Arches

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

---

for Adjunct Quantonic Learning including:

In alphabetical order -

A Beautiful Mind, 459 total pages including index, by Sylvia Nasar, Touchstone, 1998. A biography of John Forbes Nash (1928 - )

Nasar's recent book, now made famous by Ron Howard's movie of same title, fits uniquely within our many Quantonic areas of study. John Nash is a near perfect analogue of William James Sidis, Steppenwolf (Harry Haller), Robert M. Pirsig, Kurt Gödel, and countless other quantum beings who struggle while trying to survive in an ugly classical world. Her book is n¤t a novel. Rather it is a documentary of all her biographical notes about John Forbes Nash. Her notes burgeon, literally. As a researcher, she is superb, and amazingly thorough. Her grasp of most concepts (excepting quantum memes) is superb. Extent of her grasp appears, sadly, limited-classical. We are torn: Whether to review this text. Thoughtfully, instead, we choose to offer this brief note, and intend to comment and quote more extensively in our January, 2002 News. More recently, 9Aug2003, we moved our review of ABM to its own separate web page. Read this book only if you have a deep need to know boundless and endlessly repeating details of John Forbes Nash's sad, sad, sad life. Our (few) brightening moments in A Beautiful Mind occur when we glean quintessence of Nash as a genuine quantum being whose greatest need and desire, like Sidis, Steppenwolf and Phædrus, is to somehow escape classical culture's obscene and objective mental tornado. John Forbes Nash intuits quantum reality, even is quantum real, but his classical training and coerced immersion in fundamental legacy cultural contexts (both academic-scientific and religious) impede his commingling cowithin quantum reality. Onset of Nash's 'insanity' coincides his transcohesion among n¤vel quantum realms — as if he has begun emersing his unlimited quantum c¤mplements — and attempts to pattern-categorize and -interpret them classically. However, as Nash apparently found, and as Henri Louis Bergson warns us, one may not use classical mathematics to classically analyze quantum reality. Doug - 29Jan2002, and 9Aug2003.

A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking, Bantam, 1988
A Pattern Language, by Christopher Alexander, Oxford UP, 1977
10. A PreSocratics Reader, by Patricia Curd (ed.) & Richard D. McKirihan Jr. (tr.), Hackett, 1995 (selected fragments & testimonia; both authors appear to us as SOMitic dialecticians - Doug)
About Time, by Paul Davies, Simon & Schuster, 1995
An Introduction to Metaphysics, by Henri Louis Bergson, GP Putnam, Sons, ~1903-1910
Ancient Greek Philosophy - From Thales To Aristotle, edited by S. Marc Cohen, Patricia Curd, and CDC. Reeve, Hackett, 1995
Available Light, by Clifford Geertz, PUP, 2000 (To us, Quantum Light! We reserve that title for a future Quantonics textbook.)
Chaos, by James Gleick, Penguin Books, 1987

Here is a legacy, 1988, review by Doug when he owned SCS, Inc. and was doing consulting at Magnavox Military Systems in Fort Wayne, IN, USA. As you will be able to see, Doug was much more of a classicist then than now. Some changes have been made since this was originally written. Here are some nifty text extractions from Chaos by James Gleick. These will make it clear to you whether you should invest time in reading it. If you want to be current (c. 1988) in systems theory, this is a must for you. It is easy to read. Here are some flavors: 'Linear systems have an important modular virtue: you can take them apart, and put them together again--the pieces add up [are integrable]. "Nonlinear systems generally cannot be solved and cannot be added together." "Feigenbaum was looking at things...and seeing things that physicists had learned not to see." "Lorenz's paper...Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow" (Clearly today, in 2003, we do not view quantum fractals as DNF! Rather we view them as Nondeterministic Periodic Flow (imagine a faucet dripping, and heart sinus rhythm, etc.). Quantum reality, viewed fractally may n¤t use mechanics to do self-reference. Why? Self-reference today literally means both partheno-self-referencing and other-both-local-and-nonlocal-referencings emerging together due their intrinsic coobsfective quantum included-middles.) Quantum reality is an absolute flux reality. Quantum flux self-refers: it is fractally-recursive. Essence of quantum EIMA. It is quantum sophism at its finest. That quantum sophism is source and agency of what makes fermions wobble and fermionic wobbling is what enables what classicists call 'material reality.' To any classicist such quantum phenomena are referred often as infinite regress ("vicious circle"). Classicists see infinite regress as an evil which must be avoided. We find great humor in that classical conspective. A fascinating correlation here is how classical Copenhagen 'Quantum Theory' is classically mechanical and needs to (as Dirac describes so eloquently) zero h-bar in order to make quantum mechanics classically understandable and formal. Another is Riemann's hypothesis which requires 'infinite regress' to generate (fractal-recursively Planck rate sweep) its fermionic 1/2 critical line. Doug 19Mar2004.   "Topology is geometry on rubber sheets. It concerns the qualitative rather than the quantitative. It asks, if you don't know the measurements, what can you say about overall structure." (These statements are much closer to retaining clarity and meaning in terms of today's quantum think-king modes: "qualitative immeasurability" in face of absolute absence of ideal classical state.) Aside - 29Aug2006: We did not grasp a basic classical vav quantum issue in that bullet item way back in 1988. Topology, classically, is a 'mathematics' which studies systemic similitude and verisimilitude of "shape invariance." Topology shares invalid 'mathematical' notions with Einstein's own relativistic foundational presumption: 'invariant geometric interval.' Quantum reality is absolute flux: Consistent - always changes, and Complete - changes all. Classicists can imagine, delusionally, notions of "invariance," through their mental blindness borne of zeroing h-bar. But quantum reality's absolute flux requires h-bar to run forever at Planck's rate. H-bar's absolute presence makes all these classical notions bogus: zero momentum, stopped frames of reference, shape invariance, geometric interval invariance, stopped pendula, measurement of 'objects' which 'hold still,' measurement of phase at a 'point,' this list of classical bogosity is nearly unlimited, etc. Doug. End aside. "Linking topology and dynamical systems is the possibility of using a shape [form] to help visualize the whole range of behaviors of a system. For a simple system, the shape might be some kind of a curved surface; for a complicated system, a manifold of many dimensions...If you can visualize the shape you can understand the system." (In Quantonics, in 2003, we replace 'shape/form' with emerq and 'dynamical systems' with emerscents.) "Nonlinear systems with real chaos were rarely taught and rarely learned...But people have to know about disorder if they are going to deal with it...Yorke...sent a message to physicists: Chaos is ubiquitous; it is stable; it is structured...Complicated systems can be understood in terms of easy discrete maps... Chaos should be taught...It was time to recognize that the standard education of a scientist gave the wrong impression...it inevitably misled scientists about their overwhelmingly nonlinear world." (Yorke's message holds only for radically mechanical classical systems.) "...Scholz believed that his profession was in a quandry. In truth, no framework existed." Compare this to my statement in the FEB (~1987) letter to Daniel D. Nelson at Magnavox MS that "...the foundations have not been laid." "Fractal descriptions found immediate application in a series of problems connected to the properties of surfaces [contexts] in contact with one another." (Compare Doug's use of context here with his Millennium III uses of quantum comtext.) "Fractal geometry...gives you the mathematical and geometrical tools to describe and make predictions." (Classical y=f(t) predictions are simply impossible in quantum reality! Feigenbaum discovered this when he had to reinitialize, to an earlier backed up date, his set of three weather-predicting nonlinear equations after a power failure. He ran them up to where said power failure occurred and results did not match. That power failure was like a butterfly flapping its wings altering subtly all future Earth weather. But what we know today is that butterfly affect is happening ubiquitously at up to Planck rates, thus making any radically mechanical exact predictions simply impossible. But chaotic scaling was still there! And Feigenbaum found a n¤vel natural con(m)stant: 4.6692...! In a population logistics 'equation' this appears as reductions of generational bifurcation spacings by that con(m)stant. See Hofstadter's GEB and Metamagical Themas for good coverage of this topic.) Re: The intent of Infodynamics (a then new corporation founded by Doug). "...the equations of fluid flow [form] are in many contexts dimensionless, meaning that they apply without regard to scale." This is what Doug has been trying to say. This is Doug's intuition. It implies to Doug that there are standard equations (sets of information) for various classes of form. (This illustrates in spades Doug's then deep immersion in classical mechanics. It can show those of you, Mitch, Alais, Henry, AH, Dan,..., who may think it impossible to climb out of SOM's box, that it can be done.) "And theoretical biologists began to speculate that fractal scaling was not just common but universal in emergent/emerscent morphogenesis." (WOW!!!!) (Today, in 2003, we know that nature is a quantum cohesion of countless sophisms. What are sophisms? Animate self-referent recursions. What animates Nature's quantum sophisms? Planck rate quantum vacuum flux and its subharmonics. How do quantum sophisms self-refer? They are all naturally co-aware via their macroscopic and unlimited quantum probability distribution (we should use ¤mnistrihbuti¤n here) included-middles which we call "everywhere included-middle associativity!" We just described a quantum fractal Nature. More and better WOWs! Astutes, adepts, O'gadons will intuit immediately too that we just described a massive multiversal hologram! Doug - 29Aug2006.) "The structures that provided the key to nonlinear dynamics proved to be fractal." (WOW_WOW!!!) "Something about these functions must be recursive, he realized, self-referential, the behavior of one guided by the behavior of another hidden inside it." (And now we know that "the behavior" of any quanton is n¤nclassical and in itself capable of self-modifying emergence..., i.e., photons, electrons, and atoms both self and other refer..., Dirac, Philip R. Wallace, et al., have shown this self reference is source and agency of quantum interference which 'causes' diffraction patterns of light and dark..., See Wallace's Paradox Lost, and Dirac's The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (below), and see Beams of Stuff...if Wallace wets your whistle search for more on Wallace under Satinover's Quantum Brain) "Universality made the difference between something beautiful and useful...Feigenbaum gave it a clothing that physicists would recognize as a tool for calculating, almost something standard...Universality meant that different systems would behave identically ('identical' is an inappropriate term here; natural/physial sophisms are self-similar in several ways that we know about: co-awareness, coobsfectiveness, up to Planck rate animacy, emerscenture, etc.; see identity; see Aristotle) ... he believed that his theory expressed a natural law about systems..." See our law. "It's a general description of what happens in a large variety of systems when things work on themselves again and again." (This is a superb, classical one-line description of quantum reality. We need to fix its "what happens" causality by changing it to "whatings happenings nextings." We need to change 'things' to quantons. It only needs two more qualifiers: Bergson's 1 - Nature is animate, and 2 - 'objects' in Nature compenetrate one another.) "The only things that can be universal, in a sense, are scaling things...What artists have accomplished is realizing that there's only a small amount of stuff that's important, and then seeing what it was." (a la DNA) (We still, 15 years later, find this quote tantalizing... In particular, what does this mean for quantum uncertainty? Zeno tried to show us ~2500 years ago that what we, today, call "quantum uncertainty," scales...Doug. Quantons and their EIMA semper flux scalings are those small multiversal stuffings which are, for Millennium III, important!) Gleick hints at Ockhamistic minimalism here. That classical notion is invalid in quantum reality. DMD helped us to grasp this in his recent July, 2006 dialogues with us. See our August, 2006 TQS News. Also see our A Quantum Pendulum's simplicity. "Behind the particular, visible shapes of matter must lie ghostly forms serving as invisible templates." (a la DNA; WOW!!!) "'Strange Attractors, Chaotic Behavior, and Information Flow' circulated that year in a preprint edition that eventually reached 1000, the first painstaking effort to weave together information theory and chaos." "Chaos was the creation of information... (WOW, WOW, WOW!!!)...But chaos—deterministic and patterned—pulls the data into visible shapes." (There is n¤ classical determinism in quantum real fractals, only in classical, radically mechanistic, mathematical fractals.) AND FINALLY, REAL RESONANCE: "We were trying to come up with a language to quantify it and describe it, but it still seemed as though everything would have to be treated case-by-case. We saw no way to put systems in classes and write solutions that would be valid for a whole class, as in linear systems. Universality meant finding properties that were exactly the same in quantifiable ways for everything in that class. Predictable properties. That's why it was really important." (This entire quote is mired in deluded SOMitic classicism.) Jump to 23Jan2003 — Of course, now, in retrospect what Gleick was writing about in Chaos is what Doug calls today "classical fractals." Gleick is writing about linear and nonlinear classical mechanics. Most of that is inapplicable in a Bohmian non-mechanical quantum reality.

 

Creative Evolution, by Henri Louis Bergson, Henry Holt & Co., 1911

This book is, in Doug's opinion, mandatory reading for those of you who want to survive an imminent quantum tsunami. To get a quick perusal see our review at link above. Moochos buenoisimo quantum, Pirsigean, Quantonics, etc., perspectives there by Doug.

Charles Renouvier - Philosopher of Liberty, by William Logue, LSU Press, 1993

(Currently (late 2000) all Renouvier's prolific works are available only in French.) Renouvier majorly influenced William James' dramatic conversion from monism to pluralism. James' pluralism affected his growing quantum intuitions which paralleled significantly Bergson's. Doug.

Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead, by Lucien Price, Mentor, 1954, 1st printing, 1956
Early Quantum Electrodynamics - A Source Book, by Arthur I. Miller, CUP, 1994
English Words - from Latin and Greek elements, by Donald M. Ayers, UAP-Tucson, 1986
Fermat's Enigma, by Simon Singh, 1997, Walker and Company

Simply excellent, esp. mathematics' objective dependencies on absolute truth.

Genius, by James Gleick, Vintage, 1992 (Pay attention to Feynman's intuitions re: fermions and 'wobble.')
Grammatical Man, by Jeremy Campbell, Simon & Schuster, 1982.

Nexus to John, ch. 1, v. 1-14 occurred reading this ~1985-7. See The Gold Bug Variations, below. Get that, "You're not alone feeling."

Guidebook to ZMM, by Disanto & Steele, Quill, 1990 (good anecdotes here, ample perspectives)
Homo Faber, by Max Frisch, Harcourt Brace & Co., 1959 (very adult, SOMesque/Randian themes)
I Ching, by Karcher and Ritsema, Barnes & Noble, 1995 (see our Aug99QQA)
In the Beginning, by John Gribbin, Little Brown, 1993
John Buridan on Self-Reference, by G.E. Hughes, CUP, 1982 (A treatise on Buridan's sophisms.)
2. Lila-An Inquiry Into Morals, by Robert M. Pirsig, Bantam, 1991 (see Renselle review at http://www.amazon.com)
Magister Ludi, by Hermann Hesse, Henry Holt & Co., 1943, AKA The Glass Bead Game

1946 Nobel Prize for Literature See our June, 2000 News micro review of this book.

Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, by John von Neumann, Princeton UP, 1955
Matter and Memory, by Henri Louis Bergson, 1908 (Review pending after review of his Time and Free Will.)
Mind, Brain, and the Quantum - The Compound ‘I,’ by Michael Lockwood, Blackwell, 1989
Notes on the Synthesis of Form, by Christopher Alexander, Harvard UP, 1964
On the Interpretation & Philosophical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics, by Anton Zeilinger,

http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/c7/c704/qo/philosop.html (this link is stale; see link directly above)

Order Out of Chaos, by Ilya Prigogine & Isabelle Stengers, Bantam, 1984
Oryx and Crake, by Margaret Atwood, DoubleDay, 2003,

Interesting due Atwood's extreme creativity, imagination, intellect, intuition, and instinct regarding Earth's future. Genius! Our alternate, suggested title might be Disagister Ludi - 'A Look at Corporate Retrophagealism.' Atwood has more ~Celtic succuba in her pen fingers than most authors have, period. Clearly, only Doug's opinion. If you will, please c¤mjur: ~quanton(Atwood,quanton(Hesse,Hemingway)). Also quanton(Soylent_Green,Castalia). Lots of quantum comnections and future bio-product memes. Emphasizes presciently futures of biosciences in quantum-local Earth evolution. She rouses our Geertzian quantum antih-antih too, e.g., on page 284, first full paragraph: "He'd meant well, or at least he hadn't meant ill." Classically, "well" and "ill" are 'exact' predicable 'opposites,' contraria sunt complementa, with SOM's 'excluded-middle' wall ideally 'separating' them. So why does Atwood arbiter such nuance? (As Geertz did, paraphrased, "What does anti anti relativism mean?" A dual: what is minus minus you? What is not not you? What is anti anti you? Anti anti any 'thing?')  We believe she has quantum tendencies. She appears to intuit negation as subjective. Yes! That's it! Atwood has quantum intuitions, like so many other folk we write about here in Quantonics. Her 'not' in "hadn't" is quantum n¤t. But her novel fonts do not yet reflect that aspect of her literary nuance(s). To Atwood, quantum-correctly we believe, 'not' is subjective. To us Atwood correctly assesses SOM's schism as essence of most-all Earth's current negatives and problematics. See large paragraph mid-page 85 of hardbound 1st ed., 379 total pages including Abouts. Our view is that Earth's individuals and societies who believe in (theory) and live in (practice) SOM are generating Babelian objective negations which are self-destructive. Atwood shows us one probabilistic mode of outcomes borne on those negations. However, Atwood's own apparent theory and practice are evolving her away from SOM and toward a more physial reality. How many of us are riding similar actinics of Quantum Lightings? But Atwood isn't there yet. Her cure is, in lieu of quantum individual and social pattern understanding, a pill. She calls it "BlyssPluss!" We can't wait to finish this. How close is Oryx to Orpha? Is Oryx Neo sapiens ne¤ sapiens? Done...Yummm... Atwood's Oryx and Crake quantum-ending: a Schrödinger Cat's Eye. Last time Doug felt like this was after drinking a double sambuca just before bed... not for youngin's... See Victoria Brownsworth's Oryx and Crake review. Aside: Beth and Doug were talking about her book club's potential for reviewing this superb book. While telling Beth about it, Doug had another of those epiphanous flashes from "reserve energy." It occurred to Doug that he had missed a major aspect of what this book is about in terms of Pirsig's MoQ philosophy! Recall that Pirsig's MoQ has four layers: Intellectual (most highly evolved) Societal Biological Inorganic Below his Inorganic layer is what Pirsig calls "chaos." Doug views it as DQ phenomena in quantum isoflux. Above his Intellectual layer Pirsig says is absent, since Intellect is an evolutionary "apex." Many students of Pirsig's MoQ omnisagree, but that is only a technical issue which is fun to debate. For example, if intellect is currently gnostically 'psychic,' AKA dialectical, we are deliriously confident that gn¤stic pneumatic intellect, AKA quantum, lies above it. One of Pirsig's finest examples is one which warns about what happens when Intellect gains its reward of being most evolved and perhaps takes revenge on Society and annihilates it. We, now in retrospect, believe that is just what Atwood describes in this novel! Oryx and Crake describes this happening: Intellectual (most highly evolved) Societal Biological Inorganic Also, we see it starting to cusp in Western societies early in Millennium III. So, Intellect, be forewarned. Change society to become more quantum and less classical, but do not destroy it in y~our own evolutionary processes. Oryx and Crake describes what happens when Biology and Intellect interrelate without Social mediation! Doug, of all people, missed this. Just goes to show how blind we can be even when we are proselytizing others remove their blinders. Touché. End aside. Doug - 5Oct2006.

Paradigms Lost, by John L. Casti, Morrow, 1989
7. Paradox Lost - Image of the Quantum, by Philip R. Wallace, Springer, 1996

Wallace is just superb! Fathomable understanding here. Better is emerging! We are re-nibbling at this text. It is a real joy. Wallace has some classical moments, but mostly his intuitions are quantum. As a teacher, at McGill, he knows how to describe memes to make them easier to grasp and understand. Would that he were our mentor! Doug - 29Oct2002. See our discussions re: Wallace's work in our review of Jeffrey Satinover's The Quantum Brain.

Parallel Universes, by Fred Alan Wolf, Simon & Schuster, 1988
Perfume, by Patrick Süskind, Penguin, ~1992

We read this text first in Spring-Summer, 1993 (while almost totally miserable in hot and humid Plano). It is a novel, a drama, a murder story and an incredibly fun read. We enjoyed it so much we purchased Penguin's 8.5 hour, unabridged audio of it, rendered beyond competently, by Sean Barrett. If you check Amazon's book reviewers you may find some disenchanted folk. Mostly SOMites and dialectical classicists we suspect. Baggott calls them "naive realists," and Jarrett calls them "local relativists." But from a more quantum and MoQite, sophist perspective... If you grew up listening to Green Hornet, Inner Sanctum, Amos & Andy, ??? of the Royal Mounted Canadian Police, The Shadow, Sky King, Herbert Philbrick Counter-Counter Agent, etc., listening to this audio version might bring tingling déjà vus. You may enhance listening to this in a minimally lighted room while sipping a glass of fine brandy or a B&B with strong and buttery Timor espresso. (One of Doug's favorite ways to read and listen. Of course when he did that as an adolescent, it was very hot and strong real chocolate cocoa with marshmallows. :) We recommend Perfume due its protagonist's extreme quantum olfactory senses, his extreme and recursive schizophrenias, his Salvan Powder-like entry into humanity's multiverses, his stindyanicities, his self-exile, his chimeric creations, his... Beware, violet lovers! Süskind's language is quantum even while recognizing languages' comparable ineptnesses to our other, especially olfactory, quantum communications. In Perfume, we find countless examples of general synaesthesia, yet what that is appears to not be described. Grenouille appears to us as a genuine olfactory synaesthete. His world is synaesthetic. He lives synaesthetically. This is profound! That Süskind can pull this off is profounder! Imagine trying to do this as a movie... And Redford thought it would be difficult to do Pirsig's ZMM. Perfume's protagonist (Grenouille; "Grenwee") reminds us in some very specific ways of Hannibal Lecter. His 'memory palace' is more focused but just as bountifully fledged as Lecter's. Grenouille knows "millions of scents." Grenouille, using tacit intuitions and instincts, can entangle, co-here, and co-inside scents optimally for human pleasure and desire and do it better than any other human. Quantum emerscitecture over mechanical method. Nature over form. Quality over quantity. Great humor too, with one character flinging massive quantities of bull semen in his wheat fields to genetically spawn a milk flower chimera from which he makes a goat-like cheese. You may laugh out loud at this queer but scenetic-apropos prose. We did, with great vigor. This whole sequence, subsequent to Grenouille's debut from self-exile, is loaded with supra, almost protoproemial inelegancies. Sought...the G¤d scent... This book, in our quantum landscape, is delectable, scrumptious. Doug - July, 2003 from Oregon...

Philistine and Genius, by Boris Sidis, Moffat Yard & Co., 1911
Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory, by Cushing & McMullin, UNotreDameP, 1989
Philosophy of mathematics - Selected readings, Edited by Paul Benacerraf & Hilary Putnam, CUP, 2nd ed. reprint 1987 (original 1st ed. was 1964)
Physics of Waves, by Elmore and Heald, Dover, 1969
QED, by Richard P. Feynman, PUP, 1985 (Feynman at his best; one foot rooted in classical physics.)
QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga, by Silvan S. Schweber, PUP, 1994 (Superb Holtonesque history.)
Quantum Chromodynamics, by F. J. Yndurain, Springer-Verlage, 1983
Quantum Chromodynamics, 2nd ed., by Walter Greiner, Stefan Schramm, Eckart Stein, Springer-Verlage, 1994, 2002 (1st glance: just superb!)
Quantum Electrodynamics - 34 Selected Papers, Edited by Julian Schwinger, Dover, 1958 (The papers which founded QED.)
Quantum Mechanics and Experience, by David Z Albert, Harvard UP, 1992
Quantum Reality, by Nick Herbert, Anchor Books, 1985 (See Nick's site for his other books.)
Quantum Theory and Measurement, Ed. By Wheeler & Zurek, Princeton UP, 1983
Quantum Theory, by David Bohm, Dover, 1951
Rudiments of Quantum Theory, by Prof. Dan Thomas at University of Guelph, Canada

http://www.chembio.uoguelph.ca/educmat/chm386/rudiment/RUDIMENT.HTM

Science and Hypothesis, by Henri Poincaré, Dover, 1905 (original)
Science and Method, by Henri Poincaré, Antony Rowe, 1914 (original)
Scientific Indeterminism and Human Freedom, Henry Margenau, Archabbey Press, 1968
Six Easy Pieces, by Richard P. Feynman, Addison Wesley, 1963
Six Not-So-Easy Pieces, by Richard P. Feynman, Addison Wesley, 1963
Some Problems of Philosophy, by William James (Sidis' godfather and namesake), Bison Books, reprint from 1911 1st ed.
Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, by J.S. Bell, Cambridge UP, 1987
Stalking the Wild Pendulum, by Itzhak Bentov, Dutton 1977-8, Bantam - 1979

This is a fabulous little book, except... Its subtitle is 'On the Mechanics of Consciousness.' So we see that this text describes a classically mechanical consciousness. Too, and like Einstein and other classicists, Bentov, assumes classical reality is stoppable. So he describes his luscious phenomena in terms of 'stable classical frames of reference,' and 'rest,' and 'zero momenta.' If one takes Bentov's phenomena, and applies Quantonics' n¤n classical hermeneutics, some really fab and dek EIMA experiences emerge. Bentov describes some phenomena which are n¤vel (we haven't used any hallucinogenics or mind-altering drugs except alcohol and coffee) in our realm, so we find this text worthwhile if one keeps in mind its classical (problematic) underpinnings. Bentov's description of a 'wild' pendulum is purely classical. He Feynmanesque entraps his pendulum in a classically ideal ("quantum unreal") frame of reference which may be stopped, "at rest." As such his pendulum swings at their extremes, classically 'stop.' But quantum reality, we aræ k-nowings issi abs¤lute pr¤cess(ings) amd thus unstoppable in any classical sense. Bentov shows his 'wild' pendulum swinging in an ideal, path-self-replicating arc. Well, in quantonics, that view isn't very wild, certainly not wild enough. No such ideal pendulum arc is possible in quantum reality! And certainly said pendulum does not ideally, classically stop at its arc extrema. Assume pendulum's period is one classical temporal second. Just due earth's solar orbit alone, full period repetitions of said pendulum's arc are about 18 miles apart! It should be clear to you that his description of a pendulum's swing "resting" at arc's 'ends' is classically bogus! If you know of Lissajous, (AKA Bowditch curve; Bowditch is author of a superb text called American Practical Navigator which may be purchased for a song through US gov't. printing office; Lissajous patterns classically ~show 'what happens' when quantum reality mixes its absolute flux; classicists have idealized Lissajous, for example, by saying that two decoherent (ideal transverse) sinusoids may be temporally-indefinitely phase identical; that can only happen in quantum reality among coherent and isocoherent fluxes; and by saying that Lissajous patterns may be closed; quantum reality is absolutely open, and as such ideal classical closure of any Lissajous pattern is quantumly impossible - Doug -7Sep2003.), you may be capable of fathoming what a quantum pendulum's swing quantum-actually looks like, except that no classical beginning and ending 'exists' for quantum pendula. Why? Quantum reality is unstoppable, incapable of any classical notion of rest. Rest is a key concept in Bentov's little book. So we have to question any notions he builds upon any 'classically reproduced' notions of rest. Among all classical texts we have read, this one comes closest to approaching a simile of quantonics. If you find it difficult, even impossible (as, for example, Henry Osho does) to understand Quantonics' version of quantum memes and absolutely emerging quantum realities, read this little book. It is purely classical, but offers classical subtleties which may lay ground work for further facultative forays In Quantonics. Bentov's included-middle metaphor is very quantum. It is a great example of what we, in quantonics, mean by quantum included-middle. Bentov calls it "whole spectrum interaction." However, his included-middle is presented as happening in what we call quantum "actuality." Bentov hints at a Steinian ~notion of quantum nonactuality-nonspace, but attaches it classically to actuality. Typical SOMitian behavior. Doug - 3-7Sep2003. (We just started reading this during August, 2003, during our latest retreat in Oregon. Found it on a previous visit in a Depoe Bay, OR used book store. Bentov offers countless memes similar to quantonics, e.g., mechanical versions of: ubiquitous consciousness, spectral energy included-middle, etc. It should be a fun read for classicists, and an instructive, via quantum c¤mplementary c¤mparis¤ns, read for students of Quantonics.) See link above in book title to our other related and much more critical mini~review, A Quantum Pendulum.

Stephen Hawking's Universe, by John Boslough, Quill, 1985
Steppenwolf, by Hermann Hesse, Henry Holt & Co., 1929

Samuel Rosenberg, in his The Come As You Are Masquerade Party, saw many strong resemblances twixt William James Sidis and Harry Haller, Hesse's protagonist in Steppenwolf. Having just finished our own first time pleasurable read of Steppenwolf on 5Aug2001, we agree. Our own heuristics regarding William James Sidis align well Hesse's depiction of Haller. We can list a few examples here for your consideration: Schizophrenia (Hesse: "schizomania," wolf-and-human Harry), which we see as a precursive quantum tell of Neosapiens, i.e., Homo sapiens' next imminent emergence (one example of our Quantonics evidence for this is relentlessly emerging n-somias on all 23 pairs of chromosomes). Connections: WJS - many people thought William, at times, appeared lupine, even lycanthropic; Pirsig - his former pre-annihilation-ECS 'therapy' self he refers "Phaedrus." "Human life is reduced to real suffering, to hell, only when two ages [e.g. paradigms], two cultures and religions overlap." P. 24, Steppenwolf. Hesse shows Haller (as was Sidis) in midst of a culture overlap of Subject-Object Metaphysics (essentially Victorianism) and its successor Cultural Relativism. Please consider how, 100 years later, we are now in another culture overlap of CR and MoQ/quantum. "No prospect was more hateful or distasteful to him than that he should have to go to an office and conform to daily and yearly routine and obey others. He hated all kinds of offices, government or commercial, as he hated death, and his worst nightmare was confinement in barracks. He contrived, often at great sacrifice, to avoid all such predicaments. It was here that his strength and his virtue rested." P. 52, Steppenwolf. This fits WJS to a tee. "He who is developed far beyond the level possible to the bourgeois, he who knows the bliss of meditation no less than the gloomy joys of hatred and self-hatred, he who despises law, virtue and common sense, is nevertheless captive to the bourgeoisie [i.e., middle-classes] and cannot escape it." P. 61, Steppenwolf. Hesse describes a bourgeois as what we call a SOMite, however, in Quantonics all classical thinkers (aristocrats, bourgeoisie, and proletariat) are SOMites regardless of social class status. "If we pause to test the soul of the Steppenwolf [wolf of the steppes; phædrus], we find him distinct from the bourgeois in the higher development of his individuality—" P. 61, Steppenwolf. "Humor has always something bourgeois in it, although the true bourgeois is incapable of understanding it. In its imaginary realm the intricate and many-faceted ideal of all Steppenwolves finds its realization." P. 62, Steppenwolf. Reader, please consider Sam Rosenberg's decoding of Sidis' fine hewn humor and others' inabilities to fathom it. Hesse describes humor's essence as quantum, indeed Hesse describes humor as a quantonic cohesive c¤mplementation (our quantum interpretive spin) of all reality's countless cultural values. E.g., humor is: o quanton(without_renunciation,renounce), o quanton(without_possessing,possess), o quanton(as_though_it_were_not_the_world,live_in_the_world), o etc. Our omniadic fluxors are Hessean quotes from page 63 of Steppenwolf. So now we see, using Hesse's prose, humor is sentient coawareness cowithin quantum reality. See our aside on WJS' complex/quantum humor in Unconscious Intelligence. "...the souls that dwell in [us] are not two, nor five, but countless in number." P. 69. Another Hesse reference to classicists' "schizomania." Quantum humans are, he says, intrinsically schiz¤manic. It is 'normal.' SOMiticism and CTMs detend us into a single 'being' and call all those who are quantum n¤rmal "insane." WJS had countless personalities and moved among them with ease and grace. Indeed, William Sidis is a true and n¤rmal quantum being. "The passing years had stripped me of my calling, my family, my home...I was all the same an utter stranger to this world in all I thought and felt...The pomposity of the sciences, societies, and arts disgusted me...I had paid dearly for it; and at every turn my life was harsher, more difficult, lonely and perilous." P. 78 This is so close to a life analogue of William Sidis! "For the first time I understood Goethe's laughter, the laughter of the immortals. It was a laughter without an object." P. 176. If you read Amy Wallace's The Prodigy well and read Sam Rosenberg's The Come As You Are Masquerade Party, you will know that WJS' laughter was "...the laughter of the immortals." When William pulled a cartoon out of his pocket to show it to you, and then he broke out in roisterous bellows, and then you could not understand what he found so hilarious...William was showing his laughter had no object. Amy tells us this happened over and over and over again. William was not trapped in classicism's detention center of 'normal' singular, 'sane,' 'healthy' mind. To classicists, even his own father Boris, William was "in-sane." William had thousands of personalities, and all of them were outside SOM's OGC/OGT, outside SOM's "one size fits all" mythos. But he could pretend...and so he did. Thanks for reading, Doug - 7Aug2001.

Our brackets inside some of our quotes of Hesse's text.                            

Studies in Subjective Probability, ed. by Henry E. Kyburg, Jr. and Howard E. Smokler, Wiley, 1964; this text is exceptional; reality is quantum subjective!
3. Subjects, Objects, Data, and Values, by Robert M. Pirsig, Einstein-Magritte Conference paper, 1995
Taking the Quantum Leap, by Fred Alan Wolf, Harper & Row, 1981
The Age of Analysis, by Morton White, Mentor, 1955 (Very SOM, except excerpts from Wittgenstein sec's. 65-77 of his PI!)
The Animate and the Inanimate (AIA), by William James Sidis, 1920 (Review pending after our three remaining Bergson reviews.)
The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, Norton, 1986, 1987, 1996
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, edited by General Editor Robert Audi, CUP, 1995
The Come As You Are Masquerade Party, by Samuel Rosenberg w/Buckminster Fuller foreword, Prentice-Hall, 1970
The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics, by Irving Stein,

Volume 6, of the San Francisco State University Series in Philosophy, Peter Lang Publishing hardbound, 1996

9. The Conscious Universe, by Menas Kafatos & Robert Nadeau, Springer-Verlag, 1990; newer 2000 ed. now available too

This text appears to us as metastatic dyslexia. Both authors describe quantum reality and its profound miracles superbly. Problem is...they are both Bohrian SOMites. As such they keep dragging quantum reality's miracles back into SOM's box. Why? Why do we call them Bohrian SOMites? Why do they keep dragging quantum miracles back into SOM's box? Our answer exposes their book's greatest problematic: Bohrian complementarity! Bohr thought that quantum complementarity's middle is classically "exclusive." That view is pure Aristotelian HyperBoole! In Quantonics, quantum c¤mplementarity's middle is quantum "inclusive." See our brief treatise on two kinds of quantum c¤mplementarity. Also see our Quantonic English Language Remediation of 'complement.' Doug - 19Jan2002. Since we wrote our words above, we have finished chapter 9 of The Conscious Universe (interrupted by our reading of Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind). We find that, except for Kafatos' and Nadeau's dyslexic views of quantum complementarity as Bohrian "exclusive," we agree, and, most of Quantonics' efforts correspond their works in chapter 9 of TCU. Chapter 9 of TCU really uncloaks their work as narrowly approaching what we would call "Quantonic." If you are like us, and your precious personal times disallow your reading promiscuously, at least consider a careful read of TCU's chapter 9. They wrap up and essentially summarize their entire text in that one chapter. By "careful" we intend that you alternatively consider our "inclusive" version of quantum c¤mplementarity for each occurrence of their use of Bohrian "exclusive" complementarity. If you do, you will find that chapter 9 of TCU aligns extraordinarily well with our efforts in Quantonics. Please, with caveats stated above, consider chapter 9 of The Conscious Universe an essential read for all students of Quantonics. 30Jan2002 - Doug.

The Cosmic Code, by Heinz R. Pagels, Bantam, 1983
The Dancing Wu Li Masters, by Gary Zukav, Quill, 1979

We offer a Quantonic Chautauqua through Zukav's Dancing Wu Li Masters' Bell Theorem Flow Chart here.

The Dreams of Reason, by Heinz R. Pagels, Simon & Schuster, 1988
The End of Science, by John Horgan, Addison Wesley, 1996
The Fabric of Reality, by David Deutsch, Allen Lane, 1997 (also see abbreviated Renselle review at http://www.amazon.com)
The Feynman Lectures on Physics - Volumes I-III, by Feynman Leighton & Sands, Addison Wesley, 1963
The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science, by Errol E. Harris, Humanities Press, 1965, 1st ed.
The Fractal Geometry of Nature, by Benoit B. Mandelbrot, WH Freeman & Co., 1983
The Gold Bug Variations, by Richard Powers, Morrow, 1991. First ed., hardbound, 639 p.

An ascendant book! Your site author read this first time in Sep-Oct, 1991. Title is a take-off on Bach's Goldberg Variations and Poe's The Gold-Bug. Book has a 4x8 codon (i.e. 32 triplets) dedication, Aria (alpha, omega), and 30 chapters (Variations).This book is everything beyond phenomenal. A team of Ph.D.s unravels a mapping of a 64 element table of DNA/RNA codons to amino acids. Powers is one other human I know who made a nexus (p. 568) to John, chapter one, verses 1-14. When you fathom this your 1st time, back of your neck hair stands up. One out-of-park love scene. Connections: Glenn Gould, morals, software, time, cryptology, art, etc. Endless variations on variations. Wonderful! Author Bob Shacochis says Powers is, "...first in a class of one," and "...there isn't a writer today, and not many beyond the pale, who approach the candlepower of this guy." We agree. Powers makes Hofstadter appear naïve. WSJ, 3Sep1991 Richard Locke review titled Music and Molecules says, "...wonderful indeed, eminently worth wrestling with, filled to overflowing with now-unburied treasure." Our favorite book of fiction. Powers shows us Value in interrelationships. Why include this book in our recommended reading? Sophism and paradice! Locke quotes Powers, "Ultimately the Goldbergs are about the paradox of variation, preserved divergence, the transition effect inherent in terraced unfolding, the change in nature attendant upon a change in degree. How necessity might arise out of chance. How difference might arise out of more of the same. By the time the delinquent parent aria returns to close out the set, the music is about how variation might ultimately free itself from the instruction that underwrites it, sets it in motion, but nowhere anticipates what might come from experience's trial run." (1Dec2000 rev - Doug note: Few classicists will ever grasp Powers' intueme of emergence as quantum c¤mplementarity, i.e., sophism. It takes minds like Bergson, James, Pirsig, Sidis, and Powers to understand what a pluralist-paralogosist means when s-he says, "classical negation is classically subjective." See Bergson's discussion of this  in his Topic 39 of his Creative Evolution. Consider what enormous philosophical and scientific impact that recognition has for classical thinkers and their CTMs.)   A great Powers Resources link.

The Great Books — 54 Volumes, by various, UCP, 1952 (predominately old, arrogant, classical/SOM, et al., passé philosophical nostrums)
The Greeks, by HDF Kitto, Penguin Books, 1951, 1957
The Holographic Universe, Michael Talbot, Harper Collins then Harper Perennial, 1991 hardback, 1992 paperback
The Illusion of Reality, by Howard L. Resnikoff, Springer-Verlag, 1989
The Improbable Machine, by Jeremy Campbell, Simon & Schuster, 1989
The Magus of the North - J. G. Hamann and the Origins of Modern Irrationalism (read, quantum sophism), by Isaiah Berlin, John Murray Ltd. (Fabulous!)
The Mathematical Experience, by Philip J. Davis & Ruben Hersh, Houghton Mifflin, 1981
The Matter Myth, by Paul Davies and John Gribbin, Simon & Schuster, 1992
The Meaning of Quantum Theory, by Jim Baggott, Oxford UP, 1992

We are just now re-reading Baggott's fine work, and wish to offer some sporadic but Value-able quotes and Quantonics relevant comments: Preface, p. ix - Why did Baggott write this book? "...there is a problem...I needed to know why there is a problem..." Preface, p. x - "It is my opinion, expressed in this book, that quantum theory is philosophy." And, "Beneath the [quantum mechanical] formalism must be an interpretation and the interpretation is pure philosophy." Baggott poses five questions which he answers in this text: (Our bold and brackets.) "Why is quantum theory necessary? "How does it work? "What does it mean? "How can it be tested? "What are the alternatives?" ... P. 8, "Planck was led to the unavoidable conclusion that the finite energy elements e had the form e=hv. The world of physics would never be the same again." Planck's e=hv are packets or what he called "quanta" of energy. Classical physics assumes energy is continuous, not quantal. Baggott's implied Planck usage of 'finite' may carry a physical, materialistic, classically objective tenor. Readers must note that e=hv is physially quantum-n¤nobjective, which is why we show it instead, like this: eqhq•vq where each packet appears in Quantonics script as a better, more realistic quantum anihmatæly EIMA variable and Planck's 'constant' and packet frequency are quantum variables too. When we call quantum n¤mbærs "variable" we mean they do n¤t have ideal quantitative propertyesque objective classical state. Quantum n¤mbærs and thus our quantum-staged symbol(ing)s which represent them are stindyanic and unstoppable! Further (yes Jamal, we use it appropriately), each e packet (e.g., a photon, electron, etc.) has an essentially arbitrary probability distribution in ~Hilbert space. Philip R. Wallace in his Paradox Lost has made that excellent and pedagogic observation which, as a result, implores us to consider each e as a macroscopic quantum phenomenon (which uncloaks essence of our quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality)). This notion offers only a partial explication of Quantonics' denials of any general validity of Aristotle's syllogisms in quantum reality and our frequent uses of our acronym, EIMA. Potential exegeses of memetics underlying our denials are many. But from a Quantonics perspective Planck's thing-king was still classically, wholly, physically objective (as an example his use of a classical equal sign uncloaks his tendentious and proscriptive classicisms; here we use proscriptive in a combination of its ancient etymology and its more modern antinomy: we intend both biased (tendentious) and written before (ancient) in a sense of precluding-banishing (modern proscription of) any evolute successor notations; e.g., "academic disciplinary matrices tendentiously proscribe any quantum-leaping out of SOM's box"; "one paradigm fits all and all contenders banished."). Just prior to that previous quote, on page 8, Baggott says, "In applying Boltzmann's ideas to the theory of black-body radiation, Planck had to assume that the total energy could be split up into a collection of indistinguishable but independent elements (or 'packets'), each with an energy e, which were then statistically distributed over a large number of distinguishable oscillators." Readers may fathom how similar Planck's more quantum and statistically qualitative imaginings are to what we call "quantons." Our complaint with this quote is Baggott's uses of 'indistinguishable' and 'independent.' They smack of very classical notions of 'identity' and lisrability. When said classicists represent such notions in radically formal mathematics we may see results like this: hv - hv = 0, and hv/hv = 1. Of course in classical mathematics ideal zeroes and ones can and do 'exist' for stoppable and conveniently enduring latencies. But in quantum reality n¤ such naïveties can be. Here is an applied example of what we intend. Our point (a very big point) is that we agree with Planck's protoworks and notions, but n¤t their classical form. His quanta come in packets, but n¤ two of them, in general — in quantum reality, are ideally classically 'identical.' Perhaps Baggott's and our most quantum point here is that quantum energy packets are energy "chunk-ensehmbles." "Quanta." Their n¤nclassical energies are frequency and thus wavelength (~reciprocal proportion to frequency) analogies. These chunks of energy are important in QED since they show what quantum qualitative energy(ings) an inbound photon must carry (quantum energy packet) to ensehmble affect (actually coobsfect, and assuredly n¤t cause) an electron in an atom's energy shell to (qualitatively, losslessly~adiabatically~qualitatively, agree to scintillate) "adiabatically quantum jump," "n¤n energy loss jump AKA quantum change" to a next level or to 'return' in a H5W-uncertain and qualitative manner (i.e, uncertain when, where, etc. and locally 'quasi-reversibly;' n¤nlocally 'irreversibly') to its 'former' level with a qualitative (n¤t quantitative) 'spontaneous' emission AKA an electron quantum~dive's demodulating affectation of an analogous photon. See our scintillate link above for greater detail. A Planck quantum's qualitative (our use of qualitative here is a crucial distinction twixt quantum and classical notions of reality — of course classicists claim our memes are absurd and we are fools for promulgating them ) energy analogy, frequency, offers what physicists call "emission spectra" which are both self-similar and unique (omnique) for countless atoms and their widely varying energy shell configurations and probabilistic energy distributions. (A utile reference is CRC's Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.) Our updates in red text more clearly exhibit omnifferencings twixt classical y=f(t) energy-losing formal-mechanical process and quantum zero~entropy, zero~latency adiabatic jumps. This explains countless otherwise inexplicable quantum~phenomena. Also compare classical notion and quantum memeos of 'occur.' Doug - 7Jan2009. All of this is "quantum-omnique" mostly since classicists represent energy as waveform 'amplitude' and 'area' vis-à-vis waveform 'flux.' And classical waveforms are continuous with continuous/smooth/linear variations in energy possibilities. And classical electron shell jumps are (must be, due Newtonian physics) unreally posentropic (locally nonreversible, usually thought due Maxwell's 2nd 'law' of thermodynamics). Quantum jumps are zeroentropic (at least: lossless and '~latency (immeasurable to arbitrary precision with 2003 accoutrements) free'). See our QELR of unique. Baggott says it like this, "Newtonian physics said that energy was continuously variable, and yet the statistical approach seemed to suggest that energy must be 'quantized.'" Page 9. On page 11 Baggott discloses Bohr's major problem with his classical atomic model, "Bohr developed a theory of the atom in which the electrons move around the nucleus in fixed, stable orbits much like the planets orb the sun. In terms of classical physics, such a model is impossible. A charged particle moving in an electrostatic field radiates energy. An orbiting electron would therefore be expected to lose energy continuously, eventually spiraling into the nucleus." However, in quantum reality, an electron is, from a classical mechanical perspective, impossibly a, "perpetual motion machine." Students take serious note here: quantum reality issi a pærpætual m¤ti¤n n¤n-machine. Page 12, "...By fusing this 'impossible' classical mechanical picture with Planck's quantum theory, Bohr was able to argue that only certain orbits are allowed..." Of course any notion of orbits is itself problematic. But that is how classicists see reality. Page 13, "Bohr's idea of stable electron orbits had a further consequence. Transitions between the orbits had to occur in instantaneous 'jumps...'" Hence that popular phrase "quantum leap." All of this, of course, commences a dawning that quantum reality is n¤n classical. That dawning is taking well over a hundred years, however, to shine. To Einstein, a n¤n classical reality is bogus. In 1935, his, Podolsky, and Rosen's EPR paper was supposed to show that. Page 15, "We must be a little careful in our discussion of causality...In quantum theory, the direct link between cause and effect appears to be severed." Baggott's "a little careful" is vastly understated in its astronomical bigness. Few scientists today understand, use, and believe what Baggott just said. Understanding absence of classical causality provides at least partial exegesis for countless quantum-notional phenomena, including: c¤mplementarity, ihncluded-middle, everywhere-ass¤ciativity, entanglement, superluminality, "Bell's ihnequalities," uncertainty, ensehmble heter¤geneity, c¤¤bsfecti¤n, and on and on and on... Page 17, Baggott shows how de Broglie (dee Broy) derived what is now famously known as "the de Broglie" relation. De Broglie said this: e=hv=pc Where e is a least Planck energy quantum, h is Planck's constant, v is frequency (need to discriminate whither spatial vis-à-vis Einsteinian 'light speed' temporal), p is 'linear' momentum, and c is a 'constant' for 'the speed' of light quanta in a 'vacuum.' De Broglie's insight followed this line of thought: v=c/, therefore =h/p Keep on your quantum stagings, that, to any classicist 'classical linear motion' is not quantum flux! But it 'effects' classical frequency! Latter being "the de Broglie relation." is wavelength of a light quantum. Apparently de Broglie used this to suggest that electrons may be diffracted. That is a big deal. It became reality. In about 1997 David E Pritchard at MIT diffracted sodium atoms, and said that we could diffract baseballs and anything else if we only slowed them down enough (exceedingly longer than any meager human life...eons). One might wish to dwell on that thought a while and whither and thither any quantum pr¤cessings like that are happening now and why it is they are n¤t obvious to us. See our Quantum Sensory Bandwidth Perspicacities and Perspicuities. Ponder too whither c above is classically 'absolute' vis-à-vis Poincaréan relative? That is a very large problematic which classicists tend to sweep under any handy, nearby carpet. Recall Einstein's Special Relativity and its classically 'absolute' Cartesian reference frame (i.e., there is only one <0,0,0,0> in 4D). His General Relativity removed it, but made 'light speed' absolute (?) and made "geometrical interval" classically-objectively invariant. Einstein exchanged absolute locus in favor of absolute 'light speed.' (Need to discriminate 'speed' and 'velocity.' Latter integrates conservative Cartesian distance (return to origin is 'no distance;' yes, classically you really stood still), so any velocity with a return to origin is "zero velocity." (dx/dt where dx is ideally, classically, 'zero') Classically 'speed' is average velocity. Notice how quantum reality as e=hv makes much of this Einsteinian twattle "irrelevant" as Dirac has told us. I.e., v and its analogue in e are n¤t classically 'transverse' sinusoidal area. This is why we suggest to you that undefined classical measurables like mass, length, time, and gravity (m, l, t, g) must be re-described (n¤n 'transversely') in terms of quantum flux. De Broglie started and we need to continue that effort following, at least, Bergson's, Dirac's, and Tomonaga's leadership. Only then will we approach capabilities of partially understanding and describing quantum realities' abundant and miraculous phenomena. Baggott then discusses Schrödinger's wave equation and how to derive it. Oversimplified, Schrödinger's work is just too subjective (too quantum) for most physicists. Physicists today, mostly ignore Schrödinger's work — wave mechanics — in favor of more objective, spatial, familiar — matrix mechanics. In our view a Bohmian n¤nmechanical quantum-chimera of Schrödinger's wave mechanics shall reemerge a winner. For our story, as we tell it in Quantonics, Baggott makes a perhaps most imposing intueme: "...quantum numbers...are an intrinsic part of Schrödinger's wave equation and hence, also, of the energies associated with these [wave] functions. The quantization of energy therefore follows from the standing wave condition applied to the [, e.g., an] electron in an atom." Page 24. Our brackets. Why? Quantized quantum reality corresponds what we call "quantum actuality" and Pirsig calls "Static Quality." Pirsig's use of Static corresponds standing portion of "standing waves." Notice how "standing waves" is classically oxymoronic, a paradox, a sophism, Zukavian nonsense, Bohrian subjective, c¤mplementary, and so on... Gives n¤vel semantic head to our seldom used "standingunder," doesn't it? standing_wavesquanton(wavings,standings)quantons(nonquantized,quantized)quantons(nonactuality,actuality) We may choose to grasp and fathom that ideal, naïve classical realism sees only quantum reality's standing part. Without our 'ing.' CTMs for accomplishing this classical feat include 'zeroing' Planck's constant, assuming stoppability ("zero momentum"), mandating immutability to achieve 'absolute' determinism, excluding reality's middle, dissociation of classical objects except for 'mechanical interaction,' etc.   under construction... (We are doing this work so that we may continue our review below of Dirac's The Principles of Quantum Mechanics and Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, both so that we may pursue our more distant goal of commencement of understandings of both QED and QCD and their quantum/quantonic interrelationships...we sense there is much classical and thus much problematic with QED and QCD...ultimately, all this comes back to our review of William James Sidis' The Animate and the Inanimate...perhaps you thought we forgot, hmmmm? ) Doug - 2-20Jul2003.

The New Pioneers, by Tom Petzinger-Jr., Simon & Schuster, 1999 (See our review at amazon.)
The Omega Point, by John Gribbin, Bantam, 1988
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, by Simon Blackburn, Oxford UP, 1994, 1996
The Philosophical Computer, by Patrick Grim, Gary Mar, & Paul St. Denis, Bradford Book MITP, 1998
The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, by Max Jammer, Wiley Interscience, 1 ed., 1974 (See our review of Ch. 8, Quantum Logic)

If you read Pirsig's SODV paper, you know that this is one of Pirsig's reference texts for that paper which Pirsig presented in May-June, 1995 at The Einstein Meets Magritte Conference in Brussels, Belgium.   Just recently we were able to acquire our own personal copy of this fine text for our quantum/MoQ research library.   Though this text is a tad classical it is of great value to us from historical perspectives. Especially, Jammer spends much time on Bohr's own percepts regarding quantum complementarity. That is valuable to us.   Further, as we read, we shall share tidbits from this text with you. As an example, you can see our 21Jun2003 Jammer quotes added to our Zeno's Paradice web page.   We are just perusing now, and will decide how much and whether to review this text at a later date.   Doug - 21Jun2003.

The Physical Principles of Quantum Theory, by Werner Heisenberg, Dover, 1930
6. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, by Paul Adrian Maurice Dirac, 4^th ed., 314 total pages including index, paperback, OxfordUP, 1958. The quantum scientists' bible. Chapter XII is a complete re-write of QED and contains vast similarities to Quantonics. Chapter I offers a good foundation for Quantonics after language remediation. See text below for examples and Dirac's anti-classical quotes.

As soon as we cover essentials of Chapter I 'Superposition' and Chapter XII 'QED' here in our recommended reading, we will move this text to a full and separate review web page where we will review all of Dirac's TPoQM, chapter by chapter, section by section. That process should commence during our return to and extended stay in Oregon starting 1Jul2003. We elevated this book and Philip R. Wallace's Paradox Lost to sixth and seventh places in our recommended reading ahead of three others which we moved to positions 8, 9 and 10. This reading order is an approach among several (Sep2001QQA, How to Become a Student of Quantonics, etc.) we use in assisting students of Quantonics to most efficiently acquire foundations of Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ I) and its parenthood and interrelationships with quantum science's Mechanics of Quanta (MoQ II) and Quantonics' merger and extensions/remediations of both as a combined philosophy/n¤n_mechanical_science of nature. I.e., both MoQ I and nMoQ II together with philosophy interpreted literally as philo-(love-) of sophy(sophism). We have said elsewhere that Dirac was one of our heroes, until we read in Schweber's QED and the Men Who Made It that Dirac did not believe in philosophy as a foundation of science. (See our penultimate paragraph in our September, 2002 News.) Having commenced a reading of this fine text (Dirac's own TPoQM), we re-elevate Dirac to hero status. His words here (with Quantonics English Language Remediation, QELR) are so close to our own views of quantum reality that we have to label him a potential MoQite. He literally denies almost all classical concepts and classical views of reality as "...a very striking and general example of the breakdown of classical mechanics..." Page 3 of TPoQM. We are intentionally not remediating most of this text, yet. We will do that later, so that some of you who are still ~classicists will not be put off by our QELR. In about six months, we will remediate (QELR) this text to make it more Quantonic. In one case, below, we do a side-by-side comparison of Dirac's language vis-à-vis our less dense, less Babelian QELR version of it. Allow us to quote some specifics from 4th ed. and 1st ed. Prefaces and some from Chapter I on Superposition. From Dirac's TPoQM 4th ed. Preface, "In present-day high-energy physics the creation and annihilation of charged particles is a frequent occurrence. A quantum electro-dynamics (QED) which demands [classical] conservation of the number of charged particles is therefore out of touch with physical reality." Our parentheses and brackets. From Dirac's TPoQM 1st ed. Preface, "It has become increasingly evident in recent times, however, that nature works on a different plan...[nature demures her] substratum of which we cannot form a mental picture without introducing [subjective, qualitative] irrelevancies...one should learn to hold [] physical ideas in one's mind without reference to [] mathematical form." Our bold, brackets and also our empty brackets to efface Dirac's thelogos. Weigh Dirac's comments regarding physical (physial/natural/real) ideas (we call them "memes" and "quantons") vis-à-vis mathematically and radically mechanical, anti-memetic "form." Compare your thoughts with Dyson's and Feynman's remarks about Einstein losing his intuitive and creative talents when he stopped doing that. Before we commence quoting Chapter I 'The Principle of Superposition,' we must warn readers that quantum notions of superposition are nontrivial and certainly nonclassical. Begin Quantum Superposition Caveat Aside: One omnifference among classical and quantum notions of superposition we can show like this: Classical superposition is a radically mechanical function of wave amplitudes and phases, while Quantum superposition is analogous EIMA, quantum c¤mplementary wave flux(ings') rates, where waves in both examples are energy proxies, but classical energy is waveform 'area' and quantum energy is flux rate. Intellectual den¤uements of omnifferences among these two notions of superposition are vast in their proportions. Science is still shuddering from their impacts. One den¤uement exemplar offers intellectual potential for "quantum teleportation" within memes of quantum superposition. But under conventional province and "common/normal sense" dogma of classical superposition such notions are deemed "absurd, ludicrous, impossible, unreasonable, nonsense, etc." Indeed, we can meekly unveil nature a tad further while remarking quite confidently that ~all quantum phenomena (all that we know of, e.g., mass, space, time, gravity, OEDC evolution, and their innumerable derivatives like temperature, pressure, velocity, acceleration, momenta, inertia, entropa (Quantonics' coined plural of entropy), etc.) are manifestations of quantum flux rate (and Quantonic animate EIMA interrelationships of quantum flux rates). Too, we can state with a modicum of self-assurance, given our own personal hermeneutics of quantum reality, that ~all cloaked (in Quantonicsese: "n¤nactual") phenomena are manifestations of quantum flux (isoflux) rates. Classical superposition is essentially Fourier summation of wave amplitudes with a result that energy is represented by 2D waveform area and any sum is a holistic linear alteration/modulation of multiple waves to analytically form a single complex waveform, it too being classically analytic. Complex classical waveform summations we often call 'modulated' waves. It is nontrivial to demodulate (Fourier analyze) classically amplitude-summed waveforms, often requiring a nonlinear (e.g., a diode, rectifier, DSP, etc.) function to do so. We can never classically retrieve those exact waveforms which were used to make a classically-superposed combination. We can retrieve/demodulate very close approximations of those waveform addends, however. Quantum superposition is, amazingly to us, n¤namplitude-additive. In classical superposition we represent any wave addend as a rotating vector whose amplitude and phase determine how addends are added together. In quantum superposition we must understand that waveform amplitude and phase are, as Dirac says, paraphrased, "...direction and amplitude are irrelevant." See mid-page 17, Ch. I, Sec. 5 'Mathematical Formulation of the Principle.' Aside - 23Aug2006: We have to be very careful here when we say "amplitude is irrelevant." If we move a packet of energy at some speed (note 'direction irrelevance' of speed vis-à-vis velocity), like a photon moving at speed of light, said photon's energy "rate" is increased by its speed. Theoretically a photon's self~energy despite its 'speed,' can approach Planck's rate, which in a single photon represents nearly boundless energy. Now move that at light speed and its energy increases by ten orders of magnitude. Ponder how many of those it would take to destroy a universe! If we move an atom at some speed, said atom's constituent ensemble rates are increased by their speed. Now, do we want to call 'speed' "amplitude?" Usually we do not think that way. Quantumly ensemble flux rate 'intensity' memes displace classical notions of amplitude. See Philip R. Wallace's Paradox Lost. What about loudspeakers? They rapidly, via 'sound amplitude,' increase and decrease speeds (flux rates) of atoms and molecules in air. So energy of air is increased by ensemble increases in atoms and molecules constituent flux rates. Here we have to view 'amplitude' as ensemble flux rate change. But we can fathom that ensemble flux rate embodies what we mean by 'energy' and 'power,' n¤t amplitude. Classical amplitude is merely a naïve proxy for energy, eidetically, ad oculos. During July-September, 2007 Doug has done considerably more work on issues of sound energy here. Use that to extend comments above. Doug - 24Sep2007. Doug - 23Aug2006. What made Doug think about this was watching Myth Busters turn a diesel Mercedes into a 51" speaker which was able to produce 161 db of pressure at about 30 Hz prior to self-destructing. MOAB (10 tons of high explosive) does something similar as a huge loudspeaker! Decibels (pressure wave hemispherical intensity and speed) in that case, roughly, are approaching three orders of magnitude! End aside. Further, as any prism can show, mixtures of light frequency spectra are easily uncloaked by flux rate, n¤t amplitude n¤r phase. As Philip R. Wallace tells us "intensity" of light is an ensemble of photons. Greater ensemble is greater "intensity." Individual photon energies are flux rate (not classical amplitude) relevant. Photon packets energy 'levels' are quantized. And further, in quantum reality, from a perspective of quantum superposition, red, blue and green are red, blue and green regardless their amplitudes and phases. (Any photon's intrinsic flux rate is an inverse of its wavelength lambda. Any photon's flux rate at light speed (or any other specific speed) is light_speed divided by lambda and is much higher. You can see this aspect of light at our Quantum Sensory Bandwidth Perspicacities and Perspicuities. Try an interesting exercise: show why 'mixtures' (superpositions) of similar intensity 'levels' of red, blue and green quantum photons produce ~white light. What happens when you collimate this quantum superposition and shine it through a prism? Why? How? Imagine our collimator moving synchronously at light speed with our superposed light. What is happening? Just below light speed?) In Quantonics we have yet to understand how and why classical amplitude (quanta have intensity) and phase (lasers, BECs, tsunamis, solitons, quatrocoherency, etc.) are irrelevant to quantum superposition. I.e., to grasp and fathom; e.g., an exemplar which appears to us to disagree with Dirac's statement is a meme of quantum dispersion which requires directions attending quantum 'numbered' flux and their s, probably due in this case absence of quantum superposition in quantum dispersion. For us, notions of quantum superposition have yet to become an inured c¤mplement of our current intuitions, except that we have been treating our quanton symbols intuitively that way (which we currently also do not wholly understand). We wonder whether our lack of quantum superposition intuition is just another artifact of our human tendencies toward CTMs. Our instincts warn us that Dirac's classical mathematics played a large and problematic role in his conclusions about amplitude and phase irrelevancies in quantum superposition. We shall share our experiences with you when we believe we are on a journey of understanding quantum superposition. To be sure, quantum superposition is full of miracles and epiphanies (e.g., rainbows, atomic spectra, quantum interference, quantum superluminal correlations (J. S. Bell, Friedman-Clauser, Gisin-Zeilinger, et al.), quantum coherence/condensation/solitonicity/etc., quantum 'material' diffraction, and so on...) beyond any "dark switch on," "stay in SOM's cave/mythos," blindered classical notions of superposition. Dirac's "...direction and amplitude are irrelevant" edict explains one Quantonics enigma some of you may have noticed. We usually show our quanton symbols with circle c¤mplements of like diameters. When we show other circle diameters, we only use them as wavelength and quantum flux/isoflux proxies, n¤t as classical amplitudinal 'numeric' scalar metrics. We will spend much more effort on this topic during our reviews of subsequent sections of this chapter. It is important for you to know that some quantum scientists do not agree with much of what Dirac says here. We often disagree too, but for reasons much omnifferent those of some other, especially those more classical, 'quantum' scientists. As an example, Dirac is what quantum specialists call a "mathematical physicist." In Quantonics, we view classical mathematics as problematic (Dirac explains his keen awareness of mathematics' physical think-king vis-à-vis logical thing-king limitations. See our emboldened text above under our quotes of his first edition preface.) in any attempts to portray quantum reality. Most often we find trouble with Dirac's work, even though he assiduously adheres 'physical' quantum experimental results, when he tries to use those maths to trap quantum reality in SOM's box. However, to us, Dirac's more rhetorical prose is, when animated on our quantum stages, beautifully quantum real, especially when his rhetoric is Planck rate spun using our own QELR. He only has real omnifficulties when he attempts to imprison his animate prose in state-ic maths' detention centers of classical thought. For some of you, our Quantonics work is too hot to touch. Our Planck rate spin on quantum reality is just too fast for many others' sensibilities and percepts. Fine. Just like any radio or TV, you can always just turn us off...surf out of quantonics. Mayhaps as our favorite little philosopher, Rose is Rose's Pasquale might say, averse his own philosophy, "Mom, please turn d'dark switch on." End Quantum Superposition Caveat Aside - 4-7Apr2003 - Doug. Quantum superposition has been called, due its classical amplitude-phase irrelevancies, "...action without reaction." See Robert S. Fritzius. Readers and students of Quantonics should note how quantum superposition's phenomena are radically nonmechanical. Any quantum notions of "action without reaction" defy classical, e.g., Newtonian/Aristotelian, 'laws' of reality. And there is much more to it than that. Indeed, we are still and yet beginning to grasp quantum reality's many vast manifestations of superposition as they relate coherence, uncertainty, energy quantization, probability and probability distributions, and so on... Quantum Hesse HotMeme™ ••• Laughter... ei ...of the Gods ••• HotMeme™ Let's continue with our review of TPoQM's chapter I, where Dirac assists us, using quantum superposition as an exemplar, in answering one of science's most challenging questions, "Do classical mechanics adequately describe quantum reality?" From p. 1, Ch. I, "The necessity for a departure from classical mechanics is clearly shown by experimental results..there exist general principles of classical mechanics...leading to results in direct disagreement with observation." Our italics on Dirac's thelogos. Readers may want to make a worthwhile observation here. Dirac said "...departure from classical mechanics..." He did not say "...departure from mechanics..." It is worthwhile since, in Quantonics we agree with David Bohm that nature is not mechanical, and thus we need, as Bohm recognized, not a new quantum mechanics, rather we need a novel quantum non mechanics of reality. Doug - 17Apr2003. Our reading of Dirac's TPoQM offers us opportunity to share one of our recent novel quantum epiphanies. For some time we have been pondering related issues of entropy, entropy gradients, reversibility, Mae-wan Ho's description of mammalian limb flexure absent nearly any thermalized energy transfer, Rolf Landauer's (IBM fellow; deceased) use of macroscopic quantum reversibility in dense RAMs to prevent extreme energy consumption and ultimate meltdown, reversible macroscopic processes like Bénard convection etc., perpetual motion of photons, electrons, and protons, and so on... Now we believe we are beginning to see some light. Allow us to describe what happened... One of our pass times is thinking physially (i..e, not symbolically nor mathematically) how gravity can be a spin 2 quantum superluminal (i.e., time independent) phenomenon and how that relates to classical light speed vis-à-vis ether, plus isospin (QVF), spin 0, spin 1, and spin 1/2 and how all that relates to Riemann's Hypothesis (RH). So...we decided to start over... Back to Physics 101. Ugh! How can a process be reversible? Why do reversible processes not manifest entropy gradients? Do you know? We grabbed our University Physics text by Sears and Zemansky, 3rd ed., 1964, Addison-Wesley. Prior to Quantonics we worked as Controls Director for a Fortune 200 diesel engine manufacturer. One good result of that experience is that we learned that to make any engine more efficient we have to prevent heat loss to its environment. 15 litre diesel engines, at their best, are only about 53% efficient. I.e., 53% of combustion energy turns its prop shaft. All other energy is lost to an engine's environment through radiation, exhaust, friction, etc. If we could build a diesel engine which lost no energy, thus is 100% efficient, we would call it "adiabatic." Answer to "Do you know:" we may think of reversible process as almost adiabatic. Perfect adiabatic processes transform all process energy into useful work without loss. We call these processes "zero entropy" processes. Why? They have no measurable thermalized heat gradients. On page 416 of Sears and Zemansky we read something very important, "...flow of heat is a fairly slow process, so that any process performed quickly enough will be practically adiabatic." For us that is quantum epiphany! Adiabaticity increases roughly with flux rate (we suspect ~hyperbolically; nexus - see Mae-wan Ho's the Rainbow and the Worm). We might anticipate zero entropy-gradient adiabaticity for any process running at Planck's frequency. Too, we might anticipate nearly-zero entropy-gradient adiabaticity at a wide range of Planck rate sub-harmonics. How can photons travel huge distances in apparent perpetual motion? Quantum apparent adiabaticity due any photon's own Planck harmonic flux interrelationships with QVF, essentially very rapidly borrowing, iteratively, of energy from QVF to keep moving "zero entropically" at light speed through isospace. (In a physial sense, this is what photonic bosons do.) Now we are set-up for and prepared to quote Dirac on mid-page 2 of Ch. I of his TPoQM. "In fact the observed specific heats at ordinary temperatures are given fairly well by a theory that takes into account merely the motion of each atom as a whole and assigns no internal motion to it at all...This leads us to a new clash between classical mechanics and the results of experiment. There must certainly be some internal motion in an atom to account for its spectrum, but the internal degrees of freedom, for some classically inexplicable reason do not contribute to specific heat." (Students of Quantonics, try removing Dirac's thelogos. What happens to his semantics when you do that? Note that it isn't easy to do for his "the motion." That 'the' isn't simply wasted, due classicists' presumption of unitemporal motion. If we assume motion is absolute EIMA heterogeneous quantum flux, then that 'the' is wasted.) Our heuristic conviction is that quantum quasi-Planck rate flux apparent adiabaticity explains what Dirac sees as problematic. It is important for students of Quantonics to intuit how our animate Planck Quanton attempts to show presence of flux-apparent adiabaticity and reversible-energy-borrowing from QVF. On page 3, Dirac broaches classical reductionist Einsteinian relativity without acknowledging that he is doing so. We find this text simply incredible, and are unsure whether we agree, "So long as big and small are merely relative concepts, it is no help to explain the big in terms of the small [Poincaré made this point ~100 years ago. Poincaréan relativity is dissimilar Einsteinian relativity.]. It is therefore necessary to modify classical ideas in such a way as to give absolute meaning to size." Our brackets. We need to ponder deeply Dirac's "...give absolute meaning to size." At first blush it appears as just another naïve classical trick. We see reality as relative, but n¤t based upon Einstein's assumptions of a space-time identity with space and time as magnitudinal homogeneous spatial and unitemporal extensities. (Many, plural) Relativities in our view phenomenally OEDC heterogeneously in durational EIMA quantum-real absolute flux interrelationships (i.e., mostly superposing "action without reaction," and with some interfering "action with reaction" quantum interrelationships). Next page 3 paragraph, "At this stage it becomes important to remember that science is concerned only with observable things and that we can observe an object only by letting it interact with some outside influence." Our bold violet classical problematics. Those classical problematics innately invalidate any 'science' that adopts them. Why? Quantum reality is n¤t objective, n¤r is it entirely, n¤r unilaterally observable. N¤r is quantum reality classically 'dichotomously' inside vis-à-vis outside lisr! On page 4 Dirac's genius re-erupts, "...we must revise our ideas of causality. Causality applies only to a system which is left undisturbed." Our interpretation of what Dirac just said is that there is n¤ classical causality in quantum reality. Why? Quantum absolute semper flux changes all and always changes. Thus n¤ actual system is ever left "undisturbed." And, indeed, that is just what we observe in our own Millennium III notions of reality. Reality offers us n¤ notions of classical 'zer¤ momentum.' N¤ classical 'reference frame' has 'zer¤ momentum,' n¤r may it have/acquire by any means 'zer¤ momentum.' Crux: there is n¤ classical causality in quantum reality. (There are classical apparitions of causality (rocks, classical sinusoidal 'orbits,' classical self-delusions of unicontextual 'repeatability,' etc.) which classicists interpret as absolute, radically mechanical 'causality.' See OGC and OGT regarding our usage here of "unicontextual.") Aside 3Sep2009 - Doug: We have learned much and innovated much since this review was originally written by Doug. What follows, where Dirac describes photons passing through tourmaline, needs some precis and preface. This review was written, initially, over six years ago. Since then, CeodE 2008-2009, Doug has developed his own innovative version of Quantonics' quantum~scintillation. That's a big deal! Especially as it applies in our review of page 5 immediately following this aside. Why? It helps us answer Doug's over six year old query, "Where was/is that first photon prior to passage of second photon?" Please go now and study well~and~carefully Doug's innovative quantum~scintillation, (caveat mandate: spend some time there, browse for intra page occurrences of 'scintilla') then return here and start reading our review continuing on page 5 of Dirac's TPoQM. See whether you can now answer Doug's query. Hints: "How many electron~to~electron scintilla can occur while photon is intra tourmaline?" Too, "How long can each photon~electron leap~dive scintillation process take?" Penultimately, "Do scintilla migrate linearly?" Finally, "Can you describe (for each photon) prior entry (first surface encounter) first quantum~scintilla stochastics?" (What quantum~surface ~scintilla reflection~refraction stochastics emerge~evolve?) Is Doug's interrogatory relevant Einstein's bogus General Relativity claim that gravity bends photon's 'paths?' Quantonics offers excellence in quantum~learning...right here, folks! (Orientals grasp that quasi~normative while occidentals are still running on status quo's axiomatic automatic. Tee~hee...The West is dying, and we're mostly too retarded to begin fathoming our own demise...when will we tire of NEA's total socialist dumbing-down-destruction of US's public education system?) End aside 3Sep2009 - Doug. On page 5 and beginning of page 6 Dirac offers us an experiment which uncloaks one of quantum reality's greatest mysteries. You need to read these pages yourself. We cann¤t wholly reproduce them here. Essentially his gedankenment uses (classically presumed) 'repeatable' single photon polarization to show that oblique/fractional (sin2) polarization results in probabilistic/uncertain passages of obliquely polarized photons through a vertically polarizing (tourmaline) medium which manifests classically describable parallel (none pass) and perpendicular (all pass) photon incidences. But if 1000 photons are obliquely incident 45o, then 500 wh¤le photons pass through said tourmaline, n¤t 1000 classically half-energy-photons. Dirac says, "According to quantum mechanics the result of this experiment will be that sometimes one will find a whole photon, of energy equal to the energy of the incident photon, on the back side and other times one will find nothing." Our underline of Dirac's words. If just ¤ne photon is incident, apparently n¤ne of it passes (classical cause without apparent classical effect — action without apparent reaction). When a second photon is incident some ~arbitraryt later we may see ¤ne wh¤le photon pass through said tourmaline (Where was/is that first photon prior to passage of second photon? Philip R. Wallace asks this question too, and enhances it by ejaculating, paraphrased, "a photon's locus is everywhere, thus macroscopic, since its probability distribution is spatially arbitrary." See page 36, Paradox Lost. Students of Quantonics please note how this very issue is essentially what EPR used to declare quantum mechanics "incomplete." See our Critical Review of EPR.). Classical analytic fractions of obliquely incident individual photons do n¤t pass. Regarding this apparent wh¤le photon quantization, Dirac says, on page 6, "In this way we preserve the individuality of the photon in all cases. We are able to do this, however, only because we abandon the determinacy (formerly, classically presumed: ¤ne photon in (cause) — temporally correlated fractional photon out (effect)) of the classical theory." Our parentheticals, and our italicization of Dirac's thelogos. Remarkably, Dirac goes on to make this incredible statement: "Questions about what decides whether the photon is to go through or not and how it changes its direction of polarization when it does go through cannot be investigated by experiment and should be regarded as outside the domain of science." In place of Dirac's "...outside the domain of science," we would say "...outside SOM's classical CTM box." Regardless, Dirac's statement is simply profound. Students of Quantonics notice Dirac's usages of these classical problematics: decide, the, is, or, not, change, when, cannot, and, be. See our QELR and QELP for more on each of those problematics. An Inverse Zeno aside: Our purpose of this aside is to direct your attention to an analogous (we believe) description offered by JohnJoe McFadden in his Quantum Evolution, pp. 178-182, Norton, 2000. McFadden calls it "the quantum Zeno effect," and "the inverse quantum Zeno effect." Reasons for his vivid descriptions he details just following our above cited pages. Simply, if one orients two polarizers so that they are normal to one another (e.g., one at 0o and other at 90o) and attempt to shine light through them, no light passes. What is really interesting, and we think akin what Dirac describes above, is that when one inserts a third polarizer twixt other two at some oblique angle, say 30o, some light will pass. First observed, classicists viewed this as a paradox, similar to what Dirac describes above. Where does Zeno come in? Well, if we keep incrementally adding/inserting polarizers twixt our first pair, each at a different angle, say 5o, 10o, ..., 35o, 40o,..., 85o, then nearly all light will be passed! McFadden's explanation of this is a high point in his otherwise SOMitically classical text. Our question is, "Can we add another slice of tourmaline at a different oblique angle, and proximate to his first slice, to allow all photons to pass in Dirac's experiment above?" Is McFadden's experiment analogous Dirac's? Then how does this relate to Philip R. Wallace's superposition comments ("...aren't photons macroscopic?") in his Paradox Lost which we quote in our review of Jeffrey Satinover's The Quantum Brain? End aside - Doug 31May-1Jun2003. Doug - 26-30Mar2003. 4Apr2003 Extensions to Quantonics' Review of Dirac's TPoQM - Caveats: Dirac uses some classical language which we intuit, due his exceptional mathematical predilections, is radically mechanical and thus both questionable and very likely quantum-problematic. He presumes that classical motion and processes have 'state' and thus are classically stoppable and thus classically causal (which he questions himself, as we refer, above). He presumes a classical notion of perpendicularity and that classical 'states' may be mutually 'perpendicular.' More formally we can also say classically, "orthonormal." Then he goes on to describe his notions of superposition in terms of these more fundamental classical concepts. In our view, these notions need remediation. Some of them, for example 'state,' we have addressed at least in a limited manner elsewhere. In quantum reality 'perpendicular states' may n¤t be described classically as causal, both stable and independent memes/quantons. So, we intuit, Dirac's notions of superposition are likely problematic. Too, we intuit, these problematic notions arise from Dirac's intensely- and 'exclusively-'focused utilization of mathematics per se to 'solve' quantum 'mechanical' 'puzzles.' Bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 Dirac tells us that we still need some form of description of what happens to those obliquely incident photons and their stochastic, sin2 'whole' emissions from a tourmaline optical filter. Dirac says that any obliquely incident photon forms a bipolar state relationship: its polarization becomes partly perpendicular and partly parallel which he now refers as "...some kind of superposition process applied to two states of parallel and perpendicular polarization." He finishes his top of page 7 paragraph like this, "This relationship allows any state of polarization to be resolved [classically acausally] into, or expressed as a superposition of, any two mutually perpendicular states of polarization." Our brackets. Also we worry that his classical analysis here is dimensionally limited, in his use of "two." We intuit quantum reality's analogue of classical polarization is plural/heterogeneous and n¤t biformal. Also, we intuit that classical 'states of polarization' are Bergsonian uncertain/probability_distribution/durational/EIMA/animate. Dirac calls incidence of photon with tourmaline, "observation." Further (we use it your way Jamal ), he says, "The effect of making this observation is to force the photon entirely into the state of parallel or entirely into the state of perpendicular polarization. It has to make a sudden jump from being partly in each of these two states to being entirely in one or other of them. Which of the two states it will jump into cannot be predicted, but is governed only by probability laws. If it jumps into the parallel state it gets absorbed and if it passes through the crystal and appears on the other side preserving this state of polarization." We find this description's classical language abominable. See our bold violet and italics. Too, Dirac's assumptions, to us, are abominable. He assumes/presumes a classical reality. He assumes classical causality. He assumes photons are classically objective (at least during observation, he does). He assumes classical EOOO bipolar unilogic (see Dirac's classical bipolar and exclusive, Aristotelian 'excluded-middle,' uses of 'or'). We do n¤t k-now how to describe whatings are happenings cowithin/coinsident said tourmaline. But we believe, as we remark above, that Philip R. Wallace is on to something better. Assume that photons are macroscopic. Assume their probability distributions are arbitrary. Assume plural omnimensional potential photon polarizations. Assume EIMA photon-tourmaline interrelationships whose quantum interrelationship pragma are analogous quantum associative memory (perhaps better: memeory; coined first here in Quantonics - 4Apr2003). Doug - 4Apr2003. 16-17Apr2003 - Let's start our next update, having hit high points on pages 1-7 and starting on page 12 (following this update), by filling in more points of interest on pages 7-11. On page 7's bottom half Dirac starts a new topic, one of seminal importance to anyone studying quantum theory and especially students of QED. His ch. 1, sec. 3 topic title is 'Interference of photons.' Dirac already told us about acausal superposition of photonic polarization. Now he tells us that photons exhibit other types of superposition too. Specifically, he says that photons experience position (space, a classical notion) and momentum superposition too (mass-velocity, a classical momentum notion, and its de Broglie 'material' wave analogue, h•v a more quantum notion which Dirac calls "frequency (v) times a universal Planck's constant (h)"). You may now begin to glimmer how quantum superposition is (rather, quantum superpositionings are) close kin of what we in Quantonics call EIMA. Your quantum stage's eidetic memeories may also experience some deeper playing — deeper streaming — of non Aristotelian but very quantum plural-present-participle co-inside-ncings, interpenetrationings, compenetrationings, comminglings, co-within-it-ings, interfusionings, copermeabilityings, and Bergsonian quantum uncertain durationings. We consider this topic crucial and many other quantum scientists do too. For example, Philip R. Wallace quotes from this topic thus, "One must be careful to be clear about the meaning we give to the word interference. We shall take it to mean the process of combining waves of the same frequency to form others of the same frequency. For clarity, when two or more waves of different frequencies are combined, we shall characterize it not as an interference pattern but as a superposition pattern.11" Last paragraph of Wallace's Chapter 5, Paradox Lost. 11"This is important to the assertion of Dirac (TPoQM, p. 9) that 'Photons (light quanta) cannot interfere with each other, but only with themselves.' It will also be important in understanding the stellar interferometer of Hanbury Brown and Twiss (see chapter 20 of Paradox Lost)." Wallace's paren's.   Dirac's largest problem, in our view, is his continued use of classical language and terminology. When we QELR his own words, they astonishingly read as though they had been written by a specialist in Quantonics. We offer here an example from page 12 of TPoQM. First we quote it as Dirac wrote it and then we QELR it for semantic comparison: "The general principle of superposition of quantum mechanics applies to the states, with either of the above meanings... [i.e., state as 'stopped/stoppable' and state as classical context independent unitemporal motion], ...of any one dynamical system. It requires us to assume that between these states there exist peculiar relationships... [i.e., process/whatever 'between' 'states' is classically undefined/undefinable; this is pure Aristotelian sillygistic "apple on tree vis-à-vis apple on ground" thing-king; Bergson described this classical motion as, "...movement is made of immobilities..." See Bergson's Creative Evolution, Topic 40] ...such that whenever the system is definitely in one state we can consider it as being partly in each of two or more other states. The original state must be regarded as the result of a kind of superposition of the two or more new states, in a way that cannot be conceived on classical ideas. Any state may be considered as the result of a superposition of two or more other states, and indeed in an infinite number of ways. Conversely any two or more states may be superposed to give a new state. The procedure of expressing a state as the result of superposition of a number of other states is a mathematical procedure that is always permissible, independent of any reference to physical conditions, like the procedure of resolving a wave into Fourier components." Our brackets. Our bold violet of problematic classical terms. Our italicization of Dirac's thelogos. See con-. Now let's repeat that quotation, but do our Quantonics QELR of it: "Quantum memes of superp¤siti¤n apply to quantum pr¤cessings, given any comterpretati¤ns expressed above, of any animatæ, ensemble, EIMA quantum system. Quantum reality requires us to assume that quantum pr¤cessings share ensemble quantum included-middle interrelati¤nships am¤ng these quantum systems. Quantum systems aræ superp¤siti¤nings of qualitative, n¤vel quantum pr¤cessings. Any quantum pr¤cessings may be regarded as ensembles of quantum pr¤cessings, amd indeed in an infinite n¤mbær of b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal interrelati¤nships. There aræ n¤ classical languages, formalisms, ¤r procedures one may use to express quantum reality amd quantum real pr¤cessings." [In Quantonics, interrelati¤nships aræ both actionings with reactionings and actionings without reactionings. Doug - 16Apr2003.] Can you see how much simpler amd neater — indeed how powerful — our QELR is? In Quantonics we call animatæ, ensemble EIMA quantum present-participle pr¤cessings, "quantons." So you may grasp how our QELR above may be even further simplified. Quantons aræ self-aware memes, capable of a n¤vel quantum ¤nt¤l¤gy including parthen¤genetic emergence and emerscenture. See quantons. See in(com)terpretati¤n. See emerscenture. See our Absoluteness as Quantum Uncertainty Interrelationships. In our marked up original quotation of Dirac above we highlighted his classical problematic terms in bold violet. We have remarked endlessly regarding those terms elsewhere in Quantonics. A good exemplar is our HotMeme™ list of Kuhn's Classical Static Optimisms. In quantum reality all those terms are problematic. That list covers all of Dirac's problematics both directly and indirectly. On page 17, Chapter I, sec. 5 of TPoQM, Dirac says, "To proceed with the mathematical formulation of the superposition principle we must introduce a further assumption, namely the assumption that by superposing [in a further-presumed 'stopped, zero momentum' reality] a state with itself we cannot form any new state, but only the original state over again." Our bracketed text demonstrates why mathematics, in our view, is inept in describing whatings aræ happenings in quantum reality. Indeed, state-ic mathematics only classically corrupts our notions of quantum reality. That is why, in Quantonics, we are attempting to invent and develop innovative anihmatæ semiotics amd comterpretive hermeneutings to replace classical mathematics. Doug - 16Apr2003. What must Dirac more fundamentally, indeed classically, presume to make such an anti-quantum statement? Let's make a list: that Aristotle's three syllogisms hold, that Newtonian analyticity holds, that superposition is objective, that superposition is analytical, that superposition requires a stoppable, stopped, immobile reality, that superposition is static, that superposition may be represented by a 'state' vector which may be 'real'ized ultimately as scalars, that superposition 'state' is lisr — mechanically, formally independent of all other reality, that observable evolutionary biological emergence is mechanically impossible, and etc. But all of those presumptions deny quantum reality. In Quantonics we and others have shown that those classical presumptions are patently and arrogantly incorrect. Those presumptions all describe an unreal mechanical reality. Why? Probably since Dirac is a mathematician. Mathematics is radically mechanical. To describe quantum superposition using mathematics, Dirac had to make mechanical presumptions about reality to permit his mathematics to apparently work. As you will read in his 4th edition rewrite of Chapter XII on QED, his mathematics tried to show him that reality is abs¤lutely anihmatæ and abs¤lutely emergent/demergent. Doug - 23Mar2003. We believe we can offer a good analogy of that which we speak. It goes back to two graphics which we show in our Quantum Connection: Quantum ABC , our Quantum Fuzzonic ABC, and our Quantum Egg. Our Quantum ABC shows how A, B, and C superpose, just as Dirac describes above. (We probably should have used dotted lines in that graphic similar to a more recent one we did for our Quantum Hamiltonian, called "Hamiltonian Quantum Interrelationships." Latter shows those dotted lines.) Now, let's think about A as a classical mathematical symbol. Maths' Independence Axiom says A is lisr, and represents an ideal classical object. A obeys Aristotle's syllogisms. It ideally equals itself. It is ideally, logically, objectively negatable. It is and can only be itself, or as Aristotle claimed A may classically not be both A and not_A. Finally A does not change without what it represents changing propertyesque objectively, usually by classical, mechanical interaction. However, quantum reality demands that A, if it is to be quantum real, must be both itself and n¤t itself. It may be apparently lisr, but quantumly it must be: A(lisr,n¤n_lisr). Further A must be animate, and everywhere-included-middle-associative. And A must be quantum capable of both quantum both-self-and-other-reference, both-self-and-other-interference, and both-self-and-other-superposition. Simply, A must be and have self-ontology. A must be self-aware, capable of ch3 (choice, chance, change) OEDC emerscence. What A in modern and post-modern maths do you know that can be quantum real as we describe? What computer can manipulate quantum symbols like those we describe? Those maths and computers do not exist at Millennium III's beginning! We believe that they will exist within Earth's next one to two decades, however. As you can see, we are disabled by our languages, our maths, and our computational accoutrements. Worse we are disabled by our own thingkings which are just now saying "Duh!" to our last five paragraphs. We are in, Dirac was in, deep classical scat folks! Those who grasp these few paragraphs are going to make going tough for those who do not. Seriously, beware allowing that to happen among our enemies before our own society "gets it." It makes our 1943 atom bomb look like a relative fire cracker... Doug 20Sep2003. (See if you can QELR all quantum comtextual language in this red text. Highlight quantum comtexts then remediate them. Leave classical contexts as is. What is a simplest remediation technique to use here, not allowing doing nothing?) As of 16Mar2003 we have only read portions of Chapter I and Chapter XII. We will add quotes and relevant comments from TPoQM here as we deem appropriate and as we encounter them. Watch for future updates. Doug - 16Mar2003.

The Prodigy, by Amy Wallace, Dutton, 1986 (William James Sidis bio — Pirsig mentions Sidis in Lila)
The Quantum Brain, by Jeffrey Satinover, 1st. ed., Wiley, 2001
The Quantum Society, by Danah Zohar & Ian Marshall, Quill, 1994
The Quantum Universe, by Hey & Walters, Cambridge UP, 1987
8. The Rainbow and the Worm, 'The Physics of Organisms,' by Mae-Wan Ho, World Scientific, 1993
                             MCB University Press a traditional 'subjective'
                             review by Alex M. Andrew of, the Rainbow and the Worm
The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, Oxford UP, 1976, 1978, 1989
The Story of Philosophy, by William James Durant, Garden City Publishing, revised edition, 1933; See our review of his William James topic. Read his Voltaire topic!
The Story of Spin, by Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, UChicagoP, 1997
5. The Strange Story of the Quantum, by Banesh Hoffmann, Dover, 1947

Act I Review

Act II Review

The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, by R.I.G. Hughes, Harvard UP, 1989
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn, UCP, 1962, 1970, 1996 (Kuhn is a SOMite, CRite, and MoQite: bundled! )
The Study of Man, Michael Polanyi, UCP, 1959 (From The Lindsay Memorial Lectures, lectures clarifying Polanyi's larger text Personal Knowledge, 1958), eighth imprssion 1972
The Tao of Physics, by Fritjof Capra, Shambhala, 1975
The Timeless Way of Building, by Christopher Alexander, Oxford UP, 1979
The Turning Point, AKA TuPo in Quantonics, by Fritjof Capra, Bantam, 1982 (paperback, 464 total pages including index)

We are doing this text as an incremental review, which may turn into a full-fledged review similar Dirac's TPoQM above. From TuPo's Preface, p. 15, "The basic thesis of this book is that these are all different facets [crime, pollution, drug use, massive disassembly of social patterns, etc.] of one and the same crisis, and that this crisis is essentially a crisis of perception. Like the crisis in physics in the 1920s, it derives from the fact that we are trying to apply the concepts of an outdated world view—the mechanistic world view of Cartesian-Newtonian science—to a reality that can no longer be understood in terms of these concepts." Our brackets and bold. Where academia used to be capable of providing counsel to political leaders, Capra claims they currently cannot see "...the real problem that underlies our crisis of [lack of available new] ideas: the fact that most academics subscribe to narrow perceptions of reality which are inadequate for dealing with the major problems of our time." Ch. 1, p. 25. Our ellipses and brackets. In Quantonics we agree. Countless other folk like Capra call this critical thing-king problem "naïve realism," and "local realism." We call it "CTM." It is a radical rationalism, a radical formalism, a radical mechanism. See Baggott, Jarrett, etc. A great example is how Einstein was blindered by his own "naïve realism" and that is what induced his wrong-naïve-headed critique of quantum theory in EPR. Also see Gerald Holton's comments re: Einstein's evolution from logical-scientific positivism to rational realism. Capra distills naïve realism to a classicized EOOO yin-yang list of 'opposites:' Yin (either) (or) Yang Feminine Masculine Contractive Expansive Conservative Demanding Responsive Aggressive Cooperative Competitive Intuitive Rational Synthesizing Analytic (Right Brain) (Left Brain) Our parenthetical extensions. Then he says of them, "Looking at this list of [ideally classical either-or] opposites, it is easy to see that our society consistently favored the yang over the yin—rational knowledge over intuitive wisdom, science over religion, competition over cooperation, exploitation of natural resources over conservation, and so on. This emphasis, supported by a patriarchal system and further encouraged by a dominance of sensate [i.e., physical, material] culture during [Western cultures'] past three centuries, has led to a profound cultural imbalance which lies at the very root of our current crisis—an imbalance in our thoughts and feelings, our values and attitudes, and our social and political structures. In describing various manifestations of cultural imbalance, I shall pay particular attention to their effects on health, and want to use a concept of health in a very broad sense, including in it not only individual health but also social and ecological health. These three levels of health are closely interrelated and our current crisis constitutes a serious threat to all three of them. It threatens the health of individuals, society, and ecosystems of which we are a apart." Ch. 1, p. 39. Our brackets and some condensation of text. Our response to that paragraph of Capra's is: Dichons are illness, Quantons are wellness. See our thumbs down dichon vis-à-vis thumbs up quanton gestures. We agree that exclusive preference of yang over yin is problematic for modern Western culture, but more problematic is classical naïve realism's dialectic which created those exclusive oppositives, prototypically. Essence here may be grasped by comparing I Ching's wu and wei with their classical counterparts and thence to quantum subjective negation. Wu classically is "no" and "non." Wei is "action." Classical "no" and "non" are homogeneous, middle-exclusive and EOOO. Wu appears orientally dialectical, but it is heterogeneous BAWAM. Our Quantonics "n¤" and "n¤n" are heterogeneous, middle-inclusive, everywhere-associative, BAWAM. Capra shows us how wu wei in I Ching means selectively reducing one or several of an ensemble of actions, which is what I Ching's Tao does naturally and cyclically-evolutionarily. Tao issi ESS. Western culture misinterprets wu wei as "no action," period. Absolute stasis. Zero momentum. Ideal inertial stability. Immutability. Classical 'state.' Quantumly, wu_weiquantons(quantum_n¤nactual_action,selected_ensembles_of_variably_persistent_quantum_actual_actions). On page 43, Capra mentions that, "Arthur Koestler has coined the word 'holons' for systems which are both wholes and parts, and he emphasized that each holon has [complementary] tendencies: an integrative tendency to function as part of the whole and a self-assertive tendency to preserve its individual autonomy." See Koestler, 1978, Janus, London: Hutchinson. We condensed some text and added substitutive brackets. Notice how Koestler aligns Mae-wan Ho's "quantum cohesion with individual autonomy." Of course twenty years later Mae-wan's words are more quantum than Koestler's classical, formal, and mechanical 'integrative' and 'preserve.' But Koestler grasps essence of quantum c¤mplementarity and his 'holon' appears a precursor of Quantonics' 'quanton.' It will be fun to read Koestler's work and compare their analogies, though we expect his holon to be more materialistically semper fi objective than our semper flux quanton. Further, we sense potential balance and possibly superiority of integrative tendency above individual autonomy in Koestler's holon. Our view is for a general deference of individuals above societies. For example, we perceive war as a social Value, not an individual intellectual Value. So we prefer and defer in that case to individual Values above social Values. Capra appears to quote Koestler in an anachronistic classically biological manner, "...each holon must assert its individuality in order to maintain the system's stratified order, but it must also submit to the demands of the whole in order to make the system viable." This, especially latter phrases, reeks of totalitarianism and classical hegemony. By comparison, in Quantonics and using (our view of) Mae-wan's perspective, quantons act locally individually. In Quantonics social order is an emergent quantum c¤herence phenomenon borne on (well-expressed as ~Hebraic) interrelationship quantons of quanton(respect,quanton(havlagah,Haganah)) which is in English, roughly quanton(respect,quanton(restrained,quanton(cooperation,while_defense_capable))). Of course a major problematic of this meme is that it requires all social orders to be quantum. That being an unlikely near term prospect, all quantons must be capable of innovating n¤vel modes of JIT rapid deployment defense emerqs. Our approach is quantum physial vis-à-vis Koestler's classical mechanism. End of Chapter 2, Capra writes, "At the end of the nineteenth century Newtonian mechanics had lost its role as the fundamental theory of natural phenomena. Maxwell's electrodynamics and Darwin's theory of evolution involved concepts that clearly went beyond the Newtonian model and indicated that the universe was far more complex than Descartes and Newton had imagined. Nevertheless, the basic ideas underlying Newtonian physics, though insufficient to explain all natural phenomena, were still believed to be correct. The first three decades of our century changed this situation radically. Two developments in physics, culminating in relativity theory and in quantum theory, shattered all the principal concepts of the Cartesian world view and Newtonian mechanics. The notion of absolute space and time, the elementary solid particles, the fundamental material substance, the strictly causal nature of physical phenomena, and the objective description of nature—none of these concepts could be extended to the new domains into which physics was now penetrating." "In the twentieth century, however, physicists faced, for the first time, a serious challenge to their ability to understand the universe. Every time they asked nature a question in an atomic experiment, nature answered with a paradox, and the more they tried to clarify the situation, the sharper the paradoxes became. In their struggle to grasp this new reality, scientists became painfully aware that their basic concepts, their language, and their whole way of thinking were inadequate to describe atomic phenomena. Their problem was not only intellectual but involved an intense emotional and existential experience, as vividly described by Werner Heisenberg: 'I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighboring park I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?'" Chapter 3, p. 76. Regular visitors, readers, and students of Quantonics know how that partial paragraph by Capra summarizes many problems (our bolded text) of reality which Quantonics addresses. However, that paragraph (and Capra's entire text) misses some larger issues which Quantonics addresses: Classical paradoxes are tells of a pan quantum reality. (Quantum realism is sophisms of sophisms: quantons(quantons).) Quantum reality is not anthropocentric. (Classical naïve realism is anthropocentric.) Quantum reality is not mechanical. (Classical naïve realism is mechanical.) Quantum reality is not mathematical. (Mathematics is mechanical, predicate logical, treats reality as objective and stable-stoppable.) Quantum phenomena are not just atomic, mesoatomic, and subatomic. (Quantum phenomena entirely scale nature's multiverses.) Quantum reality is animate EIMA. (Classical naïve realism is stable EEMD.) On page 78 Capra wrongly attributes 'quanta' and 'quantum' to Einstein. Attribution should instead be made to Planck. Etymology of 'quantum' is Latin 'quantus' re: size-amount. On pages 84-85 Capra talks about correlated quantum 'particle's' spins. Any two quantum-correlated quantons quantum-correlation: Mae-wan Ho suggests one way to assess correlativeness is whether any two, e.g., electrons come from one parent atom and, e.g., whether two photons are emitted from a single atomic source. Another way is for two previously uncorrelated quantons to become entangled via some, usually nonlinear, process of quantum mixing of quantons. A great example of latter is sperm haploid and egg haploid at comception. Less bion¤nlogically a prism for light and a diode for electrons. Imposed, via say temperature attenuation, quantum coherence also correlates its comstituents. retain their correlation across arbitrary 'spatial' separations. Typical descriptions assign spin up to one and down to another. When one's spin is measured and thus quantum-latched, other's spin latches to pair's quantum complementary value. Prior measurement both correlates' spins are arbitrary. What Capra correctly emphasizes here is a quantum 'miracle' of zero latency correlation regardless of two correlates' spatial separations. He says, "There is no time for [either 'particle'] to receive correlate information [from its quantum complement] by any conventional signal." Page 85. Our brackets to adjust comtext. Further, he says, "This is crux of the EPR experiment, and this is where Einstein disagreed with Bohr. According to Einstein, since no signal can travel faster than the speed of light, it is therefore impossible that the measurement performed on one particle will instantly determine the direction of the other particle's spin, thousands of miles away. According to Bohr, the two-particle system is an indivisible whole, even if the particles are separated by a great distance; the system [in Quantonics we assume any real system issi an anihmatæ EIMA quantum pr¤cess which] cannot be analyzed in terms of independent parts. In other words, the Cartesian view of reality cannot be applied to the two electrons. Even though they are far apart in space, they are nevertheless linked by instantaneous, nonlocal connections. These connections are not signals in the Einsteinian sense; they transcend our conventional notions of information transfer. Bell's theorem supports Bohr's interpretation of the two particles as an indivisible whole and proves rigorously that Einstein's Cartesian view is incompatible with the laws of quantum theory. As Stapp sums up the situation, 'The Theorem of Bell proves, in effect, the profound truth that the world is either fundamentally lawless or fundamentally inseparable.'" Page 85. Our links, violet, bold, and brackets. Bold violet adheres our practice of annotating extreme classical problematics. That paragraph is immensely important regarding future quantum technologies. Therein uncloak hints of quantum communications and teleportation, among countless other incredible capabilities. Our last bolded sentence there comtains a classical either/or, a major problematic. Either/or is a Pirsigean platypus, an Aristotelian excluded-middle, SOM's wall, Sheffer's stroke, classical blinders, Bacon's and Descartes' and Newton's knife, Ockham's razor, and so on... Quantum reality issi n¤ne of those classical 'things.' In place of that classical EOOO, we substitute (QELR) a quantum BAWAM. Quantum realihty issi b¤th lawless while amd ihnseparable. CTMs convince their trueper executants of ideal logical either/one/or/the/other opposition. QTMs apprise their adherents ¤f quantum s¤phist both-all-while-and-many c¤mplementati¤n. "The concepts of nonlocality and statistical causality imply quite clearly that the structure of matter is not mechanical. Hence the term 'quantum mechanics' is very much a misnomer, as David Bohm has pointed out.19 In his 1951 textbook [] Quantum Theory Bohm offered some interesting speculations on the analogies between quantum processes and thought processes,20 thus carrying further the celebrated statement made by James Jeans two decades earlier: 'Today there is a wide measure of agreement...that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.'21" Page 86. Note 19 is Bohm's Quantum Theory. Note 20 ibid. Note 21 is James Jeans' 1930 Mysterious Universe. That paragraph is so prescient and precious. Why? Let's discuss quantum thought (thinking) vis-à-vis classical thought (thingking). Classical thought is essentially dialectical reason. What does that mean? It (oversimplified) means that symbols can be used to logically and predicably refer to concrete objects in reality. Concrete objects by Parmenidean, Platonic, and Aristotelian edict adhere Bergson's two classical delusions about reality: Reality is stable (objects in classical reality hold still) Objects in reality are independent-dissociative (classical reality's middle is excluded: A cannot be both A and not A) Classicists believe that classical minds can (do) store ideal, stopped classical symbols of concrete objects in their 'minds.' Too, that know ledge can be recalled ideally as it was stored. That kind of know ledge is ideally predicable. Notice how classical memory now takes on a notion of pasticity. Classical knowledge is retroflective, always looking back at unchanging, stable, immutable, ideally independent objective memories. Predication is a compound process of induction and deduction on old in-form-ation. We call this CTM. It assumes that classical mind and classical intellect can only process state-ic, stopped know ledge in-form-ation. See thingk. In Quantonics we innovated our own term to replace a classical notion of 'mind:' quantum stage. Quantumists (we also call them "MoQites") who view their 'minds' as quantum stages believe that: Reality issi quantum amd thus abs¤lutely anihmatæ (quantons aræ flux amd aræ ihn abs¤lute flux) Quantons ihn realihty aræ c¤¤bsfective-ass¤ciative (quantum realihties' mihddles aræ ihncluded: A issi b¤th A amd n¤t A) Quantumists believe that any quantum stage can bæ (issi) hermeneutically deep role playing quantum memes. Quantum memes are affectational. They thibedir. They ride, absolutely animately, realities' "edging of nowings." They are unstoppable. They directly experience realities' happenings as close to nowings as possible. We call this quantum thinking pr¤cess, "k-nowings." We call it more generally QTM. It assumes that any and all quantum stagings pr¤cess EIMA absolutely animate quantum experiencings. In his Tao of Physics, Capra wrote about a notion called "bootstrap theory." We read about this back in 1997 on flights to-from Madeira. At that juncture we were yet and still (and always) fledging some of our own quantum k-nowings and Capra's words didn't make much sense to us. In this text, his Turning Point, he brings this topic up again. It still (Capra's choices of grammar and words) sounds-feels ~classical to us, but some of his remarks about bootstrap theory being "profound Western thought," and "approaching levels of Eastern theory," intrigue us. This page 94 quote referring back to Capra's Tao of Physics original quote of Chew really intrigues us, "A physicist who is able to view any number of different partially successful models without favoritism is automatically a bootstrapper." Several memes arise immediately here: quantum heter¤geneity ¤f ihnterpretati¤n ¤f vari¤us ¤mniffering "partially successful models," Kuhn's double puzzle puzzle, Bohm's comment in his Quantum Theory about a need to view reality in a novel, more holistic manner, and Quantonics' memetic quanton. We can view both quantons and qubits as "...different (omnifferings) partially successful models (modelings)..." This is remarkably like Kuhn's double puzzle of two partial puzzles. Too it is akin recent memes of quantum everywhere-included-middle-association. Speaking specifically of subatomics, Capra says, "The picture [] that emerges from the bootstrap theory can be summed up in the provocative phrase 'Every particle consists of all other particles.' It must not be imagined however that each of them contains all the others in a classical, static sense." We view this as Capra's own acknowledgement of quantum reality's included-middle. It begs metaphors of holograms, n-spatial holographic memeories, genetic algorithms, associative memeories, self-organizing neural networks (SONs), emersible spin-glass schemas, zeroentropic memeory-reversibilities and -recollections, gravity as EIMA partially- and selectively-reversible quantum coherence, intentional spin-doctoring of all classes of solitons across subatomic to macroscopic, even cosmic, scales, etc. TuPo has four main sections: Crisis and Transformation The Two Paradigms: Newtonian World Machine and The New Physics The Influence of Cartesian-Newtonian Thought The New Vision of Reality At this segue, we have covered 1 and 2. We leave 3 to you. We have dedicated much of this site's effort to 3 and find any further review of it here redundant. We encourage students of Quantonics to read this text during school breaks. It offers countless uplifting nexi to our efforts here in Quantonics. Unless you need reminders of horrors of classical thought, skip 3. Capra agrees with us that biology and medicine likely will lead Millennium III's quantum tsunami. He describes some of that in 3. We plan to review 4 during 1st quarter of 2004, but want to offer a start on it here and now since it aligns so closely our efforts on our feuilleton Chautauqua which we commenced in our October, 2003 News. Let's quote Capra's first three sentences of his 'The New Vision of Reality,' section 4 of his book The Turning Point. "The new vision of reality we have been talking about is based on awareness of the essential interrelatedness and interdependence of all phenomena—physical, biological, psychological, social, and cultural. It transcends current disciplinary and conceptual boundaries and will be pursued within new institutions. At present there is no well-established framework, either conceptual or institutional, that would accommodate the formulation of the new paradigm, but the outlines of such a framework are already being shaped by many individuals, communities, and networks that are developing new ways of thinking and organizing themselves according to new principles." Capra's first sentence is quantum, Quantonic. Then, like so many others, his next two sentences take us back into a classical world, a world incapable of dealing with manifest problems of a classical world borne on Parmenidean, Platonic, Aristotelian, Aquinian, Buridanian, Baconian, Cartesian, Newtonian, Einsteinian thing-king. Look at our emboldened words in our quote of Capra above. They are classical words. They are same-old same-old. They put us back in SOM's box, back in SOM's vicious circle! Disciplinary and conceptual boundaries, new institutions, frameworks, either conceptual or institutional, formulations of the new paradigms, shaped by many individuals, communities, and networks, organizing according to new principles—all of that is classical hyperBoole. Classical Bobbi Streisand. Classical disciplinary matrices no longer work! Conceptual boundaries no longer work! New (say "manufactured," and "reproduced") institutions do not work! Frameworks, formulations, paradigms, organizing and principles do not work! Why? They are non-emersible classical thing-king methods. They are incapable of quantum emergence and emerscenture! See our recent list of comparisons of classical methods vis-à-vis quantum modes under think. Capra's new vision is quantum-based. His solution is yet classically-based! Ugh!! In his first two sections Capra tells us most of SOM's ills and quantum science's benefits. But he does not see that a n¤vel quantum world demands less shallow changes than he suggests above. Our languages are classical. Our thing-king is dialectical. Our methods are analytical. Our maths are objective. Our institutions, societies, and cultures place classical organizations, forms, and frameworks hegemonously-Platonically above quantum individual intellect and free will. All of that and more must change in order to accomplish what he claims we need. Now think about this. Quantum reality respects individuals and individual free-will. Classical nations, societies, cultures, institutions, paradigms, principles, disciplinary matrices, etc., do not! If you agree, then you can see that Capra is stuck in a classical past and stuck in its ideas and concepts which are no longer valid for dealing with Earth's humanistic and ecological problems. We will continue this review during quarter one, 2004... It's 9Jan2004...our EOY site work is tentatively over...we are ready to comtinue our TuPo review. Let's pick up where we left off... We'll quote his entire second paragraph of Section IV, p. 265. "In this situation it would seem that a bootstrap approach, similar to the one that contemporary physics has developed, may be most fruitful. This will mean gradually formulating a network of interlocking concepts and models and, at the same time, developing the corresponding social organizations. None of the theories and models will be any more fundamental than the others, and all of them will have to be mutually consistent. They will go beyond the conventional disciplinary distinctions, using whatever language becomes appropriate to describe different aspects of the multileveled, interrelated fabric of reality. Similarly, none of the new social institutions will be superior to or more important than any of the others, and all of them will have to be aware of one another and communicate and cooperate with one another." Part of this is right on, in our view. Part of it is yet trapped in SOM. Where we are going, contemporary physics, if it is still classical, will be of little use to us. If a bootstrap approach harbors classical means, it will be useless to us. We do not want to 'formulate,' we want to evolve and emerge; we want emerqancy. "Interlocking concepts and models," when they are classical are incapable of quantum evolution and emergence. Why? They are both state-ic and their middles are excluded! Capra's "None of the theories and models will be any more fundamental than the others, and all of them will have to be mutually consistent." is just more classically insipid pap. Can you sense its classical 'state?' It's classical 'be.' It's classical mandate for 'consistency?' We think what Capra wants to say here, but he can't because he is using classical terms, is that our quantons (in place of theories and models) must be quantum c¤herent. We do not seek classical 'state' and 'consistency,' rather, we Mae-wan Hoesque seek a quantum BAWAM of "coherence and individual quantonic autonomy." Notice how his "fabric of reality" feels David Deutschian-cast, -framed, -cinematographically stoppable. Quantum realihty issi unst¤ppable c¤herent pr¤cessings! His "...none of the new social institutions will be superior to or more important than any of the others, and all of them will have to be aware of one another and communicate and cooperate with one another." is just more classical Culturally Relativistic, socially-plurally objective crap. Quantum s¤cial ihnstituti¤ns cann¤t classically 'be.' Quantum ihnstituti¤ns aræ bæihngs, evolvings, emergings! They aræ radically quantum anihmatæ amd radically ihn service ¤f quantum ihndihvihdual comstituents. All quantum ihnstituti¤ns amd ihndihvihduals aræ sææking quantum bætter BAWAM(n¤nlisr,lisr) EIMA whatings happenings nextings. We can simplify all that by saying, from our Quantonics perspective: "Wæ must emerscitecture quantum ihnstituti¤ns," amd "wæ must learn: bæihngs ¤ur natural quantum selves." Wæ must emphasize QTMs ab¤ve CTMs. Our largest immediate goal is to comvert classical institutions into quantum ihnstituti¤ns. See our 2003-2004 quantum feuilleton Chautauqua commencing October, 2003 which offers both foundation and detail guidelines on how to accomplish this goal. Continuing on 12Jan2004... Keeping in mind that what Capra, Prigogine, Stengers, et al., mean by "equilibrium" is at worst a positive entropy only view and at best a posentropy-dual-gradient (Prigogine) view. Quantumists tend toward more quatro-cohera-entropa perspective of pos-, zero-, neg-, and mix- entropies and coherencies. Having offered said caveat: "There are a number of fundamental differences between the new ["bootstrap"] systems theory of evolution and the classical neo-Darwinian theory. The classical theory sees evolution as moving toward an equilibrium state, with organisms adapting themselves ever more perfectly to their environment. According to the systems view, evolution operates far from equilibrium and unfolds through an interplay of adaptation and creation. Moreover, the systems theory takes into account that the environment is, itself, a living system capable of adaptation and evolution. Thus the focus shifts from the evolution of an organism to the coevolution of organism plus environment. The consideration of such mutual adaptation and coevolution was neglected in the classical view, which has tended to concentrate on linear, sequential processes and to ignore transactional phenomena that are mutually conditioning and going on simultaneously." P. 287. (Our brackets and bold.) We may add that Quantonics views evolution as quantum metapragmadigms which themselves aræ evolvings. Too, we see organisms and 'systems' as having tentatively-useful presences in reality, and nature 'selectively' replaces them with better quantum emerqants. Our most vivid exemplar: we see Neo sapiens n-somian Trojan Horsesque replacing Homo sapiens within Earth's next five millennia. On a subtle note of ~agreement, Capra sees exonic chromasomal DNA gene sequences as "viral messages." It is extremely valuable to note that these are ultra-mutable as mRNA. Less so as DNA. Codon selection-compilation too (some 'addresses' are overloaded-aliased). Then there are intronic DNAs which can mutate, like writing on tabula rasa. Often large environmental changæs aræ necessary to evoke-provoke our mentioned mutations. Apparently, most-all 26 pairs of human chromosomes are experiencing said n-somial and other mutations as we speak. 'Classical science' refers these mutations as "disease." It's like saying "Earth is flat." Quantum changæ, in our Quantonics view, can seldom be referred, medically-ethically, "disease." Fascinating, eh? Of course most classicists, especially classical 'scientists,' see Nature as "absurd." Doug - 12Jan2004. A slight concern here is that Capra apparently sees c¤mplementati¤n in pairs. We d¤ n¤t see quantum c¤mplementarity that way. Any island (i.e., quanton), via its anihmatæ EIMA, has potentially all other reality as its c¤mplement. Gravity, for example, c¤mplements all reality. For those of you who are ecologists, we need note that environmental modification is what evolving systems extensively do. An ideal ecological system's 'fragility' is n¤t extreme sensitivity and retention of classical 'state,' rather is vigorous, even ruthless, nutrition of quantum changæ. Most environmental SOMwits believe former and decry latter. To them, Nature is indeed, "absurd." Thank you for reading, Doug 3-12Jan2004. Readers be aware that this TuPo review is in progress...

Their Eyes Were Watching God, by Zora Neale Hurston, 1937 (USA's finest, female black author!). Hurston wrote at least six other books. This is an old, 1992 review by Doug.

This review appears to us, 13 years later, as somewhat apropos hurricanes, New Orleans, and what is happening there now. (Doug's, then 1992, thelogos is atrocious!)

pdr Their Eyes Were Watching God review 7nov92 pdr HIGHLIGHTS OF PDR's RECALL OF THE STORY Author: Zora Neale Hurston Main Characters: Janie, her first two husbands-Logan Killicks and Joe [Jody] Starks, and finally Tea Cake. Story plot: Janie spends her first two decades of adult life living with men older than she. Logan is about 25 years older and Joe is 10-15 years older. Both offer her financial security, but she is trapped by both and misses out on the real fruits of life. Along comes Tea Cake, after the death of Joe. TC offers Janie the fruits of life. They aggress life together and enjoy it without reserve. Notably, the age difference is reversed. Janie is about 10-15 years older than TC. Their love for each other grows and grows. They enjoy life until nature imposes its will and changes their destinies irrevocably. Memorable portions of the story: I found it very interesting that Janie allowed her Grandmother to control her future by getting Janie to marry Logan. Janie could have been much happier if she had chosen her own mate. Again, the time-worn truth that money doesn't bring happiness. Janie isn't happy until she meets Tea Cake. She is truly in love with TC and he with her, but they have no golden idols to worship, only each other. The most memorable portion of the story for me is the awfully depressing ending where TC becomes rabid and tries to kill Janie, but she kills him instead. All of this transpired because of TC's willful disregard and disrespect of nature's signals and warnings about impending danger. Hot lines in the story: p. 60, "If a man ain't got no bounds, he ain't got no place to stop." Eliminating the double negatives: If a man has bounds, he has a place to stop. This is a hot line for me because of my prior requests to female partners to set boundaries. The deeper philosophical meaning of the sentence in the story is that everything depends on context, and if context is unlimited, so are ranges of subject matter and discussions about that material. p. 61, "He [God] made nature and nature made everything else." This is close to my way of saying that God's methodology is evolution. I was surprised that blacks intuit much the same as I do. The jargon is different, but the meaning is the same. p. 99. Read this. Tea Cake finds Janie gorgeous. Janie can't understand why TC finds her so alluring. p. 101. Read this. Tea Cake resolves their age difference well. p. 108. Janie rationalizes her relationship with TC. She has tried doing things other peoples' ways. Now she will do what she wants. p. 109. Last para. Janie describes what I would call "isomorphism." p. 151. Bottom of page-words for the title of the book. p. 183. "Two things everybody's got tuh do fuh theyselves. They got tuh go tuh God, and they got tuh find out about livin' fuh theyselves. [Beth: quantum individualism!]" The Payoff: The book juxtaposes black and white cultures and shows the good and evil aspects of both contexts. It also discloses the twilight of being mixed blood. [Doug's 7Nov2005 comments: 13 years show significant evolution in Doug's thelogos, classical language, and a transition from CTMs to QTMs. Fascinating!] pdr Their Eyes Were Watching God review 7nov92 pdr

Time and Free Will, by Henri Louis Bergson, 1888
Varieties of Religious Experience, by William James, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1902
1. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert M. Pirsig, Morrow (Bantam), 1974
4. Zen in the Art of Archery, by Eugen Herrigel, Pantheon (Vintage), 1953

Site Author's Comments:

Clearly, to understand Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ I) and its dualities with new science's Mechanics of Quanta (MoQ II), Pirsig's three works are mandatory reading. See them numbered 1, 2, 3 above. Caveat: once through is not enough! You may be more capable than I; however, I found it necessary to re-read Pirsig's works multiple times. Each passage was a new journey, a pathway enlightened by iteration. Please read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance first, then Lila, and finally Subjects, Objects, Data, and Values. Pirsig recommends we all read Herrigel's book too: Zen in the Art of Archery from whence Pirsig adapted a name for his first book. See number 4 above.

See other highlighted, more memorable texts (bold).

Your site author's favorite authors include: Pirsig, Powers, Stein, Ho, Zohar, Zukav, Capra, and Gleick.

Most recently, we are awed by Irving Stein's work. See our review of his, The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics. Read Stein's book if you want to see a modern genius unfold quantum reality from a SOM foundation and transform classical reality step-by-step before your eyes into an open, autonomous, but globally coherent reality. Stein has to ~reverse-engineer classical reality to achieve a new quantum reality. Stein's ascendant epiphany lifts us out of SOM's closed cathedral (Newtonian ontology) into MoQ's open bazaar (quantum ontology). His epiphany is a brilliant mental departure from SOM's either/or schismatic walk to MoQ's both/and coherent Chautauqua. Conclusion: as we have said endlessly, SOM's founding assumptions are just plain wrong!

For any of you interested in a quick tour of quantum mechanics with cursory notation and broader perspective, start with Dan Thomas' web site, Rudiments of Quantum Theory. Dan has made it very easy for newcomers to grasp essence of this vast topic. After, I suggest you read David Z Albert's book, Quantum Mechanics and Experience. An apparent major flaw in his text is Albert's latent Subject-Object Metaphysics (SOM) insistence on determinism which he probably inherits from Bohm. If you are unfamiliar with Albert's use of Dirac's bra-ket notation see chapter two, 'Putting it in to practice,' of Jim Baggott's The Meaning of Quantum Theory. You do not need to know heavy mathematics in detail, just high-level perspective of what bra-ket represents, what bra and ket represent, and their interrelationships. (It is necessary to beware that Dirac's bra-ket notation is essentially classical. His 'bra' is classical imaginary complex conjugate reality. His 'ket' is classical real complex conjugate reality. Dirac shows both conjugates like this < imaginary | real > with a Sheffer stroke AKA "binary alternative denial" separating them. This is why we say Dirac's notation is essentially classical. That Sheffer stroke is what we often refer as "SOM's wall." It is Aristotle's "excluded-middle." "Binary alternative denial" is SOM's OGC/OGT grand dichotomy. Classicists, using Aristotle's and Boole's 'logic,' turn reality into a closed set of either/or dichons. But quantum reality isn't like that. Our Quantonics site is about subsuming those invalid SOM notions regarding reality. 24Dec2002 - Doug.)

My opinion on quantum interpretations and their dualities with Pirsig's MoQ: beware quantum theoretical interpretations which require a special recording device to perform 'special event' measurement. In Pirsig's New Philosophy, one may sense this special device had to pre-exist. In MoQ, things of Static Quality may not pre-exist. Conjecture: Interpretations which do not require a special device are more capable of emergent primal 'special events' created by Dynamic Quality.

As you read, remember this — in quantum science today, there remain two large issues:

1. Quantum Interpretation Question, and
2. Quantum Measurement Problem.

Number one says we do not know how to interpret reality using quantum theory. Interpretation of reality is where I see Pirsig's New Philosophy, his MoQ, making a very large impact once you and other people recognize what Pirsig accomplished.

Pirsig's MoQ has an identical problem to number two. Similar to quantum science, Pirsig's MoQ cannot tell when or how a measurement 'special event' occurs or what causes it. MoQ I (Metaphysics of Quality) cannot explain what causes a Quality Event (Pirsig's MoQ dual of a 'special event') or how a Quality Event happens.

Aside (30Nov2000):

We are working on a new Quantonics page which will discuss both of these 'problems' in detail. However, we want to give those of you who read our Recommended Reading page a heads-up advantage. Please use your quantum stage minds to subsume Doug's reduced level of evolution when he wrote those two preceding paragraphs almost three years ago. We learned much since then.

Sadly, it is embarrassing to admit some glaring oversights in those paragraphs. Any scholar of Pirsig's MoQ will recognize Doug's own naïve misrepresentations of Pirsig's MoQ!

What is a most fundamental Value of MoQ? Many truths, right? What do MoQ's 'many truths' show us about any view that there should be a single interpretation of any Static Quality Pattern of Value? It shows us that there are many interpretations of any SPoV!

So what does it show us about a problem of the Quantum Interpretation Question?

MoQ makes this easy for us, and Doug should have seen this back in April, 1998 when he first wrote this text. We should expect many interpretations of Quantum Reality, and, not only that, we should expect many of those to be correct! (Some will be various levels of less correct.)

Only a classical mind using CTMs could view this as a Quantum Interpretation Question. Obviously, Doug was more classical then than now. (Pirsig appropriately accused Doug of that (classically intellectualizing) in one of his early letters. )

In Doug's second paragraph above on the Quantum Measurement Problem, can you guess what Doug's oversight was there? Or do you already know?

Recall that John von Neumann fully expected to find a specific locus for a quantum special event. Try as he might, though, he could never find one (thus the 'problem'). Notice Doug's words, "...when or how a measurement 'special (Planck) event' occurs or what causes it." Do you see anything wrong with that fragment?

Pirsig's MoQ has already answered our Quantum Measurement Problem!

What is another major MoQ Value? It is an anti-causation Value. Where classical science declares "A causes B," Pirsig showed us "Bs Value preconditions As." Doug added plurals to bring MoQ up to a more modern quantum plural and heterogeneous reality.

So we immediately see that Quantum Measurement is non-causal according to Pirsig's MoQ.

Next we see quite nicely, now in retrospect, that we cannot find 'where' or 'when' a quantum measurement (or a MoQ Quality Event) occurs! "Doug, how can you say that?" Well, reader, we can say it since we now see that many preconditions affect a quantum measurement! Those preconditions are or may be in many loci and have many of their 'own' local times. Remember too, both loci and times (as are masses, gravities, temperatures, pressures, et al.) are quantum manifestations of quantum flux.

To simplify, we can just say that a quantum measurement is heterogeneous in interpretations, loci, and temporalities. We heuristically infer it is heterogeneous in all mixed flux with which it has Quantonic interrelationships.

It was all there for us to see, but we missed it.

Aside aside - 15Feb2006:

Let's list relevant and supporting memes and memeos by (one self,) other authors and mentors:

• Bergson's "you can analyze a thing, but one may not analyze a process,"
• Hoffmann's "one may not measure frequency at a point," (That link offers relevant links, so...we do not re show them here.)
• Renselle's "quantum uncertainty is macroscopic,"
• Zeno's "position and momentum of an flying arrow are macroscopically uncertain," (Doug derives this from Zeno's first paradox...)
• J. S. Bell's Inequalities "are potent tells of macroscopic uncertainty..." (Doug derived...)
• list appears nearly endless once one grasps Quantonic essentials of quantum reality...

Classicists DIQheadedly scalarbate. See CTMs.

Quantumists QICheadedly are always quantum~REIMAR~monitorings. See QTMs.

End aside aside - 15Feb2006.

If this does not show you how great Pirsig's mind is, nothing will. Hopefully, some day during Earth's Western cultural third millennium Pirsig will gain recognition for what he accomplished. Meantime, Mr. Pirsig, Sir, you have our extreme gratitude and admiration.

Doug.

End aside.

For you nit-pickers, there is a third n¤n-problem some consider significant: a theoretical Quantum Prediction Problem. Quantum predictions are always statistical based upon virtual event ensehmbles. We call this a n¤n-problem because quantum science works and classical science does not work (in general). Quantum science asks us to forego classical absolute single event determinism in favor of a modicum of cosmic uncertainty combined with assured ensehmble statistical determinism. Quantum uncertainty says we cann¤t classically 'predict' single events, however, we may quantumly predict quantum~ensemble stochastics. See our graphic at Pastings, Nowings, Futurings. Also see our What is Wrong with Probability as Value? Doug - 15Feb2006.

See Sam Rosenberg's book, our number 9. You will be particularly interested in his chapter on William James Sidis and a foreword by Buckminster Fuller. We will do a review of just his chapter on WJS during 1999. We are just now reading, A PreSocratics Reader, number 8. It is superb for those of you who want to understand Sophism, Sophists, and pre-Aristotelian Greeks. Especially see their time line (first few pages). Sophism is a straw man Greek founders of SOM mendaciously used to defeat pre-Socratic thought (SOMites insisted on one global truth vis-à-vis Sophists intuited reality's intrinsic many truths.). Now we know Sophism is an essential precursor of quantum science! Further, SOM and its attendant post-Sophist thought is demonstrably n¤n-quantum and pragmatically inept. Return to Top

Read and enjoy - experience a n¤vel and better Quantonics way of thinking,

Doug Renselle

In Quantonics

(3Apr2000 rev - Add William James' last book, review link pending.)
(4Apr2000 rev - Add link to James review.)
(10Apr2000 rev - Add Boris Sidis' Philistine & Genius.)
(15May2000 rev - Add link to finished review of Philistine & Genius.)
(15May2000 rev - Add two more of Henri Louis Bergson's books with pending reviews. Prep. for WJS' AIA review.)
(29Jun2000 rev - Revise our 3rd quantum non-problem description. Insert word virtual.)
(20Jul2000 rev - Add anchor to Morton White's, Age of Analysis.)
(3Aug2000 rev - Add Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and his The Blind Watchmaker.)
(18Aug2000 rev - Add anchor to Baggott.)
(9Oct2000 rev - Add links to our Bergson Creative Evolution review; link Gleick's Genius to 'wobble' experiments.)
(14Nov2000 rev - Add Charles Renouvier, Homo Faber, I Ching, Magister Ludi. See red wing-ding arrows.)
(30Nov2000 rev - Add Quantum Interpretation and Measurement aside.)
(1Dec2000 rev - Add Doug note to Powers' The Goldbug Variations.)
(21Dec2000 rev - Add anchor to our Quantum Interpretation and Measurement aside.)
(22Dec2000 rev - Correct grammar (plurals) and add 'interpretations,' to our Interpretation and Measurement aside.)
(2Feb2001 rev - Add link to our review of G. E. Hughes' book on Buridan's Sophismata.)
(6-7Aug2001 rev - Add Hesse's Steppenwolf.)
(2Nov2001 rev - Add two anchors to Steppenwolf section. Add links to The Prodigy and Rosenberg's Masquerade Party.)
(19Jan2002 rev - Add top of page frame-beaker. Reformat top of page text, and top/bottom return messages.)
(19Jan2002 rev - Add The Conscious Universe recommendation.)
(29Jan2002 rev - Add page bottom notes' 'anti-causation' link to our August, 2001 QQA on causation.)
(29Jan2002 rev - Add Dancing Wu Li Masters link to our Bell Theorem Chautauqua.)
(29Jan2002 rev - Add an entry recommendation and a brief commentary on A Beautiful Mind.)
(29Jan2002 rev - Move larger commentaries into tables.)
(30Jan2002 rev - Extend The Conscious Universe recommendation.)
(2Feb2002 rev - Add A Beautiful Mind link back to our mini review of it.)
(3Feb2002 rev - Add anchor to The Conscious Universe.)
(8May2002 rev - Add comment to The Conscious Universe.)
(2Jun2002 rev - Add link to our newly completed Bergson's Time and Free Will review.)
(21Jul2002 rev - Change QELR links to A-Z pages.)
(25Aug2002 rev - Add 'consensus' link to common sense above.)
(28Aug2002 rev - Add Available Light, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Paradox Lost, The Magus of the North.)
(28Aug2002 rev - Add Quantum Chromodynamics, Quantum Electrodynamics - 34 Papers. See red wing-ding arrows.)
(12Sep2002 rev - Move Paradox Lost to its proper alphabetical location.)

(26Sep2002 rev - Remediate all quantum comtextual occurrences of 'ensemble.')
(6Oct2002 rev - Add anchor to The Story of Spin.)
(29Oct2002 rev - Remove some outdated parentheticals. Update Paradox Lost.)
(29Oct2002 rev - Add Quantum Chromodynamics. Add Ancient Greek Philosophy.)
(2Nov2002 rev - Repair Zeilinger link.)
(17Nov2002 rev - Add Cambridge and Oxford Dictionaries of Philosophy. Add Schweber's QED & Men Who Made It.)
(11Dec2002 rev - Add fragments of our unfinished The Quantum Brain (Satinover, 2001) review.)
(14Dec2002 rev - Minor edits to TQB review snips.)
(15Dec2002 rev - Add anchor to our snipped Quantum Brain review.)
(24Dec2002 rev - 'Add this date's red text parenthetical to page bottom remarks.)
(23Jan2003 rev - Add 1988 legacy 'review' of Gleick's Chaos.)
(14Feb2003 rev - Revise, gently, our Chaos review. Add Miller's Early QED.)
(24Feb2003 rev - Add link to our in-progress review of Satinover's The Quantum Brain.)
(16Mar2003 rev - Add Dirac's TPoQM to our RR list. Add to and reorder our RR top ten. Repair RR links.)
(16Mar2003 rev - Add top ten selection/link table. Extend page subtitling for more recent quantum heuristics.)
(23Mar2003 rev - Extend our Dirac TPoQM review. Reformat some text and layouts. Smileys to GIFs. Reset red text.)
(26-30Mar2003 rev - Extend Dirac TPoQM review.)
(4-9Apr2003 rev - Extend and update Dirac TPoQM review. Updates to red text in dark blue.)
(10Apr2003 rev - Continue review of TPoQM.)
(14Apr2003 rev - Correct misspelling of morphogenesis.)
(16Apr2003 rev - Continue our review of TPoQM.)
(30Apr2003 rev - Add our 1st use 'memeory' link to its coined description.)
(21May2003 rev - Reformat part of Gold Bug Variations.)
(1Jun2003 rev - Reset red text under Dirac.)
(21Jun2003 rev - Add Jammer's Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics.)
(2Jul2003 rev - Extend Baggott's The Meaning of Quantum Theory.)
(16Jul2003 rev - Add Perfume. Correct some typing and spelling errors.)
(20Jul2003 rev - Upgrade How to Become A Student of Quantonics links to new separate web page.)
(9Aug2003 rev - Upgrade our A Beautiful Mind review precis.)
(10Aug2003 rev - Update links to our review of A Beautiful Mind.)
(19Aug2003 rev - Add total page count to A Beautiful Mind.)
(23Aug2003 rev - Clarify our uses of 'tendentious' and 'proscription' under Baggott. Extend p. 11 comments.)
(3Sep2003 rev - Add Bentov's StWP.)
(7Sep2003 rev - Extend Bentov's StWP.)
(20Sep2003 rev - Update TPoQM review ending.)
(22Oct2003 rev - Repair typo under A Beautiful Mind.)
(2Nov2003 rev - Repair typo under Dirac's TPoQM.)
(8Dec2003 rev - Correct some TPoQM typos.)
(12-13Dec2003 rev - Add Oryx & Crake.)
(30Dec2003 rev - Add 'thingk' link.)
(6Jan2004 rev - Correct Depot to Depoe.)
(12Jan2004 rev - Correct intraquote typo in TuPo.)
(15Jan2004 rev - Remove RR 6 change date. Restore violet to bold problematics under TPoQM.jRepair typos.)
(19Mar2004 rev - Add 'infinite regress' remarks to our Gleick's Chaos review.)
(4Apr2004 rev - Repair Capra TuPo spelling errors, typos, and put back some legacy bold violet marks.)
(3May2004 rev - Change 'to' to 'of,' remove some legacy update text, and add some apropos red text under Gleick's Chaos review.)
(3May2004 rev - Add red text and link under Philip R. Wallace's Paradox Lost.)
(3May2004 rev - Add red text to Baggott's The Meaning of Quantum Theory.)
(28Jun2004 rev - Add an anchor to Dirac's suggestion of an absolute metric.)
(1Jul2004 rev - Reset legacy red text.)
(18Aug2004 rev - Add anchor to TPoQM section on Diracian 'amplitude-direction irrelevance.')
(25Dec2004 rev - Add Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead,The Holographic Universe, Studies in Subjective Probability., The Study of Man,...)
(25Dec2004 rev - ...Scientific Indeterminism and Human Freedom, The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science, and The Story of Philosophy.)
(22Jan2005 rev - Repair 's e m a n n t i c' typo to 'semantic' and change 'o m n i d i m e n' to 'omnimen.')

(22Jan2005 rev - Add Quantum Fuzzonic ABC link under Dirac on superposition. Add VoRE.)
(22-23Feb2005 rev - Typos. Add Powers Resources link.)
(1Mar2005 rev - Replace #5 RR, Banesh Hoffman's Strange Quantum, and reorder 6-10. Rosenberg's Come as You Are Masquerade Party demoted.)
(7Nov2005 rev - Add Doug's 7Nov1992 review of Zora Neal Hurston's 1937 Their Eyes Were Watching God.)
(5Dec2005 rev - Reset red text.)
(5,15Feb2006 rev - Page top announce new RR list on quantum vav classical religion. Refine page format slightly. Update page bottom comments.)
(21,23,29Aug2006 rev - Minor reformating. Massive respell. Add update to our Dirac TPoQM review. Add red text and pink asides under Gleick's Chaos.)
(6Sep2006 rev - Superpose 'ad oculos' link.)
(5Oct2006 rev - Update Oryx and Crake Review.)
(20Mar2007 rev - Add 'Diracs Superposition' anchor under our review of Dirac's TPoQM.)
(9Apr2007 rev - Repair misspelling of Poincaré whose 'o' was quantized. Thanks to whomever saw that!)
(24Sep2007 rev - Update 'loudspeaker' comments under Dirac's TPoQM review.)
(23Oct2007 rev - Add TSSotQ link to ACT I of that review.)
(26Dec2007 rev - Add TSSotQ Act I and Act II links under top ten list.)
(29Dec2008 rev - Add 'Margenau' anchor.)
(7Jan2009 rev - Update omniscussion on Baggott's comments about quanta as 'chunky.' Clarifies omnifferencings classical vav quantum vav blackbody radiation as adiabatic, thus not classically y=f(t) 'continuous.')
(8Jan2009 rev - Continue simplifying omniscussion around lossless blackbody interrelationshipings as manifestations of adiabatic quantum scintillation.)
(19Apr2009 rev - Update Zeilinger homepage.)
(3Sep2009 rev - Add '3Sep2009 Aside.' See Dirac TPoQM review. Loosen text box constraints.)

 

Arches