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

Doug Renselle's 2011-20XX Economics Feuilleton Chautauqua

Chapter One

"Complementing Hyperinflation and Hypoinflation: a move from CTMs to QTMs."

Chapter Two

Chapter Three

Chapter One Index to Doug's 11Sep2010 Feuilleton Chautauqua on Economic [Vv]alue
 Seg 1 - An approach to Economic [Vv]alue  Seg 9 - Change is simple, state is complex  Seg 17 - An approach to Quantumizing Economics - Essence
 Seg 2 - Why this Chautauqua?  Seg 10 - Energy Wellings?  Seg 18 - A look at what Bohm actually wrote
 Seg 3 - What is Value? Can we know?  Seg 11 - Quantum~Learning & Thinkqing  Seg 19 - A Brief Interlude Add von Foerster's Theorem
 Seg 4 - A n¤væl [Vv]alue assessment m¤dal  Seg 12 - Change as perpetual transmutation
 Seg 5 - Individual vis-à-vis society  Seg 13 - Quantum quantization
 Seg 6 - Value is quantum  Seg 14 - Quantum~reality as conscious~awareness
 Seg 7 - Major flaws of classicism  Seg 15 - Classical absence of quantization
 Seg 8 - Change is reality's essence  Seg 16 - Evolving, as an Individual, from CTMs to QTMs

6-7Nov2010 & 17Jan2011

Segment 19 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

A Brief Chautauqua Interlude...

At this stage of progress in our Chautauqua about Quantum~Economics Doug wants (wanted) to offer
another (Autiot described Sefirot) benchmark assessing A N¤væl Way of Thinking's approach.

Instead, and for this segment, Doug offers an interlude to both review our Chautauqua so far, and plow new ground.

Doug has written that hyperinflation, inflation, and deflation are all quantum~holographically interrelated.
We can use Quantonics script to show that countless ways, and here we offer an exemplar of quantum~islandic~severalty:

(1) quanton(deflation,inflation),

(2) quanton(hyperinflation,deflation),

(3) quanton(hyperinflation,inflation).

Our severals are quantons. They are n¤t dichons. They are quantum, n¤t classical.

"What do they say, Doug?"

(1) in quantum exegesis cyphers as, "Deflation issi ihn inflation and inflation issi ihn deflation:" in a more 'efficient' script, deflation nissin inflation.

(2) cyphers as, "Hyperinflation issi ihn deflation and deflation issi ihn hyperinflation." I.e., hyperinflation nissin deflation.

(3) cyphers as, "Hyperinflation issi ihn inflation and inflation issi ihn hyperinflation." I.e., hyperinflation nissin inflation.

(Super students may demur, "Nihsshin hyper nissin?" Doug con(m)curs...for O'gadons...even nihsshin...possibly nhissihn.)

If we adhere Autiot and its two Aut for a quantum~included~middle: Raysh~Sheen, we can use nishhsin.
That allows us to view Raysh, as Suares does, reversed: Sheer. Now we can view shhs as n(r)eehSSheen which is ever so close nishhsin.

Doug - 7Nov2010.

In other words those terms, as we claimed, "...are all holographically interrelated." They are n¤t classically, canonically, ideally-objectively separate.

In quantum~reality, when quantons interrelate as Doug is using his script to illustrate, their interrelationshipings involve entropy mixtures.

For now, allow Doug to focus on memes of posentropy. Most of our actual world is posentropic.
JC Maxwell and his 'laws' of thermodynamics presumed that reality is only posentropic.
He further assumed that posentropy only has a single gradient of change.
Maxwell's 'laws' claim our universe's ultimate demise will be
entropic 'heat death,' a total degeneration into a black and cold chaos.

Isabel Stengers and Ilya Prigogine in their fabulous Order Out of Chaos, Bantam, 1984, showed us that posentropy
has two gradients: one destructive (Maxwell), one constructive (Maxwell would say, "That is absurd.").
Using our script we can show those gradients' complementarity as quanton(construction,destruction).
You should be capable of, have qua to, interpret that as a metaphor of "cycle of life."
Notice that a quanton has qua to describe that, but a dichon has n¤t!
CTMs deny quantum~complementarity: all objects are ideally lisr.
QTMs adhere middle~inclusion. CTMs adhere middle-exclusion.
Former permits transmutation, adaption, and evolution.
Latter denies them, dogmatically, canonically.

What does it mean when markets always go up? To Doug it means that someone
is making that happen, intentionally. A 'tail wagging dog' improvisation.

We can see entropy's immensely important analogue here:
J. C. Maxwell insisted that posentropy only has one slope, i.e., always increasing disorder.
Observe an implicit that uniform slope is a determined increase manifestation of "absence of change."
Nature never allows "absence of change" AKA Keynesian 'stability' for long.
This is another description of why Keynesianism is bogus, period.
J. C. Maxwell is classical physics' one-slope-posentropy fool
analogue of Keynesian Hyman P. Minsky's single-slope-economic 'stability.'

(Doug uses bold red above to signify classical dialectical 'reasoning' Error. Religiously AKA 'Satan.')

Some of you may be familiar with von Foerster's Theorem:

"The more [] connected are the elements of a system, the less influence they will have on the system as a whole.
"The more [] the connections, the more each element of the system will exhibit a greater degree of 'alienation' from the whole."

Danah Zohar's Chapter 5 mast quote from her Quantum Society textbook, Quill, 1994. Doug enhanced Danah's (, apparently, her) brackets.

Keynesian 'stability' is seen, again, for what it really is: a Key SOM Disabler™.

Mechanical and classical math 'modeled' systems, hermeneuted quantumly, are pure Error. Why? They simply do n¤t work,
due n¤t have evolutionary viability, in general, in quantum~comtextings!

Doug - 5Aug2012.

Real markets are cyclic and open and holographic. Patterns are (may be) autsimilar, never identical.
Due quantum~reality's mandate for absolute change...
...Economics' ephemeral parametric slopes are never durationally uniform, let alone only posentropic.
Markets which are real have two entropy gradients: increasing entropy and decreasing entropy.
When we see markets which always go in one (overall) direction, we know they are like Las Vegas: rigged.

So Keynesians rig markets!

What does that mean? It means they are doomed. Eventually [Nn]ature takes over.
Longer rigging persists, worse ultimate outcomes for riggers are.

Keynesians are phony, ersatz, facile, criminal, scum, dumbasses, garbage intellects.
Why? They adhere Maxwell's idiotic 'thermodynamic' laws.

Is hyperinflation self~complementary? Quantumly, yæs! (Classically n¤ such 'notion' even 'exists.')
(We have already shown just above hyperinflation's other~complementarity.)

To describe that using quantum~linguistics, we need a n¤væl...coined....term: hypoinflation. Never heard that one before, eh?


Classicists still assume posentropy only has one gradient: positive.
(Here language may be somewhat confusing since a positive entropy gradient
is destructive: i.e., Maxwell's thermodynamic "heat death.")

In script we can now write, quanton(hypoinflation,hyperinflation).

Also, and as an exercise, we can write our quantum~holographic complementarities (1, 2, and 3) above using "hypoinflation."
When we do that, we come to realize that those processes, hyperinflation and hypoinflation, from any
quantum~complementarospective, have two posentropy gradients, just as Prigogine and Stengers described in their fine text.

Now as economic planners, we have alternatives for action which current Keynesians cann¤t even begin to grasp.
It isn't in their classical theory!

Doug's newly coined "hypoinflation," admits a negative (con(m)structive) gradient which
opens doorways of thinkqing to revitalizing money vis-à-vis turning it into fiat.

In lieu of having qua to accomplish that, Au is already doing it for us. Nature works in quantumly strange ways.

People (so-called 'pundits') are describing hyperinflation as though it just recently started happening.
However, if we mean by hyperinflation, "ultimate destruction (positive gradient) of US$," then it should be
obvious that we have been in a hyperinflationary process since 1913 when an incompetent Federal Reserve
was established with a bogus Keynesian mandate. Our change in thinkqing here is,
"hyperinflation as a quantum~pr¤cæss whose quantum~complement is hypoinflation."

In Doug's quantumese, hypoinflation has a negative entropy gradient, a con(m)structive gradient, folks.

Current economists' notions of Too Big To Fail (TBTF) exemplify a positive entropy gradient run amok.
In quantum~reality they aren't TBTF, they are Too Big To Survive: TBTS!

Keynesians' financial systems are rapidly approaching 'red giant' status and about to go supernovæ.

Quantitative Easing pours gasoline on an already burning financial system.
All pundits whom Doug admires have been saying this for several years now.

It is beyond ripe for a N¤væl Way of Thinkqing folks.

Hopefully Doug is offering that. He believes it is better than current Keynesian, wholly bogus, garbage intellect, CTM thing-king.

To be continued...


6-7Nov2010 & 17Jan2011

Chapter One Index


Segment 18 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

A Look at What Bohm Actually Wrote...

Let's take a look at what Bohm actually wrote in his Chapter 8, Sections 26-28, in his Quantum Theory, 1951, Dover:

Page and Paragraph
(Whole paragraphs rounded to pages)
Please read David Bohm's Quantum Theory, Chapter 8, Sections 26-28, 'Need for a Nonmechanical Description.' Doug's Commentary and Criticism
Page 167, para. 1 "Section 26. The Need for a Nonmechanical Description.

Our bold and color highlights follow a code:

  • black-bold - important to read if you are just scanning our review
  • orange-bold - text ref'd by index pages
  • green-bold - we see Bohm proffering quantumesque memes
  • violet-bold - an apparent classical problematic
  • blue-bold - we disagree with this text segment while disregarding context of Bohm's overall text
  • gray-bold - quotable text
  • red-bold - our direct commentary
  • [] - our intra text commentary

Doug's major point about Bohm exposes itself in his, "...we can still give a correct description in this way." Doug is saying that Bohm noodled this one badly. In no way can we retain classical formality, dogma, objectivity, lisr of objects, middle-exclusion, state, causality, etc. Doug - 3Nov2010.

Page 167, para. 2

Doug's dark blue enhancement in this paragraph marks said statement's problematics. Reality isn't a classical machine, period. Machines are canonically incapable of emergence, emerscence, emerscenture, and emerscitecture. Machines cannot evolve! However, nature by direct observation evolves perpetually. But classicists deny that any 'thing' which isn't ideally static can be perpetual. They canonically deny absolute change. This, in Doug's view is simple Newtonian-Einsteinian DIQheadedness.

Keynesian economics is an idealized "machine abstraction." It's imminent failure is built into its own concrete "intelligent formal design." Just like classical religion! Doug - 3Nov2010.

Page 167, para. 3

Summary of New Concepts in Quantum Theory

Doug and others have shown that quantum~reality is discontinuous, acausal, and n¤n analytic. So all three of these classical notions are simply dead on arrival, bogus! We must forego all of them; we must give all classical notions up!

That level of quantum~change begs Doug's meme of, "changing from CTMs to QTMs."

A classical context which Bohm suggests is merely enfranchisement of SOM's Box.

Note that most fundamentally classical reality can be mechanically described as "continuous motional state." This is a nearly exact analog of Henri Louis Bergson's "movement by-of immobilities." Bergson calls it a "cinematographic model of reality." Paraphrased.

Simply, state can be in continuous motion. Blatantly bogus and naïve.

So our current classical economics system, too, is blatantly bogus and naïve.

Doug - 3Nov2010.

Page 168, para. 1

Doug likes this paragraph. Bohm hasn't evolved to a pneumatic level where Pirsig, Suares, and Bergson did in terms of grasping a quantum~essential: classical 'truth' as a monism is a bogus classical notion. Gn¤sis claims "Monism is deceit," and social law-principle "Rules something not itself." Doug agrees. See GRS Mead's Chaldæan Oracles I & II.

Doug claims "Truth is an agent of its own change." Truth evolves, so (thus) to claim any 'thing' can be classically, state-ically 'true,' is only classical retardation self-evidenced.

Since quantum~reality evolves and changes perpetually, no classical notions of definite form exist! "Concrete reality" is a classical misnomer. Indeed, an oxymoron. See Doug's coined emerq as a quantum~substitute for classical 'form.'

See Doug's QELP of define.

Doug - 3Nov2010.

Page 168, para. 2

Though very classical, linguistically, this paragraph expresses our "language problem" very well. What Bohm describes in that paragraph is part of Doug's impetus to invent a n¤væl quantum~language. You may investigate Doug's innovative quantum~opus at our QELP, our QELR, and at our Coined Terms web pages. You may also wish to review our two QQAs on Language: May 2000 and June 2000.

Bohm's state-ic, objective, formal, mechanical 'interacts' QELRs as holographic flux "interrelatings" in Quantonics.

Doug - 3Nov2010.

Page 168, para. 3

Doug is inventing that new we read this...and has been for over a decade!

Objects have complex classical 'properties.' Quantons are simple autsimilar emerqancies of their quantum~holographic interrelationshipings.

To Doug, "...wrong interpretations..." is an oxymoron. 'Wrong' is a objective bivalent of classical 'right.' 'Interpretations' is and always will be subjective, even in any classical sense. Quoting Philip R. Wallace, "Interpretation involves according primacy to subjectivity over objectivity." Paraphrased by Doug.

Page 169, para. 1

Analogies to Quantum Processes
Page 169, para. 2

Section 27. The Uncertainty Principle and Certain Aspects of Our Thought Processes

From Doug's perspective, this is a good analogy. It hints at basic quantum~uncertainty borne of non commutability of position and momentum as analogous non commutability of instantaneity of thought as 'state' and 'duration of thought' as change in direction. As an quantumese analogy:

quanton(wave,particle) autsimilar quanton(duration_of_thought,state),

BAWAM of those autsimilar quanton(~,o)

Doug - 5Nov2010.

Bergson described this well in one of his narratives on individual free will. Doug made a further analogous nexus there of Quantization of Free Will. Bohm will likely show us that quantumly both 'state' and duration~change are (ensemble~)quantized macroscopically.

Doug - 4Nov2010.

Page 169, para. 3

For Doug, Bohm describes what happens personally when Doug experiences his many daily epiphanies. Volume of these increases, for Doug, as he accumulates more mental holographic nexi on his quantum~stage. Doug describes this as quantum~simplification of understanding. More nexi make understanding simpler.

Doug - 4Nov2010.

Page 169, para. 4

Doug interprets Bohm's "indivisibility of a sort," as analogous Bergson's "duration of thought." An easy way to say this is that quantized processes, since all quanta are flux, have indivisible duration. Another way to say this is that quantum~processings never classically 'collapse.'

To Doug, Bohm is describing a hologram.

When we move from CTMs to QTMs, from continuity to quantization, from value to Value, we leave behind classical notions of 'property,' and engender quantum~memeos of holographic flux interrelationshipings.

It may or may not be obvious to our readers that Quantonics omnistinguishes CTMs from QTMs in its usage of dichons to describe classical notions and a complementary usage of quantons to describe quantum~memeos. Dichons are propertyesque. Quantons are quantum~flux~interrelationshipings.

In Quantonics, classical 'analysis' is simply bogus due its abject formal mechanicity.

Doug - 4Nov2010.

Page 170, para. 1

Doug views Bohm's efforts here as his way of retaining 'classical logic' in quantum theory. To Doug, this is a huge mistake.

Bohm doesn't get (perhaps only apparent to Doug) Finkelstein's meme of quantum~islandicity. When we amalgamate Finkelstein's islandicity and Mae-wan Ho's quantum memes of coherence tolerating ensembles of islandic autonomy, we grasp how Bohm's efforts here fall short of a deeper grasp of quantum~reality.

Bohm accomplished much, but his retention of an 'explicate order' spawned much maltuitive thought like what we see here.

This paragraph has always (since near end of MII, late 1990s) disturbed Doug greatly. I keep rereading it, looking for some redemption, but it just isn't there. Closest to redemption Bohm comes is in his "An attempt to analyze them into separate parts destroys or changes their meanings." This agrees with Bruno de Finetti's "...when we reify any subjective, we make an error." Paraphrased by Doug. De Finetti's stochastics are closer to Mae-wan Ho than to David Bohm. Doug's opine. Bruno de Finetti is one of Earth's greatest probabilists. Like Peirce (pronounce 'Purse') and James he had a more abductive view of (present and future)stochastics, stindyanically looking forward...a priori. Most classical logic is (1) inductive and (2) deductive, looking back and hearing footsteps: a posteriori, both of which assume stoppability and independent objective separability.

See Doug's now ancient opus on SOM Limitations and What is Wrong with SOM Logic.

Doug - 4Nov2010.

Page 170, para. 2

"Logically definable concepts..." require reality to be classically 'stopped' in order to perform analysis. It is crucial to understand that quantum~reality is unstoppable. Irving Stein pointed out too that quantum~reality is non analytic. To Doug, this implies that we have to view all of quantum reality as non mechanical, and we have to invent n¤væl ways of thinking which themselves are non mechanical. We have strong evidence this is possible. Doug's invention of QELP and QELR and n¤væl coined terms, plus a n¤væl quantum~philosophy...are all evidence, Doug believes, that a non mechanical approach can be accomplished. Prior that we have to learn how to change "How we are thinking." Bohm suggests this. Bohr talked about it. Polanyi spent much of his life writing about this. John Lukacs, in his new book End of an Age, writes about it. Countless others have said, "Our current classical language is inadequate to describe quantum reality." Doug agrees.

Almost all of our thinking now, early MIII, is genuinely bad! It's time to change. It is not time to go back to status quo as some politicians are saying. Going back to old ways is exemplary of mental retardation. Living in a dead 'logical' past won't launch an exodus into a living, perpetually evolving, holographic quantum future. Logic is dead. Analysis is dead. Reality is alive, aware, con(m)scious, and selecting actively "whatings happenings nextings."

Doug - 4Nov2010.

Page 170, para. 3

Section 28. Possible Reason for Analogies between Thought and Quantum Processes.

After Doug reads this for the nth time, he still says to himself, "Self, when will humanity finally grasp that classical science, mechanics and maths simply cannot describe quantum~reality?" Our current methods of thing-king are bogus, folks! Wake up!

Those who get there first are going to kick major competitive and capitalistic ass, period! Doug's opine.

Page 171, para. 1

Classical 'verification' is impossible in quantum~reality!

See Doug's original opus on SOM's Bases of Judgment.

Classical verification depends on classical proof. Let's list and assess ingredience of classical proof:

  • proof - depends upon,
  • falsifiability - depends upon,
  • contradiction - depends upon,
  • negation - depends upon,
  • lisrability - depends upon,
  • stability - but quantum~reality is perpetual evolutionary change.

So you see classical mechanical thought has no foundation! Classical proof, falsifiability, contradiction, negation, lisrability, and stability are all bogus classical notions.

Doug - 4Nov2010.

Page 171, para. 2
Page 171, para. 3

Do you see how Bohm's "...when the electron is moving..." implies his own basic assumption that reality is stoppable?

Electrons are unstoppable! Reality is unstoppable.

That Bohmian assumption almost drags all of his work into a classical abyss, abysses of staysses. There is n¤ stay, just go!

Doug - 4Nov2010.

Page 171, para. 4 That is finis of David Bohm's Chapter 8, Quantum Theory.

Having lightly covered some issues with Bohm which Doug has inured over at least two decades of thought re quantum vav classical, Doug would put all this in quantum~economic lightings by following Bohm's lead. We need to think about all economic terminology in a similar way as how Bohm asked us to think about thought as a quantum~complementation of any term's apparently static part and its genuine dynamic part.

Pirsig's MoQ may be shown that way: quanton(DQ,SQ). Now let's do it for inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation:

quantum~inflation issi quanton(dynamic_complement_of_inflation,static_complement_of_inflation).

Obtain how both of those complements are n¤ longer classical; they are n¤wings quantum.

If you obtain, you grasp our calling them k~n¤w~ings.

Rinse and repeat for deflation and hyperinflation.

Now our challenge is to interpret quantumly what those quantons mean and how we can use them to evolve our approach to economics, our quantum approach to economics.

Doug - 4Nov2010.

To be continued...



Chapter One Index


Segment 17 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

An Approach to Quantumizing Economics - Essence...

Quantonics self~refers, "A New Way of Thinking."

Doug likes to QELR that like this, "A N¤væl Wayvæ ¤f Thinkqing."

Latter begs perpetual adaptation of thought, quantum~wavings of thoughtings.

You may choose to fathom why Doug has spent so much time on describing a quantum~reality which is perpetually transmutative.
Without quantum~transmutation, there is n¤ evolutionary adaptation.

Quantumizing economics requires perpetual adaptation of thought. Why? So that we can change from classical economics into quantum economics.

When we thingk of economics classically we apply CTMs to 'economics,' and all terms and semantics become state-ic 'value.'

When we thinkq of economics quantumly we apply QTMs to 'economics,' and all wave~functions and their quantum~stochastics become stindyanic Value.

To move from CTMs to QTMs regarding our "quantumization of economics," we must adapt.

We simply must change our "ways of thingking" to "Wayvæings ¤f Thinkqings."

David Bohm, like Danah Zohar, and countless others have said what Doug just wrote in similar ways.
Danah has shown us that quantum~reality requires (a belief in) quantum~consciousness in order (for our quantum~selves) to be able to adapt.
Doug and others add that consciousness requires a more nascent memeo of quantum~awareness.

David Bohm has written eloquently on thought and adaptation. See Chapter 8, Sections 26-28, in his Quantum Theory, 1951, Dover.
Doug wants to transcribe those sections directly here FYE. However, Doug has a major problem with Bohm:
David Bohm claims in Section 26 that "we need a new way of thinking about quantum~reality." Doug agrees.
David Bohm goes on to say that in order to develop (transmute to) that new way of thinking we
need to realize that quantum~reality is not mechanical. Up to this point Doug is in total agreement.

But then Bohm goes 'dyslexic' on us and reverts to classical thought by claiming actuality is 'explicate.' That means to him that
we can use classical 'scientific' thinking in his 'explicate order.' How has that allowed us to adapt to a "new way of thinking?"
Doug claims it just puts us back in SOM's Box, back in classical thing-king's detention center of 'state' funda mentalism.

A brief aside...

Let's take a moment to see how Doug interprets those last couple of paragraphs.

If we apply them to 'economic theory,' we realize that current 'economic theory' is mechanical. At least that is how it is treated by theoreticians using CTMs.

Doug's point here is that if Bohm is correct that quantum~reality is n¤t mechanical, then economic theory cann¤t be mechanical.

Then "quantumizing economics" implies a n¤n mechanical approach: what Doug refers QTMs. We must adapt ourselves from CTMs and become n¤væl thinkqers using QTMs.

...end brief aside.

So David Bohm asks us to use thinking like QTMs in his 'implicate order,' and use thingking like CTMs in his 'explicate order.' Well that's better than thingking wholly in CTMs.

Doug has been working on this issue for decades. Doug's efforts find that Bohm is misguided at best, since in Doug's view, "All is implicate." So we may choose to discard CTMs and adapt to QTMs.

"How did you arrive at that surmise, Doug?"

We have answered this already, many ways. Reiterating, recapitulating, Bohm's 'explicate order' lacks qua to adapt!
That is essentially why Robert M. Pirsig says, "Classical thingking is a detention center of mind, a SOM Box, a genetic defect in human reason." Paraphrased.
Please refer Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (1974), and his Lila (1991).

What disables Bohm's qua? According Pirsig, and Doug agrees, dialectic. AKA CTMs.

Examples include Bohm's 'explicate order' adherence to classical notions of identity, excluded-middle,
JC Maxwell's 'laws,' strict determinism, event-state logic, causality and its singular effectation, etc.
(Doug's use of 'singular effectation' as BAD Einsteinian thingking. BAD due its absence of qualitative, subjective, affective wave~function stochastics.)

What enables quantum qua, our individual quantum qua?

See Doug's QELRs and descriptive analogies of aware, chance, change, choice, wave, wave function, change as quantum waves, wisdom, etc.

To be continued...



Chapter One Index

28,30Oct2010, 1Dec2011

Segment 16 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Evolving, as an Individual, from CTMs to QTMs...

So, Doug wrote last segment, "Quantum reality is quantized, but classical reality is n¤t."

Wow! Did you see what Doug just did?

He said (wrote), "Quantum reality is quantized."

He wrote, "But classical reality is not."

Richard Feynman got into trouble like that too.
(He said, "QED totally describes reality," paraphrased. He qualified by saying, "We don't really know that.")

What appears real here is that classical thing-king defines its version of reality as 'not' quantized.

What appears real here is that quantum thinkqing describes its version of reality as quantized.

We have a anthropomorph~centric epistemological Earth chauvinistic
war of classical thing-king vis-à-vis quantum thinkqing.
People like Banesh Hoffmann, et al., claim quantum is winning.

We do n¤t really know what is real about reality.
(Answering) Why is a huge philosophical endeavor which will very likely last (almost) forever.

Our best guess is that classical reality is wrong to define reality as continuous.
Our best quantum guess, currently, is that reality is quantized.

We do not really know, and it may be that we will never know.
Reality appears radically uncertain, so we are limited to our "best guess," which is always provisional.

So do not be afraid! (To guess.) Doug isn't.
But we must do our best to justify all of our heuristics and conjectures.
In any interim...

What do we have to do as individuals to move from our current
(Victorian) classical beliefs and practices to, in our view, a meliorative quantum system?

Can we make some lists of classical incapabilities compared to a list of quantum capabilities?
Can we do that so that our readers can easily understand? Now that's a challenge. Let's try... ["There is no try, just do..."]

Classical Incapabilities Quantum Capabilities To-dos to Move from Classical to Quantum To~dos to Move from Quantum to Classical Doug's Comments Relevant Links
State Flux Cease believing reality is 'stable.' Stop accepting notions that reality may be modeled dialectically. Adopt dialectic and all of its accoutrements.

SOM's Bases of Judgment

See QELR of state

Quantum Essence

Scintilla Quantum Tell Flux

Absence of Quantization Presence of Quantization Turn on Planck's clock. (Pretend to) turn off Planck's clock. All research on classical failures of thought like classical thermodynamics (violet catastrophe) show that reality is quantized and smallest known unit of action is a whole and possibly a half of one Planck quantum. All of reality (actuality) builds itself from these quanta. See Doug's QELR of quantum
Space-Rate Clock Planck Clocks Deep six Descartes, Newton, Einstein and their formally retarded brethren. Objectify all quantons and all stochastics. Disable all flux.

Classical time is canonically homogeneous. Time here is time everywhere. Einstein's relativity depends upon this (one cone of relativistic time), but his time is not real time, rather a classically-contrived space rate hyper notion.

Quantum timings are con(m)textually relative, thus heterogeneous. Many timings.

See Problematic Einstein
Classical Incapabilities Quantum Capabilities To-dos to Move from Classical to Quantum To~dos to Move from Quantum to Classical Doug's Comments Relevant Links
'value' is state Value is Perpetual Evolutionary Change Adopt memeos of perpetual quantum~evolution. Claim that reality is stoppable and may be stopped for analytic analysis any time human sentience wants to do that.

Classical 'state' turns living Value into dead 'value.'

Quantum change (flux) turns dead 'value' into living Value.

Doug - 30Oct2010.

See Hume's Law
Material Objectivity Holographic Subjectivity Realize that all of what classicists refer 'material' is actually very high rate quantum~fermionic~flux. There are n¤ classical 'objects' in reality. Deny 'existence' of absolute quantum flux. Turn off Planck's clock. Believe that 'zero momentum' exists and is real. See Doug's topos table.

See Doug's QELRs of both object and subject

Scintilla Quantum Tell Flux

One class of entropy Three entropy classes and mixes Expand your positive entropy notions to include zero~, negative~, and mix~entropy memeos. Try to turn off Planck's clock, and as JC Maxwell did, claim there is only one class of entropy: positive. See Doug's QELR of entropy
Classical Incapabilities Quantum Capabilities To-dos to Move from Classical to Quantum To~dos to Move from Quantum to Classical Doug's Comments Relevant Links
Absence of quantum coherence Wide variety of quantum~coherence phenomena

Start seeing your personal coherence more like a laser beam.

Observe how some sports teams only perform miraculously when they pneumatically cohere.

Be like Peter. Be a rock. Be a brick-brained retard. Believe that OSFA, period. Believe "Our way or the highway," classical coprolytic scat.

"Teacher, leave us piglets alone. We like wallowing in manure and other unsavories."

Quantum coherence adheres a meme that "we are ihn Iht and Iht issi ihn us."

Cosmic con(m)sciousness is ihn Iht and Iht issi ihn cosmic con(m)sciousness.

We also refer those as "quantum~vacuum~flux," and "isoflux."

We must learn to have quantum~faith that cosmic con(m)sciousness issi immortal, perpetual...

See Carlo Suares in his Second Coming of Reb YhShWh.

See Eugen Herrigel in his Zen in the Art of Archery.
Doug - 13Jan2013.

Aristotle's and Boole's logics Quantum~coquecigrues See Doug's coquecigrues
Classical Incapabilities Quantum Capabilities To-dos to Move from Classical to Quantum To~dos to Move from Quantum to Classical Doug's Comments Relevant Links
Absolute 'truth' Perpetual change Start believing, "All 'truth' is an agent of its own change." Stop believing change, evolutionary and holographic change is real. Believe in absolute 'state.'

I thinkq this is one of the most important memeos Quantonics has to offer.

It suggests that we all have individual powers of self change, self adaption, and self evolution.

Free will is implicit in our quantum~beings: we can choose, we can select, we can provisionally decide: choice, chance, change.

We evolutionarily "rinse and repeat" our own CH3ngs.

Quantum~beings are intrinsically both self~ and other~ both autonomically and autodidactically ~transmutative.

Doug -30Oct2010.

See Doug's QELR of truth

See Doug's QELR of change

See Doug's QELR of transmute

Classical Society Quantum~Individuals

Stop accepting classical 'ideas' that society is hyper (above) individual(s).

Fecundate your vicissitudes.

Be you! With respect for all other individuals.

Deny that you are quantum~individual quantum~being, and become a SOMite.

Diminish self by turning into a hylic materialist.

Classical society is a total and absolute failure. It oppresses and enslaves all individuals. Dismiss it and all its political-economic pundits, now! See Doug on Quantum~Ego
Classical Incapabilities Quantum Capabilities
To-dos to Move from Classical to Quantum To~dos to Move from Quantum to Classical Doug's Comments Relevant Links
Thing-king Thinkqing

Stop thing-king and start thinkqing.

Stop thing-king:

  • dialecta
  • bivalency
  • objecta (e.g., A, B, C, ... 1, 2, 3)
  • dichon(A, B)
  • perpetual state as immutability
  • funda-mentalism
  • EEMD
  • EOOO

Start thinkqing:

  • hologra
  • omnivalency
  • adapta
  • quantons(scintilla,quanta)
  • perpetual change's transmutation
  • compla~mentalism
  • EIMA

Stop thinkqing and start thing-king.

Start (continue) thing-king:

  • dialecta
  • bivalency
  • objecta (e.g., A, B, C, ... 1, 2, 3)
  • dichon(A, B)
  • perpetual state as immutability
  • funda-mentalism
  • EEMD
  • EOOO

Stop thinkqing:

  • hologra
  • omnivalency
  • adapta
  • quantons(scintilla,quanta)
  • perpetual change's transmutation
  • compla~mentalism
  • EIMA

Nearly all of our world's populace, CeodE 2011, thingks!

We commence a long and very n¤n linear journey: learning H5W to thinkq.

Doug - 1Dec2011.

See BAWAM, CeodE, EEMD, EIMA, EOOO, FFE, H5W, omnivalent, think, thought, understand.
Classical Incapabilities Quantum Capabilities
To-dos to Move from Classical to Quantum To~dos to Move from Quantum to Classical Doug's Comments Relevant Links

Doug has only scratched a surface of comparatives. However, on every count, classical loses and quantum wins, for now.

Do your own independent research. It checks out pretty well.

So how do we quantize economics? Good question.

Doug is seeing many authors now treating inflation and deflation as quantum~complementary.
See? Economic reality isn't either-or. Rather it, like Doug describes above, is both~and.

If reality is a hologram, everything, to greater and lesser (partial, enthymemetic) extents complements everything!

To be continued...


28,30Oct2010, rev 1Dec2011

Chapter One Index


Segment 15 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Classical Absence of Quantization...

Quantum~reality is quantized.

Classical-reality is n¤n quantized.

Former, to best of current epistemology, is as real as we can be k~n¤w~ing.

Latter is a bogus consequence of classical thing-king methods.

Almost all earth people adhere latter.

This is part and parcel of what Doug calls, "Our Millennium III crisis." We need to fix this. Actually,
evolution will do that for us, but our world is in crisis now, so Doug thinks we need to accelerate this fix!

This is The Change we must become...

As you recall, in Segment 13 of our (going to be) very long Chautauqua, Doug showed you a graphic of quantization.

Permit Doug to show now a graphic of Classical N¤n Quantization:

Noodle that for awhile, and we'll spend more time on it...assuming your noodling will make later progress easier...

To be continued...



Chapter One Index


Segment 14 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Quantum~Reality as Conscious~Awareness...

We have been writing to you for decades now, showing and telling you that reality is intrinsically consciously self~other~aware.

So, classical science denies that. Simply, CTMs deny it.

However, quantum~reality embraces a memeo of itself as "consciously self~other~aware."

"Doug, you are moving very dangerously into spiritual territory."

Yes, I am! For better answers, and intentional evocatives. Doug has found that only one belief system, learning system,
thinkqing system "embraces a memeo of quantum~reality as consciously self~other~aware."

"Doug, what is it?"

A language system, describing quantum~energy as taught by Carlo Suares, called "Autiot."

At least four implicits of Carlo Suares' Autiot vivify its "embracing of reality as consciously self~other~aware:"

1.   Indeterminism  "Embrace uncertainty."
2.   Intrinsic Consciousness  "Faith in a conscious reality." Read proposition four of Suares' eight propositions. Doug.
3.   Compenetration of Energy  "Aleph nissin blood."
4.   Heresy  "Free individual will and selection~choice." Doug says, "Fecundate your vicissitudes."

To find those paraphrasings by Doug of Carlo Suares, read his Trilogy.

David Bohm doesn't say it like that, but our semasiology of his opus finds agreement.
(Doug's major complaint with Bohm is that Bohm's 'explicate order' is mechanical.)

Danah Zohar confirms our semasiology in Chapter 4 of her Quantum Self entitled, 'Are Electrons Conscious?'

Doug is spending timings on these issues with a purpose. We have to move from CTMs to QTMs
(or some other n¤væl way of thinkqing and believing which describes quantum~reality as well).

To do that we have to understand what is wrong with CTMs, e.g., absolute disbelief in Suares' hermeneutics of Autiot.
While concurrently learning and understanding what is better about Autiot (and quantum~theory) and
why both Autiot and quantum~theory describe quantum~reality well.

We do n¤t need to learn Suares' Autiot. We need to grasp an essential that it benchmarks Doug's Quantonics'
hermeneutics of quantum~reality with Doug's bases of belief in people like David Bohm and Danah Zohar.

Doug is learning Autiot so that he has more qua to claim a "quantum benchmark." Does Doug thinkq you should learn it? Yes! (It isn't easy!)

"Doug, what does Danah Zohar say about quantum~primal con(m)sciousness in quantum~reality?" Good question.


Page and Paragraph
(Whole paragraphs rounded to pages)
Transcription from Danah Zohar's Quantum Self, Chapter 4, 'Are Electrons Conscious?' Doug's Commentary and Criticism
Page 59, para. 1 "We saw in the last chapter that in some strange way an electron or a photon (or any other elementary particle) seems to 'know' about changes in its environment and appears to respond accordingly. At least this is true under experimental conditions, and it is one of the more mysterious spin-offs of the observation problem."

Our bold and color highlights follow a code:

  • black-bold - important to read if you are just scanning our review
  • orange-bold - text ref'd by index pages
  • green-bold - we see Zohar proffering quantumesque memes
  • violet-bold - an apparent classical problematic
  • blue-bold - we disagree with this text segment while disregarding context of Zohar's overall text
  • gray-bold - quotable text
  • red-bold - our direct commentary
  • [] - our intra text commentary

Unsure...Danah's "observation problem" is actually what we mean today by "quantum~interpretation problem." Doug has shown elsewhere, when one thinkqs quantumly there is n¤ problem. Only when one thingks classically is there a 'problem.' See Doug's QELR of think. Doug - 22Oct2010.

Page 59, para. 2 "In the famous two-slit experiment used to illustrate the wave-particle duality, photons behave quite differently depending on whether, before detection, they are offered the chance to pass through one slit in a screen or through two. If only one slit is open, they behave like particles, hitting the detecting surface like a stream of so many bullets. If two slits are open they behave like waves, passing through both slits and creating a typical interference pattern on the other side (Figure 4.1). They seem to 'know' which aspect of the double-sided nature is called for by the experiment and behave accordingly."

A powerful tell of quantum~awarenessings as intrinsic to quantum~reality.

See Doug's coining of omnifferent.

Said 'surface' is actually an huge holographic ensemble (crowd) of atoms and electrons.

Page 59, para. 3 "In the Wheeler delayed-choice photon experiment discussed in the last chapter, this 'knowledge' of the experimental setup is truly uncanny. In that experiment both slits are open at all times. But it is only later in its path that the photon encounters either a particle detector or an interference screen, one of which has been placed in its way after it has already passed through one slit or both. Even at that late stage, the photon seems to 'know' what lies ahead and seems almost retroactively to choose both its own flight path and hence its nature (see Figures 3.3 and 3.4, page 47). It's only after it strikes one obstacle or the other that we can say whether it went through one slit or both."

Doug offers none of Danah's referenced Figures.

There are n¤ classical 'paths-trajectories' in quantum~reality. All motion is quantized and stochastic. Naught is classically linear! Doug.

This entire paragraph, in Doug's opine, requires intensive care: QELR.

A partial repair involves substitution of "scintillates" for 'hits' and 'strikes.' Doug.

Page 59, para. 4 "Bohm uses a beautiful and evocative analogy to illustrate the apparent 'knowing' properties of subatomic particles. He compares the movements of electrons in the laboratory to those of ballet dancers responding to a musical score, the score itself constituting 'a common 'pool' of information that guides each of the dancers as they take their steps..."

It is crucial here for you to view Bohm's "a common pool of information" as a quantum~hologram.

It is much like what those classical movie makers did in Matrix. Immersion in a classical matrix vis-à-vis immersion in a quantum~environment which we refer "hologram."

Page 59, para. 5

"...In the case of the electrons, the 'score' is of course the wave function. As with the dancers, the electrons are thus participating in a common action based on a pool of information, rather than pushing or pulling on each other mechanically according to laws like those of classical physics."
Page 60, para. 1 "Each electron is sensitive not just to the information, or meaning latent in its own wave packet (its own part in the score). It is also nonlocally responsive (owing to quantum correlation effects) to the information latent in the whole situation--the movements of the other electrons, the design of the experimental apparatus, perhaps even the physicist's conscious intentions. For Bohm, this sharing of information, this mutual 'knowing,' may represent elementary conscious awareness on the part of the electron. If he is correct--or, less boldly, even if there is something about quantum events that now make it meaningful to raise such a possibility--this becomes yet another way in which the new physics is pushing us to shift our whole way of looking at the material world and our relation to it."

Doug's bold and color.

This paragraph is one of Danah's most important and gratifying epiphanies. At least for Doug.

For Doug, this shows that quantum~reality's essence is interrelative~awarenessings and ~consciousnessings borne of them. N¤ne is possible without a presumption of EIMA.

Quantons, recall, are then, "interrelative awarenessings."

Our major problem is to offer quantons a "living substrate" to realize themselves. For Doug, when we accomplish that, we will have accomplished quantum~AI!

See Doug's efforts on affectation as an antidote to Danah's use of 'effects.'

Doug - 21-22Oct2010.

This little exercise, from Doug's complementarospective, shows us and tells us that we
must 'stop' thing-king of inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation as classical stoppable objects.

We must 'start' thinkqing of inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation as quantons: animate
holograms interrelating with other animate holograms in a huge holographic quantum~environment.

Try this:

Inflation issi quanton(deflation,inflation).

That is, inflation and deflation are quantum~complementary!

Do similarly for inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation. They are all quantum~complementary one another!

N¤ne of them is classically, ideally, objectively, conceptually 'independent' of one another!

To be continued...



Chapter One Index


Segment 13 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Quantum Quantization...

It is time for us to make Doug's complementarospectives of Quantonics' memeo of quantizationings public.

Doug has created a graphic depicting his memeos of quantization.

Quantum reality is quantized. All creation and all of our senses regarding creation depend on quantization.
Every photon which enters your eyes, every phonon which enters your ears,... are quanta which evoke
scintillation in your eyes and in your ears,... This scintillation happens at up to Planck rates and in such
enormous volumes of processings as to be outside ordinary human bandwidths of sensibilities.

Doug's graphic shows just one kind of quantization, but it is exemplary of all quantizations Doug knows about.

It is important that you see these quantized scintilla as transmutationings in real hologra.

When you do that, and when you accept that your quantum~stage and your quantum~being
are immersed in reality's hologra which quantum~complement your hologra, you can commence
grasping how important quantization and transmutation of reality are to your view of our world.

Here it is:

Readers please see Doug's QELR of relativity.
Doug - 24Jan2012.

There is a whole volume library to be written about that graphic.

Doug's use of it here, is to attempt to convince you that quantization is how reality conducts its business.
Quantization is how reality creates, changes, and discreates itself.

Each loop of that process is "a loop of quantization." There are unlimited loops running at up to Planck rates perpetually.

Some loops are creating. Some loops are changing. Some loops are discreating (imagine undoing of shown creation process).

. . .

Economically, quantization is how fiscal reality conducts itself.

But classicists want to take this elegant living thing, kill it, and shove it into a static, axiomatic, objective SOM's box.

When they sell that intellectual psychic~hylic garbage to you, they funda mentally kill you and they kill your thinking.
They want you to think 'state mentally.' They do n¤t want you to thinkq quantized quantum~flux~phase~mentally.

Do n¤t allow it.

However, you cann¤t protect yourself from them if you can only understand their way. Their way or the highway.
You must learn to see that there are unlimited ways of viewing and understanding reality.
You will learn that quantum is better than classical.

Thank you for reading,

To be continued...



Chapter One Index

18-19Oct2010, 26Apr2011

Segment 12 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Change as Perpetual Transmutation...

Last segment, segment 11, Doug offered this Quantonics HotMeme™:

Quantonics HotMeme™ "Real Value is quantized evolutionary transmutation of all actual con(m)stituents in reality."™ Quantonics HotMeme

To Doug, it is a good and valuable meme, a meme of Value. It is novel (n¤væl). It hadn't existed anywhere on Earth (as far as Doug is aware) until 14Oct2010.
It emerqed itself on Doug's Quantum~Stage.

To emerse such a n¤væl meme Doug had to make some rather profound assumptions. One of those is this:

Quantonics HotMeme™ "Quantum~reality is con(m)scious awareness expressing itself as both self and other
spontaneous and perpetual absolute~flux~essential evolution
."™ Quantonics HotMeme

You can see this expressed in quantonics script at page top of Doug's Quanton Primer.

However, in our HotMeme™ above, there is a word which needs detail explanation for our readers' edification: transmutation.

Doug should write and extend his existing remarks on transmutation in a new QELR of 'transmute.' Instead
of creating that new QELR and linking it from here, Doug wants to just do that work here and allow
you to follow his thinkqing processings vicariously. Our students love to do that.

When this effort is tentatively finished, Doug will edit it into a new QELR of 'transmute,' and place it under our 'T' list of QELRs.

Before Doug starts that process he must impress you with an important theme, an anti-classical theme.
Careful reading of Dana Zohar's Quantum Self, especially near Chapter 5, will abundantly confirm this theme.

Classical reality, as 'canonically defined' by classical 'science,' is implicitly and intrinsically incapable of transmutation
as essential evolution, since, as she claims, "Classical science has no means to describe real consciousness."

There are~ countless ramifications of that 'statement.' ~Too many to delineate here. But Doug agrees with and
assumes it. You need to know that before we commence our efforts describing quantum~transmutation.

Doug can answer your "Why?" oversimply: Classical thing-king is EEMD. Quantum~thinkqing is EIMA.

Bottom line then is quantum~thinkqing has qua to describe quantum~consciousness, and classical thing-king is self-disabled to do that.

Simply then QTMs can describe quantum~transmutation, while CTMs cannot.

If you looked at Doug's Quanton Primer link above, you noted hints of (foursome) quatratomous~coherence and ~entropy.
We have to be able to describe quantum~reality in terms of four flavours of entropy in order to be able to describe transmutation.

We also have to shine quantum~lightings™ on quantum~entropy in terms of quantization.
So let's start with quantization and make it abundantly clear to you how it manifests itself in quantum~reality.

Fabulously, quantization and absolute flux are two major themes which radically omnistinguish quantum~reality from classical-reality.

One miracle which attends quantization is adiabaticity. Quantons which are adiabatic are lossless.
This theme is used in semiconductor memories today. Large RAMs do not overheat today
since IBM's Rolf Landauer invented a way to make their read-write cycles adiabatic.

Sentient brains are 'almost' adiabatic. See Mae-wan Ho, et al.

A key memeo here is, Quantonics HotMeme™ "Without quantization adiabaticity is impossible." Quantonics HotMeme™ .

Let's not be silly and try to classically 'define' quantization. Rather, let's describe, illustrate, and narrate quantization, quantumly.

Doug needs some good and simple graphics for illustration:

These graphics need to be created. Doug will do these over next day or two and add them here
with appropriate omniscriptionings. Watch for changes to this segment. Doug - 19Oct2010.

Doug decided to put these graphics and changes in following segments.
To pick up from here go to Segment 13 - Quantum Quantization.
Doug - 26Apr2011.

To be continued...


18-19Oct2010, 26Apr2011

Chapter One Index


Segment 11 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Quantum Learning & Thinkqing...

I know, I know, it seems like learning quantum memes and memeos is a drudge trudge.
All effort which grows your quantum~stage (an bosonic-biophotonic~biofermionic
partially adiabatic EWing of EWings in its own right) is "quantum~learning."

By "quantum~learning" Doug intends simply, "adding quantons to one's quantum~stage."
Quantons are quanta, so we are adding (possibly refreshing, recognitively, with minor
th~¤ught~mutative enhancements) quanta to our quantum~stagings' EWings.

Doug is attempting to help you grow your quantum~stage.

"Doug, grow my quantum~stage by describing for me real Valuings."

I have been doing that, however, you may be anxious to achieve another interim plateau. We can do that now.

Quantonics HotMeme™ "Real Value is quantized evolutionary transmutation of all actual con(m)stituents in reality."™ Quantonics HotMeme

Do we need to parse that?

See Doug's QELRs of quanta, evolve, and reality. For transmutation, see Doug's efforts in Quantonics describing
QED, QCD, and Radiation. You may www search on those, for example, like this <quantonics QED>.

Doug describes one example of microscopic (nan¤scopic) transmutation as quantum~scintillation. That example is
important since it proto~narrates how our quantum~stages use QED to cognize, recognize, and thinkq.

A cool way to thinkq about EWings of nous, of mind, of quantum~stage, of hologra[[il][m][ph]]ic ensemblings is, 'qualitative~foldings and packetings of "strings."'
Doug - 29Sep2012.

Perhaps, too, we need an example of, "how n¤t to thingk."

Gary North has a great 14Oct2010 article published at Market Oracle titled, America's Bright Future After U.S. Treasury Debt Default.

To illustrate how badly classical thing-king distorts our understanding of economic reality, Doug wants to quote a Herb Stein quote by Gary in said article:

Gary writes, "The old line by economist Herb Stein will come true: 'When things cannot continue, they have a tendency to stop.'"

Stein's words are pure classical thing-king. Gary's use of 'true' is pure classical thing-king.

I enjoy reading Gary immensely, but I have to criticize this aspect of his narrative.

Doug's purpose here is to illustrate how classical thing-king distorts human interpretation of terms like inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation.

Doug highlighted what he believes are most offensive classical terms in that quote of a quote.

Let's look at them elementally:

Classical Interpretation

Quantum Hermeneutics

Doug's Commentary

That which is classically true depends upon countless suppositions:

  • objective assessment of these prerequisites to establish what is true (i.e., verity): stability, independence, negation, contradiction, falsifiability, and proof
  • classically-established truth is constant, it never changes unless it is subsequently falsified objectively
  • classical 'definition' of terms are 'true'
  • verity and falsity are classically 'opposite'
  • verity and falsity are middle-excluded (Aristotle's third sillygism)
  • verity and falsity are independent of classical uni-time
  • reality is classically objective therefore classical-verity and -falsity are objective
  • classical objects are immutable, but can move linearly in classical uni-time
  • classical unit-time may be stopped for convenience of classical analysis and synthesis of material objects
  • etc.

Quantum~reality supports n¤ classical notions of truth. Quantum~reality evolves and is self~other mutating perpetually.

As a result, n¤ne of those classical suppositions is viable in quantum~reality.

Therefore Doug says it simply, "Classical Interpretation is bogus."

Quantum~Thinkqing is vastly superior Classical-Thing-king.

Comparatives include:

classical inflation is objective vis-à-vis
quantum~inflation is subjective

ditto for deflation and hyperinflation

Those sentients commencing MIII treating economics objectively are committing huge errors in judgment.

Thinkq about it. Inflation isn't 'true.' Deflation isn't 'true.' Hyperinflation isn't 'true.' Why? They are quantum~mutative processings which are perpetually underway. Some (one) move(s) to forefront of our attention when they become dominant. To say they are classically 'true' is error by whomever is saying it.

For Gary to say Herb Stein's quote is 'true,' is simply an error of judgment for similar reasons. Quantum~processes, unlike classical 'things' cann¤t 'stop.'

See Doug's comments on 'define' as an English language problematic. 16Oct2010 - Doug.

things CTMs assume reality is objective, material, immutable, etc. QTMs assume reality is qualitative and therefore subjective. Basis is quantum~essence of flux.

We may no longer thingk of inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation as dichonic 'things.'

We must learn to thinkq of them as quantons.

cannot CTMs assume negation is objective.

QTMs assume negation is subjective. This breaks all classical formal logic and all classical thing-king based upon it.

Since all of quantum~reality is flux, and all flux is positive energy, there is n¤ 'classical notion' of 'negation' in quantum~reality.

That means we do n¤t 'subtract' flux from flux. Classical maths do n¤t work in quantum~reality!

See Doug's requirements for new quantum~mathematics. Doug - 29Sep2012.

Positive quantum~flux can only 'modulate,' and potentially 'cancel' other positive quantum~flux. Entanglement of quantum~flux is a prerequisite of any quantum~cancellation.

Doug - 16Oct2010.

Quantum~reality is complementary.

Quantum~reality is holographic.

Quantum~reality is middle~included and everywhere~associative.

Ideal, 'oppositional' negation, therefore is impossible in quantum~reality since A issi ihn B and B issi ihn A, which breaks Aristotle's third sillygism.

We can script this more comcisely as A nissin B.

See Doug's commentary on quantum~interference. Intent here is to show how cancellation requires interference. Thence interference requires entanglement. Non~entangled flux moves through other flux freely without any interference, modulation, and possible 'blackout' cancellation.

Doug - 16Oct2010.

continue CTMs assume there is only one time. Time is a OSFA classical notion. QTMs assume time is heterogeneous. All quantons may have their own quantum~temporality.

Quantum~reality is quantized and quantizing.

Therefore any notions of ideal classical uni-temporal continuity is impossible.

See Doug's table comparing classical and quantum logics.


CTMs assume reality is 'stoppable.'

This is classical 'scientific' convention.

QTMs assume reality is perpetually unstoppable, always in flux, always changing, always changing all.

Naught is invariant in quantum~reality. Naught is constant in quantum~reality. Naught is immutable in quantum~reality. All is ihn flux and flux is ihn all, period.

In script: all nissin flux.

Doug - 15Oct2010.

Quantum~reality is unstoppable. It is absolute, perpetual fluxings.

It is worth your while to do your own due diligence re comparisons of classical and quantum deflation, inflation, and hyperinflation.

In complete hyperinflation, for example, US$ goes to total devaluation. Why? It becomes truly fiat: worthless.
Now, quantumly what does that mean?

Then see if you can apply that to your comparisons of deflation and inflation.

This a very good time to be doing your due diligence since US$ is ramping its own devaluation rapidly during 2010-2012.

That means you can compare your expectationings to what actually transpires. Neat, eh?

To be continued...



Chapter One Index

11-13Oct2010 (see minor updates, italic touch-ups, etc.)

Segment 10 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Energy Wellings?...

At this juncture of our Chautauqua, it appears to Doug necessary to delve into some quantum~esoterica of "energy~wellings."

"What are energy~wellings?"

Doug first saw and read about this term in Jeffrey Satinover's Quantum Brain.
Prior that "energy well" was not part of Doug's linguistic repertoire.
Satinover's opus planted some quantum seeds in Doug's fertile quantum~brain.
For that, and much similar Danah Zohar, Doug is thankful.
Doug pays homage to his heroes and sheroes by creatively extending their works.
This is part, parcel, and partialings of that process.

"What are energy~wellings?"

For Doug, they are H5Wings of sentient con(m)sciousness and sentient representationings of valuings.
Energy~wellings are viable means for describing how sentience acquires and tentatively 'saves' quanta from its quantum both local and non local environment.
As such they are only analogies of what really happens.
They are analogies since we have no means at hand to "really understand" what is "really happenings."
(This is what Doug means when he follows Gn¤stic Autiot's leading "embrace quantum~uncertainty.")
Our quantum~modalings thus are always con(m)strained to being analogies.
But, in a very significant manner, energy~wellings themselves are only analogies of any environment.
Grasp that and con(m)fidence leaps to an acceptance, "It is OK to use analogies to describe reality."

Please obtain:

any_sentient_environment nissin quanton(Iht,l¤cal_sentience), and

Doug intends "l¤cal sentience" may be ensembles of islands of sentience; it is unlikely we can lisr a 'single' sentience.

Allow Doug to abbreviate mnemonically "energy~wellings" as EWings.
They come in many emerqancyings, so we will offer, gradually, abundant mnemonics of them.

Carlo Suares, Danah Zohar, David Bohm, Karl Pribram, Ken Wilber, and countless others believe that reality is consciousness.
Indeed Suares calls this (immortality of cosmic consciousness) "essence of faith." Doug agrees, and
calls it "quantum~faith." Thinkq of it as, "the great quantum~supposition."
To Doug, it is foundation for understanding, analogously, quantum~reality.

"What are energy~wellings?"

For this Chautauqua, we shall thinkq of them as analogies of [Vv]alue ([Vv]aluings).

"But Doug, if we use Quantonics script to describe them, what are they in that Quantonics script?"

I believe I have already discussed this, perhaps indirectly countless times prior, but maybe I didn't call them EWings.

Try this, quanton(EWing_N¤nactuality,EWing_Actuality) issi one of many Quantonics' analogies of quantum~reality.

Quantons illustrate and narrate scripturally paired interrelationshiping (used as a verb here) among EWings.

EWings represent [Vv]alue.

Quantum~fiscally, ~economically, and ~philosophically inflation, deflation, and
hyperinflation (indeed all nouns, plus) may be analogized as quantum~EWings.

So now we have a way to symbolize EWings grammatically. How do we do that graphically?
Doug's sensibilities tell him that there are plausibly unlimited ways to do that.

Doug wants to show you pictures of these, and he is currently evaluating some candidates.
It is valuable here, though, to not become attached to any specific modal.
That specificity can have unintended consequences which can take us off into tangential scions of effort.
In a sense, classical specificity becomes a prison of thought. In limited ways we may have qua to avoid some of those prisons.
Factual specificity is a major weakness of classical canonic 'science(s),' and 'religion(s).' Unremediated classical mathematics represent just such a prison.
Evolving quantum~waves cann¤t be 'factually specific.' EWings are ensembles of evolving quantum~wavings.

Red text updates - 29Sep2012 - Doug.

Classically EWings may not be classically, factually 'specific,' however, they may be SEPably autsimilar.
All quantum flux is autsimilar all quantum flux.
All EWings are autsimilar all EWings.

Quantonics HotMeme™ "EWings' autsimilarity issi a proemially nascent tell of quantum~simplicity as flux nissin isoflux." Quantonics HotMeme

Isoflux nissin flux biblically-vulgately: "As above, so below."
Quantumly, "As in n¤nactuality, so in actuality."

In some parts of USA, people describe extraordinary experiences and somehow interrelate them with what they refer "vortices."
That modal appeals to Doug as usable for descriptionings of EWings. Doug refers them as spirals.
And we can show them compounded in countless ensemble varieties.
That variety offers one means of avoiding specificity.

In nature, if you have ever seen a Skyrocket Juniper, you notice how its limbs and leaves ensemble~spiral upward.
They are beautiful to behold.
Ask a question worthy of philosophical~phathoming: "Why would nature do that?"
Squirrel, tree, man analogy? Equilibria managed~mastered? Spirals as chaos?
(Doug just planted seven Skyrocket Junipers around his new front patio area: a memorial to Beth.)

Spirals can be Archimedean, hyperbolic, spherical, enveloped conically, wholly conic (e.g., a cone as a spiral), tubular, cylindrical, and so on...
Many of these shapes are recognizable to us in nature. Chambered Nautilus is a good example. Blossom patterns, etc.

Doug likes spherical patterns as spirals since they remind him of Watkins' efforts to dynamically depict Riemann's Critical Line.
Too, they make Doug think of Autiot's Aleph~Tav (male exhalation) and Tav~Aleph (female inhalation) cosmic cycles of energy.

Also, Doug feels close proximity with modals of sonoluminescence and anti gravity via spherical spiral EWing analogues.
In time, given enough, Doug will describe these too.

"Doug, where are these EWings?"

Let's say it as simply as possible to start...

They are the perpetually evolving ensemble elements which compose quantum~holograms.

A peaqlo of fuzzons (symbol for Doug's Fuzzonics) is an existing exemplar in graphic modality of that which Doug writes.

So quantum~economically inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation are each quantum~[Vv]alue EWings
ensembles in countless hologramings (e.g., cosmic conscious mind and islandic conscious sentient minds).

Doug will also attempt to show and narrate hologramings as ensembles of EWings.

To be continued...


11-12Oct2010 (see minor updates, italic touch-ups, etc.)

Chapter One Index


Segment 9 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Change is Simple, State is Complex...

Prepare yourself for some brain strain. Your mind is excellent, else you would n¤t be reading this...

You may recall that Henri Louis Bergson claimed, intentionally paraphrased
by Doug, "[Quantum] flux is simple, [classical] objective state is complex."

Where have we heard that, here in Quantonics, just recently?

Heraclitus, gnostically, said, "...variance agrees with itself." From Danah Zohar.

And, when we read further in Barnes, "[Statically] The path up and down is one and the same."

Barnes didn't grasp what Heraclitus' intent was here.

What Heraclitus means by "same" is that classical opposites are actually, due their own flux quanta, quantum~complementary.

dying issi living and living issi in dying and dying issi in living

up issi in down and down issi in up

right is in wrong and wrong is in right, and both are quantum~holographically in each other,
both are complementary one another; as Barnes interprets it, "right and wrong are same"

. . .

Allow Doug to take a moment to make some very relevant nexi.

Doug's issi is intentionally a palindrome for a "both ways equals," but it allows both energy~welling partials of any nexus to
quantally "evolve coobsfectively." We can call these co~dynamic~fluxings' processings "quantum~cooperative~evolutionings."

With that basis, let's create another evolution of issi. We'll call it "nissin." Doug's intent here is that nissin is a palindrome of "is in."
Then we can write, using Quantonics script "dying nissin living." Too, we may choose to see that
script as what Doug intends by quanton(living,dying). Nissin becomes a holographic interrelationshiping!

Just a FYE and a chance to savor part of Doug's individual inner sanctum.

Let's call it a n¤væl coined word in Quantonics.

Nissin is viable ubiquitously, since "quantum~reality nissin hologramicity."
(major attribution required here to David Bohm and Karl Pribram)
A HotMeme™ of proportions extraordinaire.

For students of Autiot:

Aleph~Tav nissin Tav~Aleph!

Male~Exhalation nissin Female~Inhalation!

Male~Grail nissin Female~Grail!

. . .

Heraclitus is thinkqing quantumly. Using the logos, gnosis, Autiot, and all of that simply seeing In Quantum~Lightings™.

Bergson: "[Quantum] flux is simple, [classical] objective state is complex."
We can say, then, using quantum~logos, Value is simple and value is complex.

Generically, change is simpler than 'state.'
Middle~including~holograms are simpler than middle-excluding matrices.

Value is simpler than value. Quantons are simpler than dichons.

"Whoa, Doug, to me it just doesn't seem what you are claiming is correct!"

I can only say to you that you are trapped in an inertia of bad thing-king, objective-thing-king, dialectical-thing-king.
See Doug's Dialectics Anonymous. You have to want to quit or you will simply be evolved out of reality's many entropies.

Let's bring it to an extreme cliché,
A Doug HotMeme™ "State is dead. If you believe in 'state' and all its objective accoutrements, you are dead."™ A Doug HotMeme

Keynesianism is 'state.' It is dead!

Regarding Barnes' use of 'same,' classicists confused (con fused) quantum~complementarity with classical-identity which Barnes refers "same."

So, value is identity and Value is complementarity.

Bergson wrote it like this in his Creative Evolution, page 249:

"In reality, life is a movement [flux], materiality [state] is the inverse movement,
and each of these two movements is simple,
the matter which forms a world being an undivided flux,
and undivided also the life that runs through it,
cutting out in it living beings all along its track."
Doug's brackets.

Jesus, in gnostic logos, said, "The sign of living God within you is movement and rest."
Quantum~complementation of flux and state: quanton(flux,state).

Heraclitus is saying "same" is quantum~complement of one opposite and its other opposite.

Quanton(up,down), quanton(right,wrong), quanton(right,left), quanton(good,bad), etc.

Dynamic thinkqing eliminates opposites by treating them as middle~including quantum~complements.

Value issi in value and value issi in Value: We are in it and it is in us. And all of that is
evolving, everywhere~islandically (as quantal energy~wellings). There is n¤ classical 'state.'

A look ahead: Value and value as energy~wellings...

To be continued...



Chapter One Index

8Oct2010, 11Jan2013 (add account link)

Segment 8 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Change is Reality's Essence...

To change how we think, Doug believes, we must understand change itself. We lack infinite wisdom, so we must use inference and conjecture: Doug calls this "heuristics."

What is a great exemplar of change itself? There are many. Aging, What we call a "birth and death cycle." Evolution. Doug's fav is "learning."

"Doug, what has this to do with "inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation?""

Those terms are currently interpreted, in general, classically. Classical learning is static, closed, objective, causal, determinate, concrete, etc.

Doug is saying, "We must learn to stop thing-king like that and start thinkqing a new way." A quantum way.

Those terms may be quantumly hermeneuted (plural-dynamic-evolving interpretationings) a new way:

Quantumly~hermeneuted, quantum~learning is dynamic, open, subjective, affective, uncertain, evolving, etc.

Doug is saying that we have to move from classical learning (and thus teaching) to quantum learning (and a new way of teaching).

When we do that our wisdom changes from classical to quantum.

Philosophically, those more wise than Doug will ever be say that, "Wisdom is understanding the logos."

"Who said that, Doug?"

Our list is long, but Doug can drop a few names. Buddha, Confucius, much of Oriental thought, Pirsig's ancients, Essene Jesus (not Satan's 'christ'),
Magdalene, most gnostics, keepers of Qabala, keepers of Autiot...and more recently Johann Georg Hamann, Henri Bergson, William James, and Robert Pirsig.

Many humans have 'defined' the logos in a variety of ways. Doug describes Iht as,
"humans' best current efforts at describing reality." In Hebrew it is Zohar. In Tao it is I Ching.

Heraclitus, as quoted by Danah Zohar, writes it like this, "...[Humans] do not know how what
is at variance agrees with itself
." Danah quotes Joh Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 1963.
See Danah's Quantum Self, beginning of Chapter 4.
(Doug's brackets.)

Doug likes Barnes' more complete translation from Diels-Kranz:

"They do not comprehend how, in differing, it agrees with itself -- a
backward turning connection [self~other~reference], like that of a bow and lyre."
Doug's brackets. Diels Kranz [B51].


"Of this account which holds forever [humans] prove uncomprehending, both before hearing it and when first they have heard it.
For although all things come about in accordance with this account, they are like tiros as they try the words and
the deeds which I expound as I divide up each thing according to its nature and say how it is." Diels-Kranz [B1].
See Jonathan Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy, 1987.

Doug, here, views Heraclitus' use of account as the logos.

Heraclitus' use of "tiros" is as "quantum~affectation," in Greek a, "magic wand," which makes it possible to understand.
See Wildivine on Tiros.

Let's pervasively oversimplify: The logos describes reality as Value.
Autiot is a language which does this better than any other of which Doug is aware.

So one of Doug's techniques (quantiques) will be to redescribe (quantumly hermeneut) inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation using Autiot.

Of what is Heraclitus speaking? Change. But his description is more quantum, one of "evolutionary change: that which is at variance with itself."

Heraclitus describes the logos as self~referent, self~other~altering change: Value itself.

Classical thing-king cannot do that! Concrete cannot evolve self~other~referentially! Concrete is an ultimate stux sux!

Quantum~thinkqing can! Quantons are descriptions of evolutionary flux!

So Doug wants to use Quantonics and Autiot to describe inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation in a n¤væl, quantum way.

Next segment, Doug will do a bit more on Heraclitus and a few problematics in his translated words.

To be continued...


Doug offers another "do not miss this" read from Market Oracle, David Knox Barker on Kondratieff's cycle.

8Oct2010, 11Jan2013

Chapter One Index


Segment 7 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Major Flaws of Classicism...

What was one of many complaints Robert M. Pirsig had about classical science?

He complained that 'science,' what we call 'classical science,' holds dear its self-evaluation: "to be 'value' free."

Classical science has as a goal: drive all quality, all subjectivity out of science. When that goal is achieved,
classical science becomes ideally objective, mechanical and formally canonic and polemically dogmatic.
In other words, classical science, denigrates all that isn't dogmatically objective, "unscientific." People who do this,
in Doug's opinion, are retarded. They emit an unending stream of intellectual (hylic) garbage.

From whence this utopian stupidity? One source is Hume's 'Law' which claims "There is no bridge over fact and value."
Much older than that is Aristotle's sillygisms:
  • identity - (A is A),
  • contradiction - (A must be either A or not A), and
  • excluded-middle - (A cannot be both A and not A).

You may choose to observe how we have arrived at a major epiphanous moment whom
few may recognize let alone intellectually and spiritually appreciate, i.e., Value.

Real Value requires an "included~middle!"

But 'science' and Hume and Aristotle claim objective reality cannot have any "included~middles." Aquinas and Buridan agree!

Quantum~reality requires "included~middlings."

Photons are both particles (more appropriately, wavicles) and waves.

(Quantum~reality requires quantons(wavings,waviclings). Doug - 15Jan2012.)

Aristotle's 'excluded-middle' says, "That's impossible." But it's real. What is going on here?

However, classical objects' properties, by foundational and conventional classical thought,
require Aristotle's 'middle-exclusion.' This is 'scientific' "Intelligent Design."
Classical science, then, is an objective and value-free method of examining reality.

But quantum~valuation of photons show that quantum~reality is Value abundant! If you grasp that,
and fathom its depth of semantic for humanity's future, you have an epiphany. You own it!

Bergson tried to show us this. James tried. Pirsig tried. Doug is trying.

Essence of quantum~flux is everywhere~middle~including~associativityings.

Essence of classical objects is everywhere-middle-excluded-dissociations.

On that basis, classical science is simply bogus.

On that basis, quantum~complementation (quantons) is describable and demonstrable.

Doug has written that Danah Zohar is one of Doug's sheroes. Allow Doug to
offer another great exemplar from beginning of Chapter 4 of her Quantum Self.

What Doug wants to demonstrate here, is that while she is one of Doug's sheroes, her 'science' is still classical.

"But, while what the observer sees can be described in the equations of quantum mechanics,
the observer himself cannot. We don't have any equations for observers, human or otherwise."

Danah goes on to show us that she doesn't get it.

She still adheres a bogus classical notion of 'excluded-middle.' She writes
that observer and observed are lisr, objectively excluded from one another.

For Doug, this offers another epiphany. By Danah telling us what cannot be done classically,
she shows us what may be done if we change from CTMs to QTMs.
A concise way of saying that analogously is, "Stop thing-king
classical-objects, and start thinkqing quantum~flux."

All objective thing-king across all disciplines is bogus folks!

We must learn quantum~thinkqing (Value) and dump classical-thing-king (value).

Doug's quote of Danah, just above, elicits another commentary.
Observed reality is made of bosons and fermions (photons, electrons and atomic nuclei).
Observers are made of bosons and fermions (photons, electrons and atomic nuclei).
Agreeing with quantum~theory, Essene~Gn¤sis, and Qabala's Autiot,
"Observed reality is ihn Observers and Observers are ihn Observed reality."

"We are ihn Iht and Iht is ihn us."

We issi quanton(Iht,us).

Trouble is, right here in River (Jordan) City, our entire system of thought
on earth today is dialectical, and dialectic denies what Doug just wrote.

As long as we adhere dialectical sillygisms, our troubles will continue.

An interesting aside here: Carlo Suares claims that "Second Coming" isn't a return of
a messiah, rather is humanity leaving dialectic and entering flux. Doug agrees.

All of our fiscal and political issues at MIII's commencement are dialectical, period.

"OK, Doug, you've done seven Chautauqua segments. Where are you going with this?"

I believe, assuming you have read all segments and understood
them to best of your abilities, I can answer your query well, now.

Recall what Doug set out to do. Redescribe inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation
in quantumese. I may not have said it like that, but something similar to that.

Doug wants to find a way to help himself and you to learn how to stop thing-king
of those terms dialectically and start thinkqing of them quantumly.

Essentially, Doug will take each of those terms and show their current classical semantics.

Then he will take each of those terms and interrelate them quantum~holographically (using
quantonics' script) while building a n¤væl quantum~semasiology for each and all together.

Hint: they are all complementary one another. Excluded-middle, here, as always, is bogus.

That's the approach folks! How long will it take? Doug is always "quantum~uncertain."

Enjoy your weekend.

(Recommended reading on Market Oracle: Jim Willie CB's latest article; Steve Betts too.
Also you should read Harvey Organ's 5Oct rant on Erin Cullaro's "notory fraud" re MBS, etc.)

To be continued...



Chapter One Index

3-5Oct2010, 11Jan2013

Segment 6 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Value is Quantum...

Your reading of this segment presumes you have read and absorbed detail and issues from segment five.

N¤ [Vv]alue which we sensually perceive and conceive finds its bases in static classical objective 'particulate' EEMD interactions!

All [Vv]alues which we sensually perceive and comceive find their bases in evolving quantum subjective scintilla EIMA interrelationshipings.

Bottom line? Value is quantum. Antithetically value is n¤t classical.
Quantum~reality exists. Classical reality doesn't exist (i.e., Newtonian and
Einsteinian formal, material, objective, mechanical physics are all bogus).
See Doug's extensive QELR of classical vav quantum realities.

[Vv]alue is quantum for a simple reason: quantum~reality is perpetual flux.
Compare that to classical reality as perpetual concrete 'state.' Value which is always in flux cann¤t be n¤r become classically concrete.

All classical disciplines including 'economics,' are to be questioned and doubted quantum~sceptically and assiduously.

"But Doug, how do we do that?"

By avoiding all objective monisms (e.g., SOM) and all objective pluralisms (e.g., CR).
By accepting flux as actually subjective and only apparently objective.

In that quantum~pr¤cæss of avoidance another clue emerges: As Danah Zohar explains, paraphrased, "Quantum reality is
quintessentially com(n)textual." Simply quantum~reality is holographic, meaning there are unlimited views (comtextings) of
any [Vv]alue in quantum~reality. Monism says there is just one 'catholic' view. Pluralism says there are many views,
but all have some objective truth (local absence of uncertainty) associated with them depending upon classical context.

Quantum Value is unique (omnique) in its stindyanic stochasticity of unlimited holographic views and hermeneutics.

In Segment 5 Doug wrote about Danah Zohar, "She is one of Doug's sheroes.
That said, and with respect, Doug finds much to criticize in her opus.
Others do too, some without respect."

Doug has found several contiguous pages relevant to our Chautauqua on [Vv]alue which allow
Doug to show why some authors and pundits disrespect some of what Danah writes.
These pages and paragraphs are important to review here since they directly address cogent quantum
[Vv]alue issues which many people, experts and lay folk alike, do not grasp quintessentially.
Doug wants to do his due diligence here and now, since this local effort will have
increasing Valuings in subsequent segments of our Chautauqua.

Danah is regurgitating William James' commentary on how each of us is
Value~affectively partial and parcel of an absolutely evolving and enthymemetic reality.
Biblically, as Jesus implied in his Farewell Discourse, "We are ihn Iht and Iht issi ihn us."
More quantum~[Vv]alue~comcisely, "We quantumly affect Iht and Iht quantumly affects us."

Doug offers a quantum creatio ex nihilo aperio graphic from
which you may choose to accept Doug's quantum EIMA inferences.

At her Quantum Self's Chapter 3 ending Danah writes about [Vv]alue under a subtitle, 'How Reality Happens Depends On How We Look At It:'

Page and Paragraph
(Whole paragraphs rounded to pages)
Transcription from Danah Zohar's Quantum Self Doug's Commentary and Criticism
Page 44, para. 1 "We have already seen that the act of observing quantum systems changes them into ordinary objects. The mere fact of our interference in Nature transforms her, and that fact alone would require that we change our whole way of looking at ourselves and our place in the natural world. But worse still for those who like to think that the world 'just is as it is,' our interference has an unexpected dimension."

Our bold and color highlights follow a code:

  • black-bold - important to read if you are just scanning our review
  • orange-bold - text ref'd by index pages
  • green-bold - we see Zohar proffering quantumesque memes
  • violet-bold - an apparent classical problematic
  • blue-bold - we disagree with this text segment while disregarding context of Zohar's overall text
  • gray-bold - quotable text
  • red-bold - our direct commentary
  • [] - our intra text commentary

Danah is making a huge mistake of attempting to preserve legacy 'objective science.' To do that she must retain a long list of anti-quantum classicisms:

  • wave function 'collapse,'
  • collapsed reality as classically objective,
  • fermionic reality as classically objective (it isn't),
  • 'objective' reality as classically 'stoppable' for purposes of 'zero momentum' scalar measurement of fermions which never stop,
  • particle and wave as either-or objectively lisr,
  • quantum theory as mechanical (it isn't),
  • reality as objective for convenience of physics,
  • etc.

Danah's "...act of observing quantum systems changes them into ordinary objects..." We can simplify Danah's misnomer here by using quantonics script to say, "Quantons evolve based upon all of their many interrelationshipings with their both local and global environmentings." Some interrelationshipings have greater quantum~partial affectationings than others.

To counter Danah's concerns re "pernicious individualism," many interrelationshipings may be viewed as a dynamic Quantum Society. In this case, as Doug pointed out in a prior segment, Quantum Society isn't just anthropochauvinistic-anthropocentrism. Quantum~Society isn't just human anymore.

In Quantonics one of our major suppositions is that Nature is intrinsically aware at all scales of reality. An implicit of that is "Nature measures herself, and selects outcomes from her own perpetual everywhere holographic EIMA self~observation."

Page 45, para. 1 "Not only does observation somehow collapse the wave function, thus helping to give us a world in the first place, but it turns out that the particular way in which we choose to observe quantum reality partly determines what we shall see. The quantum wave function contains many possibilities, and it can be up to us which of these will be elicited."

Danah's "...give us a world..." does not depend upon a classical notion of wave function 'collapse.' Nature's creation of fermions is source and agency of what most of us refer "material reality." But fermions are dynamic flux which never collapse. We may n¤t classically measure them, rather we must quantum~monitor their perpetual evolutionings. Perpetual quantum~evolutionings abduct quantum~reality as radically instable. This violates (i.e., belies) classical canonic stability as a dialectical ruse. Quantum~monitoring requires instability borne of quantum~scintillation! 1Jan2012 - Doug.

Fermions are n¤t 'particulate.' Fermions evolve as quantum~flux and may never be classically 'stopped,' for convenience of classical 'measurement.' There are n¤ classical 'scalars' in quantum~reality. Your blood pressure is a great example here. Heart rate too. Always changing, always evolving!

Bosons, specifically photons, enable us to see, via QED interrelationshipings with electrons, fermionic (material) reality. Too beware Danah's particularity of photons. They too are perpetual fluxings, always changing and changing all with which they interrelate. Photons literally transmute atoms' energy levelings. If photons have enough energy they can transmute atoms themselves! Photons are n¤t objects, and they possess n¤ 'classically objective properties.' Photons are ensembles (Banesh Hoffman calls them "crowds") of waves (AKA 'wave packets') essentially comtaining wave ensemble 'pictures' of their local holographic surroundings. A photon intra our Sun has an omniffering 'picture' than a photon in a Peruvian jungle.

Readers should put our comments, so far, in light of a Keynesian economic goal of "stabilizing world financial systems." Readers should see vividly that is an anti-quantum approach, and as a result it will fail just as we monitor what is happening now during second decade of our 21st century. Economic systems are quantum and as such are perpetually uncontrollable and perpetually Keynesians are about to omniscover. Fiat doesn't enhance economic stability, rather destabilizes all economic systems which embrace it. Doug - 3Oct2010.

Fiat, just like 'classical concrete,' is an abstraction which is delusional. Au is fermionic: quantum~real. Fiat is less than bosonic: quantum~bogus! Fiat is empty calories of bloated Keynesian GDPs. Compare flow of fiat to flow of Au as [Vv]alue. AuGDPs are Value. FiatGDPs are faux value. N¤ value!

Page 45, para. 2 "A photon, for example, has both position possibilities (a particlelike nature) and momentum possibilities (a wavelike nature). A physicist can set up his experiment to measure, and hence fix, either of these--though in fixing one he loses the other (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). His interference--his measurement or observation--seems in some strange way to influence which side of its nature the photon will exhibit. The thought experiment about Schrödinger's cat isn't complex enough to illustrate this, but another experiment conceived by John Wheeler does so graphically."

N¤ photon has classically 'static' position. So to claim we can measure it is stupidity of highest grossness.

N¤ 'thing' in quantum~reality may be 'fixed.' There is n¤ valid concept of classical 'zero momentum' in quantum~reality.

Please obtain a crucial meme here: Absence of 'zero momentum,' is an intrinsic quantum~complementation of presence of 'absolutely perpetual flux.' Implications of this are so vast as to be almost beyond human imaginationings. To test your quantum~stage, ponder a Doug query, "Are quantum~isofluxings absolutely perpetual fluxings?" To answer that, do we need some n¤væl quantum~thinkqing? What proto~suppositions are necessary? Doug - 5Oct2010.

Page 45, para. 3 "If a photon is given the option to travel through either one or both slits in a screen (being quantum mechanical it has the option to do both), the physicist's experiment will have the following result. If he places two particle detectors to the right of the slits, he finds that the photon behaves like a single particle--it follows a definite path through one slit and strikes one particle detector." [She offers a figure here, but Doug does not show it.]

There is n¤ such idea as, "...particle detectors..." in quantum~reality. Why? There are n¤ 'particles' in quantum~reality. Photons are dynamic, macroscopic, always fluxing, always evolving wave function ensemble 'packets' of energyings. Detection of said packets elicits quantum~scintillation. Scintillation is quantum~uncertain both in modulation of an electron's energy level and in demodulation of electron's energy level. Using scintillation to classically 'detect' is implicitly a fool's errand. (Using scintillation to omnitor quantum~processings is a good meme.)

Photons do n¤t have classical trajectories! Photons' individual Chautauquas perigrinate stochastically, uncertainly, n¤n linearly. There is n¤thing classical about photons, period. Danah is showing extreme ignorance in this case. Doug - 3Oct2010.

Page 45, para. 4 "If, on the other hand, he places a detector screen between the two slits and the particle detectors, the photon behaves like a wave--it travels through both slits, interferes with itself, and leaves an interference pattern on the detector screen." [She offers a figure here, but Doug does not show it.]

All photons (bosons) and matter waves (fermions) behave like waves. Classical 'physicists' and 'scientists' simply choose to misinterpret quantum~reality using their objective biases. See Doug's QELR of science.

She is right about self interference and we then may infer interference borne of quantum~entanglement.

Page 45, para. 5 "Physicist and photon are involved in a creative dialogue that somehow transmutes one of many quantum possibilities into an everyday, fixed reality. Therefore, the act of measurement does play some role in deciding what gets measured. 'In some strange sense,' says Wheeler ' this is a participatory universe.'"

See Doug on quantum~scintillation.

N¤ reality is n¤r can be 'fixed.' Period!

Page 45, para. 6

"Beyond particles, beyond fields of force, beyond geometry, beyond space and time themselves, is the ultimate constituent {of all there is}, the still more ethereal act of observer-participancy?"
[This is a quote by Zohar of Wheeler, 1983.]

We see John Archibald Wheeler here appropriately delegitimizing classical ideas of: particles, notions of force, geometry, and Newtonian-Einsteinian 'space-time.'

In Doug's opine, Wheeler was a greatest of greats in quantum due diligence and innovation. Richard Feynman thought similarly re Wheeler.

Page 45, para. 7 "To capture the flavor of this observer-participancy, Wheeler recounts an old Hebrew legend. In the legend, Jehovah and Abraham are having a heated dialogue about who has the upper hand in accounting for why the world is as it is."
Page 47, para. 1 "'You would not even exist if it were not for me,' Jehovah reminds Abraham. 'Yes, Lord, that I know,' Abraham replies, 'but also you would not be known if it were not for me.' In more scientific language, Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine makes the same point when he says, 'Whatever we call reality, it is revealed to us only through an active construction in which we participate.'"
Page 47, para. 2 "In quantum physics, this interdependency between the being of a thing and its overall environment is called contextualism, and the implications of it are vast, both for our whole conception of reality and for our understanding of our selves as partners in that reality. It is one central reason for my claim that quantum theory must contribute eventually to a new world view, with its own distinctive epistemological, moral, and spiritual dimensions. The epistemological dimension--what is the nature of our knowledge and what do we mean by truth?--was expressed very well in the phenomenology of French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty, in what he called 'truth within a situation:'"

Of all paragraphs quoted here by Doug, this one carries perhaps hugest ramifications for the 'death of Keynesianism,' the 'death of FRB,' and the 'end of Cartel' and political intervention in fiscal affairs of capitalism. Doug - 3Oct2010.

Our environment is changing rapidly. Our cultures are changing rapidly. Peoples' awareness of political and fiscal evils perpetrated upon them are growing. Keynesians beware! Politicians beware! Bankers beware! Your end times are nigh... Doug - 3Oct2010.

Doug has avoided Merleau-Ponty simply due his embrace of 'static truth.' In quantum~reality, "Truth is an agent of its own change." Truthings are quantum~flux, just like all else...

Page 47, para. 3

"So long as I keep before me the ideal of an absolute observer, of knowledge in the absence of any viewpoint, I can only see my situation as being a source of error. But once I have acknowledged that through it I am geared to all actions and all knowledge that are meaningful to me, then my contact with the social in the finitude of my situation is revealed to me to the starting point of all truth, including that of science, and, since we have some idea of truth since we are inside truth and cannot get outside it, all that I can do is define a truth within the situation."
[This is a quote by Zohar of Merleau-Ponty, 1960.]
Page 47, para. 4 "I shall say more about this, and about the moral and spiritual dimensions of observer-participancy, in later chapters, but a word of caution about quantum contextualism--'truth within a situation'--is necessary here."
Page 47, para. 5 "Misunderstood and pushed in the wrong directions, the fact that the human observer in some way helps to evoke the reality that he observes could have unfortunate cultural implications. It could lend the full weight of physics to the currently popular, and in my view very pernicious, notion that the individual self is the sole author of value--that there is no 'truth' in this world but only one's 'perspective.'"
Page 48, para. 1 "To some extent, certain of the popular books already written about quantum physics have encouraged their readers to draw such conclusions. Consider, for example, the epistemological and moral implications of Fritjof Capra's claim that, as 'the mind of the observer creates the properties possessed by electron,' those properties can in no sense be called objective. Concerning atomic physics he says:"
Page 48, para. 2

"In transcending the Cartesian division between mind and matter, modern physics has not only invalidated the classical ideal of an objective description of nature but has also challenged the myth of a value-free science...The scientific results {scientists} obtain and the technological application they investigate will be conditioned by their frame of mind."
[This is a quote by Zohar of Fritjof Capra, 1983.]
Page 48, para. 3 "Mainstream quantum theory itself carries within it the dangers of such subjectivism (to wit, Heisenberg: 'The conception of objective reality has thus evaporated...'), but Capra pushes it further by introducing the notions of value and frame of mind. Such thinking is dangerous, and what is more, it is bad physics."

Let's just override her garbage intellect here. Quantum~reality is subjective, period! Doug - 3Oct2010.

Classical science is doomed. That is what Danah fears, but what she refers danger is actually good quantum change which will sweep away much antique and passé classical thingking methods.

Page 48, para. 4 "Nothing in quantum theory itself suggests that observation or the observer 'creates' reality (the properties of subatomic particles). At the moment of observation, some dialogue between the quantum wave function and the observer (be this man or machine) evokes, and thus gives concrete form to, one of the many possible realities inherent within that wave function. But there is already the potential for some very definite sort of reality there--the wave function of a table can't collapse into a cat or a kangaroo. It can become only a table." Her "very definite" implies classical certainty to Doug. More BS.
Page 48, para. 5 "Furthermore, once the wave function has collapsed, its reality is as objective as anything else science studies. Any two (or more) people looking at Schrödinger's cat will agree that he is objectively dead--he won't look dead to one and alive to another. His mortality is not a matter of anyone's 'point of view,' and certainly not of someone's 'value judgment.' He is just simply, and finally, dead."
Page 48, para. 6 "The whole large set of questions raised by the conundrum of Schrödinger's cat, among them the role of the human observer in reality formation and the associated problem of objectivity, only highlight the fact that at this stage we haven't enough understanding of human observers and the physics of their consciousness to reach any informed conclusions. The problem of the cat obviously obliges us to rethink a great many of our preconceptions about ourselves and possibly about the purpose of our existence, but to meet the heady challenge, we must face head-on the problem of consciousness."

Nothing classical will ever explain quantum~con(m)sciousness. That is a big reason why AI can't seem to get traction. Classical notions disable implementation of quantum~AI.

Read Bohm and read Karl Pribram. Consciousness is quantum~holographic. If you do not grasp that you are already evolutionarily dead. Worse, you have n¤ legacy of any worth to future humanity.

Abraham's four millennia old Autiot is closer to quantum~reality than current objective 'science' will ever be. Energy isn't classically 'objective.' Waves are flux are energy, folks.

Current economic theory is 'state' folks!

Thank you for reading,

Doug - 3Oct2010.

Doug needs to write a summary here, but this segment is already way too long. It should keep you busy for several days at least.

To be continued...



Chapter One Index

1-2Oct2010, 11Jan2013

Segment 5 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Individual vis-à-vis Society...

Allow Doug to set our con(m)text a little more firmly for this segment of our [Vv]alue Chautauqua.

I am rereading Danah Zohar's Quantum Self. Danah is a great authoresse in Doug's opinion. Danah is three years
younger than Doug, and her Quantum Self was published in 1990 making it more than two decades old when we
include its birthing processings. Doug read more thoroughly her Quantum Society about a decade ago, and she provided
Doug's own vicissitudinal fecundity for many of his memes in Quantonics. I thank her for that. I owe her a great debt
of gratitude. She is one of Doug's sheroes. That said, and with respect, Doug finds much to criticize in her opus. Others
do too, some without respect. Most of my major criticism of her work isn't about its quality, rather it is about her
lurking dialectisms. For example, she uses dialectical either-or describing particle-wave quantum~reality. She uses
dichons(wave, particle). Doug has invented and uses to greater advantage quanton(wave,wavicle), i.e., quanton(~,¤).
In a nut's hell that is mostly what Doug complains about in his rereading of Dana's work.

Her book titles show her sensitivities to memes of individual and society. That is essence of what Doug wants to pursue in this segment.

Doug doubts Danah would concur his views re: society vav individual in terms of Value. In general, reading Dana, she
tends to use static 'truth' as her analogue of value. So if you read her texts, you may choose to view her 'truth' as a kind
of value. Her major problematic here is that she apparently misses William James' "truth is made." Doug says,
"Truthings are evolving quantum~processings." And "Truth is an agent of its own change."
Similarly, Doug would write, "Valuings are evolving quantum~processings."
[Vv]alue is in all and all is in [Vv]alue, and all of that evolves at up to Planck rates.
We are only paraphrasing Pirsig's Value issi Quality issi Reality.

It is crucial for you as a reader and student of this Chautauqua effort to grasp Doug's assumptions, his suppositions.
But can you, can we, do that? Can anyone grasp anyone else's assumptions. Doug believes we can, but only partially.
A major issue here is that, as individuals, most of us aren't consciously aware of our key assumptions. And they somewhat
categorize in at least two ways: implicit and explicit. Polanyi uses similar terms to relate this categorization of
assumptions. Some of us know a few of our explicit assumptions on any Value assessment, but few of us are
self~aware of our implicit (tacit) assumptions. Doug, too, hasn't adequately described categories of conscious and
unconscious, macro and micro suppositions. They are massively abundant, complex,
and ever present~evolving with holistic partial quantum~affectation.

In spite of all that complexity (which Doug believes is important to run in background and be ready at any
time to acknowledge), Doug wants to share one of his major assumptions with you: classical society cann¤t think.

Another: quantum~individuals thinkq.

If Doug is wrong about those two assumptions, then you may claim that most of
Doug's work in this very long Chautauqua may be a target of your criticism.

You will notice that Doug is leaving open an assumption that quantum~society can
thinkq. Doug doesn't know yet how to regard it, but leans toward acceptance of that assumption.

Let's make a table:

   Category  Qua  Brief Description  [Vv]alue
 classical  individual  thingks  hylic, material thought  value
 classical  society  cann¤t think  writes 'laws' for individual and social behavior  value
 quantum  individual  thinkqs  thinkqs across a quantum~topos: hylic and psychic and pneumatic  Value
 quantum  society  may thinkq  views societal~self as a hologram co~comtaining individual quantum~holograms  Value

An example of an implicit assumption of quantum~society's qua for thinkqing: a meme of one and possibly many epigenome(s).

Let's apply this to Keynesianism, Earth's current 'Monkey on its back.'

You may recall an old ode about "Killing the golden goose."
Do you? Doug does. Much has been written about it.

Keynesianism, like all fiat and fractional reserve 'banking' systems, "Kills the golden goose."
How? They destroy nations and their cultures by debasing said cultures' money systems.

Rome did it (via dilution of precious metal content in coins). Germany did it. This list is very long.

Keynesianism and its Marxian socialist 'welfare' 'state,' have debased our currency and
made our nation insolvent, period! Their solution to fix their own problem? More of same.

"More of same" is a Keynesian society which cann¤t think.
Low and absent 'value.' A status quo which has n¤ go!

Keynesianism has n¤ meme of contraction, n¤ meme of deflation, n¤ meme of devolution.

Yet our world demands contraction and deflation and devolution in order to
survive. We need a fiscal diet. We need to lose all of our credit and debt fat.

Losing weight to stay alive is Value. A very valuable meme. Keynesians simply do n¤t grasp
such a simple and Valuable meme. Keynesians are hylics. Keynesian societies cann¤t think.

That which can only grow...bursts under its own morbidly obese linear and closed cyclic expansion...

Keynesianism eats yet never defecates! Watch out when TSHTF...n¤væl semantic head, yes?

To be continued...



Chapter One Index


Segment 4 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

A N¤væl [Vv]alue Assessment M¤dal...

Thus far we have some memes about [Vv]alue hierarchies among, for example, intrinsic [Vv]alues,
DQ vis-à-vis SQ vis-à-vis ESQ in Pirsig's MoQ, and Quantonic representations of them vis-à-vis current classical dichonic representations of them.

We have learned that [Vv]alue is assessable locally, but usually is indeterminate globally (Globality isn't a trivial meme here.
Locality may be home, community,..., Earth. Globality includes all of reality.). However, what we mean by "globally"
is relative unless we are speaking of an unknowable and ineffable "complete reality." A perpetually evolving quantum~reality
is never in any sense 'classically complete.' To make matters even more challenging and omnifficult,
[Vv]alue is subjective hermeneutically: it often is assessed individually based upon individual preferences.
Examples here include, "What is harm?" (Who decides?) "What is better?" (Who decides?) "What is a bully?" (Again, who decides?)

Doug's often used exhortation is, "Thinkq about it." What he means is, "Quantumly, for you as an individual,
which selection is better?" Doug is asking you to quantumly decide (n¤t dialectically 'decide') for yourself.
Even that recommendation is a problem, since you can always ask "When?" [Vv]alues are always
changing, and quantumly there are many timings (n¤t just one, OSFA, time).

Can we apply our comparative memes of [Vv]alues to thinking?

For example thing-king vis-à-vis thinkqing?

Our Chautauqua has arrived at a plateau!

Is thinkqing hyper thing-king?

Now, dear reader, "That is the question." When it comes to [Vv]alue, "That is the question."

A greater story of Quantonics itself commenced with Doug's following David Bohm's (and others') exhort: "We need a new way of thinking." Indeed.

David Bohm and Quantonics say that we cannot assess [Vv]alue interrelationshipings well classically.
We must change our thing-king to thinkqing. Why? Quantum~thinkqing is better than classical thing-king.

If you want to do a detail comparison, see our QELR of think.

"But Doug, why is quantum~thinkqing better than classical thing-king? Write your answer in one sentence."

Quantum~thinkqing describes (omniscribes) reality better than classical thing-king.

Doug's surrogate son, Steven, bought him an interesting textbook nearly a year ago as a holiday present. Said book is,
the physics of Consciousness, by Evan Harris Walker, Basic Books, 2000, paperback, 368 pages including index.

Most of this book is valuable for comparative Consciousness valuation assessment, and Walker and Doug are superwalking
autsimilar quantized footsteps. From any devaluing perspective, Walker still harbors some silly classical notions, e.g.,
"laws govern the universe." N¤ static laws exist. They too are under quantum~reality's absolute mandate for change.
Two quasi absolutes emerge: change is perpetual and therefore reality is quantum~stochastic therefore reality is quantum~uncertain.

Any [Vv]alue assessments we do must embrace those and other quantum memes and memeos.

One unterrific aspect of this text is Walker's apparent adherence to Einstein's anti quantum "no action at a distance."
He bases that on a classical 'fact' that monotemporal signaling may not be superluminal since signal theory mandates
that "signaling takes time." Quantum correlation, however, is superluminal regardless. Another is
Walker's use of "quantum mechanics." As David Bohm warned, "Quantum~reality is n¤t mechanical!"

Despite those and other issues, let's quote one of Walker's Bell Theorem paragraphs:

"But quantum mechanics does not make that assumption [of classical dialectic's 'either-or' - Doug - 27Sep2010]. Quantum mechanics assumes that the object is somehow both blue and red--that it exists as a combination of two mutually exclusive things until we observe it. Thus, in order to resolve the problem about Bell's theorem, we could reject the assumption of objective reality and instead accept that the act of observing things somehow affects the reality of the things we observe. This is the first way out of the dilemma posed by the failure of experiments to satisfy Bell's inequality. We can assume that objects are not independently real but instead depend in some way on the observer [and all other holographic reality - Doug - 27Sep2010]." See p. 134.

Doug has marked problematic classicisms in bold violet. Doug's brackets.

Walker's "...until we observe it..." introduces Earth bound anthropochauvinistic-anthropocentrism into his description of 'quantum mechanics.'
Bohm's version is holographic and all of quantum~reality is in processings of perpetually coobsfecting itself and other.

Doug's point here is that in order to do a better job of [Vv]alue assessment we must reject 'classical thing-king' and
adopt a better and n¤væl way of thinkqing, like Quantonics, MoQ, Bohm's holographic reality, Carlo Suares' Autiot energy description of cosmic reality, etc.

Begin Aside - 3Apr2012:

Doug didn't say this over a year and a half ago when he first wrote his Chapter 1, Segment 4 of this online textbook,
but now he has some valuable hindsight to offer with some superb justification for adding it here.

This quantum~online textbook, without offering a n¤væl quantum means of doing [Vv]alue
assessmentings, would be a waste of Doug's timings and, more importantly, a waste of yours.

Let's distill (omnistill) Doug's n¤væl quantum means before digging into detail.

Doug's evolving explicit assumptions will show us that classical assessment
of 'value' is no longer valid, indeed classical assessment is demonstrably bogus.
So any decisioning you do based upon classical 'value' assessment has little and no utility
in quantum~reality, i.e., as does omnicisioning based in quantum~Value assessmentings.

If you want a little more background prior proceeding here, see Doug's:
QQA on Measurement, Quantum~Radicals, quanta, quantization~scintillation loops, and Ensemble Qwf EWings.

Now permit Doug to refer a marvelous exemplar of his own n¤væl omnistillation above.

Doug's exemplar is from Chapter 9, 'Our Skeleton in the Closet,' from
Rosenblum and Kuttner's Quantum Enigma, OxUP, 2006 paperback edition.

This exemplar is marvelous for Doug since it uses classical means to demonstrate macroscopic
quantum~uncertainty and quantum~stochastics of macroscopic phenomena in reality.

A quantum physicist (title in itself is an oxymoron) demonstrates macroscopic phenomena
for a group from GROPE (Group of Rational and Open-Minded PEople).

This chapter is both short and extraordinary, so if you are very interested read it at your leisure.

Bottom line, said physicist does her job extraordinarily well.

Trouble is, her skeleton is born of classical assumptions about a non classical quantum~reality.
Her results are excellent. Her interpretations of them (her hermeneutics) are abominable.

That is physics' "Skeleton in Physics' Closet."

Doug wants to summarize by duplicating his Chapter 9 Mast comments:

"In Doug's opine, said 'physicist's' prime assumption is, "(Hu)man measure is the measure, and (hu)man is the measure of all things." Protagoras.

That is their skeleton in their closet. Simply, it is a bogus classical assumption. Interpretations of reality using that assumption are dialectically bogus.


Man doesn't [exclusively, in an Aristotelian manner] measure nature unilaterally.
All in nature hologra[[ph][m][il]]ically omnitors self~other~fractal~recursively he~rself.

See Doug's How SOMites Measure, How MOQites Measure, and How Classicists Measure comparatively.

I encourage you to read Chapter 9 of Quantum Enigma.


End Aside - 3Apr2012.

Keynesian economics is wholly classical, wholly objective, and adheres classical concrete reality
canon and dogma. It cannot do [Vv]alue assessmentings. That is why it is failing afore our eyes, now.
We need a n¤væl quantum~economics and its attendant quantum~politics.

To be continued...



Chapter One Index


Segment 3 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

What is Value? Can we Know?...

It has been ten days since our last installment. Doug is still struggling without Beth. I have taken time to start putting our home back to its original infrastructure when Doug and Beth first met in January, 1996. That effort is ongoing. It has taken time away from this Value Chautauqua. I have a modicum of progress underway now which should last through mid November, 2010. I am consolidating three office-production areas into one larger area. Our master bedroom is our largest single area, so it is target for all office-production work and equipment. Accomplishing that returns to utility, a bedroom, a library, and a dining room. Part of garage, too. So it is worth it. Also, Doug's progress in learning to be a widower advances, not under a stigma of ESQ, rather a field of positive and productive energy.

Let's get on with our Chautauqua...

First two segments of this Chautauqua offer a kind of overview of Renselle's and Pirsig's memeos of [Vv]alue.
Pirsig, likely, would find Doug's approach only enthymemetic his MoQ.
That's fair. None of us think alike. None of us believe alike. All of us have omniffering [Vv]alues.
Humans are multiversal, and in Doug's opinion, anyone who attempts to make humans 'universal' is a fool.
Read William James' comments on the Value of multiverses hyper a singular notion of a universe.

So, without any theory (theories), how may we describe (omniscribe) [Vv]alue[s] so that almost anyone can understand about which we speak and write?

Over simply, as Pirsig wrote, "Value is what you like." See his ZMM.
(Do you like a beat-up 15 year old Honda or a brand new Harley? Doug likes Bimmers.
In a way, that is what ZMM is all about, but Pirsig asks us to generalize our views of Value.)

So what is Value? Air? Water? Earth? Fire?

Yes! N¤, "Yæs!"

Now rank them using Doug's hyper~hypo relativisms. We have four memes taken two at a time, so there are 6 combinations. (4!/(2!(4-2)!).

Is Air hyper water? H5W? Let's tabularize it so we can see it better:



 v1 hyper  v2?

 air  water In Doug's opinion this assessment is wholly context dependent. Assuming there are unlimited con(m)textings, our answer must be local, i.e., con(m)text dependent. So our general answer is "indeterminate," AKA (without con(m)text~specific attractors) "quantum~uncertain." From a human perspective, complementarospective, and complementaroceptive, we need both air and water to live, evolve and procreate.
 air  earth Ditto. Ditto.
 air  fire Ditto. Ditto.
 water  earth Ditto. Ditto.
 water  fire Ditto. Ditto.
earth  fire Ditto. Ditto.

What Doug's table omniscloses as a potential way of thinking about those four values is they are apparently, at least on Earth, intrinsic.
Then, as suggested, intrinsic values absent any con(m)text specificity may not easily be assessed hyper~hypo one another.

A crucial question here: "Which of those values is least intrinsic? Why? List your suppositions. Can we hermeneut it more specifically? H5W?"
To ease your thinking here, acquire a DVD of Quest for Fire and watch it. Does that help your supposition process with real attractors?
(That is an adult film. Explicit sex and cannibalism, etc.)

If that thinking is any good, then we may say that we may have found a class of [Vv]alue.

To imagine what Doug means by local con(m)text enabling comparative assessment of an intrinsic
value, ponder a scuba diver at 35 meters deep in water whose tank has just run out of air.
Now ask self, "Self, oh self, is air hyper earth fire and water?"

Now we may have a much greater challenge. Can we choose (select) a list of
Earth values which omnistinguish themselves as intrinsic? What are they?

Then, H5W might we select another list of values that are not intrinsic, on Earth, in general?

Think about it.

How big a deal is con(m)text and multiplicity, plurality, and multiversality of it?
Are all values local? Are any values general and nonlocal?

Do all of your answers always involve supposition?

To be continued...


Chapter One Index


Segment 2 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Why This Chautauqua?...

"Doug, what motivated you to do this [Vv]alue Chautauqua?"

My prime motivator is a man who changed my life by helping me understand (philosophically) that life is change. That man is Robert M. Pirsig.

Reading Pirsig's Lila (1991) and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (1974), Doug decided to personally and individually, "do philosophy."
Later Doug decided to "invent quantum~philosophy." Now Doug is in an evolutionary process of inventing a n¤væl quantum~politics and ~economics.

If you do your gnostic due diligence on Pirsig's opus you will find that he implies rather powerfully, "Reality is Quality is Value." Doug agrees.

One may also infer from Pirsig's opus that Quality's impetus is absolute change itself, what Pirsig calls Dynamic Quality.
Pirsig's DQ hyper~urges Static Quality to change. SQ which changes has a chance at quantum~evolutionary survival.
Exclusive Static Quality (AKA absolute concrete state), which refuses to change, literally dies.

Those simple memes apply to our world today more than ever.

Doug has benchmarked those memes against quantum~theory, William James, Henri Louis Bergson,
gn¤sis, Qabala (Carlo Suares), Hebrew Autiot, and human epistemologies of reality itself.
Pirsig is closer to "getting it" than any other human alive today (of course that is unverifiable by Doug and anyone else).
Doug should write, "...any other living human Doug knows about..."

Now allow Doug to put Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality in Doug's [Vv]aluesque Quantum~Lightings™.

MoQ says Reality composes DQ, SQ, and ESQ. Permit Doug's hermeneutic of those terms using [Vv]alue.

Value Phasements

Doug Commentary
MoQ MoQ issi quantons(DQ,SQ) issi quantons(Value,value~living)
DQ Value
SQ value~living (can also be value-dying: becoming ESQ)

Allow Doug to expand this one a tad more:

  • SQ can be quantons(DQ,SQ). What Doug intends by QTM.
  • SQ can be dichons(SQ, SQ). What Doug intends by CTM.

Quantonic SQ is living~ and dying~values which have Value coinside them. An example is biological cellular apoptosis and resurrection. In quantum~biology living and dying are perpetual quantum~complements of one another. We can say this, "quantonic value issi perpetual evolution ihn Value and Value issi perpetual evolution ihn quantonic value." This is essential quantum~gn¤sis and is benchmarked by ancient Autiot's Sepher Yetsira. Sepher Yetsira is an ancient evolutionary~self~other~recursive quantum~Physics of Cosmic Energy. It's single graphic depiction appears in Sefirot's Cosmic Grail.

Dichonic SQ is dead value and dying value which denies Value. An example is the demiurge: as pure dichonic SQ. Dichonic SQ ultimately degrades and devolves into ESQ: Exclusive Static Quality. This notion (one of entropic dissipation of thermodynamic energy and information) is an heir of JC Maxwellian posentropic classical thought. Many challenge it for that simple reason. Doug does n¤t know any way to con(m)firm it using Quantonics and quantum~empiritheory. Doug intends to learn Autiot well enough to attempt a con(m)firmation there. If you want to super~walk Doug's efforts read Carlo Suares' Trilogy and his Second Coming of Reb YhShWh.

Doug - 8Nov2010. Red text update 5Sep2011 - Doug.

ESQ value-dead

There, we have a start comparing Pirsig's MoQ and Doug's much simpler [Vv]alue approach.

Non initiates, we must apprise, may find it appropriate to use dialectic's dichons to describe ESQ's "dead value." For example, ESQ is dichon(SQ, SQ).

Now we can script Value issi quantons(Value,SQ).

Quantum~complementarily we can script, using dialectic's dichon(ESQ, value-dead).

If we apply a meme of hyper, we can say, "DQ is hyper SQ is hyper ESQ." See Doug's MoQ Emerscitecture.

Doug's immediate motivation for doing his A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics is this:

Zerohedge, Fofoa, and countless others are in this endless dialectical argument about classical semantics of inflation vis-à-vis deflation vis-à-vis hyperinflation.

Doug claims that it is comparatively easy to bring those terms into a better quantum complementarospective using memes surrounding [Vv]alue.

That, reader, is mostly what this Chautauqua is about...but there is more...much more...


To be continued...


Chapter One Index


Segment 1 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

An Approach to Economic Value...

Ninth anniversary of 911. Now imagine 100th anniversary...likelihood is that classical religions will be gone, totally. Why? They are value, n¤t Value!

And Muslims, as apparent perhaps only to Doug, are doing more harm to selves than to us. But so are their mortal 'infidel' enemies: 'ç a t h o l i ç s.'

Recently, Doug has hinted at a meme of at least two classes of [Vv]alue: namely, Value and value.

Doug has proffered a candidate meme of 'value' as Keynesian notions of 'debt.' Too, Doug has proffered a candidate meme of Value as 'precious metals.'

Further, Doug has made it clear how he sees Value as hyper value, and that interrelationship may be unambiguously assessed using Poisson Bracketings.
PBs aren't so recent and come from segments of Hodgepodge™ earlier this year and a fair amount of time Doug spent on them last year.

I want to start a Chautauqua with this 11Sep2010 segment on Value hyper value. Doug has been obsessed with this meme
since he read Robert M. Pirsig's 1974 Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance first time in about 1978.

In ZMM, Pirsig wrote succinctly, "Value is what you like." Dialectically then we may surmise,
"value is what you don't like." That is, lower case value is hypo upper case Value.

What is a superb analogy of that PB assessmenting? Let's take a pair of comparatives as old as Au itself: society vis-à-vis individual.

And one more: classical-thing-king vis-à-vis quantum~thinkqing.

Finally, fiat vis-à-vis precious~metals.

That should get your [Vv]alue Chautauqua thinkqing started.

To be continued...



Chapter One Index

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 2010-2022 — Rev. 11Jan2013 PDR — Created 11Sep2010  PDR
(11-12,22,27Sep2010 rev - Start and continue Value vav value Chautauqua. Segment 3. Segment 4.)
(1-5,7-16,18-22Oct2010 rev - Chautauqua Segments 5 & 6. Repair some typos and some of Doug's grammatical errors. More typos. Segments 7-13. Minor update segment 9. Correct Wilburn to Wilber.)
(27-28,30Oct2010 rev - Add Segment 15 on 'Classical Non Quantization.' Add Chautauqua Index. Extend Segment 16.)
(2-8,11Nov2010 rev - Segment 17. Segment 18. Repair some typos. Doug's first Chautauqua Interlude. Update Segment 19. Update Segment 2. Repair a sentence in p. 170 para. 3 of our Bohm review.)
(14,17Nov2010 rev - Repair 'thy' to 'they' typo in Segment 8. Move Chapter One to its own separate page. Typos in Bohm transcriptions. Add Segment subtitles.)
(18Dec2010 rev - Repair typo. Reset legacy markups.)
(17,21Jan2011 rev - Add seg 19 link to Doug's opus on, "What is Simple? What is Complex? Why? Explain." Refer readers to Bohm's original text.)
(26Apr2011 rev - Minor repairs to Segment 12: typos, etc.)
(26May2011 rev - Improve some punctuation.)
(22,27Jun2011 rev - Repair some punctuation in Segment 7. Move a bracketed commentum in Segment 9. Add HotMeme™ to Segment 10. Add Ch. 2-3 links at page top.)
(4Aug2011 rev - Add 'Scintilla Quantum Tell Flux' links to Seg 16 comparisons table.)
(5Sep2011 rev - Add Seg 2 'dissipate' link to new QELR. Add Seg 5 'QVH Table' link under "evolves at up to Planck rates." Reset legacy markups.)
(2Nov2011 rev - Repair 'brain[s]d' typo to 'brained.' in Segment 16 Table. See red text markup. Reset legacy markups.)
(12Nov2011 rev - Remove redundant 'of' at beginning of Seg 17. Repair 'n¤n' to 'n¤ne' under Seg 11. Repair some minor punctuation issues.)
(1Dec2011 rev - Add 'thinking' qua row to Segment 16 table.)
(1,15Jan2012 rev - Add commentary to Segment 6, page 45, para. 1 table. Update Seg 7 quantons(wavings,waviclings)...Add interrelationshipings links to QVH Table.)
(24Jan2012 rev - Add Segment 13 'relativity' QELR link.)
(24Feb2012 rev - Add '...ensembles of evolving quantum~wavings...' link to our Quantum~Cuneiform Primer 'First Addendum.')
(3Apr2012 rev - Add 'Aside 3Apr2012'' near end of Segment 4.)
(15Apr2012 rev - Update 'What Bohm Wrote,' p. 170, para. 1, link to A Reservoir of Wave Functions.')
(10Jun2012 rev - Add 'Danah on Consciousness' anchor under Segment 14.)
(5Aug2012 rev - Add von Foerster's Theorem under Segment 19, A Brief Interlude.)
(6,29Sep2012 rev - Add 'Bergsons Living Flux' anchor under Segment 9. Minor text revisions, corrections, updates in first 10 Segments.)
(11Jan2013 rev - Repair some punctuation typos. Reset legacy markups. Add account link under Seg 8.)