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

— The Quantonics Society News for 2005 - June —
TQS News Archive of Prior Years' News

This is our June, 2005 editorial

Go directly to 2005 June News

Doug's latest update on Mitch's Question 3 - 15Aug2007.

"Those baby bunnies are circling our cilantro and sweet basil pots endlessly!"

Re: Rabbits trying to harvest our herb garden which she smartly put in pots which raises herbs about a foot above ground level.

Doug had just cut some cilantro for use in his simple salsa: 4-5 small top branches of cilantro chopped finely, two medium clove-petals garlic chopped finely, half a medium onion chopped coarsely, three Italian tomatoes chopped coarsely, 1/2 teaspoon salt and to taste, mix with 2-3 tablespoons Bertolli olive oil. Serve, eat as garnish and corn chip dip. Doug loves purple corn chips without salt.


Since we started Quantonics in late 1995 and early 1996, and since we started this web site 11Feb1998, we have been searching for examples of Value, real examples of Quality expressed verbally and experienced emotionally-directly by humans. We have offered you, our diligent readers, only a few of those specific kinds of Value.

Beth borrows DVDs from our local library.

This past week she borrowed four and among those, a third one which we chose to view one evening, is Impromptu. (Some coarse language. PG-13.)

This movie was made in 1991. Its leading protagonists are Chopin (Hugh Grant) and Madam George Sand (a pseudonym; played by Judy Davis. Emma Thompson is in this movie too, and who is, in our opinion, an "knock it out of any ballpark" capable actress). She chases him and he catches her in classic choice-chance-change tomfoolery and wishful, mostly fanciful, rutting.

Doug loves two words which accompany Jewish semantics for romance and serious, Valueful, interrelationships: bashert and basherta. They may be familiar to you from another video Stranger Among Us. They mean, "God's intended one," whatever that means...

Anyway, there, near end of Impromptu, back-to-back Sand-to-Chopin sentences which we believe are on a par with Seth about Maggie in City of Angels — allow us to share them here:

Madam George to Chopin, "I simply want to bæ with you. The rest doesn't matter."

11 words. 11 words!!! And they say it all. Those [ the beginning were the...] words say It (Quality) as quantum~genuinely, as Valueful as humans are capable of saying It.

Would that your loved ones say It to you and about you...

Doug - 5Jun2005.

However, on that THOUGHT...

"Birds do It, bees do It, even educated fleas do It...Let's do It..."

From "Let's Do It."

As performed by Alanis Morissette
Sound Track from De-Lovely, 2004

2005 TQS News
December, 2004 through November, 2005



You are here:

Topics: tsunamis,
quantum WJS,
Forrester, etc.
global warming rant,
what is democracy?,
fav flicks list & why?
  & vPod,
our fav TV ad,
Apple's Itunes & IPod,
  gravidation videos,
Banesh on de Broglie,
Who likes Quantonics?,
why we cannot
 fix global warming,
a GW last jab,
social security,
cell chips,
Michael Lynch
on Where Is
Liberal Passion?

Relook at EU,
& Questions
from Mitch
A sound track,
Quantonics OS X,
A silly GW fix,
computer pathologies,
Doug rants on
Intelligent Design,
Status on
Quantum Holography,
Doug offers his best
expectation of global
warmings' current cyclings
Russert, Katrina, &
Dialectical Christ
Murtha gets it, Libby's foot?,
Why WJS hated religion,
Still a Republican?
"Rewrite History?,"
A Sting WinWinWin,
Admin calls US 'the people,'
Talk/Walk vis-à-vis Walk/Talk,
Confidentiality of News: Society vis-à-vis Individual?,
Technologies vis-à-vis Quantologies,
Can meaning be unambiguous?, and
Our Earthshaker!,

June, 2005 News:

Back in 1999 Doug wrote this to National Review on whether EU would or would not become a global super power... France's, et al.'s, recent votes against EU's treaty makes it look, six years later, that we had a decent chance of catching a major drift of change which agrees with Clifford Geertz' global disassembly process. See Shweder's and Doug's reviews of Geertz Available Light.


Couple of years ago while Beth and I were staying in Sedona Doug had a marvelous experience with a little book owned by wife of our lessor. It is a book on cuneiform.

What is cuneiform?

An ancient language, probably one of Earth's earliest written languages. It was, apparently, invented and developed during late Millennium IV , B.C.

What fascinated Doug about this little book is its frankness of cuneiform's source. Just like Tao, cuneiform finds its bases in ancient classical dualism of female and male. Female as vessel. Male as spigot. Female as emergent. Male as instigant.

As many of our readers and all of our students know Doug's innovation of a novel quantum~philosophy and quantum~science finds its bases in quantum theory and Pirsig's MoQ blended with countless other novel memes and memeologies. What does Pirsig's MoQ show us? Quality is Value is Reality. How do we represent Value? V!

In cuneiform V is our proto female symbol. Vessel. Emergence. Mother. Source. Enigma. Creation. Vagina!

Similarly | is our proto male symbol. Hose. Spigot. Injector. Instigant. Penis!

Any of you who are students of religion are aware of what we just wrote.

When we first read this little book (whose title we now cannot recall; it was a ~100+ page paperback; author may have been female) we sensed nexi with our own work, but we just did not grasp how deep those nexi are. We plan to spend a couple of issues of News on this material and what we have found so far. It fits well and as foundation for our William James Varieties of Religious Experience review too.

Those two symbols can be combined in, apparently, limitless ways whose instances may again, apparently, be interpreted and hermeneuticized in countless meanings and semantics.

What stunned us...if you look through our site you will see us using these symbols in countless ways... A great recent example, and an important one is here. Notice two reclining Vs and two normalized |s. A diamond and a cross!

We also use WOW MOM often as exuberant exclamation in Quantonics. Those Ws and Ms are compound Vs. Those Os are a classically objective part of Tao where S is O's quantum complement. Powerful!

So vagina is Value and penis is cruciformal. It fits what we are k~now~ing about religious history and amazingly it plays a role in our own quantum innovations.

Isn't a mathematical plus sign a cruciform? Isn't a square or any quadrilateral sets of Vs? (you objective dualists probably will argue only two; your own mythos denies any quantum logos (qualogos) of complementary included~middleness allowing our use of "sets;" this in itself is a quantum tell)

Bend our V slightly: bow its legs. Arches? Turn it upside down. Vessel? Chalice? Grail? "In the beginning was the word, and the word was in God and God was the word and the word became flesh and dwelt among us with grace and truth." John, chapter 1, verses 1-14.

Many of you are aware that we keep a running, evolving list of "metaphors" of quantum included~middles. Here is another, about 2000 years old. This is a proxim of our paraphrasing of Eugen Herrigel's "We are in It and It is in us." We are in G¤d and G¤d is in us. Classicists view our proxim objectively though: "We are not in It and It is not in us. We are dialectically, objectively separate from one another and from God." Classicists: dichon(God, us). Quantumists: quanton(G¤d,us).

Notice how verses 1-14 directly violate and linguistically repudiate dialectic! How? At least two ways: middle-inclusion and recursion AKA self-reference.

Jeremy Campbell in his Grammatical Man made us see for our first time, in ~1987, how those words are a keen biblical description of DNA as "the word." Richard Powers' protagonist saw it too in Powers' The Gold Bug Variations (we read this first time in 1991; on page 568 of first edition on 9Oct1991 we read Powers' own, "In the beginning was the word."). In both instances our neck hairs stood on their ends for weeks afterwards. Even now when we think of it, our neck hairs go erect.

Our upcoming efforts on cuneiform include... Recall what Pirsig said about V: Value; cuneiform nexi with Dan Brown's exceptionally popular recent texts; and more. We have already found at least two instances of what we would call "quantum coherent included~middlings" in Dan Brown's Angels & Demons. If you are curious, search our site accordingly (see: How to Become a Student of Quantonics).


We haven't heard from Mitch since November, 2003, but this last week he sent us a list of ten questions. We received his email queries on 2Jun2005. Here is a question list index:

  1. When I turn away from my computer screen does it become basically non-actual?

  2. 'More static' correlates with 'more rememberable' right?
    Eg- Feelings are less static (less preferential) and seem to need words (more static) to remember.   I have a better umderstanding of timings now, in case its in the answer.

    Older               Newer

  3. SOMite: "There is fighting in the world...that is an absolute truth!!" MoQite: "Each word of the sentence you just used is particulate and attempting to describe an EIMA reality, and for a truth to be absolute it must represent reality perfectly.   It is easier to explain basics like why A=A is not absolute. I've had someone say the above and found my explanation too complex...what would you say?



  4. "Edge of Now" uses SOMitic kind of words...but it refers to an EIMA, BAWAM probability distribution right?
    Older         Newer

  5. In "Rogers Brilliance" Doug says: "Only when SOM encounters paradice does it quibble subjectively". What do you mean here by 'paradice' and 'quibble subjectively'?

  6. If a lifeform is interpenetrated with reserve energy or DQ, why does it have to eat or absorb sunlight at all?
    continued... This question may be lame. Absorbing through chlorophyll and digestion may be an emerscenturing, choosing, way of coherent DQ absorption, but I sense there is more to the story. For example, how do our minds comparatively (to the physial) get reserve energy?

  7. Ok, for this one, my bad, I haven't read directly about plank moments. But when you say it is the smallest possible moment of timings it sounds particulate. It seems to be quantifying quality (timings)...Oh yeah, its a quanton...but how could it be the smallest possible quanton? Is it because  mind can't work that fast? coobsfection can't? I'm confused...sorry..

  8. Is DQ self aware, or is only specific SQ?

  9. If I may ask, how has your style of work changed significantly? You haven't written to Quantonics for a month right? (just making sure because I check the Gatto forum now and then and since I've been in Sydney it only updates monthly or so..could be a server, I dunno)   Nines a good n¤mbær. Thanks in advance for your replies Doug.

  10. PS - BAWAM - Both All While Amd Many. Why do you state 'All' as well as 'Many' is it just for mnemonic purposes?

They are so good, we thought we would share them along with our answers, offered from a novel quantum, indeed quantonic, perspective. To read original email text skip all red text inserts. If you want a copy of original, just ask. Several, e.g., number 6, carry with them essence of grasping a, only classically apparently complex, tenor of quantum reality:

  1) When I turn away from my computer screen does it become basically non-actual?

Mitch's use of 'non' here is quantum and assumes negation is subjective: one may not classically 'negate' a physical 'object,' let alone a quanton. Red text and red text boxes added to original email for clarification. Links were not in original email. None of original text received any QELR, but some of it uses present~participle~plurals and some 'con' replaced with 'com.' Mitch's questions, to us, are so important that we shall use this News page as a working document and evolve it as we continue to ponder his queries. Doug - 3-5Jun2005.


It must be clear to you that dichon(no, yes) in any quantum comtext is inappropriate as response to any of these queries. Recall Pirsig's conversation with Rigel in Lila when he answered Rigel's "Does Lila have Quality," with "Yes!" Later Pirsig explained how when one answers dialectically one loses one's own Quality (what we mean when we say someone "is DIQheaded").

Try web searching <Mermin Quantonics> and see what results you get. (Should find three pages: Bell's Theorem Study, MoQ and Christianity, and What is Wrong with EPR? Browser search Mermin in those pages.)

Best Quality answer we are k~nowings: all quantons are (however minimally) both self~other aware (we call it "pan awareness"). Even photons! Even quarks and Higgs bosons! From that we can infer "Nature measures he~rself."

Mermin thought when we didn't look at Earth's Moon it ceased existence (you can call his view "Earth-chauvinism," perhaps "anthropocentricity," not much omnifferent "heliocentricity," and Earth's "flaticity"). He was~is quantum~wrong. Why? Nature measures he~rself.

Mermin and a bunch of other folk bought into Protagoras' anthropocentric "Man is the measure of all things." Imagine what would happen physically to, for example Earth's tides, if our moon did what Mermin believes. Earth and moon form an absolutely animate quantum~axial~wobbling~pendulous~fermionic~pair, unstoppable pendular quantum interrelationshipings, which monitor their absolute motionings relative to quantum reality's nonactual complement. See our awesome Dirac note in our March, 2005 News.

Doug - 3-6Jun2005.

Your screen isn't quantum~Mitch~locally 'actual' when you aren't looking at it based upon your being capable of verifying visually its presence, however, you have a high confidence (your quantum stage's wave function quantum~likelihood~omnistributionings) it is there. Quantum~caveat: Wave functions are all quantum~anthropocentrically all probability~likelihood distributions~omnistributions, therefore we can 'never' say screen's probability of 'actuality' (itself a wave function) is classically, dialectically EOOO(zero, one).

Nice query!

Also ask, "H5Wings is my computer screen?" and "How does it quantum~coinside me when I am staring at it?" Is that quantum~included~middling process(ings)? When you look away, does that included~middle become a dialectical excluded-middle? Why? Why not? (assume quantum~not; i.e., assume quantum~negation in your own applied 'quantum~logic')

Doug, Return to Mitch's June, 2005 Question List Index.

  2) 'More static' correlates with 'more rememberable' right? Eg- Feelings are less static (less preferential [, from which we can infer more stochastic - Doug]) and seem to need words (more static) to remember [however, words evolve too and we can imagine a future where fonts will be evolutionarily animate and our texts and words will evolve right before our eyes to fit our locally evolving personal quantum capabilities - Doug].   I have a better umderstanding of timings now, in case its in the answer.


Nothings in realityings are or can be staticings. Reality does quantum~not hold classically, dialectically still. Our quantum stages are animate EIMA SONs.

Our quantum stages are animate EIMA SONs. See our Satinover SON tapping into reserve energy.

From a human standpoint processes which emerge over geological time scales and slower appear to hold still, but it is only a sensory bandwidth illusion. A good exercise here is to imagine Earth's five billion year old history strobelighted at ~50,000 year intervals into a one hour video (about 50k years per second of video is roughly 60x60x28 frames). You would see that Earth's changes have been rapid and radically stochastic: a wave function of wave functions in its own right.

Some folk believe, and we tend to agree, that Earth, for example, is one of our universe's thoughts in progress... See Bohm, Pribram, Talbot, Kafatos, Nadeau, perhaps Pietsch, et al.

HotMemeKey Quantonic Enabler: quantum memories (memeoryings) evolve! HotMeme

An excellent metaphor here is Michael Polanyi's explicit knowledge (roughly, static) and his tacit knowing (more EEE, changing, emerging).

Doug - 3Jun2005.


Here are some other issues which relate this query. You may wish to visit pages which discuss these issues and fathom them on your own prior our answering each in our own way.

  • Static simplicity. See Bergson on static (dialectical) vis-à-vis dynamic (quantum) simplicity.
  • Lower bandwidth sensitivity. See our Quantum Bandwidth Perspicacities and Perspicuities page.
  • Inability to tap into reserve energy. Classicists see reality as a dialectical EOOO as your query six below addresses. Pirsig refers this as a classical platypusean conspective. Classicists disable their intrinsic physial abilities to tap into reserve energy by adhering strict dialectic. Your first question above demonstrates this well. Mermin rejects any notion of reserve energy and thus believes "the moon goes away when one does 'not' look at it." Quantum sophist rhetoric turns on reserve energy and allows one to quantum~believe all reality which we cann¤t 'see' is there when we are n¤t looking at it. A kind of quantum~pinch~of~faithings! Ala Gospel of Thomas. We are in It and It is in us, even though we cann¤t always 'see' it.
  • Etc.

Doug - 10Aug2005.

Memoryings (memeoryings) are animate EIMA SON wave functionings probabilityings distributionings.

Feelings compared to nonevolving rote tote know ledge recall are much higher Value in that we have a difficult time ensconcing them in SOM's box.

You are quantum~rightings, in our viewings, that heterogeneity is also essential here: probability omnistributionings (should use QLOs here) are implicitly "ensembles," animate ensembles (example? fuzzons; see probability QELR).

Doug, Return to Mitch's June, 2005 Question List Index.

  3) SOMite: "There is fighting in the world...that is an absolute truth!!" MoQite: "Each word of the sentence you just used is particulate and attempting to describe an EIMA reality, and for a truth to be absolute it must represent reality perfectly.   It is easier to explain basics like why A=A is not absolute. I've had someone say the above and found my explanation too complex...what would you say?


This one is a lot like 2. Compare classical absoluteness to quantum absoluteness re: completeness and consistency, especially con(m)textual completeness and consistency: mainly issues of classical either-or locality (dichon(locality, nonlocality)) AKA classical 'specificity' vis-à-vis quantum b¤th~amd l¤cality BAWAM n¤nl¤cality (quanton(n¤nlocality,l¤cality)) AKA quantum genæralihty. Blue text added 9Jul2005 - Doug.

 Three Interim (20Jan2007):

Classical dialectical truth is absolute, immutable truth, which as Hume says, "Has no opposite."

Classical untruth may be contradicted by its opposite. That 'state' ment is classically canonic, tautologous, always 'true.' But it isn't 'true' is it? Why? It contradicts a canonic 'truth' that absolute classical truth, "Has no opposite."

Quantum truthings have unlimited dynamic c¤mplæmænts. Classically 'complement' is 'opposite.' Bohr: "All complements are opposite."

Therefore classical 'truth' is an oxymoron in quantum reality.

Doug - 20Jan2007.

Let's do this one as a HotMeme™ "Every positive has an unlimited number of potential negatives. That is why Henri Louis Bergson said 'Negation is Subjective!' " HotMeme™.

Implication? Restate Hume's remark above: "All truths, immutable and otherwise, have an unlimited number of opposites."

HotMeme™ "Dialectic really is bogus!" HotMeme™.

See our What are Sophisms?

Doug - 15Aug2007.

What is classicism's huge problem here? Dialectic! It as classicism's foundation for 'reason' is — simply — bogus!

6Nov2005, 31May2006 - Interim Distillation:

Perhaps this is as simple and easy as Doug's qua allows us to answer Mitch's third query, " 'There is fighting in the world...that is an absolute truth!!' isn't an absolute dialectical 'truth' if its 'opposite,' 'There is no fighting in the world...that is an absolute truth!!' " can be declared, dialectically, "absolute." Actually 'There is no fighting in the world...that is an absolute truth!!' is more 'true' than its dialectical opposite, isn't it?

Doug - 31May2006. Also see judge, negation, reason, uncertainty, etc.

A very good and simple answer to number three, "There is fighting in the world...that is an absolute truth!!," is:

"Specifically, 'yæs,' generally, 'n¤,'"

and, attending that simple statement,

"specificity is n¤nabsolute, and any limited intellect is incapable of b¤th assæssing and værifying dialectical absoluteness."

Simple aside:

Do you agree that both of these specifics are 'true' in general? Somewhenings and somewhereings both:

  1. "There is fighting in the world, and
  2. There is n¤ fighting in the world."

We see that specifically 1 is 'true' and we also see that specifically 2 is 'true' even though in a OSFA classical context they contradict one another.

Generally, 'neither' is absolute though, is it? Classical absoluteness depends upon one global context for all standard logic. Some call global context,"context freeness." Hint: Classical thing-king is a 'con' job! Classical thing-king keeps Earth's classically social, political, pyramid scheme going! It supports multilevel marketing of social hegemony in a Global context! Doug.

Quantumly, we say that "A issi both A and n¤t A." That single quantum script replaces all three of Aristotle's sillygisms!

Using said script we can substitute 'There is fighting in the world,' et al., for A and substitute (we can do words and clauses and whole sentences here):

  • 'There is' issi both 'There is' and n¤t 'There is.'
  • 'Fighting' issi both 'Fighting' and n¤t 'Fighting.'
  • 'In the World' issi both 'In the World,' and n¤t 'In the World.'

    Brilliant and shining quantum~uncertain complementary interrelationshipings: Mu!

    All of this, of course, rests on quantum assumptions of: general quantum uncertainty, absolute quantum flux reality (Bergson's "reality is 'not' stable"), quantum~included~middle (Bergson's "objects in reality are 'not' independent of one another; and Quantonics: quantum~waves coinside, superpose, and n¤nlocally coobsfect one another...), quantum~subjective~negation, etc.

Quantonics is quantum real. Why? We assume that reality issi ubiquitously comtextually heterogeneous, polypragmatemporal, holographically SOON n¤nlocally islandic~coherent, and absolutely fluxing.

Aristotle is classically bogus! Why? He assumed reality is unicontextual, monotemporal, local, and stoppable.

Distilled from a quantum perspective (classicists claim 'state' is simple and 'flux' is complex):

  • Animate flux is simple, ("All quantons change and all quantons always change. Quality is real.")
  • State-ic form is complex. ("No thing changes and no thing ever changes. Analytic motion based upon dialectic is change: there is no flux! Quantity is real because quantity is dialectically objective. There is no quality because quality is dialectically subjective. Quality will not fit in SOM's dialectical box. Only 'states' and 'state-ic' things can OSFA in SOM's box.")

Doug - 13Mar2006.

End simple aside.

Doug - 6Nov2005.

Now, it's up to you Mitch, and readers, to be capable of demonstrating that distillation using detail below and elsewhere in Quantonics' web site. If your challenger, antagonist doesn't "have time" for a detail response, then stop wasting yours. Doug.

End - Interim Distillation.

For relevant previous, circa 1998 quantonics work, see Buridan's sophism 10. Ponder well, there, all six Alethic paradoxes. Doug - 13Sep2005.

Classical absoluteness:

  • Consistency - Always states the truth (if we assume reality is quantum this statement posits an impossibility and thus is irrelevant)
  • Completeness - States all truths (if we assume reality is quantum this statement posits an impossibility and thus is irrelevant)

Quantum abs¤luteness:

  • Comsistency - Always changes
  • C¤mpleteness - Changes all

Quantumly any classical notions of absolute hold-still truth are irrelevant. Why? Absolute hold-still anything simply doesn't exist.

Quantumly what is relevant is change or what physicists, scientists and philosophers call "flux." Any worthwhile quantum truthings are agents of their own change.

When a classicist offers an absolute truth ask them to prove it. Ask when is it true? and Ask where is it true? Is it true at Doug's house? On Betelgeuse? Prove it.

If they attempt to prove it, have them explain their method of proof and have them show you how they 'know' their method works.

As a last resort whip out Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. See our Bases of Judgment.

12,13Jun2005 update: Another way to treat this 'problem' is to use Quantonics' memeo of "many truths." Quantumly, many truths corresponds "comtrafactual definiteness." Comtrafactual (in)definiteness means that for any proposition we can do at least these three thought processes:

  • develop an unlimited number of comtexts in which said proposition is classically 'true,'
  • develop an unlimited number of comtexts in which said proposition is classically 'false,'
  • develop an unlimited number of comtexts in which said proposition is classically 'mu.'

Ponder how those bullets emerq a quantum likelihood omnistribution, QLO; remarkably, a n¤nclassical quantum wave function itself!

For another perspective of what we have just shown, see Doug Hofstadter's Gödel Escher Bach, chapter III, 'Figure Ground,' Figure 18. Assume his white and black 'areas' are ensemble multiplicities. Also take a gander at our bracketed comments in Dr. David Foulis' paper on Quantum Logic, re: con(m)trafactual definiteness.

Net of those remarks is "There are n¤ classically absolute truths, period." Reality, due quantum~complementarity, issi quantum uncertain, and we are, at least currently, QTM incapable of avoiding that!

When your antagonist says, "But my proposition is absolutely true," just respond that said antagonist's proposition, "Is only based upon assumptions, and your assumptions are as good as he-r assumptions." All classical propositions are based upon assumptions often referred as "tautologies," which we have shown offering better quantum entendres, e.g., in Aristotle's case, are sophist~comtrafactualnesses.

Y-our most powerful quantum resource against classically SOMitic DIQheaded truepers, though, is Niels Bohr's very subjective and qualitative quantum~complementarity: essentially, many views of any quantum meme produce many perspectives and often classically-conflicting 'definitions' of what classically should radically mechanistically and finally be ideally only a single notion (See OGT in OGC.). Notice how Bohr's quantum~complementarity is exceptionally close kin of classical notions of contrafactualness. Big story here!!! For extensive coverage of Bohrian~quantum~complementarity see Max Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Doug.

Your SOMite antagonist's greatest classical failure of thought is an issue of con(m)text. Einstein did this and most classical philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians do this. Truepers take specific (local) truth and induce (i.e., extrapolate, bootstrap) it to full-blown (local, and nonlocal) generality. How? On an assumption that reality is OGC. (Believe it ohr n¤t, OGT in OGC is how dialectical SOM works!!! Ugh!!!) That is what your antagonist has done here, take a local specific 'truth' and induce (one of classical mathematics' most 'powerful' "rules is tules for fules") it to 'ideal' classical local 'and' 'nonlocal' 'generality.' This is likely one of classicists' most "tragically common sense" failures of thought. It exemplifies vividly why we quantumly denigrate CTMs as quantum~ihnvalihd. (Students please fathom how this paragraph uncloaks dialectical sillyness of what physicists call "gauge invariance." See Hey and Walters' The Quantum Universe on gauge invariance and search www for <quantonics "gauge invariance">. Doug.)

To disabuse Einstein even more as a hyperSOMitic naïve realist and localist, he believed that classical probability one (his view: classical thingking is real with a probability of one) and zero (his view: classical thingking precludes that which 'cannot' happen as probability zero) must classically 'exist.' Quantonics teaches us that ideal probabilities zero and one simply do n¤t eist. Why? Reality issi quantum uncertain. Implication? Absolute 'truth' is unavailable to us. Indeterminacy is our lot as quantum beings in our quantum epistemology. Paul Pietsch, in his Shufflebrain, said it like this, "Indeterminacy is the principal feature of intelligence."

If you have any technical questions on a Quantonics view of 'probability,' see probability and What is Wrong with Probability as Value?

Doug - 3,12,13Jun-9Jul2005.

We are still attempting to find an easiest way to respond to this query. Everything we have written so far holds in Quantonics. But there is an easier, more obvious, and direct way of responding on a classical thingker's level.

If we revert to classical logic we can say similarly, "There is no fighting in the world!" Classically, that is an absolute truth.

Now view this using QTMs.

  • quanton(no_fighting_in_our_world,fighting_in_our_world)
  • dichon(no_fighting_in_our_world, fighting_in_our_world)

Classicists see reality as dichonic, dialectical, EOOO.

Quantumists see reality as quantonic, rhetorical, BAWAM.

What this shows, though, is that our classicist's statement is quantum uncertain, n¤t classically absolute.

Doug - 19Jul2005.

Simplifying even more what we have said so far...

In order for absolute truth to 'exist' and be dialectically assessable and decidable, 'classical' reality must be a single objective context in terms of every scalarbative-measurable we can imagine. Dialecticians assume and presume OGC and OGT. Read that whole page, which we created way back in 1998, at that OGC link!!!

If reality is really heterogeneous1 then absolute truth does (can) n¤t exist, may n¤t be assessed, may n¤t be decided: reality thence is implicitly uncertain. Better, reality is uncertain across all scales of reality!

Dialecticians claim reality is a single context. Then they say they can assess EOOO absolute truth and absolute truth 'not.' But now our dialecticians have created a bare minimum of 'two' contexts: TRUE and FALSE. This 'contradicts' their claim of a single context. Dialectic and all its adherents are their own worst enemies. They carry within themselves their own means of self-annihilation. We say, Quantonically, "Dialecticians are n¤n ESS." See comtext.

When (any) dialectician(s) insist(s) that t(he)y can assert classical certainty, ask them to back off and go observe nature for a year or so: Then come back and re assert classical certainty. If they do that, don't waste any more of your time with them. There is little, at this juncture, you can do to assist them in their climb out of SOM's box. Not to worry! Their ilk are in a process of self-annihilation, self-extinction, which has a half life of less than a ~century. Indigos have landed. Neo sapiens are imminent.

Wr¤ng, i.e., dialectical, classical thing-king puts itself out of business... (Quantum wr¤ngness is n¤n 'absolute.' It is subjective, animate, EIMA, QLOistic. See our Bases of Judgment. See probability. See What is Wrong with Probability as Value?)

Doug - 10Sep2005.

For an alternate, yet mostly agreeable, view of what we say here, see our recent, 2005, Research Review of David Bohm's Qualitative Infinity of Nature.

1i.e., n¤t classically uni-contextual...rather, animate (e.g., temporal ambiguation heterogeneity), and EIMA (e.g., association ambiguation heterogeneity), and coobsfective (e.g., omnirectional ambiguation heterogeneity), and n¤nomnistributive (e.g., loci and commutation ambiguation heterogeneity), etc.,...

Doug, Return to Mitch's June, 2005 Question List Index.

  4) "Edge of Now" uses SOMitic kind of words...but it refers to an EIMA, BAWAM probability distribution right?


We just added a pink box to our QELR of time adding quantum versions of: a posteriori, a iami, a priori, and a futuriori.

You are on a good track since 'now' composes many QLO's quantum perspectives with timings' 'omnirections' BAWAM EIMA. Use fuzzons here, again.

Link added 11Nov2005 - Doug. Classically 'edge' is a dichon and now often pondered as trichon(past,now,future). Quantum reality claims heterogeneity and quantum nonlinearity here, at least.

Similar to our statement above re: classical truth is irrelevant, here we can posit a simile. In quantum reality 'now's' direction is irrelevant. Nowings are omnirectional.

Recall how Einstein made a similar statement about light speed: "It is the same everywhere in our universe." In a speed sense, then, light's direction is irrelevant, isn't it? How? Speed is independent of direction, isn't it, where velocity is dependent upon direction.

Can we see a photon from its side view? Why not? What has to happen for us to 'see' a photon? Why might a macroscopic photon only scintillate a single electron in a single atom's shell? Why might it scintillate multiple electrons? In multiple atoms' shells? Star Trek? Photon torpedo? Interesting, eh? Does scintillation localize macroscopic photon energy in quantized electron energy shells? But aren't electrons' energy likelihood omnistributions macroscopic too?

Now,..., does Thompson's double slit experiment fathom n¤vel quantum lightings?

Is now's (are nowings') direction(ings) relevant? Are nowings' directionings relevant? Is now homogeneous? Heterogeneous? Is time homogeneous? Are timings heterogeneous? How many Planck clocks are ticking(s) at any nowings?

Quantum 'edgings' are more like Hilbert~spatial quantum energy librationings.

Doug - 3Jun2005.

We did not create this graphic just below to answer Mitch's number four query, but it is a great memetic exemplar of our answer shown graphically. This picture shows "EIMA, BAWAM probability omnistributionings, actually QLOs AKA quantum likelihoodings omnistributionings." Arbitrarily, we chose to show a main quantum edgings of nowing, and additionally and still arbitrarily we highlight three more quantum local edgings of nowings compenetrating our main one. We see how edgings of nowings 'scale.' We also show how quantum uncertainty is both locally and globally a comtextual matter of perspective. Graphic links to our QELR of classical, relativistic, and quantum time.

Note how we nowings can beings seeings quantum reality's included~middlings eidetically, almost ad oculos.

Also see our Quantonics QELRs of: probability, select, think, understand. See How MoQites Monitor Reality.


Doug - 11Nov2005.

Doug, Return to Mitch's June, 2005 Question List Index.

  5) In "Rogers Brilliance" Doug says: "Only when SOM encounters paradice does it quibble subjectively". What do you mean here by 'paradice' and 'quibble subjectively'?


Doug said "quibble subjectivity."

Quantum reality, due its animacy, included~middlings, heterogeneity, etc. is Qualitative thus subjectiv and subjective.

Quantum reality is also hermeneutic: many (from a classical conspective) paradoxes, thus paradice as plural of paradox.

SOM almost always declares ideal objectivity. Quantum reality offers unlimited, almost always from any classical conspective, mutually exclusive and apparently (in SOM) contradictory views. (If you can find a library copy, see end of chapter four of Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. This issue is what troubled Einstein so immensely re: Bohr's quantum complementarity: to Einstein, "subjectivity.")

See our work on Buridan's Sophismata.

SOM says, that in order for us to not quibble subjectivity, a theory must be classically, formally, mechanically 'true,' and in order for that to hold, no two mutually exclusive (due objectivity) statements in that theory may contradict one another. (Essence of text at our Jammer ref. above. See p. 104, sec. 4.4 'Historical Precedents.')

SOM reality is a reality of absolute certainty. Actually it is absolute foolishness, as quantum reality shows us.

Notice that this antique classical thingking wholly disavows Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems ref'd. above.

Trouble is, in quantum reality, any good quantum theory about quantum reality depends upon a multiplicity of mutually n¤nexclusive statements, paradoxically to any classicist, generating 'contradictions' among themselves. Quantum reality is a "many truths" reality. Jammer refers it as "Averroism." Read Duns Scotus and Siger d' Brabant.

Quantum reality is about uncertainty and indeterminacy which are bedfellows of individual free will! And as Paul Pietsch tells us in his Shufflebrain, "Indeterminacy is a key feature of intelligence." Quantum intelligence doesn't quibble subjectivity, rather it embraces it and nurtures it!

"What's an example Doug?" There are unlimited examples: quantum~uncertainty, quantum~nonlocality, quantum~superconductivity, quantum~action~at~distance, quantum~apparent~duality, quantum~hermeneuticity, quantum~equivocation, quantum~prevarication, quantum~coherence, quantum~tunneling, quantum~entanglement, quantum~Bell~Inequalities, quantum~action~without~reaction, quantum~apparent~reaction~without~action, quantization of flux, quantization of energy transmutation, perpetual motion of photons, electrons, nucleons, quantum~retroreflection, quantum~scintillation, quantum~discontinuity, quantum~animacy, quantum~heterogeneity, quantum~phasicity, quantum~reality~as~quantum~holographic~phase~encoding, quantum~everywhere~association, quantum~included~middle, quantum~nonlatency, quantum~superluminality, quantum~interrelationshipings~dependencyings, quantum~variable~persistence, quantum~likelihood~probability~stochastic~omnistributionings, and on and on and on... (Our 'o' characters in that paragraph should all be quantized. Our 'h' characters should all be h-bar characters. Most 'un' to 'um,' 'e' to &aelig;, etc.)

Practically, "Do you love or hate your parents?" "Wife?" "Kids?" "Boss?" Do you live EOOO? Do you live BAWAM? Are you a dichon? A quanton?

Humans are quantum real,
DIQheaded classicists
have tried for 2500 years to
turn us into ideal machines!
Their tools?
Fear and dialectic!

See our work on Jammer's Quantum Logic, see large table of classical vis-à-vis quantum comparisons, and near page bottom summary statements there.

Doug - 3Jun2005. See our tiny red text correction from 'with' to 'without' above. Doug 12Jun2005.

Doug, Return to Mitch's June, 2005 Question List Index.

  6) If a lifeform is interpenetrated with reserve energy or DQ, why does it have to eat or absorb sunlight at all?

This is our favorite all time Quantonics Question! That Mitch asked it is, for us, just phenomenal. Mitch's own quantum epiphany here, a genuine quantum avatar, is just breathtaking!

Answers to Mitch's query are abundant and for us appear as an opportunity to get at quantum reality in a n¤vel way: to open heretofore unfathomed Chautauquas into quantum philosophy of quantonic interrelationships.


Quantum reality's building blocks do not! E.g., TBCSUD quarks, nucleons, electrons, photons do not have to eat in your query's sense. Classically they are perpetual motion 'machines.'

How do they do that? They are endlessly "dipping into DQ" to maintain their perpetuity.

It is a mystery in Quantonics how almost no physicists grasp this most fundamental quantum memeo.

We only see ensemble consumption of other ensembles at meso and macro levels of actuality.

We hadn't pondered your query exactly as you state it -- prior. Our sense here is that quanton ensembles exhibit meta behaviors including dietary munching. Sort of like Gödel's provability as a meta notion of proof...

Doug, Return to Mitch's June, 2005 Question List Index.

 6) continued... This question may be lame. Absorbing through chlorophyll and digestion may be an emerscenturing, choosing, way of coherent DQ absorption, but I sense there is more to the story. For example, how do our minds comparatively (to the physial) get reserve energy?

This question is anything but lame!

Our problem, from our Quantonics view, is that one must have a good grasp of quantum biology to put digestion in quantum lightings!

We do not have a foundation in quantum biology. We offer entendres of classic biology at a ribosome level only. Even if we had foundations in quantum biology, we would still have to re-interpret and remediate them from many Quantonics perspectives.

If we use a classical biological ribosome view to attain only partial exegeses, we can say that ribosomes 'eat' and 'digest' codon groupings of amino acids using mRNA as a menu. What emerges is a protein used metabolically to assemble and reproduce cells. This is part of a quanton(cellular_self~euthanasia,cellular_resurrection) anabolic~catabolic~quantum~network~self~other~referent~sophism as full metabolic cycle.

If that classic model is apropos for our use here, then we can say that ribosomes consume ensembles of reserve~energy~perpetuities.

Depending, Mitch, upon y~our hermeneutics1 here, a quantum_lifeform issi quanton(compenetrating_RE,consuming_quantons_RE_perpetuities). Right fluxor in our quanton may itself be a quantum_lifeform. Notice quantum~self~other~reference and ~recursion (sophism: i.e., fractal EIMA SON animacy and multiplicity).

This at least gives us a start in partially answering your query.

It is powerful, though, in its opening of an exemplar Chautauqua from which others may expand felicitously.

Any biological process we may choose to examine quantonically, we intuit that classical 'circular' analysis-synthesis, anabolisis-catabolisis as metabolisis, death-life, etc. dichons when viewed quantumly~remediate, i.e. become, into ontic-emergent-demergent-holographic-phasicity, OEDhP. Notice how quantum flux is crux. Notice how classic stux sux. Quantum OEDCs are in radically stochastic reserve~energy dynamicity and radically stochastic reserve~energy dynamicity is in quantum OEDCs. We are in It and It is in us!

Allow us a luxury of using you, Mitch, alternatively any human being, any mammal, as an example of 'eating' reserve~energy and actuality borne of reserve energy.

Recall Mae-wan Ho's description of arm flexure as coherent (and too, we would say "isocoherent facilitation") quantum processings. Note that classicists view arm flexure mechanically and thus only posentropically. But Mae-wan shows us how Schrödinger intuited "negentropy," which for us in Quantonics is saying Schrödinger intuited "reserve~energy." We can further intuit at least four classes of entropy and their attending, at least four, classes of coherence (see cohera and entropa).

Now let us do some comparisons. We say all in reality are:








Classicists deny it but negentropy is "reserve energy" as isoflux: literally "excess, even massively abundant energy." But this energy is non apparent to us (similar as our sun, viewed as reserve energy to ancients). Nonapparent due its iso "quantum~self~referent~self~canceling" nature (similar how, two superconducting, electrons' fermionic spins cancel when they become BECs; similar how a third non-ground-touching contrarotating wheel on a bicycle makes it unridable; similar how jet engines' contrarotating compressor components turn that huge fermion into a macroscopic boson; etc.).

But when we flex our arm(s) to eat, reserve~energy facilitates that nearly 100% efficient process using quantum coherency! Ditto our facial and jaw muscles! Ditto our tongues! Ditto our swallowing. Ditto our stomach digestion processes. Ditto undulations of our small and large intestines and our colon.

But our food is quantonic, isn't it? A hotdog is a quanton. An apple is a quanton.

So reserve~energy facilitates our consumption of food quantons and their quantum~included~middlings of their actualities cowithin their and our reserve~energy complements.

Why nature and reality appear to work this way is not apparent to us yet. Perhaps it's as simple quantumly as, "Flux is crux and flux eats flux. (view flux as phasicityings)" Plus, perhaps classically as, "Stux is sux and stux cannot thingk let alone eat! If stux could eat, it wouldn't eat sux! If stux could thingk it wouldn't thingk stux and sux! (view stux as state)"

Doug - 4Jun2005. Add loop ontology GIFs and red text - 12Jun2005 - Doug. , Return to Mitch's June, 2005 Question List Index.

 7) Ok, for this one, my bad, I haven't read directly about plank moments. But when you say it is the smallest possible moment of timings it sounds particulate. It seems to be quantifying quality (timings)...Oh yeah, its a quanton...but how could it be the smallest possible quanton? Is it because  mind can't work that fast? coobsfection can't? I'm confused...sorry..


Planck's constant is essentially a classicism. But no one has found a better way of describing commencement of quantum theory. Best of all, even classically, it works!

We borrowed it and ran with it. If you do that, you have to (we had to) infer a Planck wavelength of 10-43. That allows us to further infer a max flux 'rate' (transverse flux which is vastly oversimplified) of 1043. Even transversely, that's beau coup flux! (also ponder issues of flux rate re: classical 'light speed')

Personally, we accept this one on a pinch of quantum faith. Its quantum~n¤mbær isn't crucial. Its memeo of absolute very fast flux IS!

From our Quantonic Symbols:

A Planck
 Planck's quantum as an




animate quanton

Does that look like a particle? What quanton looks like a particle to you Mitch?

Mitch, see our coined parthenoflux.

Doug, Return to Mitch's June, 2005 Question List Index.

8) Is DQ self aware, or is only specific SQ?


We just coined a novel term for this: parthenofluxicity.

SQ would not exist were it not for DQ's (parthenogenetic) creation capabilities.

For a superb quantonic graphic exemplar go to our Art Archive and look at Fuzzon to Fermion Ontology Heuristics.

A search through our site's html pages shows these contain that phrase "self-aware." Browser search selected pages to see how we have used that phrase prior under a wide variety of con(m)texts.

AH Doug Dialogue Sartre
A Dialog Twixt Henry and Doug Koan
A Mitch Doug Dialog
A Quantonics MIII QELR of S
April 2000 QQA
Bergsons Creative Evolution Topic 1
Bergsons Creative Evolution Topic 14
Bergsons Creative Evolution Topic 3
Bergsons Time and Free Will Topic 29
Darwins Chip
ISM Extremes
James SPoP Chapter IV
Level 4 QTO Concepts Memes
Level 6 QTO Recommend Reading
Level 8 QTO RaW Quotes
Review Satinover Quantum Brain
Stairs Perceived by Quantum Stages

Doug, Return to Mitch's June, 2005 Question List Index.

  9) If I may ask, how has your style of work changed significantly? You haven't written to Quantonics for a month right? (just making sure because I check the Gatto forum now and then and since I've been in Sydney it only updates monthly or so..could be a server, I dunno)   Nines a good n¤mbær. Thanks in advance for your replies Doug.


How our work has changed: We are doing much more research and less web development. We are actually using, now, tools we have developed in Quantonics: cell architectures, fuzzonic processing, quantum AI, etc. Of course, Quantonics applies to all areas of epistemology, and vastly beyond.

5Jun2005 - Doug.

You can simply do a Google search on Quantonics. (Also try hitting your 'reload' page-top browser button.)

That will give you our latest index (top) page immediately. (However, most folk simply bookmark us and then hit their browser's reload button to renew their local cache on your machine with quantonics' most recently published pages. You are right, servers sometimes need to be told to reload once per session. Avoid asking your browser to reload every time you click on a page, since you are just wasting www bandwidth. See your browser's preferences.)

At page bottom you will see latest rev. date of that page.

If you are talking about our News, we have a new 2005 format with monthly news increments as separate pages.

Hope that helps. (Doug works on quantonics a minimum of 70 hours per week and has been for nearly eight years now.)

Doug, Return to Mitch's June, 2005 Question List Index.

  Best, Mitch.

  PS- 10) BAWAM - Both All While Amd Many. Why do you state 'All' as well as 'Many' is it just for mnemonic purposes?... Thanks :)


We use 'all' in BAWAM to encompass quanton(reality's_complete_nonactual_complement,our_known_actuality's_complement).

Actuality appears to have unlimited quasi~pragmallel holographic instances...

Best always,

Doug, Return to Mitch's June, 2005 Question List Index.

PS - If it's OK with you, we'll publish these questions, from 'Mitch,' in our latest News due Monday, 6Jun2005. If you want them to be anonymous, just say so.

As you can see, Mitch has been studying Quantonics now for at least three years.

Just like us, he finds there are always questions...unending questions...we never, apparently, arrive and we shouldn't expect to. Laurels are ESQ!

Doug - 3Jun2005.


See you here again in early July, 2005!













Notes -

Note 1 - 1Recall Philip R. Wallace's Paradox Lost quote, slightly paraphrased, "Interpretation involves according primacy to subjectivity over objectivity." Quantum~heuristics do too! Thence all QLOs and QLOs of QLOs are absolutely quantum~hermeneutic. Quantum reality issi an interpretive Bergsonian~durational multiplicity, thus hermeneutic. Probability requires multiplicity and explains why frequency and wave forms cannot be measured at a dichon(instant, point). Latter also explains classical dualities of position-momentum, wave-particle, etc. If a particle is moving we cannot 'measure' its 'position' at any specific n-tuple: <x, y, z, r, s, t, ...>. See Zeno's first paradox. It's quantum comtexts are multiplicities!

The Quantonics Society appreciates your support.


To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 2005-2014 — Rev. 20Apr2010  PDR — Created 28May2005  PDR
(12,13Jun2005 rev - Repair: from 'with' to 'without,' and add a TBCSUD link to acronym page. Update quantum biology remarks. Update answer to que. 3.)
(5,9,19,20Jul2005 rev - Add anchors to Mitch's questions. Add and index and link list returns. Extend que. 3. Extend que. 3. Color sublinks of que. 3.)
(10Aug2005 rev - Update Mitch query two.)
(16Aug2005 rev - Belatedly, add red wingdings smiley to "Millennium IV" cuneiform. I is penis. V is vagina . Correct some punctuation typos.)
(1,10,13Sep2005 rev - Add 'What is Quantonics?' link to August, 2000 News under Mitch's question 6 second part. Add Absoluteness as Quantum Uncertainty link under que. 3. Add 'yellow' extension under 3. Add link to Buridan's 20 paradoxes under 3.)
(6Nov2005 rev - Add 'interim distillation' to number 3.)
(13,20Mar2006 rev - Update Question 3 'Interim Distillation.' Repair Judy Davis as Mada George Sand.)
(2Apr2006 rev - Princip[le] to principal.)
(12Apr2006 rev - Reset legacy red text. Add 'Jet Engine' anchor.)
(8,31May2006 rev - Repair some bad grammar. Reset legacy red text. Change 'Gospels' to 'Gospel.')
(6Sep2006 rev - Slight page reformatting.)
(12Oct2006 rev - Update question 6: metabolisis as both anabolisis and catabolisis.)
(19-20Jan2007 rev - Add 'parthenoflux' link under Mitch query seven. Fix some math exponents. Add a newer Question Three Interim.)
(15Aug2007 rev - Update 'Three Interim.')
(5Mar2008 rev - Reformat slightly.)
(2Nov2008 rev - Replace wingdings and symbol fonts with gifs. Reset legacy markups.)
(20Apr2010 rev - Make page current.)