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

— The Quantonics Society News for 2006 - August —
TQS News Archive of Prior Years' News

Go directly to 2006 August News


"When we socialize any human endeavor, through its formalization, we disable its emerscence."

Doug - 9Jul2006.

Hezbollah is a cancer on Earth: a social pattern of 'value' cancer. Hezbollah has metastasized as a social cancer. Hezbollah shall continue to metastasize until it has infested all Earth societies.

We must find a way to mitigate terrorism, Muslim and otherwise.

If we return Lebanon to Hezbollah, terrorism wins!

But George Bu()sh() and his Republican't (dis)administration are terrorists too, aren't they!

Tom Friedman said it best, paraphrased, "We must find ways to positively build and cease negative destruction. We must learn to sow hope and cease sowing fear."

But terrorists want to kill all their enemies, even their own brethren. That is all too obvious. Why? Hatred!

How do we displace hatred with love? Can we? Should we?

Mel Gibson was just arrested for DUI. Mel told his arresting officer, paraphrased, "Jews are to be hated, they are causing all our world's problems." Mel Gibson is an exemplar 'catholic,' who claims to 'know' Christ. Christ was a Jew. Mel, clearly is full of hate, including hatred of himself. From whence that hatred? Can a real 'catholic' hate? It is interesting to read ancient religious history and discover that Mel's religious predecessors (Romans) appear to be who apparently 'killed' Jesus so that they could recreate, in Roman form, 'christianity.'

If Hezbollah succeeds in its metastasis, all 'christians,' and non 'muslims' will be killed, ubiquitously.

If you do not believe that...

We have been writing for a long time about some social patterns of value as being both "antisociotic and antintotic," i.e., both~and against society while~and against ~many individuals. Hezbollah is just that kind of antisociotic, a cancerous terrorist organization.

If your body has cancer, what do you do?

Imagine Earth as a body. It has cancer. What do we do?

We agree. Earth's kinds of cancers are 'social.' Some parts of Earth's body do not view terrorism as cancer. Those who do, tend to socially call all that they dislike, "cancer."

So, is terrorism cancer? Is it socialist cancer? Individual cancer?

Should we attempt to annihilate social terrorism?

Do you want to live with it?

Friedman's approach only offers a tentative solution while appeasing terrorists.

Friedman's appeasement allows Hezbollah and its hate to further metastasize...

Doug agrees with Israel. (Doug has evolved into a position of anti war and anti violence, but regrettably admits that he endorses Israeli violence against Hezbollah and those who nourish it, including "innocent" Lebanese civilians, but Doug sees no other solution, that is, any approach which will terminate terrorist cancers' spread to all Earth. Cancer therapy kills good cells too... Surgery, in its contemporary viability, is incapable of removing only cancerous cells.)

Doug now believes that Lebanon, Syria, and Iran have to go, period.

Forgive us...

But, how many Hezbollah cells are operating in USA, now, mid-2006? Are we going to appease them too? EU needs to take a long look in 'da mirror and ask itself similar questions. Ditto China, Russia, India, South America, etc.

Again, Republican'ts and Terrorists, "Go to Hell!"

Doug - 30Jul2006.

"Heraclitus thought that the universe was in perpetual motion and that everything moved and flowed without beginning or end. Meanwhile, Parmenides declared that movement was incompatible with Being, which was One, continuous and eternal."

Trinh Xuan Thuan
in The Quantum and the Lotus, p. 110 out of 312 total pages including index.
Three Rivers Press, Translated in 2001.

"On Value: Does Doug redeem himself in quantons?"

A query from DMD in an July 7, 2006 email to Doug.

See our TQS News below.

(We now, belatedly, fathom DMD intended, "qupons." )

"...and Pangloss sometimes said to Candide: 'All events are linked up in this his best of all possible worlds; for, if you had not been expelled from the noble castle, by hard kicks in your backside for love of Mademoiselle Cunegonde, if you had not been clapped into the Inquisition, if you had not wandered about America on foot, if you had not stuck your sword in the Baron, if you had not lost all your sheep from the land of Eldorado, you would not be eating candied citrons and pistachios here.'

" 'Tis well said,' replied Candide, 'but we must cultivate our gardens.' "

Voltaire's characters, Pangloss and Candide in Candide.

Final sentences in Candide.

Classical connections in reality viewed as a causal string of "linked up" unitemporal root causes...

2006 TQS News
December, 2005 through November, 2006



You are here:

Topics: Failure of
Google in China,
What is Wrong with Democracy,
Why Digital is Dead,
Gnosticism vis-à-vis Pirsig & Bergson
Scott C. Smith,
IBM's High GHz PPCs,
Dennett's BtS,
Doug Critiques Sull's
'Difficult Decisions
for an
Uncertain World'
Doug on novel
Millennium III
Business Thinking
What will happen in
Howard's Movie
The Da Vinci Code...
Doug's view of
'Opus Dei'...
Free energy! High Speed Internet,
DMD's Quantum Simplicity,
Duggeritas™, &
Interim energy,
N-somy tells,
FPGA patents
running out,
MRSA staph,
Classical Sentences, vis-à-vis
Quantum Sentences
Searching Quantonics,
Quantonics Top 20 Pages,
Why Static Truth is Irrelevant
MacBookPro C2D,
Didactism & autodidactism,
Doug's iPod video

August, 2006 News

On ... Joy of High-Speed Internet...

We just upgraded to cable internet.

Prior we had added a Cisco-routed VPN to our lab...about two years ago. So it was easy to add a cable modem and off we go!

Our download speed averages about 5Mbs (five megabits per second which translates to, with two parity bits per byte, 450k-550k bytes per second). We are amazed that our Internet Service Provider is now faster, serving pages, than our internal LAN! Our internal lab server is a MAC quad G5 (each of four processors running at 2.5GHz). That server locally serves our Quantonics web pages using a built in Apache system. But it is slower serving pages than our ISP over cable!

Plus, our connection now is 24x7x365. Implications of this are still emerging... We can deliver page updates as we do them. We used to accumulate about 10 page changes prior to publishing. Now we just publish them and do our quality checks via our ISP. It's a omnifferent way of working. Our efficiency has made a step change, a quantum fluxing vault.

Bethahavah loves cable internet since we can have all of our lap and desktops talking to www simultaneously and talk digital phone too.

One critical issue here is that our security system uses groundlines with dedicated cellular backup. Our security company says that cable internet isn't as reliable yet as ground and cellular. As soon as we feel comfortable with that approach we will move our security primary to cable.

We are not yet using wireless due slower data rates and security. We're still all category five cable.

Heads up! Quantum is, in our opinions, just around "a corner of close and soon." Implications of that are enormous, including: disappearance of all current classical infrastructures.

OBTW, our site email no longer 'exists.' We are about ready to stop all site qtx email. If you want to contact Quantonics, do it by mail (Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Carmel, IN 46033, USA) and phone (317-THOUGHT). Those of you who already email us regularly have been apprised of alternate means.

On ... DMD's Query to Doug which Spawned a Novel Description of Quantum Simplicity Based Upon a Memeo of Quantum Redemption...

We recently, 7-8Jul2006, had a brief dialogue with DMD on what he intended as a comical query and turned into something quite Valuable to our community. Allow us to quote a DMD query very briefly and show Doug's full responses with some refinements:


On Value:  Does Doug redeem himself in quantons?



Synonyms for redeem: save, vindicate, fulfill, exchange, honor, restitute, absolve, compensate, etc.

Doug would say this a little omnifferently. Doug views self and others and all reality as (having qua of m¤dalabilityings via) quantons and all of what that affectively (a futurorai) expects and heuristically, plausibly (a iamai), hermeneuts.

In those Quantum Lightings™ Doug would say that he is in processings of martus aritos, to Doug's own satisfactionings of personal (i.e., individual, gn¤stic) betterings. "Witness" here, as Greek martus, is Greek-unique lingo. That is, martus means, "An individual who may martyr (as a quantum~pragmatic evocator), show, and demonstrate." Aritos is Greek for 'virtue' as quantum~pragmatic MoQesque excellence. Doug is trying to be a good example, while realizing his own human frailties.

Doug has 'redeemed self' notably in a sense of "becoming quantumly better." In any fundamentalist sense of "being saved," Doug would say "that is classical bilge." We cann¤t and will n¤t, quantumly "arrive." We enthymemetically lack qua to arrive, since funda mental 'arrival' means adopting a static, stopped, concrete classically unreal and reified 'reality.' Enthymemetic quantum~reality is, quantum~redemptively, unstoppable flux pr¤cæssings. Doug - 24Oct2006.

Your redemption question is a first in Quantonics! Congratulations, DMD!

Matthieu Ricard in his and Trinh Xuan Thuan's The Quantum and the Lotus, quotes Buddha's The Fundamental Treatise of the Perfection of Wisdom thus, "Those who become fixed on emptiness are said to be incurable." And, "Consequently the wise abide neither in being nor in nonbeing." Ricard goes on in his own words, "According to Buddhism, learning to understand the essential unreality of things, which modern science has helped to clarify, is an integral part of the spiritual way." Notice how Buddha, like Jesus, speaks (at least in translation) both psychically (for "the called") and pneumatically (for "the elect"). Buddha says "neither-nor" while knowing "the called" will interpret it dialectically, while heterosemantically, polyintralingually, polymorphically Buddha is expecting "the elect" to hermeneut it as "both~and." Buddha too, quite apparently to Doug just now, was a quantum~Gn¤stic, Pirsig's icon of "the ancients." So were Heraclitus, Zeno of Elea to  some extent, and apparently Plotinus.

Doug has been teaching: quanton(n¤n_bæing,being), straddling. In a sense, we see, now, quantum~straddling is a kind of Pirsigean "direct~experiencings" wisdom of redemption. Straddling, too, is a great way to fathom holographic phase~encoding of multiple wave functions: omnitoring (quantum~monitoring). (Notice how so many hue-istic memeos quantum~superpose into essence of "tapping into reserve energy." One of your long time concerns, simplification, manifests itself here as aggregated superposition of phase~encodings: a fuzzon. Fuzzons do n¤t minimize to achieve quantum~simplification, rather, they aggregate...making integral holistic awareness a means to 'simplify' "quantum~understanding." More is less is more. Sort of like "bad g¤¤ds." can understand oxymora in quanta's many comtexts, though, can we n¤t? Where "the psychic" cann¤t.)

Doug wants all Earth people to understand that. If we compare Buddha and quantum~Gn¤stic Jesus they wanted it too. It appears that quantum~straddling, too, "Is a good thing."

What is really important here is that a 'straddle' issi a quantonic interrelationship! Further, quantum reality issi holographic phase~encodings. Lots of them grouped as attractors which we call "quantons."

So quantum~straddling becomes quantum~pr¤cæssings of sælf~¤ther redemptionings, getting~betterings.

As far as Quantonics itself goes...if it has may evolve to be something good for some, potentially many, futurings...


Then, on 23Jul2006, DMD unmoored his quantum~complementaroceptions with this set of beauties. Doug wants to capture this dialogue here. It appears to need much exegesis, and we can just keep revising this text until it gravidates more fully high Value answers to DMD's superb questions shown just below in bold. DMD is showing our community a depth and breadth of memetic~assiduous~industry far surpassing that of social, tragically-common academe:


You have stated that DQ is isosymmetrical, hence, self canceling. [In Quantonics, we illustrate what DMD just wrote, a way, n¤t the way, like this:]

Quantonics' isoflux as 2D transverse generators.

Graphics added to DMD's query by Doug for presentation in our August 1, 2006 TQS News.

When that isosymmetry breaks, tentative SQ emerges. [Here is a field, more currently "string," theory, classical "garden hose universe," example of DMD's "breaking of isosymmetry" analogized in actuality, i.e., as solid, n¤t dotted blue, circles:]

Two bosons latch from isoflux Higgs Boson cuts two bosons Two bosons
creatio ex nihilo aperio
("creation from 'no thing' laid bare")
into a fermion
 Fermion rendered as Möbius  Fermion illustrating wobbling spin

 By Doug Renselle - ©Quantonics, Inc., 2006-2026
Apparent 'actual' symmetry
Apparent quantum~local partial~absence of gravity
Tentative loss of apparent symmetry
Tentative quanton(absence,presence) of gravity
Latching of actual asymmetry
Actual quantum~local partial~presence of gravity
Möbius as quantum tell of asymmetry Wobbling 720° spin: quantum tell
Notice how fermionic wobble consumes what classicists call "space;" Notice too, how a quantum memeo of l¤cal "partial space" is a clue and prerequisite of partial, l¤cal quantum~gravity; Finally, try to imagine how n¤ classical notions of 'circle' exist ihn quantum reality (due absolute quantum~motion) and we further need a quantum memeo of quantum ubiquitous cycloidal~motion abundance in order to provide a cosmic gravitational arena for multiple aggregations of fermions to gravitate among themselves.

This isn't exactly what we need, but it is metaphoric of what we need. Those solid SQ 'circles' would be blue-dotted in DQ's isoflux.

Recall Feynman's wobbling plate in Cornell cafeteria? Passed football's wobbling in its trajectory? Toy top wobbling precessively? Pendulum's swing wobbling in a figure eight pattern?
Material reality is fermionic. How do we know? It wobbles!
Fermionic wobbling is a tell of quantum~gravity! An omnitor of quantum~gravity!

Wobbling spin manifests as chiral complementation of spin direction on 'back side' vis-à-vis 'front side' of Möbius strip. Imagine horizontal arrows pointing, e.g., 'right' on front of Möbius vis-à-vis horizontal arrows pointing, e.g., 'left' on 'back' of Möbius. Paradoxically, from Möbius' local quantum~complementarospective, all arrows are pointing in ~same 'direction.' You can show this empirically by building a Möbius strip. Before you hook its ends together draw vertical translongitudinal arrows up on front of strip and down on 'back' of strip. When you put its ends together (with a 180° twist), all arrows are always pointing in ~same 'direction.'

{Doug's next task here is to animate what we just described and show how animate spin 'direction' issi irrelevant due quantum~absolute direction stochasticity desnoured ad oculos via fermionic Möbius emerscitecture. Dirac's "direction is irrelevant" will be made apparent, and yet we have quantum paradox too of spin apparitional classical 'state' as both classically relevant and animately quantumly irrelevant. A superb Buridan's Ass metaphor is nitrogen atom's positional~directional stochasticity in an ammonia molecule.}

Schrödinger's hydrogen atom as a SOrON pendulum, a wobbling, 720° fermion: actually pendula are at least bi~periodic,
absolute~motion quantum~phenomena having both a 360° and 720° periodicities quantum~superposed. To watch this phenomena
empirically, buy an Euler's disc and play with it. Also try spinning Sur le Table's Riedel stemless wine glasses on a
counter top. Only when classicists look at 'stopped' pendula transversely (i.e., in 2D), do classicists' inanities
like zero momentum reference frames and infinite accelerations and decelerations emerge.

For a graphic depiction closer to what DMD's query is about, see our Fuzzon to Fermion Onta which is taking place near DQ's 'side' of DQ{TBCS}~SQ{UD} ontological ~wave 'surface.'

What we are describing here implies: quark~gluon ontologies in DQ are apparently very similar nucleon~boson ontologies in SQ.

If so, does SQ asymmetry ontically emerse before SQ symmetry, or does emergence involve both-and-either-or symmetry-asymmetry, depending on contextings?



This is just superb!

Allow Doug to say something relatively 'simple' here before we find ourselves immersed in some haughty quantum detail:

If you go back and look at our evolution of our "maps of reality," you can affirm our memes rather 'simply.'

Quantum hermeneuticists like Mae-wan Ho call DQ "pure." We adore that appellation. (Please read Mae-wan's the Rainbow and the Worm.)

It says that 'perfect' isoflux which is 'perfectly isosymmetric' is "pure."

We need introduce another important quantum meme: partiality. Not in a sense of 'objective,' 'material,' 'substantial,' particularity and particleness, rather in a sense of c¤hærænt hætær¤gænæity. (I.e., lots of quantum~coherent islandicities...each island partial cowithin its complementary quantum~holism.)

Now fathom both isopartiality and tentatively 'latched' partiality. Former, "for quantum purposes," is pure while latter "for quantum viewed~as~material purposes" is impure. Yes, we have to allow for some 'kind' of isoorganization in DQ (mainly a quantonics memeo of isobs as IsoValue: Seth as a quantum~straddling messenger in City of Angels). We've talked much about that years ago. But we are wholly ignorant of It and how It 'works.' So we are forced to guess: an intellectual act of quantum uncertain intelligence whose curiosity may not be sated any other k~now~able 'way.' We are proud to admit both our uncertainty while~andings boldness of pragma. "Get 'er done!"

This partial text is quoted from an DMD email to Doug dated 8Apr2007...

DMD comments are indented in bold.

DMD starts by asking a question about quantum~thogonality re: a Doug usage in this TQS News page of an oxymoron: "isoorganization." Doug's quantum ihs¤ is quantum incompatible with a more classical 'organization' where OR implies classical 'ORtho,' as 'right, straight, correct, etc.' That's essence of this email, if you want to skip details and move on with original News text...



Doug has hesitated writing much about thogonality since it carries so much classical baggage. Your previous queries on Doug's quantum redemption, you may recall, spawned this exemplar:

In that graphic we see your 'poly' thogons as neuronal comtextings. Is quantum reality really like that?

Recall Dirac's bra-ket notation and our tedious efforts, e.g., re: describing conjugation . Classical mechanics (maths, etc.) view con(m)jugation as orthogonal. The 'right' part of that is ortho. If we see that as an ORtho, we jump back in SOM's box. A silly coining might be botho: bothogonal; even better bothallwhileandmanygonal. We are fairly comfident Dirac saw <*| and |SQ> as a dialectical bra-ket pair (dichon(bra, ket)), i.e., n¤t polythogonally. As long as we view quantum~thogonality as n¤n OR I think we will be OK. But keep in mind how baggage can entrap one's thoughts. Recall Alfred North Whitehead's "Once learning has solidified, all is over with." Although he was speaking and thingking classically.


Do you think that Nature finds isoorganizings [That word is essence of our trouble here. Doug - 13April2007.] easier(better) via isoorthogonality [More trouble...] in Its self-processings, e.g., storing Isobic memories [i.e., memeories]; e.g., Nature seeks paths of least resistance, surmising least resistance being an analogous trait of least action flux? Doug's brackets as update of original email.


Honestly I do not!

For example, your 'isoorthogonality' we can see now is an oxymoron in several phasemental ways. One is iso-ortho. Another is that in quantum~reality, Doug believes, we may not take 'iso' lite rally. Fathom 'iso' hylically, psychically, and pneumatically. What Doug means by iso isn't Greco-stuffs. Doug's iso should plausibly be QELRed as ihs¤. Keep reminding us that DQ is antithetical classical ORganization.

What Doug intends by ih is that DQ's quantum energy "hides" as described by Heraclitus' "Nature likes to hide" combined with his "panta rhei." Its hiddenness is quantum~enigmatic. Its ihs¤flux (ihs¤phluxings) issi quantum~enigmatic.

Doug is n¤t asking us to avoid attempts at describing n¤nactuality. It is instructive and a terrific learning experience to do so. What Doug is asking is that we attempt (as you are doing, and quite excellently) to use more quantumesque memes while avoiding classical notions.

So, let's try th¤g¤n(ings) as quantum~n¤n~righteous ihs¤~phasementalings interrelationshipings' descriptionings.

Dirac even partially intuited this in his "many-timings" of many electrons QED approach. Recall how, classically, many electrons all share unitime, and Dirac thought it might be helpful to ascribe temporality to each electron. It's a lot like Suppes saying we need to ascribe probability to each logical element | constituent in quantum logic: many probabilities vis-à-vis just one and more often none (e.g., EPR's non probabilistic, non stochastic classical 'logic') for all elements.

That said, your least action meme is sparkling! Indeed ihs¤phlux enables~mediates, e.g., superluminality issi zær¤~latæncy least~action: least~pragma. Too: entanglement!

Your memes are excellent. Language is getting in our wayings, which is part of what Quantonics is attempting to repair. Doug can't do all of that by himself, but others like you will flesh it out. We're laying some of that schema and its foundations here. However, all of Quantonics may be tossed out, rejected, in which case comcern about much more than initial comditionings may be wasted worry.

When you see 'or,' though, be comcerned.


Furthermore, is 'unknowability' absolute? 


Change is quantum~reality's only absolute, as far as we are k~now~ings.

To Doug unknown and unknowable are enthymemetics (partial coquecigrues). And all in quantum reality issi enthymemetic.

Your and Doug's complements are enthymemes: quanton(DMD's_Quantum_Complement,DMD) issi an enthymeme. Gravity issi an enthymeme! Doug's "gravity as partial~coherence" issi an enthymeme. An iceberg's tip issi an enthymeme. Is it's tip's complement classically 'knowable?' Can we put it on a know ledge?  Can melting have 'classical state?' Etc.

Pay attention to codon now. A iamai vis-à-vis both a posteriorai and a priorai issi an enthymeme! PNFings are enthymemes!


If so, why do absolute statements appear classically paradoxical?


Classicists only grasp (hylically and psychically) either-or and OGT in OGC.

If there are many ihs¤th¤g¤nal statements each of them within their own classical axiomatic box viewed 'absolute,' then any other box's analogue will appear paradoxical. Buridan said only one can be true, thus all others are false. Yet, paradoxically, he believed truth is a function of time and context!? Again, we're back at Pirsig's "All are right." Many truthings. Omniplex veritas!

Is Doug a chicken? "Yæs! Chromosomally 86%!" Pure quantum sophism. Is a chicken a human quantum~enthymeme? "Yæs! Chromosomally 86%!"


IOO, absolute unknowability connotes supreme pessimism, i.e., complete closing off of potentialities, possibilities, of change.


We just explained that pessimism is an enthymeme. As such, then, it is quanton(optimism,pessimism).

"...closing off... " is 'da duty of SOM's wall.


Notion of absolute unknowability seems to contradict notion of DQ as absolute change, as virtually unlimited venuings of potentia and its omnistributionings.


If DMD is speaking SOMese, we comcur wholly.

Quantumly unknowability is an enthymeme. Scripted: quanton(unknown,known) and quanton(unknowable,knowable). 'Un' is subjective negation. Knowable is iceberg unknowable's tip.

As we evolve, some prior unknowable becomes partially, quantally (quantum~granular~incrementally: i.e., quanta) knowable.

Quantum unknowable becomes optimistic! Classical unknowable must stay, immutably, pessimistic (in any given dialectical box).


It appears better to us to optimistically assume DQ 'not' as absolute unknowable, i.e., better as unknown but partially accessible ~ quanton(Hope,QTF).


If you allow a sense that "we may never k~now~ings it allings..."

We agree!

How can wæ ever 'classically know' that which itself is in a process of becoming? And what it may become may phasementally erase~efface that which was...?!

A real example: Can a human muscle cell know its community two years from now? Muscle cells complete their full metabolic (anabolisis-catabolisis) cycles in about 170 days. Is DMD today who DMD will be in five years? Will you argue that you both can and should know that?

Doug believes you can do that enthymemetically where you cann¤t do that classically completely-rationally-logically.


Perhaps Nature rewards 'optimism coupled with humility' approachings towards Its 'secrets' with partial incremental k-now-ings, epiphanies, etc.  And perhaps Nature's gaming rewardings are unending....


Now you are making quantum~sense...

Nature doesn't just roll dice, s~hæ Planck~rate~pragma~roles paradice.


It may be, as you have said, DQ needs SQ(feedback) to partially comceptualize itselvings.


SQ issi DQ's agent in due diligence indagation (i.e., due diligence research and investigation) of self. (Which endlessly, yet without arrival (enthymeme pessimism), improves (enthymeme optimism)...)


This real-i-zation could possibly be a 'large, but incomplete certainty' regarding quantum ontology-epistemology. 


Does certainty require stoppability and immutability?

Here is a graphic way of showing what we think DMD wanted to say:

We may choose to view quanton(certaintyings,uncertaintyings) as an enthymemetic representation of DMD's "incomplete certainty." Doug - 7May2007.


Thus, DQ-DQ interrelationships may forever be subjected to SQish imaginings, thinking, etc. if we desire partial comceptualizings.


That is just what we mean and intend by enthymeme.

DMD now is only an enthymeme of DMD's future selfings...


In quantum-light of this, do we give up, quit trying?  Of course not!  As you have said we can be assured of DQs presence via quantum reality's creation, and we might add, in k-now-ing that via straddling that our SQ retains Quality by somehow complementing-comtributing to DQ-DQ isointerrelatings-isoorganizings.


With SQ in agency of DQ as memetic, we agree.


Could it be that immersent SQ tentatively facilitates nexial nextings-clusterings of isopreferential attractors in DQ-DQ isoorganizations, which in turn, tentatively facilitate reemergence of k-now-ings, epiphanies, etc.  If so, might this be indicative of REAL I-cubed INTENTIONAL intelligence via omnistributive coobsfective ch-cubings? [ Hopefully readers might imagine Doug's delight in DMD's enlightened and enlightening 'use' of immersent. First time, ever, Doug has seen that word! It is French. Very few, less than 30 English uses found by Google.]


You are describing, beautifully, what Doug means by isobs. Just keep light of all Doug wrote above shining on those memes and Doug can say with a modicum of comfidence, "Yæs!"

Doug and Beth last night had a long omniscussion on this. Both of us agree, on whole, it's about as optimistic as we can imagine.



Your "...does SQ asymmetry ontically emerse before SQ symmetry..." is a statement (n¤t a phasement) of actuality, yet is useful in fathoming deeper issues. Due language issues it is very omnifficult to avoid statements in favor of phasements, so our critique applies to Quantonics' own works too, including what we are writing nowings to you.

We need use our Fuzzons to Fermions Ontology for discussion here. We also need use our Quantum Spin Interrelationshipings Emergence page.

We must view ontological processings' middlings as included [straddling]. Simply, DQings are always ihn SQings and SQings are always ihn DQings.

That allows us to bæ ihn coquecigrues!

Then SQ issi quanton(DQ,SQ): an extreme phasement of partiality! Too, an extreme phasement of asymmetry! SQ issi n¤t DQ: asymmetry! SQ issi ihn DQ. DQ issi ihn SQ. Animate EIMA symmetry. Symmetry is ihn asymmetry and asymmetry is ihn symmetry. Indeed, this shows coquecigrues eidetically, ad oculos, quantum~simply. (To go deeper here, we must enter dark regions of quantum~comjugality and timorous strugglings of apparently unlimited thogonalities...all of this 'simply' is a phasement that unlimited realities can view ihn unlimited ways unlimited realities...a kind of quantum~ultimate hermeneuticity. Again, we find ourselves unintentionally describing a massive hologram. Bohm might agree.)

Classically, aspects of SQ appear statementally 'symmetric.' Quantumly, aspects of DQ appear phasementally 'symmetric.' Either-or works n¤t here. Both~while~andings required. This apparent paradox resembles our acquaintance with Bergson's dichon(qualitative_plurality, quantitative_spatial_extensity_monism) versus Pirsig's dichon(dynamic_monism, static_pluralism). Do you recall Doug's epiphanous April Fools Day, 2001 discovery of it?

SQing's emergence (always only partial, quantum~peaqlos~partial) ontologyings happenings ihn DQ, mediated by DQ.

'Some' isoflux 'latches' ihnto bosonic gluons (generally non apparent in actuality), then bosonic gluons 'latch' ihnto fermionic quarks. All are ihn DQ and DQ issi ihn all: both isosymmetry and tentative isoasymmetry. As Geertz said in his Available Light, paraphrased, "...we cannot draw demarcations where there are none..." Demarcations are stuffs of dialectical minds.

Real partiality issi islandically quantum~c¤hærænt.

See quantum~coherence. (Let's make explicit Doug's QELR linguistic~phase~encoding of hærænt; our quantized '¤' means all quantum~coherencings are quantized, our use of 'h' means quantum~reality is both up to Planck rate animate and quantum~wave~change middle~including, and our use of 'æ' means quantum~reality issi everywhere~associative (i.e., holographic) and quantum~stochastically~qualitative. So you see how we use Quantonics' innovative linguistics to omnifferentiate classical language and quantum~language. See phasement.)

Now, interestingly, and this is what makes your query so fascinating, is that bosonic gluons have 'spin,' and that makes them, from an isoflux perspective, "impure." Isospin issi pure absence of spin. Enthymemetic, "unsaid spin." Without QTMs, we cann¤t even begin to grasp issues here, can we? If we make it dialectical it loses its Quality, its "fluxing simplicities." (There is huge philosophical value and power in pondering quantum memeos of "absence of..." E.g., mass, space, time, gravity, etc. Thence their animate heterogeneities...)

What Doug attempts to vivify in that previous paragraph is DQ as isoflux. What isn't obvious, though, is isoflux is real, only apparently classically 'unreal,' quantumly n¤nactual, and quantum~real. So "pure absence" carries omniffering classical and quantum semantics. Quantumly "pure absence" issi real quantum~isopresence. Isopresence, classically, is unreal and "doesn't 'exist.'"

realityq quanton(DQ,SQ) quanton(isoflux,flux) quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality) quanton(isopresence,presence) quanton(pure,impure)

Modern quantum~physicists appellate isopresence as "vacuum flux," and "dark matter." It, quantum~really, is unbounded potential energy.

Doug - 30Aug2006.

So your "...does SQ asymmetry ontically emerse before SQ symmetry..." issi "yæs and n¤." "Mu!" From our current comprendes apparent SQ asymmetry manifests as — initially as — gluon bosonicity. Along comes a Higgs boson and breaks two isotentative gluonic 360° spin 1 bosons who somehow recombine as a 720° spin 1/2 wobbling isotentative fermionic quark. Creatio ex nihilo aperio.

Again, we can clarify here by creating more affine nexi. Bite your use of 'before.' Pieces of 'before' become 'befores.' Befores animated become 'beforings.' Plural present participlings phasementally comtain quantons(pastings,nowings,futurings). 'Before' is encompassingly compenetrated by fuzzons of PNFings. We see, clearly, "Muings." Before becomes afterings. Before becomes nowings. Before becomes priorings'-priorings. Muings! Banesh Hoffmann called it "perversity." It's equivocal too. Ambiguous. Uncertain. Timorous. Apocryphal. Quantum Real!

Asymmetry issi ihn symmetry and symmetry issi ihn asymmetry. Aristotle blew it! Heraclitus, Cratylus (see Anthony Gottlieb's 2000 The Dream of Reason: Chapter 3, 'Heraclitus'), and Zeno of Elea warned them, to no avail.

Quarks, both Up and Down are lower energy quarks which have evolved ontologically (T, B, C, S, U, then D) from higher energy Top, Bottom, Charmed, and Strange quarks, ihn codonic fermion triplets, then 'latch' preferentially ihnto protons...

(UDU: three quarks; two up (each is +2/3e) and one down (-1/3e) net +1e 'charge')

...and neutrons (UDD: net neutral charge).

Electron ontology takes more effort which we defer here. (see both QED and QCD)

Again, "SQ symmetry" is an classical illusion: primal deluded dialectical stuffings of Aristotle's silly anti enthymemetic, anti gn¤stic syllogisms.

When we EOOO statementally break up genuinely phasemental quantum~included~middlings~isosymmetry, ~symmetry, and ~asymmetry dialectically we are taking something quantum~subjective and turning it synthetically, artificially, mechanically, formally into something objective.

When we admit their quantum~coherent yet ~islandic~phasemental~partialityings, we grow massively and everything "gets simpler." Pirsig taught us that. "Don't throw away those mu answers! ... They're the ones you grow on." Page 290, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Bantam, 28th printing, May, 1982. That quote has been crucial to Doug's learning How to Tap Into Reserve Energy. It is key to why Doug still views Pirsig as his unacknowledged mentor.

DMD, this may be a bit too comprehensive. However, now you have some 'tools' which allow your own simplification. We went back to top of this text and sort of hinted at that for you.

Too, fathom how much it helps us when we help others.

BQWs, [DMD's acronym for "Best Quantum Wishes."]


Lots of depth in that '~,' isn't there? Isn't it 'nice' that you "get it?"

On ... Doug's counsel on how to make Duggeritas™....

Doug is old enough to remember when Triple Sec was 60 proof. Nowadays its 30 proof. So if you want to make good Duggeritas™ you first need some high test Triple Sec. Doug makes it in 1.75 litre batches. Easiest way is to buy a 0.75 litre Triple Sec low test. Save your latest 1.75 Triple Sec bottle. Assume you have an empty one left. Pour your 0.75 litre Triple Sec into your 1.75 litre bottle. Top it off with ~86 proof vodka and you'll have enough to make quite a few recipes of Duggeritas™.

Alternatively just mix in 0.5 measures of Triple Sec and vodka to our Duggerita™ recipe.


Double or halve recipe based on your party's size. Half will serve Beth and Doug for one evening.

Fill a thin-lipped (Sur le Table) glass (Riedel stemless wine glass, ~8-12 oz.) with crushed ice (need to get ice in another container first and dump from that, very carefully into that fragile glass; wash these glasses with both hands; they're like ice-covered footballs). Old fashioned glasses work well here too. Add mix to level of your sate. If you add tequila now, do similarly.

Beth says, "Duggeritas™ are the best."

While we are on recipes...

On ... Doug's counsel on how to make Duggerizzas™....

Having problems with waist (waste) line growth? Love pizza? How would you like to reduce your pizza carbohydrates significantly? Doug too!

Doug has been working on this recipe for about three years, trying to perfect it. It is almost there, and there aren't any others like it that we know about.

This recipe is really troublesome since we use oat flour to make our Duggerizza™ dough (no pun ). Oat flour just doesn't have enough gluten, and it doesn't make those long, long molecular yeast-mediated chains like wheat flour does. But oat flour has a fraction of carbs compared to wheat.

If you like Minnesota sour dough bread, you're gonna love this pizza dough. An added benefit of oat flour is that when it works with yeast it acquires an olefactory ambiance much like sour dough bread. You may not want that in your pizza dough. If that sounds delectable to you, proceed...

Another issue with oat flour is that it takes a long time to allow it to work with yeast. So this dough takes about twice as long to prepare as Doug's standard all wheat flour recipe.

Another problem is that oat flour doesn't absorb water at a rate as fast as wheat flour.

Another is you have to make your own oat flour. At least Doug does.

Our recipe needs 4-1/4 cups of oat flour. Let's make about that much. Doug uses a Cuisinart ice crusher which is a heavy duty blender. Fill blend cup about a third up with rolled oats. We use Quaker. Put lid on. Run blender on high. Pick whole blender up and precess it conically, so all oats get to go through blade action. Doug dexterously and very carefully, with both hands, grasps top of blender and under bottom of blender to swivel it repeatedly through 360 degree conic precession, sort of a gentle eight pattern. Takes about 30-60 seconds for all oats to become a dust cloud in blender cup. Have a container ready to accumulate flour. Repeat until you have about five cups of oat flour. (Also try toasting oats to golden brown on a cookie sheet prior to making oat flour.)

To mix our dough we use a Kitchen Aid mixer with its dough hook to do our mixing. Also we need our oven preheated at its minimum setting (about 150 degrees). (Our recipe makes enough dough for four 16" pizzas. We use one and put three away for next month's use (about one per week.)

Now we can talk about ingredient listings which we will add in this order to our Kitchen Aid mixer bowl:

Assume oven is preheated to 150 degrees (F), i.e., lowest 'warm' setting.

Take a terri hand towel and soak it with tap water. Wring it out to just wet dampness. Cover mixing bowl. Place mixing bowl in preheated warming oven. Set timer for 40-50 minutes. Up to an hour won't hurt.

After time out, remove mixing bowl from oven. Close oven door. Remove damp blanket. Place bowl in mixer. Add dough hook. Mix on lowest setting for 10 minutes. Dough should form a fairly tight 'ball' and try to stand up near end of first mixing cycle. If it is softer, that will work. Dough is easier to manage when you roll it out if it is drier.

Redampen cloth. Cover bowl. Put back in oven for 30 minutes. (These extra steps are necessary, from experience, due oat flour.)

After time out, remove mixing bowl from oven. Close oven door. Remove damp blanket. Place bowl in mixer. Mix on lowest setting for 10 minutes.

Redampen cloth. Cover bowl. Put back in oven for 30 minutes.

This time dough will have risen to about 2/3 of mixing bowl. Dump dough on floured counter top with lots of area for rolling dough. Scoop all dough which sticks to mixing bowl on top of dough mound.

Prepare your pizza pan. Doug puts a paper towel under it and sprinkles it with olive oil and rubs oil over top of pan. Remember to remove paper towel when you move pizza to oven. Set oven to 425 degrees F.

Get your rolling pin.

Sprinkle flour on a large counter top area and dump dough onto sprinkled flour. Dump dough on floured counter top with lots of area for rolling dough. Dough will stick to bowl. Help it out with rubber spatula (We use Williams Sonoma high temps.). Any left in bowl can be scraped onto dough mound. Try to get it all. Scoop all dough which sticks to mixing bowl on top of dough mound.

Sprinkle more flour on top of mound. Use your hands to gently make a round blob. Use a large chef's knife to cut mound into two halves. Then cut each half in half. Four pieces total. Put three in individual sandwich bags. Leave a slight crack in zip seal. Put three sandwich bags in a gallon bag and seal. Store in fridge up to 4-6 weeks. It will expand! Expect it!

Using your rolling pin, roll out remaining dough ball. It will be pretty thin, about 3/32 inch or about 25 mm when you finish and slightly larger than your pizza pan. About half way, sprinkle top of dough with flour. Flip it over, and sprinkle again. This will keep your dough from sticking to your counter and to itself.

Finish rolling dough to fit pan.

Starting at dough edge, roll it up into a long cylinder. Move to edge of pizza pan and unroll it to fit top of pan. Any excess around edges, cut off and fill in edges which didn't fit with enough dough. It's OK to have some double thickness. You won't know after it bakes.

Add sauce, meat, mushrooms, and cover with mozzarella (to your taste). If you want sauce recipes let Doug know, and we'll share. We make our own ground Italian sausage crumbles from fatless loins. We make our own sauce from fresh tomatoes and spices. We love Penzey's for our spices. Try'em, you'll like em. Doug plans to learn how to make his own pepperoni. Doug learned to love Portugese sausage (chourice AKA "chourico" and linguicia; watch out! mild is pretty hot) from Bob and Carol Jehu. You can order Portugese meat products FedEx from Gaspars. But then your Dougerizza™ is not wholly Italian!

Bake pizza at least 18 minutes! If you have lots of toppings on it, it may take up to 25 minutes. Typically, ours take 20-22 minutes depending upon local altitude (Indiana is about 900 feet; Oregon is near sea level (takes a tad longer to bake)). Doug likes Mozzarella on top, last added ingredient. Doug pulls pizza from oven when Mozzarella is spotty medium-dark brown. If you do two together or an around-the-world, add at least five minutes to total baking time. Our oven is a standard home, builder-grade, oven. If you have a professional grade oven, all these numbers change. Doug - 7Aug2006.

Chourice makes great soft bun 'burgers' too, with Grey Poupon. Some like it in place of ham for breakfast. Bethahavah is about ready to share her ChouricoGumbo with you, probably next TQS news issue. It is simply fabulous! Really!


Thank you for reading,

Doug - 31Jul2006.

See you here again in early September, 2006!



To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 2006-2026 — Rev. 18Sep2014  PDR — Created 9Jul2006  PDR
(2Aug2006 rev - Repair minor typo of punctuation. Update "Garden Hose Universe" fermion ontology.)
(7,11,29-30Aug2006 rev - Add pizza baking times. Correct "see you in" month. Add 'DMD Elicits Quantum Simplicity' anchor. Add 'isopresence' comments under DMD dialogue.)
(6,20Sep2006 rev - Superpose 'ad oculos' link. Evolve field theory to field string theory. Add Pirsig ZMM p. 290 'mu' quote.)
(23Oct2006 rev - Add 'Extreme Phasements of Partiality' anchor under Doug answers to DMD queries on 'symmetry vis-à-vis asymmetry.' Add 'enthymemetics' link under 'extreme phasement of reality.')
(24Oct2006 rev - Add 'quantum~redemption' anchor and additional red text update~commentary under DMD query.)
(24Oct2006 rev - Reset some legacy red text. Add 'enthymemetics' link to Kuhn's SoSR. Add 'quantum~coherence' link. emBolden partiality as quantum~coherence.)
(5Nov2006 rev - Add 'When Isosymmetry Breaks' anchor and partial gravity comments. Reset legacy red and pink text.)
(2,20Dec2006 rev - Add '(always only partial, quantum~peaqlos~partial)' parenthetical under Extreme Phasements of Partiality discussion. Reset some legacy red text.)
(8,13,24Apr2007 rev - Add missing right 'single quote' mark. Add DMD email update. Add 'Extreme Phasement of Partiality' anchor.)
(7,12May2007 rev - Reset legacy red text. Add quanton(pessimism,optimism) link to Quantonics' Poisson Brackets page. Add partial truth graphic as representative of DMD's "incomplete certainty." Add 'partiality' anchor.)
(27Jun2007 rev - Change second occurrence of 'asymmetry' to 'symmetry' under our 'Extreme phasement of partiality,' above.)
(4Sep2007 rev - Correct misspelling of 'appellate.')
(21Dec2007 rev - Add 'Euler's disc movie' link under garden hose universe graphics set.)
(27Feb2008 rev - Add 'Quantum Partial' anchor to discussion on quantum~partiality.)
(3Mar2008 rev - Add 'Quantum Partiality' anchor.)
(16May2008 rev - Change a partial address line in main news segment one.)
(23Jun2008 rev - Correct a typo.)
(18Nov2008 rev - Replace wingdings and symbol fonts with gifs. Reset legacy markups.)
(27Dec2009 rev - Make page current. Adjust colors. Add 'Exegetic Quantum Linguistics' anchor and brief omniscussion.)
(7Apr2012 rev - Repair redundant 'of.')
(18Sep2014 rev - Add 'Redemption' anchor.)