Return to Review

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

A Review
Henri Louis Bergson's Book
Time and Free Will
Chapter I: The Intensity of Psychic States
Topic 15: Intensity And Multiplicity
by Doug Renselle
Doug's Pre-review Commentary
Start of Review






Bibliography Author's
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Conclusion Index

Move to any Topic of Henri Louis Bergson's Time and Free Will,
or to beginning of its review via this set of links
says, "You are here!")

Topic 15...............Intensity and Multiplicity


(Most quotes verbatim Henri Louis Bergson, some paraphrased.)

(Relevant to Pirsig, William James Sidis, and Quantonics Thinking Modes.)


"To sum up what precedes, we have found the notion of intensity to present itself under a double
Thus intensity judged
(1) in representative
states by an estimate of the magnitude of the cause
(2) in affective states by
multiplicity of psychic phenomena involved.
aspect, according as we study the states of consciousness which represent an external cause, or those which are self sufficient. In the former case the perception of intensity consists in a certain estimate of the magnitude of the cause by means of a certain quality in the effect: it is, as the Scottish philosophers would have said, an acquired perception. In the second case, we give the name of intensity to the larger or smaller number of simple psychic phenomena which we conjecture to be involved in the fundamental state: it is no longer an acquired perception, but a confused perception.
In fact, these two meanings of the word usually intermingle, because the simpler phenomena involved in an emotion or an effort are generally representative, and because the majority of representative states, being at the same time affective, themselves include a multiplicity of elementary psychic phenomena. The idea of intensity is thus situated at the junction of two streams, one of which brings us the idea of extensive magnitude from without, while the other brings us from within, in fact from the very depths of consciousness, the image of an inner multiplicity. Now, the point is to determine in what the latter image consists, whether it is the same as that of number, or whether it is quite different from it. In the following chapter we 'shall no longer consider states of consciousness in isolation from one another, but in their concrete multiplicity, in so far as they unfold themselves in pure duration. And, in the same way as we have asked what would be the intensity of a representative sensation if we did not introduce into it the idea of its cause, we shall now have to inquire what the multiplicity of our inner states becomes, what form duration assumes, when the space in which it unfolds is eliminated."

(Our bold, color, violet bold italic problematics, and violet bold problematics.)

Bergson restarts his footnote counts on each page. So to refer a footnote, one must state page number and footnote number.

Our bold and color highlights follow a code:

  • black-bold - important to read if you are just scanning our review
  • orange-bold - text ref'd by index pages
  • green-bold - we see Bergson suggesting axiomatic memes
  • violet-bold - an apparent classical problematic
  • blue-bold - we disagree with this text segment while disregarding context of Bergson's overall text
  • gray-bold - quotable text
  • red-bold - our direct commentary

Does this man amaze you as he amazes us?

Can you see him (classically, plus quantum instinctively and intuitively) describing associative memory here? Lightning! — endarkenment switch off: he describes essence of quantonic associative memory — a quantum self-organizing network! Let's show you our Quantonic script versions of his quantum instincts and intuitions:

Qubit    quanton(uncloaking_n¤nactuality,actuality)

then his classical intellect:

Consciousness = dichon(quality_affecting_states, self_sufficient_states)

then more of his quantum instincts and intuitions:

Psychic_phenomena quanton(n¤t_acquired,confused_perception).

Here we may interpret his "confused perception" as quantum reality's included-middle twixt uncloaking_nonactuality and actuality. In Quantonics his "confused perception" issi isotentative flux. See our coined Isot. Isotentative flux is quantum n¤nactual flux which issi on a verge of actualizing AKA "latching." See our more detailed quantum description of Quantonics Isox in light of their Associative Memory Ontologies.

His description is simply remarkable considering Bergson wrote this material nearly 100 years ago. Even more profound, he intuits quantum heterogeneity. Then he makes an even more remarkable statement: "In the following chapter we 'shall no longer consider states of consciousness in isolation from one another, but in their concrete multiplicity, in so far as they unfold themselves in pure duration." Here he shows us, too, how he knows quantum reality's middle is associatively included. This quote shows you why we do not like his abundant use of 'state' and 'states,' and why we are highlighting each use in bold violet. But he shows us that we need not worry! His meme for 'state' applies duration (SON associative included-middle logic) among 'states.' We cann¤t capture intensity or any other quantum real animate process in classical 'states.' As Bergson tells us later on page 219 of TaFW, we cann¤t analyze real (quantum; he says "concrete") processes. Only via thibediring and durational think-king may we begin to harmonize quantum real animacy.

Memeos of quantum~intensity, compared to classical 'notions' of intensity, are n¤t what you would expect. They jarred classical science terribly with what we call, "an Einstein and Maxwell photoelectric effect catastrophe."

See Topic 1 on quantum~intensity.

See Topic 8 on quantum~intensity.

It may be helpful to readers, now CeodE 2009-2010, to see our more recent exegeses of both intensity and quantum~intensity. Doug - 15Dec2009.


74 "This second question is even more important than the first. For, if the confusion of quality with quantity were confined to each of the phenomena of consciousness taken separately, it would give rise to obscurities as we have just seen, rather than to problems. But by invading the series of our psychic states, by introducing space [classical determinism, classical cause-effect] into our perception of duration, it corrupts [quality] at its very source our feeling of outer and inner change, of movement, and of freedom. Hence the paradoxes of the Eleatics, hence the problem of free will. We shall insist rather on the second point; but instead of seeking to solve the question, we shall show the mistake of those who ask it."

(Our bold and color, and violet bold italic problematics.)



Eleatics of Elea. Fifth century, b.c. school of philosophy. Proponent philosophers: Parmenides, Xenophanes, and Zeno, who believed all is one [Bergson's spatial extensity] — and thus denied both change and pluralism. Eleatics were n¤t quantum philosophers/thinkers!

Students of Quantonics may intuit by now, that quantum local free will is intrinsic in quantum reality. By "quantum local," we mean that a quanton (following Mae-wan Ho's leading heuristics) has both autonomy (local free will) and cohesion (global interrelationships, some n¤nlocal, which temper, balance, and mitigate local free will; did you just feel that Nash nexus? If this feels like essence of John Forbes Nash's Nobel prize-winning equilibrium your sensibilities are, indeed, Quantonic. See our review of A Beautiful Mind.).

We may also intuit how a quanton of Mae-wan's heuristic and quantum free will resolves a huge philosophical issue:

How can everyone have free will together and simultaneously, while reality, in general, keeps improving, keeps getting better? How can quantum reality be intrinsically moral?

A quick Open Source Internet free will answer is Eric S. Raymond's The Cathedral vis-à-vis Virtual Bazaar.

We would say, "IsoVirtual Quantum Bazaar."

And, in addition to Raymond's, Mae-wan Ho's and Bergson's perspectives, we may choose to look at free will as Pirsig did. Instead of a classical, 'A causes B,' Pirsig proffers,

"B values precondition A,"

Lila, p. 104, 1991, Bantam,
1st ed., hardbound

and with our plurals added to Pirsig's singulars,

"Bs Value preconditions As."

To make Pirsig's statement n¤t just relativistically plural, but quantum animate too, we can say,

"Bings Valuing preconditionings Aings."

Adjunctive this n¤ncausal QTM think-king, see our,

"whatings happenings nextings."


We call SOM and CR versions of Pirsig's "A causes B," classical "key disablers."

We call our MoQ/QTM version of Pirsig's "B values precondition A," a QTM "key enabler."

For more on our key disablers and our key enabler, see those topics in our How to Tap Into Reserve Energy.

End aside.

In classical causality's 'A causes B' there is no intrinsic awareness, choice, Value, decision — there is no free will! 'Effects' in classical reality are inductive and absolutely determinate! Relativism's plurals still use classical inductive, causal, excluded-middle logic (also see our SOM's Logic) so we end up with multiple (many) determinisms. Relativists have a 'choice' among many determinisms.

However, in

"Bings Valuing preconditionings Aings,"

Bings must be (are) quantum aware! Why? Because they must (do) Value Aings! Why? So they can tentatively and affectively select their compenetrating portion of an ensemble better next Planck phase(ing)s outcome(ing)s! (Along with other local and n¤nlocal Bings which are entangling with, coobsfecting, and compenetrating attractor Aings' phasic ensemble.)

Thus, you as a student of Quantonics should be able to intuit how local free will is intrinsic in quantum reality.

Also consider bandwidth limitations of various quantons: a photon, a nucleon, an atom, a molecule, an eyeball, or a human "Bing." Doing so, you may see that quantum both awareness and choice (and thus "quantum freeness") scales.

A quanton's quantum affectiveness (its scope of both awarenesses and choices) increases with quantonic complexity.


Quantum affectiveness is interrelated strongly to any quanton's ensemble sub-portion sensory selection bandwidth; i.e., what a quanton can "sense" affects its affective selection choices, and thus to some degree its affective bandwidth; we assume a photon's sensory selection bandwidth is vastly more limited than a human's.

End aside.

But Doug, "How does this affect me, my life, what I do?" First, that you are reading this particular text just now demonstrates its potentia, and its potentia affecting you. Without denouncing and rejecting outright what we have said thus far, can you ever look at reality again as you did prior to reading these few paragraphs?

Depending upon your progress as a student of Quantonics, this affect may be greater or smaller, but you are affected by what you just finished reading.

Once you grasp this quantum affectual free will epiphany in its fuller interpretations, you will discover your own freeness as a quantum being! You will largely subsume your CTMs with your newly adopted QTMs. You will commence interpreting reality in all its vast quantum realness.


We use italics on our use of "interpreting" because we accept a meme — our use here of "meme" is as a quantum 'fact' that is always changing — that quantum reality is uncertain (in-define-it), and that we can describe it, but it is unlikely that we will ever be able to know quantum reality in its most elaborate fullness. To do so would entrap/define it, which we cann¤t do since quantum reality is always changing and always changing all. Doug - 1Dec2001.

End aside.

And for sure, Bergson's entire Time and Free Will is dedicated to this quantum percept, as its title suggests.

A good systems theory example, of how you might use what we have just said, is how we approach a very difficult problem of developing genuine AI appliances.

If we research, specify, design, build and test using causal classical, define-it, objects and classical design concepts — we can show that it is impossible to achieve even simplest AI outcomes. Concepts and objects drive out quantum awareness, drive out quantum free will which is a key enabler/affector even for 'artificial' intelligence!

If we research, comtextualize, and evolve our system appliance products using quantons we have a chance of achieving a modicum of AI capability! QTM percepts and quantons invite and nurture quantum awareness.

How? What is a huge difference between a computer virus which works and ones which do n¤t? Classically-applied quantum self-reference! Pure classical attempts to develop formal (n¤n-quantonic) viruses and worms, etc., failed until quantum fractal comcepts of self-recursion were adopted. Until Doug Hofstadter showed people how it could be done, n¤thing happened. (See Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher Bach and Metamagical Themas.)

A similar meta-phore played out within IBM. Rolf Landauer, an IBM fellow (recently deceased), learned how to use quantum reversibility to keep dense RAMs from burning up. This is essentially a macroscopic quantum zero-entropy 'trick' which offers incredibly valuable classical consequences.

We have a similar situation with AI. Until we intuitively understand how important quantum free will is to AI, we will n¤t achieve even a modicum of AI capability. Until we evolve quantum free will into our systems, we will n¤t be capable of doing AI.

But to do this, we must give up our exclusive adherences to CTMs. We must throw out our classically-causal mental models of reality. We must adopt QTMs and all their boundless reserve energy, as exemplified meekly on this small quantum stage.

Those entrepreneurs among you know that these last many comment paragraphs are worth, at least, hundreds of $Billions. Value is in understanding what we mean when we say, "quantum free will." By-the-way, it is all there — n¤ kidding. See our Darwin's Chip.

Now, should you still be just a student of Quantonics?

Thank you for reading — Doug - 17Nov2001.


Return to Chapter Index

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2019 Rev. 21Jul2011  PDR Created: 23Feb2001  PDR
(3Jun2002 rev - Add Zeno anchor to page 74 text and comments.)
(17Jun2002 rev - Add anchor to our page 74 Free Will comments.)
(7Oct2002 rev - Add QSBP&P link to page 74 comments: "what a photon 'senses'.")
(18Oct2002 rev - Add p. 73 comments Associative Memory Ontology link.)
(9Jan2003 rev - Add
Zenos_Paradice link under page 74 comments.)
(3Feb2003 rev - Add page 74 red text comments on Nash equilibrium.)
(10Nov2003 rev - Change some Wingdings fonts to GIFs for browser compatibility. Link 'fact' to our QELR of it.)
(30Mar2004 rev - Correct p. 74 comments spelling of 'Noble' to 'Nobel.')
(9Apr2004 rev - Embolden occurrences of 'free will' in p. 74 comments.)
(29Oct2004 rev - Add 'Quantum Free Will and AI' anchor and QTM link to p. 74 comments. )
(1Oct2006 rev - Release page constraints. Adjust colors.)
(27-8Feb2008 rev - Add p. 73 comments link to 'an Einstein and Maxwell photoelectric effect catastrophe.' Add p. 74 'Ensemble Attractors' link to 'Probability.')
(12Mar2008 rev - Reformat page and index slightly.)
(21Dec2008 rev - Add 'Quantum Awareness' anchor. Reset legacy markups. Replace some fonts with gifs.)
(15Dec2009 rev - Add comment cell links to 'Intensity' and 'Quantum Intensity.' Adjust colors.)
(21Jul2011 rev - Add 'fractal' link to "How to do quantum~fractals.")

Return to Review