|
Issues |
Discussion |
| Graphical Weaknesses: |
Our graphic is two dimensional. Quantum reality is at least
omnimensional and usually described as a ~Hilbert space.
Our graphic is inanimate. Quantum reality is anihmate,
indeed it is absolute quantum flux. We ask our students to imagine
our graphic anihmated similar to
some animations in our Quantonic
Symbols, and elsewhere in our Quantonics site.
|
|
Graphical Weaknesses continued... |
Our graphic shows an emphasis on symmetry.
Quantum reality is, in general, spatially asymmetric.
Consider too that quantum~reality is, in general, evolutionarily
atemporal which
has manifest implications for asymmetry. Doug - 8Aug2012.
It is asymmetric
in countless other ways too, like chiralty, spin (wobble), FPNs, RH's
½ critical line Möbius reversals, etc. To be more
exoteric, our graphic shows ellipses of interrelationship compenetration
among quanton1 and its tentative preferential quantum
c¤mplements. If we estrude (vis-à-vis extrude)
those ellipses to circles, we would see a denser picture absent
any senses of quantum l¤cality vis-à-vis quantum
n¤nl¤cality. In general, some c¤mplements
might be absolutely l¤cal, even potentially quantum
c¤herent (totally superposed as one c¤herent
quantum quanton) with quanton1 while others might
appear at arbitrary l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal 'distances'
from quanton1. So if we drew our graphic more generally,
it would n¤t appear as symmetric and tidy (unreal),
rather all our ellipses would appear as omniffering
sizes and spatial vertex separations.
Our graphic is classically spatial. As such we cann¤t
show real ensehmble quantum interrelationships.
This appears to be a fundamental limitation of quantum actuality.
An analogue of this problematic is a qubit
or an ensehmble of qubits. We appear
fundamentally limited in our abilities to see all (approaching
an unlimited number) of any qubit's (or any ensehmble
of qubits') quantum c¤mplements. See
our HotMeme™ "What is unsaid is far more important than what
is said."™
HotMeme™
Qubihts can diræctly sææ
their ahctual
amd n¤nahctual c¤mplæmænts,
but wæ cann¤t (wæ aræ much
less capablæ ¤f sænsing quantum n¤nahctualihty
than qubihts).
Clarification:
- all qubits are
quantons,
- quantons at meso and subatomic 'levels' are
- meso - less qubital: less aware of their animate EIMA
interrelationships with n¤nactuality
- molecules and more comprehensive quantonic modals are less
qubital
- neurons
are less qubital, but qubital enough to be capable of straddling(n¤nactuality,actuality)
well as evidenced by recent experiments at University of Florida
using 25,000 rat brain neurons to successfully comtrol
an F-22 flight simulator
- etc.
- micro, nano and on down to Planck quantons - more qubital:
more aware of their animate EIMA interrelationships with n¤nactuality
- atoms are more qubital than molecules
- nucleons are more qubital than atoms
- quarks are more qubital than nucleons (due their QCD
ontological primitiveness and extremely tentative persistencies;
quarks are much higher isoenergy than nucleons and electrons;
nucleons and electrons are much higher energy (actualized) than
quarks)
- electrons are more qubital than nucleons
- photons are n¤t good examples of qubits, as far as
we are k~n¤w~ing, since they are bosonic; qubits,
at this stage of our k~n¤w~ings, need to be fermionic
(i.e., decoherent) in order to exhibit themselves as stindyanic
quantons(n¤nactuality,wobbling_actuality); bosons do n¤t
'wobble.'
- etc.
- n¤t all quantons are qubits, (bosons,
e.g., and aggregate fermionic quantons attenuate their isoflux
'sensitivities' as they grow-aggregate; by 'attenuate' we intend
'move away' from DQ-nonactuality
and toward SQ-actuality)
- e.g., humans as macroscopic quantons are
- macro~consciously aware of (nearly all humans; ideal SOMites
'deny' any notions of n¤nactuality)
- more actuality
- less n¤nactuality
- macro~subconsciously aware of (e.g., narcoleptics, and those
who have learned to tap into reserve energy)
- less actuality
- more n¤nactuality.
.
- similar subemerscitectures describe (QLO modalings) qubital
quantons in fuzzonic 'detail,' since fuzzons permit us a quantum
complementary description of quantum reality's quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality)
animate, EIMA included~middle.
At this level of quantum description,
using inanimate 'words,' memeos
appear to garner excessive complexity, but it is only a manifestation
of actuality (as static) attempting to describe n¤nactuality
as isoflux dynamic. From a quantum n¤nactuality perspective
flux is simple. From a classical actuality conspective flux is
inordinately complex. From a Quantonic straddle(n¤nactuality,actuality)
perspective, both isoflux and flux EIMAing each other is more
simple than a classical view, but n¤t as trivial as isobeings
view it.
Quantum straddling demands extensive and assiduous study of quantum
comjugation
memeos.
Given our above clarification, students should be aware that
macroscopic fermionic modalings
can and do quantum~cohere
macroscopically! Our abilities to think, imagine, dream, create
all depend upon macroscopic 'above ambient' (!!! - huge quantum
tell here) quantum coherence of our quantum stages' neurons.
See our review of Mae-wan Ho's Rainbow
and the Worm.
This issi what ahll¤ws
uhs t¤ d¤ quantum
computati¤n basæd uhpon
ræhlihty
wihth¤ut
k-n¤w-ing ahll ab¤ut
ræhlihty.
Ihn a væry largæ way,
this issi a quantum~mihraclæ!
Why cann¤t wæ sææ
qubihts c¤mplæmænts?
They have
¤mnihffering pærcæptual
bamdwihdths
fr¤m ¤urs. Sææ ¤ur
Quantum Sensory Bandwidth
Perspicuities and Perspicacities page.
Another massively affine fuzzonic
point we should make
here is, "This is an astonishingly fabulous way to think
about William James Sidis' short paper
on consciousness vis-à-vis subconsciousness."
(As a ruse against his father, and classically pretentious (via their naïve realism
and naïve localism) academics, employers and media pundits)
His paper says they are isomorphic. Can you see now why they
are, from a Quantonics' quantum~perspective, n¤nisomorphic?
Our quantum actual_complement sensory bandwidth is a tiny 'part'
of our quantum n¤nactual_c¤mplementings aggregate
sensory bandwidths. See you as a quanton
below. Follow links there.
|
|
Graphical Weaknesses continued... |
So here, in this nice little depiction of a quantonic montage
of quantum reality we come upon a most basic 'fact' of quantum
reality: actuality cann¤t wholly 'describe' quantum
reality. Actuality cann¤t be completely describings
both itself and its quantum c¤mplementings
which we call "quantum n¤nactuality."
An analogous Pirsigean metaphor might appear as SQ cannot
wholly describe DQ. Static Quality cann¤t be completely
describings both itself and its quantum complementings
which we call "Dynamic Quality."
How can we say that? First, 'describe' offers us some philosophical
challenges. Usually those of us who are Occidental culture tend
to view descriptions as classically axiomatic.
N¤ such entities exist in quantum reality since quantum
reality issi
abs¤lute
flux. N¤ 'description' can hold indefinitely. It can hold
tentatively, but n¤t for an arbitrarily long 'time.'
Now if by descrihpti¤n we intend "quantum
pr¤cess," then we can say that "we can partially
descrihbe quantum reality,"
and indeed that issi what we say in Quantonics.
|
| Graphical Intent: |
Our graphic shows quanton1 described by its anihmatæ ensehmble
quantum interrelationships among itself and quantons2-13.
Numbering of quantons is for our graphical purposes arbitrary.
In quantum reality, depending upon how we choose to appellate
quantons specifically, we find that every quanton, and thus its
appellation, is quantum-n¤mbær-unique
and anihmatæ/changing. (Now
we glimmer how important quantum computers and qubits are:
they are capable of tracking anihmatæ
quantons in quantum reality. For direct evidence and experience
of this quantum 'fact,' do an internet search on <rat brain
flies F-22>. Read about that quantum breakthrough at University
of Florida and how they did it.)
Our graphic shows ellipses of compenetration among quanton1
and its tentative quantum c¤mplements.
Our graphic shows both quantum n¤nactuality
and quantum actuality compenetrating one another.
Dark-dark-green dashed lines illustrate each quanton's and
our entire ensehmble's compenetration
of both quantum n¤nactuality and quantum
actuality. Just as quanton1 shows its describing anihmatæ ensehmble
quantum interrelationships, we could superpose similar anihmatæ ensehmbles
on quantons2-5 and quantons11-13 to show
their own other describing anihmatæ
ensehmble quantum interrelationships.
Were we to do this, our graphic would be almost impossible to
view. Also, be aware that fluxors6-10
may isoflux-compenetrate up to and potentially all quantum reality.
|
|
Heterogeneous Tihmings
and Sensory Bandwidths |
Our graphic shows a subportion of our MoQ
II Reality Loop to remind students of Quantonics how absolute
(up to) Planck rate parallel and asynchronous fluxes are animating
and mediating change among our 13 quantons.
Any classicist might l¤¤k at ¤ur graphic
and presume that all th¤se quantons aræ sharing
OGC, but ¤ur
quantum intent is that they d¤ n¤t. Æach
has its ¤wn l¤cal quantum comtext. T¤¤,
æach has its
¤wn sens¤ry bandwidth.
A better way t¤ describe what we mean by that
last sentence is t¤ comsider:
- a ph¤t¤n
- an at¤m
- a bi¤l¤gical cell
- an am¤eba
- a chimpanzee
- a planet
- a star system
- etc.
A ph¤t¤n's sens¤ry bandwidth 'center
frequency' is en¤rm¤usly higher in nature's
spectrum than a chimp's. A ph¤t¤n can 'see'
and 'feel' electr¤ns amd
at¤ms amd ¤ther subat¤mic, at¤mic,
amd mes¤at¤mic spectra, where a chimp cann¤t.
A planet can 'see' amd 'feel' ¤ther stellar stuff like
planets amd aster¤ids, but essentially cann¤t 'see'
amd 'feel' chimps amd ants, etc.
Similarly, a ph¤t¤n's perspective ¤f
heter¤gene¤us tihmings
is en¤rm¤usly ¤mnifferent fr¤m a
human's amd a planet's, amd etc. A ph¤t¤n still
cann¤t detect a Planck cl¤ck's tick, t¤ck,
tick,..., but it pr¤bably can 'detect,' 'see' amd 'feel'
flux several ¤rders ¤f magnitude ab¤ve amd
bel¤w its 'center frequency.' Pr¤bably an Earth
cl¤ck, t¤¤, is meaningless t¤ a ph¤t¤n,
appearing pærpætually
'still.'
S¤ we ask y¤u, student ¤f Quantonics,
t¤ imagine æach ¤f ¤ur n¤mbæred
quant¤ns ab¤ve as having ¤mniffering
temp¤ralities amd bandwidth sensitivities.
More to come...
|
|
You as a Quanton: |
Imagine yourself as quanton1.
Imagine you as anihmatæ and
moving through some comtext, e.g., a restaurant, a theatre, your
bedroom, etc. Imagine your ellipses as some of them wax while
others wane; n¤vel
quantons and fluxors dynamically OEDC
(verb) tentative and preferential interrelationships with you
as you move and observe your surroundings.
Now, opportunity for quantum epiphany! Imagine you as realized
by and realizing all those interrelationships. Realize that without
that immense number and vast array of anihmatæ
Gestalt interrelationships you and they would n¤t "be."
(However, you always "isobe.") This is what we mean
when we say you are being in It and It is being
in you. You are describing It and It is describing you. You and
It are being quantum Gestalt! See our Stairways
of Evidence for Quantum Stages' Affects co-with-in Perceptual
Changes.
Those anihmatæ quantum
Gestalts fundamentally describe what our 'use' of quanton
means semantically.
Now you may perceive how quantum reality is n¤t propertyesque
objective, independent, and state-ic, rather codescribing, coobsfecting
Gestalt interrelationship quantonic and anihmatæ.
For more quantum youesque descriptions and stimulating questions,
see our recent, 2004, Ensemble
Attractors under our QELR
of probability.
|
|
Affectiveness: |
TBD. See our August,
2001 QQA. See affectation. |
|
Animacy: |
TBD. See Bergson's CE
Prereview Comments, "...two great classical illusions..." |
|
Coobsfection: |
TBD. See obsfect. |
| C¤mplementarity: |
TBD. See c¤mplement.
See two types of c¤mplement.
See omnifference. |
| Emergence: |
TBD. See spin
emergence. See ontology
emergence. See more recent Fuzzons
to Fermion Emergence Ontology. Doug - 30Jan2008. |
| Entanglement: |
TBD. See included~middle_1,
included~middle_2,
etc. |
| Fuzzon: |
See point, line, circle,
fuzzon. |
| Network Everywhere-Associativeness: |
TBD. See SON.
See Quantum Egg.
See Quantum Connection.
See Bergson's TaFW Topic
17, right column comments. See EIMA,
REIMAR, etc. |
| Immergence: |
TBD. Also 'classical absolute, final
death,' demergence, devolution, unbecoming, isobecoming, etc.
See OEDC. |
| Included-Middle: |
TBD. See Aristotle. |
| Interrelationship Ensehmbles: |
TBD. See Quanton
Primer. See Ensemble
Attractors. See QLO.
See general. See
Quantum
Ensemble Free Will. See Bergson's Time and Free Will
Conclusion on 'multiplicity.' |
| OEDC: |
TBD. See OEDC. |
| Physial: |
TBD. Quantum 'Societyings' emerqs animately EIMA network
naturally without state-ic, 'group' ESQ rules and 'laws.' Any
biological is a good example of what we intend here. See law. See our October,
2003 Feuilleton Chautauqua inaugural installment. |
| Qubital: |
TBD. Photons,
(bosonic photons are n¤t qubital in any sense of fermionic
omnitoring (moni replaced by omni in 'monitoring')
behaviors, however, they are essential in any qubital process
since they participate in all QED
energy transformations (some would say, e.g., Richard P. Feynman,
this is essence of quantum~actuality); what we mean when we say
"photons are n¤t good examples of qubits" is
that they probably would n¤t be usable as 'bits' in a
quantum n-qubit 'register'), electrons
and protons are good
qubital exemplars, due their 'spatially' arbitrary spin 1/2 fermionic
'actualizing,' wobbling QLOs. |
|
Superposition/Coherence: |
TBD. See Quantum
Coherence. See superpose.
See Awesome
Dirac Note. |
| Uncertainty: |
TBD. See Ensehmble Quantum Uncertainty. See uncertainty. See
duration. |
|
Value: |
See What is Wrong
with Probability as Value. |
