If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!
In QELR quantonics~reality issi networks of quantum~fluxings, REIMAR interrelationshipings.
Latest update 21Oct2012 , 29Aug2018- Doug.
This web page was started by
Doug day after Xmas, 2008.
He is just now finding timings
to return to it, given our second plateau as Quantum Value.
It is a very "in progress"
page which needs much work, but it will be valuable to those of
you following Doug's first and only www based textbook.
Doug - 8Feb2011.
Evolution of Quantonics as a quantum~discipline has been quite
It started as an attempt to make quantum~philosophy and quantum~science
more accessible by lay people. But what Doug found out is that
neither 'modern' scientists nor philosophers 'understand' quantum~reality.
That classical 'statement' is an indictment of all religions,
too, especially non, anti gnostic versions, anti Qabala versions
So Doug invented his own versions of all disciplines quantum
starting predominately with physics, math, philosophy, and science.
Then we delved into anthropology, epistemology, metaphysics (especially
metaphysics), psychology, cosmos (macro, meso, micro, plus nano
and below...), and more recently memeos surrounding gnosis
and Qabala as our best analogues
of what we mean by quantum~religion.
We developed our own language, our own memes, our own scripts,
our own interpretations and hermeneutics.
Along our journey, some of you insisted Doug was talking about
hologra. Doug didn't know about hologra, so he gradually built
a limited sense of his own hermeneutics of it. Guess what? It
fits Quantonics to a tee! Doug's fuzzons are holographic! Doug's
quantons are holographic. With AH's help Doug's ontology based
in nonactualities' isofluxings turn out to be holographic. Ditto
QED. Ditto QCD.
So here we are launching ourselves into a novel plateau of
What is great about quantum~hologra?
They offer a descriptive grundlagen for all of reality and
all of realities' largest and smallest memes: from our
cosmos down to Planck's quantum. When Doug says 'all' he intends
'all' that Doug can get his tiny mind around, with a little help
from his friends.
Our approach is to start with assumptions: some explicit,
some implicit. Latter are omnifficultings, since Doug implicitly
doesn't thinkq of implicit assumptions as he begins
this opus. Too, implicitnessings are mostly in frequency and bandwidth
realms typically unavailable at human levels, even hologra~assisted
(SHASB), of con(m)sciousnessings.
Implicit assumptions tend to come back later and haunt one, often
embarrassingly. We are obliged, though, to list them as we realize
we were making them without telling our readers they should have
been explicit except for our shallow sentient depths, quantum~uncertainties,
and weaknesses of lack of foresight (autsimilarly auturgical to
Why list our assumptions? To temper our weakness and create
a, our own, individual,
gr¤ws amd æv¤lves...
and breadth are incomprehensible in and to classical sentients.
First of all, we do it to literally humiliate ourselves! We
immediately omniscover what Pirsig et al., warned us. "We
cannot list all of them. It is impossible for us to be k~now~ing
all of them." That gives us implicit humility. It makes us
humble. We want to be humble for a similar reason. Most of our
predecessors were arrogant. That list is long and we have divulged
their names all over Quantonics' web site. To understand quantum~reality,
one must accept its most humiliating assumption: reality
is enormously, macroscopically, ubiquitous~evolutionarily uncertain.
Once we accept our own need for humility, we have our first tooth
into Earth's largest spiritual~intellectual enigma: What
However, humility is only part of our reward. We realize that
our potentia are unlimited! We realize a great quantum~truthing: quanton(unsaid,said).
Doug likes to use that one as a description of quantum_hope issi
"But Doug, even so, why list our assumptions?"
We find that when we go back and reverse engineer current classes
of thing-king, we enable ourselves to list our version of their
assumptions. When we do that we can start picking away, incrementally,
at which of those is apparently invalid and which may have potentia for partial
quantum~validity. For example, most of our work has already been
done for us by Pirsig, James, Bergson and a few others (let's
call them PJBafo here for convenience: "P. J.
Bafo"). Other malassumptious (malass umptious?) predecessors
assumed dialectic is a valid basis for reasoning based upon dialectic's
formal logic(s). PJ
Bafo showed us rudimentarily how those others, our malassumptionists,
were dreadfully wrong in their assumptions. What more primitive
assumption allowed our malassumptionists to choose 'dialectic'
as their foundation for reason? They assumed reality is mechanical,
mostly based on thoughts of folk like Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle,
Aquinas, DesCartes, Newton, Einstein, et al. Assuming reality
is mechanical, is humankind's greatest failure of thought! It
is humankind's greatest malassumption. They were warned by some
Orientalists, by Cratylus, Zeno of Elea, Heraclitus, select Qabalists
('not' Kabbalists), and most gnostics.
Instead of listening, they attempted to kill our caveateers
and to destroy all their works. If you want to see a modern lay
level movie depicting said attempted destruction see The Golden
So our real reason is that we have anecdotal evidence to show
us that bad assumptions disable success. So today, CeodE 2008, we say it like this, "CTMs disable all thought
qua." I.e., why CTMs' assumptions are nearly all bad.
An example of one good assumption is Newton's assumption that
gravity is atemporal, in any sense of gravity as superluminal
begging one kind of quantum~atemporality. Doug - 24Jun2013.
That is a good assumption. Most other of our malassumptionists'
assumptions are dialectically bad, and all work done assuming
those dialectically bad 'assumptions,' is invalid if n¤t
amply defective. All language too. All disciplines.
Malassumptions put one in a dialectically bad box of reason.
Our strawman, we call SOM. "SOM's
Box." Bad assumptions imprison those those who
adhere them in a realm of disabling reason.
That is why we want
to list as many of our assumptions as we have qua.
Some of our assumptions are worse, again by assumption, since
n¤ lister of assumptions can be infallible. When we realize
our realm is quantum and our minds are quantum we learn to accept
that those minds can quantum~cohere into a much larger mind (a
holographic nous ) whose qua, though still not
great enough, can help us find some of our own bad assumptions.
To Doug, what Doug just wrote is quantum~science. It
is a science which says, "We are all, always uncertain."
When you thinkq about that, it is obvious. One human
life averages less than 100 years duration maximum. Homo sapiens
has been around only about 50,000 years (Is that 500 lifespans
of 100 years? Is that 2500 20 year generations?). Our known universe
is about 15 billion years old. Let's look at those three numbers;
102, 5x104, and 1.5x1010. Our
universe is 150 million times a human's maximum life time and
300 thousand times as old as our human species. During late 1980s
Doug used to call a human lifetime "a flame flicker." You may
see why. What can one human accomplish in a flame flicker? Even Homo sapiens'
total span of time is a relative "flame flicker" compared
to our universe's estimated life time. What can one species do
in 50,000 years? Now that we can guesstimate reasonably
well. We have one example. Now compare which humans our societies
have paid most attention to. In retrospect our scientists and
religionists, those most arrogant, have garnered social attention.
Recall how Doug says classical societies are inept? Do we have
any examples of that? Al Gore just won a 'Nobel' prize for 'global
warming.' This is perhaps our World's greatest social blunder.
USA declared "War against terrrorism." Another, in retrospect,
classical social blunder. Our list of extreme social (i.e., Classical-Aristotelian
Social Pattern of Value) blunders is growing, growing, accelerating...
Classical society is driving itself, like catholic-lemmings, into
extinction. That makes Doug very, very, very happy.
Doug will be shown to have assessed those blunders well. Doug's
arrogance? Perhaps. Or an individual assessing classical society's
unending failures at almost all it touches?
Is Doug alone? No! Many agree. Some Russians see it. Most Muslims
recognize classical society's intrinsic Christian borne Satanism.
Some Venezuelans see it. Some East Indians see it. Some Chinese
have known it and been writing-commenting about it for decades.
Our list is long. Gnostics, apparently, saw classical-societies'
many implicit failures of thought long before any others. Recall
how Essene Jesus emphasized I above we. Essene Jesus grasped
classical we's social management-group essence (calling
Peter "Satan" for referring Jesus as "a Christ")
two millennia ago, and Romans crucified him for it. Christianity's
abysses of we's staysses have become a suicidal swamp of
self-extinction. Soon we shall be free of these formal, organized
What does quantum~reality do (i.e., pragmatic heresy) in such situations?
pay attention to all of reality. Hologra do n¤t classico-socially
focus on those most arrogant, those most bold, those most convincing,
those whose marketing budgets are largest. Hologra omnitor all,
and hologra permit all to select, locally (n¤t globally),
whatings happenings nextings. That is, apparent now, to Doug,
a cusping change here on Earth. Social power is declining. Its
we failures are manifest. Quantum~gnosis is in its very,
very, very early stages of ascension...and a quantum~tsunami of
change attends gnosis' party.
So, three of our implicit assumptions are: society is
inept, reality issi n¤t socially, tragedy of commons sense
'mechanical,' and social-dialectic issi bogus when used in quantum~reality.
Using social-dialectic in quantum~reality, modaling dialectic
as a wrench and quantum~reality as a running jet engine, is like
throwing a crescent wrench into a running jet engine. Quantonics HotMeme
"Social mechanics and social-dialectic
are quantum~disablers." Quantonics
HotMeme. One of our greatest
assumptions is a HotMeme. A HotMeme which tells all...
Pretend GW Bush is a crescent wrench. His presidency threw
him into a running jet engine. Look what happened! It's a lot
different than your one and a half year old running rampant in
your kitchen with your beautiful pots, pans, and Lenox china!
Bush has wrought global breakage, evangelical socially-designed
breakage...via arrogant idiocy of Earth's most supreme nitwit
and his 'Christ' team. A $50 trillion dollar crescent wrench global-breakage
transformer: A 'Christian' 'manager' Satan worshiper on
evangelical steroids! The Decider-Demiurge in all his Bullshock
Despite all that, our opus is and will continue to be quantum~gnostic.
It is and will continue to be about Quality, Pirsigesque Quality,
quantum~gnostic~quality. It is about quantum~coherent individual~autonomy:
a Mae-wan Ho modal of a quantum~society of individuals. Our opus
will evolve. Our list of assumptions will grow. Some will fall
wayside. We shall document their failures. We shall allow our
evolving opus to melioristically, omnipragmaprototypically, and
empirically guide us, n¤t some classical, mechanical, dialectical,
concrete 'plan.' We shall
use evolution herself to help our journey grow and only partially
fulfil our desires, ones we feel now CeodE 2008.
Once we have a long list of explicit
assumptions and perhaps a short list of ones which may appear
more implicit to us, we shall start describing hologra in terms
of graphics and language already available to us in Quantonics.
We want to integrate our memes of quantons, fuzzons, peaqlos,
Tao, energy~wellings, attractors, n¤nactuality, actuality,
isoflux, flux, entropa, cohera, ontology, emerscence, emerscitecture,
emerscenture, etc. to develop two actual flavors of hologra:
coherent and decoherent. We want to develop notation
and graphics for those flavors of hologra which will allow
all of us who are interested in relevant subjects to have a much
more quantum way of depicting their own memes.
A fascinating question: If you were God how would you
evolve reality as humans know it at Earth Millennium III's commencement?
- Reality assumptions:
- Reality issi quantum~processings.
- Reality issi quantum~flux.
- Reality issi absolute change. Panta rhei.
- Reality issi ensemble~heterogeneity. Omniscrimination:
classical notions of ideal homogeneity are wholly absent in quantum~reality.
"Monism is deceit." Re: Gnosis.
- Reality issi holographic middle~inclusionings of potentially
all ensembles. Omniscrimination: classical reality is
formal, mechanical, objective state-ic excluded-middle synthesis
of material, concrete substance.
- Change is Value, Quality, Life itself. Omniscrimination:
State is absence of Value, Loss of Quality, Death itself.
- Change absolutely quantum~evolves. Omniscrimination:
State absolutely holds still and denies that change is real.
- All work in Quantonics, all work in reality is always enthymemetic,
always partial, never arriving, always changing, forever evolving...
- That gives us another assumption that essence of reality
is flux; flux has an intrinsic qua to evolve via phase~interrelationshipings
among all kinds of flux.
- From our naive earth level conspectives, flux takes on two
simultaneously coexisting, compenetrating emerqancies which we
call "n¤nactuality," and "actuality."
Reality issi quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality). N¤nactuality
issi isoflux. Actuality issi all other kinds of flux which emerge
from and to (emersce from and immersce to) quantum~isoflux. Implications
of this assumption are so enormous as to be literally mind-boggling.
A big one is that quantum~evolution is real. Flux evolves. Flux
has n¤ 'state.' Flux is incapable of sustaining any 'states,'
any 'zero momenta,' any 'identities' like "A = A,"
any 'equalities,' any 'immutable perpetuities,' any etc.
- Quantum~reality issi positive. There is no such thing as
classically 'negative' flux.
- Flux assumptions:
- Actual quantum~flux emerges from n¤nactual quantum~flux.
- N¤nactual quantum~flux issi parthenofluxic:
i.e., has qua, via parthenofluxis memes and memeos of QCD to
creatio ex nihilo aperio, to create actuality from n¤nactuality
apparently, to create flux from isoflux apparently.
- Flux evolves continuously over an immense spectrum which
exceeds Planck's actual transverse maximum, harmonics, and their
- Quantonics, perhaps oversimply, views flux in these major
categories: isoflux, bosonic flux, and fermionic flux.
Now imagine mixtures of those.
- Quantum~flux is complementary. Reality issi quanton(isoflux,flux).
This assumption offers bases of reason for Doug's paraphrasings
of Eugen Herrigel's fabulous, "We are ihn
iht an(m)d iht
issi ihn us."
- Quantum~flux is change, relentless change, unending change,
self~renewing change, metabolic change made of compenetrationings
of anabolic and catabolic changings.
- All flux is stochastic (see PPL).
- Quantum~flux is probability. (Doug has refined this to show
quantum fluxings are stochastic mixturings of probabilityings,
plausibilityings, and likelihoodings. See PNFings and PPLings.)
- Depending upon one's holographic quantum~perspectivings probabilityings
may also quantum~relatively be plausibilityings and likelihoodings.
- Depending upon one's holographic quantum~perspectivings plausibilityings
may also quantum~relatively be probabilityings and likelihoodings.
- Depending upon one's holographic quantum~perspectivings likelihoodings
may also quantum~relatively be probabilityings and plausibilityings.
- Quantum~flux issi PPLings of ensembles of Planck quanta.
- Quantum~flux may be canceled, but quantum~flux may n¤t
be classically-negated. We may n¤t, must n¤t say
F minus F equals classical-zero.
- Flux cancellation involves two positive entangled fluxes'
tentative out of phasenessings mixings.
- Quantum~flux may be canceled. Quantum~flux may never
be classically 'destroyed.' (This has huge philosophical ramifications
re: life, death, resurrection, execution, excommunication,
exclusion, separation, reduction, independence, localability,
conservation, limits, availability, induction, deduction, predication,
analysis, synthesis, nomialism, path, particle, trajectory, linearity,
orbit, pendular analytics, acceleration, gravity as acceleration,
all current disciplines, all current -ologies, list is endless...)
Consider how we currently believe that when someone is murdered
they are "offed." We assume they no longer 'exist.'
What a surprise we have in store... Especially Catholics and
Nazis and Neandertaliban.
- Partiality (enthymemetic) assumptions:
- Reality issi quanton(DQ,SQ) says quantum~reality issi complete,
with a quantum~caveat that quantum~completeness is evolving,
- SQ issi quanton(DQ,SQ) says "SQ is forever incomplete."
- DQ issi quanton(DQ,SQ) says "DQ is comsistent and absolute
change which complements and included~middle animates and mediates
quantum~change of all reality."
- Too, then, reality issi quanton(DQ,DQ) says quantum~reality
as both quantum~completenessings and quantum~consistencyings.
- Entropy assumptions:
- Quantum entropy categories align those four major flux categories:
negentropy, zeroentropy, posentropy, and mixentropy.
- Coherence assumptions:
- Quantum coherence categories align those four major flux
and entropy categories: isocohera, cohera, decohera, and
- Adiabaticity assumptions:
- Quantonics' flux spectrum exhibits an immense variety of
stuff, much of whose characteristics and qua are yet unknown
to us. For example, somewhere above humans' current assisted
spectrum apex of about 1022 flux adiabaticity onset
occurs. Now, we can only guess where. But we know adiabaticity
is real since almost all atoms, their nuclei, electrons, and
unimpeded photons are temporally, perpetually durable as adiabatic
- Adiabaticity permits perpetuity of local processes whose
flux rates exceed some yet unknown minimum. We can guess at minimum
flux rates given nuclei, atoms, electrons, some bosons, and gravity
all are adiabatic. We can make similar remarks for neutrinos,
and likely some emerqancies of flux about which we currently
CeodE 2008 k~now n¤thing.
- Similarity assumptions:
- Similarly flux is incapable of sustaining classical notions
of objective independence. These last two bullets simply "break
classical science," "break Aristotle," "break
Buridan," "break Aquinas," "break Hamilton,"
"break Maxwell," break most of Newton (excepting his
notion of gravity)," "break Einstein," etc. Quantum
flux breaks all systems whose own assumptions include both objective
'state,' and 'independence.'
- Middle~inclusion assumptions:
- Our assumptions emersce quantum~included~middlings as crucial
memes, and divorce us from classical notions of 'excluded-middle.'
- Heterogeneity assumptions:
- Our assumptions emersce quantum memes of pluralism. Why?
Monism is deceit and all derivatives of monism are deceit. Dualism
whose parent (in Doug's opinion) is monism is also deceit since
dualism evokes dialectical language and thingk-king. Quantonics,
standing on shoulders of titans who preceded it, has destroyed
dialectic as unfit for bases of human reason.
- All quantum~omnitorables are sorso fractal and heterogeneous
- Process assumptions:
- All flux is process.
- All process is adaptively~durable via quantum~transmutationings,
most actual process is posentropic, some actual process is adiabatic,
nearly all process is negentropic and thus hidden from actuality
in terms of any ability to omnitor negentropy directly...
- All process is omnique, no two processings are identical.
- All flux processings emerq fractal similarities.
- All flux processings are self~referent and when entangled
may be other~referent.
- All flux processings are indeterminate (there are countless
implicit assumptions here; for example some flux wavelengths
are so long, that when compared to a human lifetime they appear
classically determinate; an example we can use to demonstrate
long duration indefiniteness and indeterminacy when countered
by classicists is Shoemaker-Levy and Jupiter)
- All flux processings are quantum~uncertain.
- We must omnitor quantum~processings. Omniscrimination: we
cannot numerically, stoppably 'measure' classical 'state.' Classical
'state' exists n¤t in quantum~reality. Quantum~reality
issi n¤t classically 'stoppable.'
- Transmutation assumptions:
- Isoflux may emersce actual flux. (Study QCD
to see how this is so. See our Gen
III Reality Loop.)
- Isoflux may immersce actual flux. (This is n¤t 'classical
zeroing,' 'classical destruction' of actual flux. Heraclitus
called it "hiding." It is a kind of quantum~iso~cancellation
of actual flux.)
- Flux may 'modulate' flux. (See QED
- Flux may 'transmute'
flux. (See Notes on Radiation.)
- Uncertainty assumptions:
- Quantum~uncertainty scales across quantum~reality's entire
flux spectrum. (Doug's primary insight to this meme was originally
instinctive~intuitive, but made real in Doug's efforts studying
- Quantum~uncertainty's formal expression limits one's thoughts
to integer multiples of Planck quanta, but we can see macroscopic
uncertainty is easy to visualize (Challenger, Columbia, tsunamis,
- Coquecigrues assumptions:
- If you think about it, then, there are no quantum 'ones,'
there are no quantum 'zeroes' in quantum~reality. In general,
there are n¤ classical, dialectical constants in quantum~reality.
So, classical mathematics, except for numeric counting, is dead.
Numbers which are 'state' cannot durationally represent any aspects
of reality which are change. A number as a measure and
assumes its own constancy as true, like a picture, only a snapshot
of durational change. So we have a classical vav quantum dilemma.
Classical: 'state' is true. Quantum: changæ
issi truæ. We see, eidetically, classical truth as 'state'
is a lie. Quantum truth issi an
agent of its own quantum~evolutionary~changæ.
- Our overriding assumption here is Bergson's
"...inertia is complex, spontaneity is simple..." We
can say that countless other ways. "State is complex. Changæ
is simple." "Stux is complex. Flux is simple."
And so on... "True is complex. Truthings are simple."
How did Bergson show us we could make those comparisons obvious?
He said, "Spontaneity can explain inertia, but inertia cannot
explain spontaneity." We can paraphrase, for example, "Truthings
can explain 'true,' however, 'true' cannot explain truthings."
And, "Changæ can explain 'state,' but 'state'
cannot explain changæ." After you thinkq about it
it is so evident you can hardly believe you didn't grasp this
all on your own! See Doug's Bergsonian derivative, "What
is Simple? What is Complex? Why? Explain."
Gnostics claim that monistic, static 'truth' is just deceit,
period. We agree. Doug - 22May2011.
- We cannot use classical numbers to statically 'measure' quantum~processings.
- All negation is subjective due absolute flux and evolutionary
change based upon said flux
- Language assumptions:
- All of our assumptions so far have an enormous impact on
our language. Our language must be remediated to remove all classical
malassumptions of objective state and independence. Our language
must adopt quantum memes of heterogeneity, indefiniteness, and
adaptive~evolutionary change. (See Doug's QELP
- Omnitoring assumptions:
- Quantum~reality issi omnitorable.
- Flux omnitors
flux. (This is source and impetus for Doug's, "Reality
- Phase~encodings omnitor evolutionary changings in all omnitorables.
- All classical measurables are symptoms of quantum~fluxings
(e.g., spacings, timings, massings, luxings, gravityings, energyings,
- Omniscrimination assumptions (see coquecigrues):
- Coquecigrues shows us that classical dialectic, its reasoning,
logic, judgment, truth and mathematics are generally invalid
- Coquecigrues shows us that quantum~evolution is a metameme
of classical-state. In quantum~reality even 'rest' itself is
processings, evolutionary holographic inter~ and intra~flux processings.
- Much more to add, adapt, evolve, and innovate here...
Available graphics -
Essential quantum~quantonic memes and their classical notional
CTM analogues -
Existing hologra omniscussionings in Quantonics -
A Classical View of Hologra -
A Quantum View of Hologra -
A Quantonics View of Hologra -
Some Key Enabling Questions -
- What are we attempting to do?
when, and where are all answered, at least tentatively,
Some omnifficult quantal issues and questions
- What is an energy well?
- Trial assumptions:
- Trial graphics
- Trial omniscriptions
- Do current neuron-trunk-wire synapse-reflex
and behavior models satisfy our needs? Why? Why n¤t?
- What fermionic emerscitecture emerqs
- How do fermionic energy wellings adapt
with changes in holographic nexi?
- How do energy wellings emerq holographic
validate meme of energy wellings nexi using fractal antennaæ
for transcomplementarocepts and transcomplementarospects; otherwise
classify nexi -
- et al.
describe nexial adiabaticities.
describe energy wellings' adiabaticities.
describe bosonic nexi adiabaticities.
- Can a single bosonic nexial
To contact Quantonics write to or call:
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
©Quantonics, Inc., 2008-2036
Rev. 29Aug2018. PDR Created 26Dec2008 PDR
(8Feb2011 rev - Prepare page for Quantonics
(22May2011 rev - Add 'All disciplines' link to Hodgepodge 2009
page list of epistemological disciplines.)
(22May2011 rev - Add 'All process is adaptively durable via quantum~transmutationings'
link to our recent QVH Table.)
(22May2011 rev - Add commentary and link to 'What is Simple? What
is Complex? Why? Explain.')
(27Jun2011 rev - Add 'atemporal' link.)
(1Dec2011 rev - Add link to new QELR of 'transmute.')
(19Aug2012 rev - Add page top subtitle 'network' link to 'A Reservoir
of Wave Functions.')
(4Sep2012 rev - Clarify a local sentential comtext with "flavors of hologra.")
(21Oct2012 rev - Add 'quantum~c¤mm¤n nous' link
to Heraclitus 'The Account' quantum assessment as 'The Quantum
(2Apr2013 rev - Add Ayn and QQA on Measurement links.)
(29Aug2018 rev - Embolden all occurrences of 'flame flicker.')