with comments about classical vav quantum 'irreversibility.')
(4,22Feb2013 rev - Add 'Quantum Reality' anchor under 'Reality.' Add 'Quantum~Reality' anchor under 'Reality.')
(13Jan2014 rev - Reset legacy markups. Make page current.)
(21Mar2014 rev - Add 'Quantum Relativity' anchor.)
(2Jul2014 rev - Update 'reason.')
(2Dec2014 rev - Reset legacy markups. Adjust colors. Make page current.)
(1Jun2015 rev - Add Suaresian under 'quantum~reality.')
(23Apr2016 rev - Add 'quantum metabolic' under 'middle~ihnclude memes' list under 'Reality: Quantum~Reality.')

Return to Quantonics English Language Remediation Index Page                                  Arches