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

— The Quantonics Society News for 2007 - April —
TQS News Archive of Prior Years' News

This is our April, 2007 editorial

Our editorials are often provocative; if we offend you, do not read them - Doug.

Go directly to 2007 April News

Value is quantum potentia tugging nowings' betterings.

Recall that Hume's 'Law' says, "...there is no bridge twixt value and fact."

Why did Hume believe that?

Hume believed that 'fact' is 'state-ic,' and holds immutably still. To Hume, 'fact' is verifiably stoppable and tautologous. Hume is a dialectical mechanic. Hume is wrong!


Reality is absolute change. Reality is quantum flux.

That shows us Hume's 'Law' is bogus. There are are innumerable dynamic interrelationshipings among quantons and Value. How? Absolute quantum fluxings' middlings are ensemble~associatively~inclusive while b¤th:

interfering and n¤n interfering,
l¤cal and n¤n l¤cal,
hærænt and aut¤n¤m¤us,
b¤s¤nic and færmi¤nic,
quatr¤c¤hærænt and quatr¤æntr¤pic1,

Simply: quanton(Value,quanton) AKA recursive "quantum straddling."

Doug - 30Mar2007.

Value is quantum a priorai dynamic~potentia everywhere~included~middle~associatively attracting~tugging n¤wings' futuræings~betterings.

1 See hæra and æntr¤pa.

Quantum~interference AKA quantum~relativity AKA quantum~phase~encoding issi self~other~awareness!

Photons, entangled photons, are self~other~aware, however primitively you wish to perceive it.

Doug - 26Mar2007.

Doug is doing a lot of work nowings on, "the big question."

Mae-wan Ho in her the Rainbow and the Worm (1993, 2000) apprised us (that is, we first saw) nearly 10 years ago that Erwin Schrödinger wrote a book about it: What is Life?

Errol E. Harris wrote a whole chapter of his text The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science titled Chapter VIII, 'The Riddle of Life,' as a lead in his Part II - The Realm of Life in that text.

Doug is just now doing a detail critical review of Section 4 Open Systems of 'The Riddle of Life.'

We are sharing a small part of Doug's effort, in this, our April, 2007 TQS News.

As part of that work, Doug is doing a cursory review of Schrödinger's What is Life?

Prior that, however, allow Doug a chance to put Schrödinger's query, in Doug's, in a quantum~Gn¤stic's, that is... Ihn Quanta's Lightings:

classical_life = dichon(death, life)

quantum_life quanton(iso_livings,livings),

and as we showed above,

quantum_life quantons(Value,quantons).

As may be apparent classical life versus death is an either-or DIQheaded, scalarbative schismatic-schizoid dichotomy. Classically, life is mechanically separate from death and death is mechanically separate from life...objectively, concretely, dialectically, formally.

However, quantumly, living issi ihn dying and dying issi ihn living. Quantumly living and dying c¤mplæmænt one another. A great real example of which Doug writes here~now is a recent scientific-medical announcement that cellular senescence~apoptosis protect against onset cancer (link lost: see instead cellular apoptosis). Living always carries with it, in all ways, c¤mplæmæntary aspects of dying and vice versa. Living and dying share quantum~EIMA interrelationshipings with all of quantum~reality. We can show that in script as quanton(living,dying), and ontologically (see reality loop link) as quanton(unsaid,said) complementing quanton(isobeing,being). Quantumly one lives forever (issi active~transmutatively both partially isolivings and partially livings) as illustrated by our Generation III Quantum Reality Loop.

A great quantum analogy is this:


That is, quantum light issi ihn quantum absence of light and vice versa. Indeed, a lone photon is light. A lone photon and its phase~inverse~photon quantum~c¤mplæmæntarily superposition~encode to creatio nihilo ex vivo aperio, and its quantum~c¤mplæmænt, creatio vivo ex nihilo aperio.

"Creation of [only apparent] darkness [as only apparent 'death'] from Light [as life whose c¤mplæmænt is apparent 'death' AKA apparent 'darkness'] laid bare."

We may offer at your request countless other desnouering quantum~analogies.

Doug - 26Mar2007.

One Google-Person is worth ten emBalmered DIQheads!

Doug - 15Mar2007.

What is a better, quantum, way to say "has-been drip under pressure?": "exp[eu]rt!"

Doug - 23Mar2007.

On insecurity requirements and anti coversion, anti covert terrorist, techniques. Using quantiques to impose quantum~uncertainty upon terrorists...

Ever wondered why some computer systems are so affected by security attacks?

If you want a system to be, classically 'certainly,' insecure what should you require that system be?

Dialectical! (I.e., be sure to 'intelligently design-in' classical von Neumannesque radically formal system architectures.)

But Doug, "What does that mean?"

Dialectical systems are:

Logically Immutable
Etc...List is endless...

Everyone of those insecurity requirements is an Quantum~Security HotMemeAgent of insecurity.™ Quantum~Security HotMeme™.

That list plus many other perhaps less apparent 'intelligently designed-in' insecurity requirements 'define' a classical standard system. A OSFA system. A totalitarian system. A control system. A catholic, 'universal' system. A Marxian, "Wear y-our OSFA same-look-like-us SaS-ERP uniforms," commonist, communist, we system.

But when one does that, what unintended consequences does one introduce? Many! But for this tiny editorial, our biggest unintended consequence is INSECURITY! Identical uniforms and behaviours make ideal 50 calibre machine gun targets! Thinkq about it... Hitler did... Mussolini did... Catholic Inquisitors did...and demanded flock do it too, so the church could protect itself in like manner...

In Nature, no two viruses are identical. No two anythings are identical, not even to themselves! Nature is absolute change. Anti Nature is absolute OSFA, universal, consensual 'state.' From any quantum~security complementarospective catholicism is insecure, by design, by 'intelligent-hylic-psychic' design. Have you noticed EU's inquisitorial sameness, by design? Have you noticed Bu()sh()'s insistence on One Global Government and its sameness by design? Error! Error! Error!

Each item on our list, and countless others unlisted, dialectically: frame-by-frame, cinematographically, and fusio--incre-mentally reduces system security.


If you want transport security from your home to work and vice versa should you always determinately take same route?

Quantonics Exemplar:

Quantonics Exemplar.™

All formal and thus 'mechanical' systems have covert (read "insecure") channels. N¤ amount of formal 'design' can ever 'eliminate' covert channels in a mechanical (dialectical) system! Read Bell and LaPadula's paper. Read IEEE journal issues on computer security. Read about Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. Thinkq about security. Cease thingk-king about security!

Did you know that M$ OS (at least NT4.0) is 'designed' to be secure? They should follow USA's (very classical) GI Orange Book.

Are M$' OSes secure? N¤! Will they ever be secure? N¤, (n¤t even "simple security condition" physically) n¤t as long as they are dialectical systems.

What is biggest reason M$ systems are insecure? Da (errrr...ummm, duh) Registry!

(Note that Unix and Linux systems do not have an M$esque Registry.)

What is a good metaphor of M$' registry? It is much like stuffing USA's buffoonesque dialectical bureaucracy inside your PC.

Guess what? US buffoonsp[eu]rts want to create a OSFA government 'registry' and impose that on all government users and all Windo$e application developers. (Presumably, we're next?...)

If you want to be secure, ignore USA beaurocrappeds. They, as we just evidenced, like M$, grasp squat re: system security (and "global warming," and "climate change," and "homeland security," and "tsunami security," and "hurricane security," and "asteroid security," and "war planning," and "war disentanglement AKA 'redeployment' planning," and...).

Can you imagine how much that delights computer security terrorists? Their bugs will OSFA work everywhere, mechanically-dialectically perfectly! Oh joy, oh joy...

If we want to continue using dialectical computing systems (this will become a n¤n issue as soon as real quantum computing becomes viable and broadly available), n¤ two systems should be alike, for example, in terms of their registries and how their registries are interpreted.

A way to do this is similar US' use of code whisperers for comm security in WWII. Create a registry metalingual (code whisperer) interpreter whose interpretive 'model' is unique to each OS implementation. If that approach were used n¤ computer system terrorist could have advance 'know-ledge' of how a registry 'works.' It isn't that simple, though, since a terrorist could substitute a 'standard' interpreter tentatively. That action is monitorable and detectable. But substituting a tentative on a huge ensemble of registry unique machines offers a significant challenge.

Following Bill Maher's New Rules, MSFA=1/OSFA. (Many sizes fit all is an quantum~c¤mplæmæntary inverse of one size fits all; individual walk (you) is an quantum~c¤mplæmæntary inverse of societal talk (we); etc...)

Better yet, dump da registry and meta interpret all intra system comm's. Multi-cores make this almost trivial. Multi-threading sequence randomization is of value here too.

Genuinely secure systems have at least a modicum of behavioral 'free will.' Their behavior is (should be, innately) indeterminate regarding covert channel, e.g., registry-communication signals. US Military uses this in their siops. And they hop their radios in countless ways. And they spread spectra in countless ways.

System engineers must learn to take advantage of n¤n classical system behaviors, even if they must be emulated: uncaused 'cause,' affectless 'cause,' affectless 'effects,' etc. They are a lot like Michael Jordan fakes. They work!

Quantum~Security HotMeme™ "Terrorism only works when terrorists can plan, exploit, and expect predicable results." Quantum~Security HotMeme™.

Recall Paul Pietsch's "Indeterminacy is the principal feature of intelligence (and security)." Restated,

Quantum~Security HotMeme™ "Quantum uncertainty is a principal feature of real security."™ Quantum~Security HotMeme™.

(For an analogous quantum randomization exemplar see our review of Aspect, et al's., Wheeler's Delayed Choice quantum gedankenment use of QRNG (quantum random number generation) to try to fake out a "system-wide superluminally~aware" photon; ph¤t¤ns cann¤t be QRNG terrorized by classical physicists; th¤ught~æssæncæ here is 'photon' as classical and ph¤t¤n as quantum).

Last evening Doug watched a Bruce Willis movie titled Live Free or Die Hard. That movie illustrates evidently what Doug is describing above. Dialectical society's OSFA bureaucratic catholic ineptness is a direct result of dialectic's implicit insecurity as a model for any system. Doug - 7Sep2008.

Doug - 23Mar2007.

What one physical (inter)relationship do you know which holds still?

Why did Einstein base his theories of relativity upon his notion of "invariant geometric interval?"

Doug - 19Mar2007.

Would you believe that a Google web search on 'quantum being' produces over 21 million hits?

Doug - 19Mar2007.

USA's Scooter Libby trial is a clear and evident indictment of US' 'Legal System.'


US' 'Legal System' finds its bases of 'reason' in inept classical Aristotelian syllogistic (sillygistic) 'logic.'

"One notion that is incredibly important to grasp here is that all 'as practiced' logic and mathematics [and thing-king] on Earth today find their bases in Aristotle! Few understand that he was just wrong! To us, that is a major catastrophe for our world. It is the key SOM disabler of nearly all thinking on Earth at Millennium III's emergence. Perhaps even more important: Aristotle infects everyday judgment, society, law, epistemology, ethics, politics, and so on. It is an unmitigated disaster of maltuitive thought. We've lived with it for 2500 years. It is nowings rent and purchase for change." Original September, 2004 Doug quote from his review of Max Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, 'Quantum Logic,' Wiley, 1st edition, 1974.

Classical logic depends upon a unitemporal reality immutably holding still in order for it to work. In Doug's view, classical 'logic' is intellectual terrorism. Cheney and Bush and Rove use it to their political advantage while our 'legal system' in all its 'power' and 'glory' gives these snakes a pass. Any legal system which is political is illegal! Justice, even classical dialectical justice, supposedly, is blind.

However quantum reality evolves, radically evolves, and thus from any classical conspective contradicts itself from Planck moment to Planck moment. Reality is change. Our US' 'Legal System' demands an abyss of stasyss.

Reality is, from any quantum complementarospective, about what is Good and better. Classical reality is dialectically about what is 'orthodox' and 'worse-ship.'

Those last two sentences explicate why some jurors and some pundits feel much discomfort: a dichon(orthodox, worse) of how our inept legal system appears dialectically 'viable,' but its outcome is humanitarian nonsense and tragedy: like vigilantes hanging a black man based on social dialectic: "because he's black and we hate blacks!" Bogus then, bogus now. There isn't a digm's worth of omnifferencings among Libby and Simpson 'trials.' Social ex cathedra incompetence desnouered aperio. Opera of gritless soap laid bare. Logic can 'prove' anything. Political 'legal logic' proves whatever politicians want. Just like Democracy and democracy, politicians can mechanically 'make it fit.' Folks, that is political intellectual rape and abuse: OSFA, our size, their size, fits all.


Read Oliver Goldsmith's poem The Logicians Refuted. Compare coquecigrues.

It's timings for massive changings folks! A quantum tsunami is upon us and it waits for none. We have at least two choices: 1) Ræm¤dal our society, quantumly. 2) Possibly, have it torn asunder within its own self.

Status quo is n¤ longer US' way to go.

Gn¤sis via quantum~philosophy is a n¤væl and better ESS.

However, and currently, in our 'legal system,' it all comes down to what a jury believes, and USA calls that 'law.' Bu()sh()!!!

Doug's views, n¤t the views...

Doug - 9-19Mar2007.

Social 'value:' Do, politically, unto others, politically, shall do unto you.

All this nice talk and worrying about others' privacy is just political subterfuge. Buy into that horse-hockey and you lose!

Politics is a classical social pattern of value. Politics is 'retail' dialectic wrapped in classical subversive 'institutions are above individuals,' and 'objects are above subjects' materialistic anti gn¤stic 'orthodox' corruption. Politics is war.

If you do n¤t like that, help humanity find a n¤vel way to subsume and efface dialectical society.

Meantime decide and vote for whom you feel has most to offer USA's global future. If you want death and destruction vote for one-note-samba stay-the-course fundamentalist head-banging, inquisitors-imperialists, necrolieb and neokan't war hawks, and industrial mercenaries.

If you want peace and healing vote for orchestral~multitonic~multiversal~culturists, intellectual~individual~omniversalists, and gnostic~individualists.

Doug - 4Mar2007.

'Da Clintonistas are scared scatless, aren't they? It is sooooo apparent. Their character inferiority is manifest now, even at their best game, politics.

Great part of all this is that we individuals will simply ask them, like McDonalds, to "Step aside."

It will be fun to watch their tantrums as their antique self built centers of political thought detend them.

They have their own rules. But they aren't working for Hillarious, are they?

"Rules is Tules for Fules."

See how difficult it is for them to adapt? They have learned their own rules mechanically too well. They have stymied their own abilities to adapt, to live at political reality's "edgings of nowings."

Talking points, schmaulking points.

Polls' Tolls.

Status quo's knows job...emerqs a hose job...

Doug - 3Mar2007.

As many of you are aware, Doug is carefully reviewing Elaine Pagels' opus. Dr. Pagels is, Doug opines, a quantum~being. She is, in ancient topos, an elect pneumatic. How can Doug write and imply and infer that? Simply, she mines classical (hylic-psychic) and she refines it into quantum (pneumatic).

Doug is currently reviewing her Beyond Belief. Three paragraphs from that text illustrate how important Elaine Pagels' works are for modern humanity. In a sense, what you may choose to read here represents a previously missing, intentionally hidden, destroyed and maligned part of history: the rest of the story...


[~Mary, some say...Doug comment]

"...and Thomas...

[Didymos AKA Didymus: "twin" Doug comment]

"...give similar accounts of what Jesus taught privately. Unlike Matthew, Mark, and Luke,...

[MML "Synoptics" meaning "same conspective, same view of Jesus' biography...Doug comment]

"...who say that Jesus warned of the coming 'end of time,'...

[This is a powerful tell of (Paul-Saul's) Roman social-dialectical influence
using classical pessimism's eschatonic fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Quantumly, there is n¤ "end time."
Creatio aperio is Light and Light issi quantum flux and flux issi forever!
See Bergson on Radical Finalism...Doug comment]

"...both John and Thomas say that he directed his disciples instead toward the beginning of time — to the creation account of Genesis I — and identify Jesus with the divine light that came into being 'in the beginning.' Thomas and John both say that this primordial light connects Jesus with the entire universe, since, as John says, 'all things were made through the word [logos; or, the light].'

[Doug comment: Readers please observe how that description fits Quantonics' version of quantum reality.
Essentially that light AKA logos carries all of what we currently refer 'realities' multiverses' creatio aperio. In a sense light issi aperio.
See article on photon as holographic quanton.
Classical notions of state-ic creation omnisagrees Quantonics' quantum view that reality as unending pr¤cæss has always been(ings) and will always be(ings).
Students be aware that Doug's italics may be hermeneuted hylically, psychically, and pneumatically.]

"Professor Koester has noted such similarities in detail, and concludes that these two authors drew upon common sources. While Mark, Matthew, and Luke identify Jesus as God's...

[Doug comment: dialectically separate from God-]

"...human agent, John and Thomas characterize him instead as God's own...

[Doug comment: inseparable; quantum~coherent]

"...light in human form.

"Yet, despite these similarities, the authors of John and Thomas take Jesus' private teaching in sharply different directions. For John, identifying Jesus with the light that came into being "in the beginning" is what makes him unique — God's 'only begotten son.' John calls him the 'light of all humanity,' and believes that Jesus alone brings divine light to a world otherwise sunk into darkness. John says that we can experience God only through the divine light embodied in Jesus. But certain passages in Thomas's gospel draw a quite different conclusion: that the divine light Jesus embodied is shared by humanity, since we are all made 'in the image of God.' [Doug's bold.] Thus Thomas expresses what would become a central theme of Jewish — and later Christian — mysticism a thousand years later: that the 'image of God' is hidden within everyone, although most people remain unaware of its presence. [Doug comment: Recall Heraclitus' 'Nature likes to hide.' Doug is con(m)fident Heraclitus was Gn¤stic.]

[Doug comment: But when one complementaroceives

  • quanton(John,Thomas), one sees a
  • quanton(holistic_holographic_lightings,compenetrating_all_humanity)!

[Both John and Thomas c¤mplæmænt one another beautifully! Through quantum~holographic~lightings, Gn¤stically, "each of us issi in Iht and Iht issi in each of us." That is n¤t y~our dad's classically dialectical dichotomy! Rather, John and Thomas are quantum~wh¤læ.

[A test of this religious belief is its applicability to multiverses. We have shown that dialectic is specific and unnatural. Is Gn¤sis applicable multiversally? Doug claims "yæs!" How? Quantum energy, quantum flux is ubiquitous, \ light is ubiquitous. That's a quantum enthymeme! A partial said. "What is its unsaid, Doug?" Quantum flux is ihn all and all is ihn quantum flux! John and Thomas together describe beautifully quantum~reality! Quanton(unsaid,said)! Wow! Wow Mom! G¤¤d G¤d Almighty!!!]

"What might have been complementary interpretations of God's presence on earth became, instead, rival ones; for by claiming that Jesus alone embodies the divine light, John challenges Thomas's claim that this light may be present in everyone. John's views, of course, prevailed, and have shaped Christian thought ever since...

[Doug comment: As I claimed, this text is crucial. We juxtapose an Irenaeun Roman Catholic anti-christ vis-à-vis Thomas Didymos' Jesus~Light! Impact of this is simply enormous, since it shows unambiguously that all anti-gn¤stic 21st century 'catholics' and 'protestants' are currently wors(e)hiping the Roman inane anti-christ! Put that in Light of Muslims calling USA and The West 'Satan.'

[Why does Doug, apparently agreeing with Muslims, call Irenaeus' 'christ' 'anti-christ?'


      • dichon(christ_with_light, humanity_without_light), and (i.e., 'christ' as satanic hegemon)
      • quanton(Jesus_is_Light,Humanity_is_in_Jesus'_Light_and_Jesus'_Light_is_in_Humanity) (i.e., Jesus as Servant and Humanity's Coherent Everywhere~Enlightening Benefactor).]

...For after John's teaching was collected along with three other gospels into the New Testament, his [Doug comment: enthymemetic] view of Jesus came to dominate and even to define what we mean by Christian teaching. Some Christians [Doug comment: proto-anti-gnostic and nascently, Irenaeus.] who championed the "fourfold gospel" — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — of the New Testament denounced the kind of teaching found in the Gospel of Thomas (along with many other writings that they called 'secret and illegitimate') and called upon believers to cast out such teaching as heresy. How this happened, and what it means for the history of Christian tradition, is what this work will explore." Pages 40-41, Vintage paperback, 2003-2005. Footnotes effaced. Doug's bold and color and Doug's brackets are labeled. Pagels' only brackets in those three paragraphs are "[logos; or, the light]."

Please, please, please, if you are 'christian,' read Dr. Pagels' Beyond Belief. Just like our 'War in Iraq,' 'Human-caused global warming,' 'others are infidels,' etc., we have been led astray. Elaine Pagels, et al., are giving us back Gn¤stic Jesus: n¤n-social-n¤n-dialectical quantum~coherent Light inseparable from each of us as quantum~autonomous individuals.

Pagels' quantum~Jesus brings us together, without hate, without jealousy, without war. We see animate, everywhere~associative quantum~included~middlings of Jesus ihn Allah and Allah ihn Jesus.

As we may infer from Pagels' "complementary," Quantonics' quantons:

Light complementary Allah
Jesus complementary Allah
Buddha complementary Allah
Confucius complementary Allah
Mohammed complementary Allah
Humanity complementary Allah

Allah issi ihn G¤d and G¤d issi ihn Allah!

We, each as individuals, are ihn Allah and Allah issi ihn us, each as individuals.

If you kill a human, you are killing part of Allah! You are killing part of self, part of other, quanton(other,self)! Our comma-nospace is what Doug intends by what Pagels means by "complementary."

To Doug's sensibilities Heraclitus, Gandhi, Bergson, James, Ho, et al., would agree. Mayhaps Pagels.

Doug - 7Mar2007.

How to become extinct: "Be stubborn about status quo."

How to survive: "Be persistent at change and adaptation."

Doug - 19Mar2007.

2007 TQS News
December, 2006 through November, 2007                                  TQS News Archive of Prior Years' News



You are here:

Topics: A Novel
in Town...
Parallels on MACInTao,
Latest Review Efforts,
Quantum Computing Breakthrough,
State of Union Lies...
Apple-TV Network Hologram,
Wheeler's Delayed Double-Slit,
Should String Theory Predict?
Light as Gn¤stic Choice, Gn¤stic Ch¤¤sings,
William James' on "Pessimism vav Optimism,"
G5 Quad Increased Performance,
Elgato's EyeTV Hybrid
Doug shouldn't beat up on Hillary Clinton, says Mitch in Australia and other criticisms, and
A response to Mitch from DMD.
A Quantum Love Affair, Elgato EyeTV Hybrid,
Females in Medicine

FireFox Issue, A letter from Rick,

Doug saved best for last...

Doug's Review Progress Jolly's Fast VNC,
Dionne's Liberal Moment, and Defining Wisdom.
On A Super Weapon against Earth, On Apple's OS X Leopard, Pirsig vis-à-vis Dewey and Hume "...embraces radical scepticism..." ?

April, 2007 News:

On Light as Gn¤stic Choice, Gn¤stic Ch¤¤sings ...

You may be aware, as regular readers of TQS News, that Doug is gradually accomplishing a quantum~synthæsis of both science and religion.

What motivates Doug to do this?

Juxtaposition of Two World Views, plus...

...Others' efforts to do it and their concerns with its importance as a means of global human complementary coexistence. Among those others two names immediately come to mind: Scott M. Peck (author of The Road Less Traveled) and Gary Zukav (author of Dancing Wu Li Masters). Doug perceives and intuits that both of those authors grasp essene~sce of quantum as essences' complementary coexistence: An optimistic, happy, harmonious both~and of Haganah and havlagah (see and read carefully that link) if you will. Note that Doug's version of quantum~harmony assumes human hope and efforts to transemerq from omniscordings (classically, 'discordings') toward better. Doug's quantum~better must find its adept expression in quantum~flux. Classical objective thought is inept, and to show you it is so, look up harmony in your unabridged dictionary. You will see mostly classical dialectical objective bilge. Garbage. Stuffs of funda mental hylics and psychics. To use quantum~flux as expression of emerging n¤vælty means: transemerqing from omniscordings toward better, to do that we need n¤væl qualogos, quantum~language, emersos, memes, memeos, and memeotics. We need quantum~heuristics and quantum~hermeneutics. In Quantonics' Lightings™, In Lightings Quanta™, we see a n¤væl way, a n¤væl Chautauqua, a quantum learning adventure...

Too, a very large question motivates Doug: "What is Life?" Enter Erwin Schrödinger, Mae-wan Ho, and Errol E. Harris. Schrödinger wrote a book titled, What is Life? Mae-wan Ho refers it reverently in her the Rainbow and the Worm. Errol E. Harris refers Schrödinger's What is Life? in his Chapter VIII 'The Realm of Life' in his The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science. (Doug note: All three of these texts are must-haves for Quantonics students. Low cost paper editions are available online from Amazon, Alibris - Harris' text, etc. First editions of Harris' text are beau coup $ now, but a paperback can be had for under $30US at Alibris - Amazon wants $180! A full Muirhead library now is about $10kUS.)

You regular readers are k~now~ing Mae-wan is Doug's quantum~biological~shær¤. And Dr. Schrödinger is Doug's quantum~wave~mechanics hær¤. Schrödinger, similar Bohm, is one of few quantum~physicists who actually "got it."

Allow Doug a quantum~lingual synthesis of both What is Life? and Life is Essene~tial Complementary Coexistence as quanton(What_is_Life,Life_is_Essential_Complementary_Coexistence). But how do we as apex sentients on Earth achieve Essene~tial Complementary Coexistence? Doug offers his favorite answer~above~all~answers:

Choice! Selection! Natural selection! Natural heresy!

Errol E. Harris in his exceptional Muirhead Philosophical Library volume The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science claims his answer to What is Life? is some classical notion called auturgy. An ancient word. An archaic word. However, an excellent word.

Let's break auturgy into its syllables: aut[o]~urge. Aut is both self, and automatic. Self as durational~selection~process: quantum~ch¤¤sings. Urge as urgency. A need to pragmatically~ and durationally~becoming.

Now, thinkq~king Gn¤stically, using our quantum~gn¤sis, let's quantum~c¤mplæmæntarily mix those mæmæs: quanton(selection,auturgy). Let's enable h-bar: quanton(sælæction,auhturgy)h. Voila! We emerse a quantonics' script analogue of animate quantum~ræalihty! As in editorials above, quantum_livings quantons(Value,quantons)h.

But Doug, "Objects have n¤ means of gn¤stic hærætical sælæction." Yæs, O'gadon, yæs, however quantons do. See and our critical review of Wheeler's Delayed Choice gedankenment. Light is a wave~phenomenon of photons, and light is aware: photonically, nascently, proteanly, proemially, prokaryotically —since, from, and perpetually ihn all emerscent beginnings— aware...

Doug is in process of critically reviewing Harris' Riddle of Life section 4 nowings... here is a taste of his review of paragraph one of that section:


(Of Errol E. Harris' Chapter VIII 'The Realm of Life' Treatise: The Riddle of Life, Section 4, pp. 173-180, from Harris' The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science, A Muirhead Library Volume.)

(Doug quotes of Harris relevant to Quantonics, Pirsig's MoQ, quantum reality, and other authors reviewed here in Quantonics.)


The relevant [What is Life?] conception here is that of an open system in a steady state. A system that is relatively isolated from its surroundings and in which only those substances already present can react chemically is called a closed (or enclosed) system. In such a system an equilibrium may be attained in which reactions balance each other and entropy is always either maintained (if the reactions are reversible) or increased (if they are not). An open [What is Life?] system, in contrast, is one in which material and energy exchanges are continuously taking place between the substances within the system and those of its surroundings, so that there is a continuous flow of material through it. If in spite of this flow the substances within the system are maintained in, or steadily approach, constant relations and proportions, it is said to be in (or to approximate to) a steady or stationary [AKA equilibrium] state. Such a system may be capable of numerous different stationary states and may change from one to another in response to external changes. [Further, such a system may be an ensemble of subsystems each of which may be open, at and near equilibrium, etc., and themselves be ensembles of subsystems which may be...Doug - 31Mar2007.]

[See state-event mechanical 'equilibrium' graphic in column right - Doug - 28Mar2007.]

Within an open system entropy production is minimal and may in certain circumstances even decrease. 'The second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems', Bertalanffy declares, 'it does not define the steady state.'2 This, of course, is true only

2 Cf. Bertalanffy, op. cit., pp. 126-7; Oparin, op. cit., Ch. VII, and J. W. S. Pringle, in Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, 7, I (1953).

Our brackets, bold and color.

To perhaps open your blinders,

HotMemeOne may n¤t use classical state to describe quantum~reality. HotMeme™.

If you are unfamiliar with classical notions of entropy, you may have some trouble here, understanding what Harris means. To help refresh your personal awareness see some Quantonics links: certain, closed, cohera, constant, entropa, entropy, excluded-middle, external, included~middle, open, state, thermodynamics, ...

You may have read Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers' 1984 Order Out of Chaos. Harris shows us that he grasped essentials of their work. Harris' words here precede theirs, fabulously, almost two decades.

We have mentioned repeatedly elsewhere that physicists' use of 'steady state' assumes a zero momentum reference frame of reality.

Physicists, classical ones, assume reality is stoppable. Of course, most of us are aware now c. 2007, that is impossible. However, as with many notions, physicists just ignore what is impossible and charge ahead no holds barred. Their state-ic tools (tules for fules who use rules...) of classical mechanical analysis are worthless in a dynamic reality, a quantum reality.

Every atom, every quanton in quantum reality is absolutely moving globally in complex cardiodal loops. Too their internals are per intera and pær sæ l¤cally in absolute very high rate adiabatic n¤n Abelian quantum fluxings. Quantum reality shows us that to ignore animate interrelationships of ensembles of quantum locality and quantum globality simply breaks all classical analytic approaches to problem solving. Doug's last sentence explains why few classical physicists can even begin to grasp essentials of these quantum phenomena:

  • flux quantization - which for example explains violet catastrophe, photoelectric effects, and Dirac's tourmaline 'effectless causation,'
  • quantum flux c¤mplæmæntarihty,
  • quantum flux middle~inclusion,
  • quantum flux everywhere~association,
  • quantum flux BAWAM(n¤nl¤cality,l¤cality) - waves as m¤dal unlimited asymptote quantum~likelihood omnistributionings,
  • quantum flux superluminal entangled~phase arbitrary~spatial autocorrelation,
  • n¤nc¤mmutatihvihty ¤f (i.e., n¤n Abelian-ness of; also worry about n¤ndistributivity, n¤nfactorability, etc.; Quantum Value adjusts, adapts with all those quantum~emerqancies'...)
    • measurables,
    • monitorables, and
    • omnitorables,
  • quantum uncertainty as both~all~while
    • microscopic, and~many
    • macroscopic scalable,
  • Bell Inequalities,
  • bosonic l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal superluminal self~other~network awareness,
  • fermionic l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal superluminal self~other~network awareness,
  • scintillation as macroscopic quantum coobsfective awareness phenomena,
  • interference as macroscopic quantum coobsfective awareness phenomena,
  • quantum coobsfection,
  • coquecigrues, and
  • etc. (list is unending...)

To us, 'state' usually means stopped. Compare more quantumesque phase. To us, 'steady' usually means stable and stabile. Compare more quantumesque flux. Compare classical measurement and quantum omnitoring. See our Nature Measures Herself.

We ask "When?" "Where?" We are k~n¤w~ings of n¤ phluxings of quantum reality which have static, localable classical loci and time. Quantum omnitorables: massings, gravityings, spacings, and timings are all quantum flux! N¤ne is stoppable, n¤r holds 'conveniently' still. N¤ne is local n¤r 'conveniently' localable. Quantum reality simply is n¤t classically, dialectically, formally conventional, n¤t mathematically axiomatic, n¤t orthodoxically canonic. All quantum~omnitorables must be complementaroceived as ensembles of plural~participlings of phasicityings.

Fairness, in full light of our criticisms, begs our acknowledgment that only recently have physicists been capable to assess many quantum phenomena. Only recently, roughly since Millennium III, have physicists had qua to emit single photons in a controlled way, and to slow them down to speeds which permit work like's photon holographic image decoding and Wheeler's space-like Delayed Random Choice Recombination (correlation) after Diffraction of single photons.

In light of Harris' nearly half-century earlier insights we can and do praise Harris as an exceptional quantum genius. We emphasize that language, as Niels Bohr and William James, et al., warned, is our largest problem. James told us unambiguously that we cannot use legacy terms to explain and publicize n¤væl quantum phenomena. Quantonics, in that vacuum, has decided however minutely, to commence filling that gap. Older folk reject our work as NIH. Younger folk accept it and can use it to leverage massively larger quantum~progress and advances. Pr¤¤f issi ihn quantum~pudding.

Readers please realize that entropic reality evolves — to deny evolution, one must deny entropy! But we know adiabaticity is real! How?

Harris, as we can read in column left, was keenly aware of at least two classes of entropy:...

  • dissipative, and (classical, Maxwellian, single gradient posentropy)
  • productive (nonclassical, prequantum,

...twenty years prior Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers' book. Quantonics partially filled an entropy vacuum here by adding quantum classes of quatroentropy:

  • posentropy (classical; then subsequently dual gradient versions; nonreversible)
  • negentropy (Schrödinger wrote and believed that this is key to answering his query, What is Life?)
  • zeroentropy (quantum flux, both bosonic and fermionic, above a certain rate is adiabatic, single microstate rather c¤hærent~micr¤phasic, and thus zær¤entr¤pic; partially~reversible)
  • mixentropy (ubiquitous peer-reviewed, documented physical experiments beg this intuition; Mae-wan Ho writes of it in her the Rainbow and the Worm)

It is crucial to understand, as a Quantonics style quantumist, as a quantum~hermeneut, that quantum reality is classically 'illogical.' If one attempts to use classical tools (tools for fools who use rools...) to describe quantum reality, one will fail in one's attempts to do so.


A huge reason, which rears its gorgeous head here, is that quantum reality is enthymemetic. Due Heisenbergian quantum~uncertainty, and quantum~animate everywhere~included~middle~associative holographic c¤mplæmæntation of all quantons — to greater and lesser enfoldments — every quanton and every quanton ensemble is a partial description of reality. Enthymeme means partial logic. But quantum reality isn't classically logical.


Quantum reality is n¤ndialectical, n¤nformal, n¤nmechanical. Instead we say, "quantum~enthymemes are partial~coquecigrues."

From a Doug perspective, a Quantonics c¤mplæmæntar¤spæctihvæ, what better quantum memes did Harris exhibit, in some cases slightly paraphrased?:

  • open systems,
  • flow of material,
  • transmutation borne of change impetus, (proemial and protean affectations of n¤væl quantum emerscence; suggestions of Bergsonian What is Life? élan vital~impetus as DQ, Schrödingerian-negentropy, and Heraclitean "Nature likes to hide" vacuum flux)
  • interrelations among systems and their surroundings, (will o' wisp nascency of potential included~middle)
  • meme of productive entropy AKA negative~gradient posentropy (to good, and quantumly, violates Maxwell's 2nd 'law')

From a Doug perspective, a Quantonics c¤mplæmæntar¤spæctihvæ, what lesser classical notions did Harris exhibit?:

  • notions of steady and state,
  • entertaining a notion that a system might become ideally, classically, closed,
  • entertaining a notion that reversibility may be impartial,
  • notions of energy and material transfers as 'continuous,' (for now, c. 2007, we must assume all energy transfers are quantal)
  • notions of 'constant' relations,
  • etc.

We just offered you a quick quantum vis-à-vis classical tour, as an intro to our critical review of Section 4 of Harris' Riddle of Life.



On William James' reference to Somebody's, NOT James' 'Pessimism leads to weakness. Optimism leads to power.' 'Thoughts are things,' ...

Doug quotes James from his Varieties of Religious Experience, [VoRE] Lectures IV-V:

"But philosophers usually profess to give a quasi-logical explanation of the existence of evil, whereas of the general fact of evil in the world, the existence of the selfish, suffering, timorous finite consciousness, the mind-curers, so far as I am acquainted with them, profess to give no speculative explanation. Evil is empirically there for them as it is for everybody, but the practical point of view predominates, and it would ill agree with the spirit of their system to spend time in worrying over it as a 'mystery' or ' problem,' or in 'laying to heart' the lesson of its experience, after the manner of the Evangelicals. Don't reason about it, as Dante says, but give a glance and pass beyond! It is Avidhya, ignorance! something merely to be outgrown and left behind, transcended and forgotten. Christian Science so-called, the sect of Mrs. Eddy, is the most radical branch of mind-cure in its dealings with evil. For it evil is simply a lie, and anyone who mentions it is a liar. The optimistic ideal of duty forbids us to pay it the compliment even of explicit attention. Of course, as our next lectures will show us, this is a bad speculative omission, but it is intimately linked with the practical merits of the system we are examining. Why regret a philosophy of evil, a mind-curer would ask us, if I can put you in possession of a life of good?

"After all, it is the life that tells; and mind-cure has developed a living system of mental hygiene which may well claim to have thrown all previous literature of the Diätetik der Seele into the shade. This system is wholly and exclusively compacted of optimism: 'Pessimism leads to weakness. Optimism leads to power.' 'Thoughts are things,' as one of the most vigorous mind-cure writers prints in bold type at the bottom of each of his pages; and if your thoughts are of health, youth, vigor, and success, before you know it these things will also be your outward portion. No one can fail of the regenerative influence of optimistic thinking, pertinaciously pursued. Every man owns indefeasibly this inlet to the divine. Fear, on the contrary, and all the contracted and egoistic modes of thought, are inlets to destruction. Most mind-curers here bring in a doctrine that thoughts are' forces,' and that, by virtue of a law that like attracts like, one man's thoughts draw to themselves as allies all the thoughts of the same character that exist the world over. Thus one gets, by one's thinking, reinforcements from elsewhere for the realization of one's desires; and the great point in the conduct of life is to get the heavenly forces on one's side by opening one's own mind to their influx." Pages 106-107 of VoRE, 1902, By WILLIAM JAMES, [(Doug owns a) First Edition, June, 1902.], Longman's Green & Co. Publishers.

First, Doug wants to complain loudly, many folk are quoting that text in bold red as James' own. But it is not! As you may see James has placed those two sentences in single quotes and has referred possibly Mrs. Eddy's opus and possibly Diätetik der Seele ...

[The Hygiene of the Mind; copies of this text in its original German are available ubiquitously at US libraries; IU Library about 60 miles from where we currently visit, has a copy, and it would be fairly easy to see if that is a source of red bolded 'quote.' Doug may do just that...] potential sources, optionally similar 'mind cure' texts. Damn those of you who are misquoting, misattributing James! Doug.

Second, Doug highly doubts you would ever hear James saying those words as his own. James did not view thoughts as things. (Indeed, and commiserating post 1870 James, Doug using quantum nature's own empirical behaviors has shown that there are n¤ 'things.' All is quantons, all is quantonic, all is flux, all is stochastic, all is endless change and evolution.) James did not believe reality is objective. James believed that reality is a plurality of flux, almost spiritual flux.

(Some of you may push back and say, "But Doug fermions are material reality: things!" Doug's response is that fermions are very high rate adiabatic animate flux. Their apparent materiality is merely flux wobble: fermions wobble, bosons do n¤t wobble. Material reality wobbles so that we can sense it, feel it, and interpret it. Nonwobbling immaterial reality of which bosons are a part "like to hide and try to hide." No classicist with whom Doug is familiar would agree that objects flux, that objects are flux. Dialectic's foundations rest in concrete. Dialectic depends upon material, substantial (anti-flux, anti-gnostic, anti-light, anti-pneumatic, indeed classical endarkenment's) immutability for its viability. Quantum reality is absolutely animate and evolute. Amazingly, though, quantum reality is stochastically empirical. That, to Doug, is quantum reality's great omnitorable miracle and its great power. Those who come to understand that, and pursue opportunities borne of that understanding will make huge fortunes in intellectual and material wealth during Earth's next century. Quantum uncertainty while both macroscopic and microscopic is still and yet empirically stochastic. Classicists insist that uncertainty, like pessimism is ideally, dialectically, concretely contrary certainty, like optimism.

("But Doug, I am young, and I want to achieve great intellectual and financial wealth. What should I do?" I'm glad you didn't ask, "What will we do?" Listen young person, if you understand what Doug is saying, your potentia are unlimited. Table top demonstrations of fusion are imminent. Discoveries of free energy (countless ways of doing this) are imminent. All transportation modes are about to change radically, immensely. All communications modes and infrastructure are about to change almost beyond our abilities to anticipate. Human self~agency in self~biological evolution is a huge area of opportunity. Quantum Artificial Sophism (used here in its Greek semantic as wisdom) is a huge area of opportunity. Any meme with quantum~ as a prefix is a huge opportunity. And, if you really "get it," you will invent novelties which humanity hasn't even begun yet to imagine.)

Third, Doug wants to make it clear that whoever did write those words, originally, was indelibly a died-in-wool anti-quantum dialectician par excellence. James spent much of his life attempting to expose dialectic in its countless failings and VoRE leaves little doubt about that. Doug believes it relevant that so did Bruno, Hamann, Bergson, Durant (i.e., William James Durant), EE Harris, Pirsig, Ho, et al. Doug believes it is relevant that quantum reality exposes dialectic as a major failing of human thought and human epistemology, especially human social thought, common thought, tragedy of commons thought. Dialecticians see: either pessimism or optimism. Dialecticians see pessimism as 'opposite' optimism. Yes as 'opposite' no. All dialectical bu()sh()!!!

Really, though, optimism vis-à-vis pessimism is a complementary quantum tell of quantum~reality. Quantum reality as James said is "flux." All is variable. All is waves. All goes up and down and up and down... optimism issi ihn pessimism and pessimism issi ihn optimism...yes issi ihn no and no issi ihn yes... Reality is both pessimism and optimism and pessimism and optimism: quantum waves,

Quantum waves! Flux is crux!

James would have said "Thoughts are 'not' things. Thoughts are 'not' objective. Thoughts are 'not' materially stabile and immutable. Thoughts are memes!"

Do you recall our quantum comparison of religion and science in our review of Dennett's Breaking the Spell, Chapter 8? Let's use a similar QTM approach on optimism vis-à-vis pessimism:

When Doug first prepared this table and similar predecessors, Doug missed a crucial indagative and gravidational hallmark of and for omniscussion. As many of you are k~now~ings Doug gradually is becoming better and better at describing memes quantumly. Doug is at a plateau in his life where it is almost natural for him.

Tables like this one and others in Quantonics which you have seen are very quantum! Why? What is Doug doing here which is just and simply intuitively quantum?

We recognized our qua at this years ago in Doug's review of Clifford Geertz' Available Light. "How so, Doug?" Simply Doug wrote this,

"Geertz' genius erupts again, and it is blunt force traumatic. He says that "the Other" is not a universal Value. All cultural interrelationships taken most simply as dyadic pairs are uniquely and uncertainly changing. And their "the Other" order is important! This is very quantum! We would say in our own script that:

cultural_interrelationshipjk issi quanton(culturej,culturek) issi_n¤t cultural_interrelationshipkj issi quanton(culturek,culturej).

In other more quantum physi-al terms, in general, Poisson's bracket of paired cultural interrelationships (a quanton) does n¤t commute! In summary, n¤ two quantons are ever identical, and n¤ quanton commutes Value, in general. Perhaps we can say this better, anthropologically, using quantonics lingo. Investigator-informant coobsfection is intrinsically (naturally) noncommutable. Using our script, we can show it like this, with a classically subjective 'n¤t_equals:'


Using our quantonic equals, commutability as an issue vacates due asynchronous Planck rate animacies of both informant and investigator:


Geertz calls this cultural interrelationship/Poisson bracket noncommutativity, "irreversibility." Analogously, a quanton of an anthropologist visiting/immersing in a culture is grossly omnifferent from a quanton of an anthropologist and an informant visiting said anthropologist's local culture."

What did Doug do? He saw cultural interrelationshipings as quantum~n¤ncommutative!

Simply, then what is Doug doing in tables like one which immediately follows? He is doing a quantum phase interrelationshipings diagram of two Poisson Brackets! In this case:

PB[Pessimism,Optimism] and PB[Worse,Better].

Classical dyadic truth tables are n¤ longer viable in quantum reality folks! A tell that classical dialectic has failed, and massively so!

A caution: Those four terms are all actual, all "in actuality." To fathom them more carefully we must view each actual vestige (SQ) with its quantum~c¤mplement (DQ) as a quanton, like this:

PB[quanton(N¤nactuality,Pessimism),quanton(N¤nactuality,Optimism)] and PB[quanton(N¤nactuality,Worse),quanton(N¤nactuality,Better)].

Our Quantonics English Language Remediation (QELR) and script affords a shorthand of that:

PBq[Pæssihmism,Øptihmism] amd PBq[W¤rse,Bættær].

See how our QELRs allow words and mnemonics to be quantons, absent lingual burden of showing them explicitly? Cool, eh?

Doug - 6May2007.


  • One may pessimistically believe that a task is 'impossible' to accomplish when it may actually be 'possible.'
  • One may be pessimistic about another person's capabilities without realizing that person may actually be whom you actually need for a task. Observe how some people dredge pessimism based upon color, creed, culture, etc.
  • One may believe that humans are 'causing' global warming and climate change when, indeed, nature is affecting change in ways beyond human qua.
  • Pessimism rests unassured.
  • One may easily be optimistic about accomplishing a task which is 'impossible.' However, claiming a reality that said task is 'impossible' will be viewed as 'pessimistic.'
  • One may be optimistic about a person's abilities to perform a task based upon their success doing another unrelated class of effort. Upon placing that person in a novel problem space, said individual falters from lack of specific problem~handling skills.
  • One may believe that climate has been apparently stable for a 100 years that it will continue to be stable for another 100 years, and perhaps even longer, when reality's norm is that actually climate changes naturally and unpredictably.
  • Optimism rests unassured.
  • Caution may save one from disaster.
  • Uncertainty at all scales of reality begs one to think using probability, plausibility, and likelihood.
  • Understanding Paul Pietsch's phasement, "Indeterminacy is the principal feature of intelligence."
  • Dread staunches over exuberance.
  • Why do you monitor your children while they are waiting for their school bus?
  • An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
  • If I swing without a net I may die.
  • If I kill my neighbor, I may start a clan war which will last for centuries.
  • A war that destroys one's own people and treasure is a lost cause.
  • Confidence may permit one to succeed.
  • Just as in poker, stochastics should guide any optimist's choosings, chancings, and changings.
  • In formal models of reality determinism often works.
  • Hope raises expectations.
  • It's good for your kids to go out and meet the world and experience all: both good and evil.
  • I could worry about everything and never get anything done. 98% of what I worry about never happens, and the 2% which does happen I am incapable of anticipating which those are. (Doug ran a very successful business based upon this, but same business now, 20+ years later would fail, for countless reasons due absolute change of business ephemera. In early Millennium III what works changes almost daily, with even higher surety monthly. State of art c. 2007 is wMBU™ Doug's acronym for wave~Management By Uncertainty.)
  • Don't worry. Be happy.
  • If I love my neighbor s~he will love me.

Those lists are endless. (Optimism?) We can spend a life time accumulating examples and we'll never 'finish.' (Pessimism?)

"Doug, what is essence here?" Simply, reality is a kind of both~all~while~and~many. By comparison, and what most Earth people believe: either-or is a classical, analytic, formal dualism which oversimply 'models' reality and seduces minds into believing 'opposites,' and 'contraries' actually 'exist,' when in reality they simply do n¤t 'exist' we have shown. Latter type of thingking says one must absolutely align, for example, optimism with good and pessimism with bad. Since we have been trained to adhere dialectic, some of us believe, dialectically just the 'opposite:' optimism aligns bad and pessimism aligns good. But those two dialectical views may be shown as invalid: sometimes one view appears to hold and other times its 'opposite' appears to hold. In some contexts one works while other 'fails,' and vice versa. Dialectic may easily be shown both inconsistent and incomplete. Simply, there are n¤ dialectical absolutes! There is only one quantum absolute and iht challenges ihtsælf: "Changæ issi abs¤lutæ." Quanta wave. Flux is crux.

Dialectic's formal analytic stux sux!

Our lesson, moral to our story here, is when people are using dichons to describe their views of reality, try to help them learn to use quantons instead. Our table above is a good approach. It shows that even though a coin has two sides, it isn't just an either-or, in reality it issi a both~all~while~and~many. Quantonics HotMeme Reality is more like a flipped coin in zero gravity, than a leaf from a money tree always landing either heads or tails. Quantonics HotMeme™.

An ultimate quantum~optimism: sentient spirit is forever positive and unstoppable.

An ultimate quantum~pessimism: quantum~relative good and bad, better and worse, etc., are forever changing and unstoppable.

"So how do we wMBU™ that, Doug?" Just A Just!

Doug - 4-31Mar2007.



Thank you for reading,

Doug - 1Apr2007.

See you here again in early May, 2007!




To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2021 — Rev. 22Jun2012  PDR — Created 2Mar2007  PDR
(2,6Apr2007 rev - Single, minor typo. Add 'Pessimism and Optimism' anchor to our Better~Worse table.)
(21Apr2007 rev - Add a 'How to Make a System Ideally Insecure' anchor. Repair January News links.)
(25Apr2007 rev - Rearranged bullet lists under Harris-Prigogine entropy discussion.)
(6May2007 rev - Repair a 'space' typo ' (ings)' to '(ings '. Add red text Poisson Brackets comments.)
(3-4Jun2007 rev - Typos. Minor red text adjustments. Add Beyond Belief anchor.)
(5Mar2008 rev - Add subtitle to editorial on anti coversion techniques.)
(7Sep2008 rev - Update 'Insecurity Requirements.')
(8Nov2008 rev - Replace wingdings and symbol fonts with gifs. Reset legacy markups.)
(15Apr2009 rev - Add 'quantization' anchor and 'phase' link.)
(15May2009 rev - Add 'Errol E Harris Auturgy' anchor.)
(9Jul2009 rev - Add 'Adiabaticityings' anchor.)
(23Aug2009 rev - Repair a missing right parenthesis.)
(10Jun2012 rev - Repair lost cellular apoptosis link in editorial near What is Life?)
(22Jun2012 rev - Repair QELR of 'complementary' under 'Insecurity.')