Return to Recommended Reading Page                                              Arches

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

A Review

of Irving Stein's
The Concept of Object
as the Foundation of Physics
by Doug Renselle

Related Links:
Irving Stein's Works Page (Stein on Philosophy, Physics, and Economics.)
Stein's Special Relativity - A Critique (Stein uncloaks some absent, unstated or problematic assumptions by Einstein, et al.)
Dr. Stein email to Doug 10May2000 (Stein comments on our review of his book.)

See note on: The Typical Path of a Quantum Object. (Note added 12Nov1998 PDR)
See correction Buridan Not a Sophist (Correction added 10Feb1999 PDR)

My perspective of Irving Stein's, The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics,
_____________________________________________________________________-Volume 6, of the San Francisco State University Series in Philosophy
_____________________________________________________________________-1996, Peter Lang Publishing hardbound, 100 pages. -
Doug Renselle
(See revision history at page bottom.)
Classical Object précis
Special Relativistic Object précis
Classical Random Walk Object précis
Quantum Schrödinger Object précis
Quantum Dirac Object précis
Nonspace and Measurement
Summary and Exegesis
Ontology I
Ontology II
Issues Which Arose During the Review
Reviewer Comments on Schrödinger Object
End of Review

 " ...the ontology of physics is
not classical."

Irving Stein, Page 79, The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics. Reader, please be aware that Stein's work is nontrivial. It is a long review. You do not have to read the whole thing to review the book.

Here is a list of links which will make it easier for you to access segments of the review, or you may choose to read it all from the top.

We have added randomly placed pop-up menus to highlight both Doug's and Dr. Stein's thelogos. Pop-ups suggest that the can be replaced by nothing (when it's a wasted the), an article, a noun, a possessive, etc.

Reading this review is different than reading Lila review or our review of Deutsch's Fabric of Reality. Stein's book is tough going unless you have some foundation in quantum science. But compared to reading books about quantum mechanics, this one is unique. It is short and sweet. It abounds resonance with Pirsig's three works: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (ZMM), Lila, and Subjects, Objects, Data and Values (SODV). It tries to retain a Subject-Object Metaphysics (SOM) object-based ontology for physics, but Stein admittedly fails—we sense—almost with glee.

This review covers a lot of ground. Despite reviewer efforts there may be flaws or misinterpretations. We will repair those as they attain actuality in the reviewer's space. Also, during the review, we made sketches of what we saw Stein describing. That artwork awaits quality rendition. Simply, this review must for foreseeable future be a living document, with imminent corrections and artwork additions as they attain actuality here.

When Doug uses a phrase "quantum science," his use of 'science' is n¤t classical. See Doug's Quantum English Language Remediation of 'science.' Doug's omnique usage of quantum~juncture in this review is to narrate what Doug intends by a almost pneumatic evolution of self from CTMs to QTMs, from hylic-psychic to nearer pneumatic. See topos. Doug - 3Jul2010.

Watch for announced changes to this review in the future.

Let's begin with an abstract of the review...

Abstract: Starting from a carefully laid classical object foundation, Irving Stein uses an object mutation process to incrementally evolve a sequence of ontologies, using familiar classical and quantum science terminology, thus:
Classical ontology  object is an analytic time function in a space- and time-independent plenum; object may travel at unlimited speeds and accelerations; mass is an incoherent object property
Special relativity object object is a fixed step-length preferential random walk in a speed-limited space-time identity; defined speed distinguishes from classical ontology
Random walk object object is prequantum, introduces length proxy for mass
Quantum ontology-Schrödinger object is a variable step-length nonpreferential random walk
Quantum ontology-Dirac object is time-reversal-step nonpreferential walk, time is proxy for mass
Space-nonspace ontology object dissolves into a measurement-quantized space-nonspace entity; space aspect appears classical and obeys classical rules, nonspace aspect is nonapparently unreal and obeys quantum rules; space-nonspace quantum measurement creates space from nonspace

Caveat: the above table contents are exceptionally oversimplified.

Stein tells us that classical physics is both exegetic (explainable) and exoteric (public). What he means is that most members of Western culture, elite and non-elite, have more than a vague understanding of our classical Newtonian ontology. Why? Because there is an ontology for classical physics—the Newtonian ontology—it exists. It derives from our SOM culture born more than 25 centuries past. Juxtapose that to what Richard P. Feynman says about quantum science, "No one understands it." Why? Stein concludes we have no ontology for quantum science. Only a few scientific elite even begin to fathom depths of quantum science. Without an ontology, quantum science is neither exegetic nor exoteric. Without an ontology, no one can understand quantum science.

Stein's goal is to remedy that problem. His goal is to derive a new object ontology for quantum science.

Stein achieves his goal of a new ontology for quantum physics.

Stein's purpose: " is purpose of this work only to give a reasonable, coherent definition of concept of object, it will be seen that the theories of relativity and quantum physics arise out of the unfolding of the concept of object presented here. In end, the concept of object itself is found not to be absolutely basic and dissolves into concept of what I call nonspace, which is found to be the fundamental ontology." Page xvi. (Our red italics.)

Stein's claimed results: "What is claimed in this work is that an ontology has been laid out for physics, at least for a one-dimensional, non-interacting physics. By "ontology" is meant the origin in reality of the results of measurements. This is done not by starting out with a set of hypotheses or axioms, but by attempting to define most basic concepts that we have in discovering the world around us, namely those of object and measurement." Page 14.

Stein arrives at a new ontology which we can summarize thus, side-by-side with Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ)

(Pirsig terms: ü Reviewer's extensions to Pirsig's MoQ: )
(v means, "in interrelationships with")
( means quantum-included-middle, non-Aristotelian-excluded-middle, Planck rate change 'equals.')


Figure 1 - Comparison of Stein's Ontology to Pirsig's MoQ

Stein's Ontology

Pirsig's MoQ
Reality = the concept of space üReality Quality
Reality = nonspacevspace üReality Dynamic QualityvStatic Quality
Nonspace is conceptual üDynamic Quality (DQ) is nonconceptual
Space is conceptual üStatic Quality (SQ) is conceptual
Assumes nonspace preexists üAssumes Dynamic Quality preexists
Space arises from nonspace üStatic Quality arises from Dynamic Quality
Measurement creates space üQuality Events (QEs) create Static Quality
Measurement entails change of state QEs entail change of state
Measured systems may remain isolated QEs entangle Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs)
Measured systems may interact SPoVs interrelate with both SQ and DQ
Interactions transfer energy Energy transfer is an interrelationship
Interacting systems are not isolated üContextual SPoVs interrelate via DQ
Object interaction in space entails energy transfer QEs may entail energy transfer
All objects interact (at least gravitationally)  üAll SPoVs interrelate with both SQ and DQ
Reality is quantum-objective üReality is unified, i.e., subject-QUALITY-object
All things are objects üAll things are SPoVs
Phenomena arise from object interactions üKnown Phenomena are SPoVs
Objects define space üSPoVs define SQ
Nonspace is unlimited possibilities üDQ is undefinable, unknown
Space is actuality üSQ is the known
Measurement excludes awareness QEs may be aware (In Quantonics, they are!)
Does not explain discreation Does not explain discreation

Note that we depict Pirsig's MoQ in Figure 1 using some classical SOM terminology, to keep a modicum of compatibility with Stein's objective bent. For example we show subject-Quality-object in SOM fashion. In pure MoQese Quality is both DQ and SQ with DQ surrounding SQ and SQ representing SPoVs which unify SOM's concepts of subject and object. We assume some of people reading this review may not be well-steeped in MoQese.

Return to the Review Outline

Next is an overview of what our review will cover:

Overview: Irving Stein, in his 1996 book, The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics, offers a distinctive philosophical contrast to a hypothetical work which might have been titled, The Concept of Flux as the Foundation of Physics.

The old, classical subject-object metaphysical (SOM) battle between Christiaan Huygens and Isaac Newton clearly still rages on, despite the fact that modern quantum science unified their hard-fought diametrical positions early in the 20th century. Huygens said photons were waves. Newton said they were particles. Those with an objective bent stayed in Newton's camp. Those with a subjective bent followed Huygens. Those with a holistic bent followed the physical-mystic founders of quantum theory. Stein, just like Einstein, Bohm, Albert, Deutsch, et al., is still mired in objectivist encampment. Yet, Stein approaches the holistic realm in spite of himself. He arrives at a quantum ontology so close to Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ) that we are just awed by his brilliance, despite its objective antecedents.

When you read this book you will be amazed at Stein's incredible job of re-deriving the current quantum wave ontology "objectively" using random walks with fluxing step lengths. That he can do this at all, in the reviewer's opinion, affirms Niels Bohr's insistence on the complementarity of particle and wave. As Nick Herbert, et al., told us, particle and wave are complementary, co-defining conjugates. Stein chooses the objective context where a majority (Doug had a weaker understanding of quantum physics in 1998. He should have used 'minority' here. One must also be aware how Stein's random walks are really wave proxies. Random walks perceived dynamically are quantum~flux proxies, which is what makes Stein's approach here so delectable. Doug - 28Aug2007.) of other physicists choose its wave complement perspective. You will enjoy reading Stein's fresh, grounded, overall approach and the uncanny resemblance of his resulting quantum object ontology to Pirsig's MoQ.

He shows us that you may, if you wish, keep one foot in the classical legacy while garnering a modicum quantum object ontology. The price you may pay for retaining your classical predilections is small. You may relinquish any chance of understanding non-objective phenomena. We know that is a serious problem with the legacy SOM we inherit from Aristotle. If your ontology is SOM, it is difficult—almost impossible—to conceptualize non-objective phenomena. Stein thinks his new ontology will help you do both.

Let's start with Stein's approach. Sequentially, he develops and evolves five distinct object models, each progressively more comprehensive than former. Each model depends upon the former model's results, but each model stands pretty much alone in its ontological precepts. We already know this, but Stein makes it ever so clear that our ontological or our metaphysical model depends more than anything on the most primal assumptions we use for developing it. Our assumptions determine our metaphysics.

His five models are:

  1. Classical Object
  2. Relativistic Object
  3. Classical Random Walk Object
  4. Quantum Object (Schrödinger)
  5. Quantum Object (Dirac)

After he finishes developing his most general Dirac Quantum Object, Stein provides us with a powerful and useful treatise on one of remaining major problems in quantum science: quantum measurement.

In the process of developing the five progressive object models, Stein leaves the reader with a plethora of interpretations of being and becoming. Kindly he does some house keeping and defines terms in a chapter called:

Finally, he provides us with two ontologies for evaluation:

  1. Ontology I  (What Stein discovered in this work.)
  2. Ontology II (Stein's tentative answer to, "What is Reality?")

Stein insists that his new model of a quantum ontology is objective, yet midway in his incremental development of the model, he introduces a wave mime without acknowledging it as such. Of course most quantum scientists acknowledge the dual nature of quantum reality as particle-wave, but Stein uses objective blinders to develop a space-nonspace quasi-equivalent metaphor. We can only conclude that Stein, steeped in SOM yet impressed with incredible success of quantum mechanics, is making a penultimate effort to retain the objective bases of science.

Acknowledging Feynman's assessment that, "No one understands quantum mechanics," Stein's book will help you to commence the process of learning much of what the scientific elite know about this enormous topic. The book is short, tight, dense, yet clear and perspicuous. It bursts with insights and breakthroughs unique to Stein, some of which may become famous. Skip the math, if that is a challenge for you, and just accept Stein's results, which he rightfully and proudly claims. Stein describes his mathematical results very well in plain language. Try to understand the big picture he attempts to describe. We wish to help you with that in this review using both words and some simple but limited artwork. We also point out where Stein's ontology differs from our perspective of Pirsig's more holistic MoQ. One of best ways we can help you is with a list of term definitions. You will need to cognize these well if you are to grasp the essence of his new ontology.

Our remarks in this review of Stein's book are mixed in favor and flavor. We think it is a great work, but the book centers on a Newtonian particulate archetype of reality, which we find partial, misleading, and biased from 2500 years of Western SOM culture. Stein's insistence on a proemial objective discovery of reality is a cleaved grounding for his new quantum ontology. To Stein's credit, he acknowledges that the results of his work point unambiguously at a non-objective reality he calls "nonspace," and both reviewer and reader alike may have to acknowledge his work offers a kind of missing half. We have wave function derived quantum mechanics. Stein adds his own, fresh, new particle/object derived quantum mechanics.

We point out areas of Stein's work where we think you may need to be wary under our section titled, Issues. Be careful in drawing your own ontological/metaphysical views from Stein's work alone. We lean toward MoQ. Stein's intellectual stream runs deep in the SOM chasm. But admittedly, we too are biased. Keep that in mind as you read the review. We hope you read our remarks as constructive and not derogatory toward Stein's powerful efforts. Stein's book taught us much which was just fog before. May his work do same for you.

Return to the Review Outline

Next are some definitions for the review:

Definitions: Before we begin the review, we need to define a few crucial terms just in case you are unfamiliar with them. If you do not understand Stein's jargon, he will leave you bewildered. His breakthroughs are enough to contemplate on their own, without the nuisance of absent or fuzzy semantics.

Definitions - Irving Stein's classical use of terms:

That branch of metaphysics which studies the nature of being and becoming. In other words, using Stein's object ontology, how does an object arise/become, and once in existence, what is the nature of its being in existence. (He does not speak of it, but you should consider the inverse or perhaps the complement of becoming.) 

Stein, "The origin in reality of results of measurements." Page 14.

space Actuality.
measurement Objects arise from nonspace by measurements on nonspace. Note: Stein offers at least 72 distinct statements on measurement in this text!

Non-actuality. Everything that is not space.
Here is a reviewer list of currently known metaphors of Stein's nonspace:

  1. conceptually unknown
  2. the unknown
  3. DQ (Pirsig)
  4. possibilities
  5. pure state
  6. superposition (a confusing term)
  7. unactualized reality
  8. undifferentiated aesthetic continuum (Northrop)
  9. undifferentiated reality
  10. unmeasured phenomenal objects (Pirsig on Bohr in SODV)
  11. unspecifiable manifestations (Polyani, esp. see his The Study of Man)
  12. free energy
  13. vacuum space
  14. VES (vacuum energy space)
  15. QVE (quantum vacuum energy)
  16. white hole (coinage attributed to Jack L Chalker's (1944-2005) Well World series of books)
  17. ZPE (zero point energy)
coherent Logically/epistemologically understandable in an Aristotelian sense.
consistent Always states the truth in an unlimited context.
complete States all truths in an unlimited context. Synonym - absolute.
epistemology That branch of philosophy which considers the source and scope of human knowledge.
dimension Stein assumes a one dimensional object modeling environment for simplicity.
Return to the Review Outline

Next is our review:

Allow reviewer to walk you through, in summary form, Stein's evolution of a new quantum science ontology starting from his assumption of an existing classical object ontology. As you read this summary and the subsequent review detail, be mindful that Stein uses his only known, single tactic to keep his work simple enough (again, exegetic and exoteric) to accomplish his goal of a new ontology—he must limit his assumptions thus: one dimensional non-interacting objects. We concur with his approach and see his work as clearly extensible. After our review we present various issues for you, our reader, to consider. Our review provides a précis on each evolutionary step of Stein's object evolution, plus individual reviews of his chapters on Nonspace and Measurement, Summary and Exegesis, Ontology I, and Ontology II:

Return to the Review Outline

Classical Object précis:
Stein gives us an unambiguous depiction of the classical object. The current classical object ontology is: an analytic function of time is the ontological basis for classical mechanics. The current classical object ontology is incoherent! It is incoherent because the classical object is incoherent.

Newton gave us an object which is essentially an impossible entity. We require the Newtonian classical object, NCO, to exist in space and time (a plenum), and have the property of mass. We also require space and time to be independent concepts, thus in Newtonian reality, classical concepts of mass, length, and time are autonomous ideas.

Stein shows us this classical ontology is impossible. It spawns familiar lemming SOM detritus like analyticity, independent space and time outside of NCOs, determinism, infinite rates (velocity, acceleration, etc.), continuous reality, past-present-future real time line, reversibility, everywhere existence of an object in past-present-future, inability to conceptualize change except by continuous and infinite derivatives, the paradox of simultaneous NCO independence and interaction (gravitation, et al.), etc.

Stein tells us that the restrictions which the NCO ontology places on physical reality self-conflict.

Reader, we hope this provokes you well. If you want to see the urgent need for a new ontology, study Stein's chapter on the classical object.

Return to the Review Outline

Special Relativistic Object précis:
The current special relativity ontology is: a space-time identity is the ontological basis of special relativity.  Einstein brought us his special relativity, SR, and its adherence to Lorentz invariance. But SR is classical, may we say purely classical, and still incoherent, per the classical object paragraph above. However, the SR object, SRO, gives Stein an incremental segment of his evolution from a classical ontology toward a new ontology.

Stein also gives us a freebie in process: for the first time, he explains why there is an upper limit to the speed of all actual objects, i.e., objects in space-time. As we said in the previous paragraph, the derivatives of NCO functions of time are unlimited. Thus NCO objects may travel at infinite velocities and accelerations. Stein tells us bluntly that if an NCO's velocity is undefined, the NCO does not exist. This becomes apparent the more you think about it.

Stein tells us that an SRO like an NCO must be analytic, but that its speed must be limited. He derives this using a simple random walk object, of fixed step length(s), and binomial choice (direction preference) at the outset of each step. Definable speed of an SRO distinguishes it from a NCO. In his prescient work here, Stein discovers that the constancy of velocity across different reference frames in special relativity is not a requirement, but a consequence of the identity of space and time

For us, in Pirsig's MoQ and Quantonics, the space-time identity is a crucial axiom of our philosophical foundation. (We mean 'identity' in a non-classical sense. As we have shown elsewhere classical identity is an impossibility, just as Stein so eloquently shows us classical objects are impossible. Our Quantonics' quantum identity is that all of physics' measurables are (indeed, all reality is) functions of quantum flux. I.e. masslengthtimegravityf(flux). Note that classical 'identity' is Newtonian "homogeneous," and "quantitative/analytical." Implication? Classically, there is homologically/unilogically, conceptually/perceptually one 'time,' one 'mass,' one 'length,' one 'gravity,' all in one global context (OGC) reigned by one global truth (OGT) system. By comparison, quantum identity is Bergsonian "heterogeneous," and "qualitative/stochastic." Implication? Quantumly/Quantonically, there are heterologically/paralogically, quantons of many 'times,' many 'masses,' many 'lengths,' many 'gravities,' all in many quantum islands of truth reigned quantum-locally/nonlocally-separably/nonseparably-subluminally/superluminally by many sophist, Planck rate recursive, interrelating/compenetrating/commingling contextual systems.)

Return to the Review Outline

Classical Random Walk Object précis:
The classical random walk object, RWO, introduces concept of non-zero step length to the old classical ontology, and bridges from that ontology to the new quantum ontology. Doing this allows us to gain defined or maximum speed for our developing ontology, and eliminate that particular incoherency. For this overall gain in ontological coherency we trade (lose) both classical analyticity and our former classical ontology. We get a new RWO and define a proxy for mass in terms of step length.

It is here, in the development of Stein's RWO, that we begin the conceptual adventure of opening our classical blinders to a new realm, a new paradigm: the pre-quantum realm. But the RWO introduces a new problem. Since the random walk steps are arbitrarily plus or minus, and the step lengths are (for now) constant, the average velocity of any RWO is always zero for all objects. This is unreasonable, and Stein fixes the problem in his derivation of the quantum object.

Return to the Review Outline

Quantum Schrödinger Object précis:
Stein gives us a new depiction of his evolved quantum object.

Now, here perspicacious reader, we ask you gently to put on your quantum hat. If you have done this naught before, it may require a tad of faith. This is the quantum juncture! This is the point, once past and its meaning fully grasped, from which there is no return. If you have not been here, from this mark onward your life and perceptions will be forever changed.

For reviewer, my own first experience of this quantum juncture was one of epiphany and awe. May yours be also.

Stein asks you to first understand two terms: preference and nonpreference. In the classical random walk object, at each step of the walk, a decision (a SOM either/or choice) has to be made. In our one dimensional modeling environment, the object may walk in either the positive/right direction or the negative/left direction. That is classical, SOM, either/or thinking.

He asks you to enter the new paradigm of quantum thinking, and permit your mind to know the quantum object moves in both positive and negative directions simultaneously. The quantum object is in both locations simultaneously. Quantum thinking is both/and thinking. Classical objects require direction preference. Quantum objects are directionally/locationally nonpreferential. The quantum object does its nonpreferential random Chautauqua in nonspace (more on this term below).

If you ask the question, "How can a classical object take a nonpreferential step?" we find paradox in SOM. But when, by a first act of faith, we move to the quantum realm, we eliminate the paradox! Stein describes this act of faith thus, "It is the resolution of this paradox, that we fortuitously turn our backs on classical physics [SOM] and take the leap into quantum mechanics, from an object defined by either an analytic or random walk function to an entirely different kind of object." Page 58, section 55. Wow! Epiphany! Awe!

He tells us we must now let go of our cherished classical object as a spatial function of time. And here we see his subtle reference to Buridan, "[whoever] wrote about Buridan's Ass starving midway between two identical bales of hay had insight some of the rest of us did not yet have." Page 58, section 55.

Here is a very important tie to Pirsig's work. Buridan was a 14th century philosopher who amazingly adhered sophism after nearly 2000 years of virulent philosophical abuse. Buridan was the only practicing sophist philosopher the reviewer knows about, subsequent to SOM onslaught and its extreme denigration of sophism and sophists starting about 2500 years ago. [Correction: Since this paragraph was written, the reviewer subsequently reviewed G.E Hughes' John Buridan on Self-Reference, Chapter Eight, Sophismata, of Buridan's, Summulae de Dialectica. In this subsequent review, I discovered Buridan was not a sophist! He was an enthusiastic student of sophism. But his philosophy was Aristotelian Buridan was a died-in-the-wool SOMite of the first magnitude. Buridan's Sophismata was not about the goodness of sophism, but about its evils from a SOM perspective. He proceeded to use SOM formal logic to 'prove' that all sophisms are, "false." You, reader, will be interested to know that Buridan would have called quantum science, "sophistry," with denigration intended.]

The interesting part of the Pirsig connection here is how he talks about the Birth of SOM (our phrase, re: chapter 29) in ZMM, and further in that same work how he queries, "What would the outcome have been?" if sophism won over SOM. Stein is telling us, indirectly, that sophism is kin to modern quantum science! Bravo! We agree! Pirsig (as he told us) was right all along!  The sophists were closer to quantum excellence than the naïve SOMites could ever perceive. So, from the reviewer's perspective, sophism was placed on hiatus only to be resurrected and extended in modern quantum science. Next month, in November, 1998 we review some of Buridan's work, connections to it, and others' assessments of it.

Stein shows us that quantum nonpreference from a SOM perspective is a sophism, a paradox. SOM was partly right. In quantum reality quantum nonpreference is still a sophism, however, there is nothing paradoxical about it. Pirsig makes this clear in his metaphysical descriptions of reality in his three works.

Stein has more work to do though. He must introduce a new concept: nonspace. Now we have two quantum subrealms: space and nonspace. Space is where our perceived, actual world exists, but now Stein tells us that quantum objects can be in space and/or nonspace. He shows us how actualized quantum objects in space arise from nonactual quantum objects in nonspace.

What causes them to arise? A quantum interpreted classical concept called measurement. An actual quantum object may arise from a nonactual quantum object, momentarily, when something measures the nonactual quantum object. The quantum object ontology says that becoming is when an actual quantum object arises from a nonactual quantum object.

Becoming is the ontological transformation of nonspatial quantum objects into spatial quantum objects. Being is the ontological experience of actual quantum objects in space, affected by conditions both in space and nonspace.

Space appears as a classically objective SOM facade to us (It appears as a facade because SOM denies the existence of, and/or cannot classify the concept of nonspace.). It appears as Reality, but is just one of infinite pseudo realities. SOM is literally a false ontology, because it incoherently explains and publicizes the nature of being (ontology). By-the-way reader, the implication is same for all of the SOM ISMs, too.

But quantum science and Stein's quantum ontology tell us this new ontology is not the quantum model of Reality until we include nonspace and the ontological quantum transformations twixt space and nonspace.

Be keenly aware that the reviewer is vastly oversimplifying this. But Stein is too, less so, because his purpose is to develop an exegetic and exoteric ontology for all of us.

Bravely, and nobly Stein tells us we must have a new ontology (e.g., Stein's, Pirsig's, et al.) for the new millennium if we are to survive the imminent huge and rapid changes born on the quantum Chautauqua paradigm which took its first nonpreferential step over one hundred years ago at the end of the 19th century. Stein is emphatic, "...the 'nonpreference' walk described here is the ontological basis of quantum mechanics."
Additional reviewer comments on the Quantum Schrödinger Object

Return to the Review Outline

Quantum Dirac Object précis:
Let us keep this incremental evolution of the quantum object simple. Stein extends the Schrödinger quantum object to make it relativistic, that is it. The ontology pretty much remains the same as discussed under the Schrödinger quantum object paragraph.

To achieve the Dirac relativistic quantum object, Stein re-interprets the random walk as a sequence of time-reversal steps instead of as sequence of nonpreferential length steps. Having done this, removing length from the random walk, Stein loses length as the proxy for mass. However, he goes on to show (on page 71, section 70) that time is a proxy for mass. So Stein evolves a nonpreferential time-reversal random walk as the Diracian relativistic ontological basis of quantum mechanics.

Return to Review Outline

That ends the précis list of Stein's quantum object evolution. Now we review the last four chapters of the book, one at a time:

Nonspace and Measurement:
In the reviewer's opinion, Stein's stubborn refusal to use the term 'complementary' makes his chapter on Nonspace and Measurement difficult to read and understand. He talks about points in space and nonspace as though they are complementary, but does not say so. The reader is left to somehow see points (loci) in space and nonspace as conjugal or some other adjective for a relationship. In several instances Stein describes points in space and nonspace as though they are indeed conjugal or complementary, but he does not say it thus. His reason, we believe, is that those terms (might) take us back into a non-object-based theory of quantum reality. In the reviewer's opinion, if the points in space and nonspace are conjugal, just say so. Make it an axiom.

Stein insists on using the phrase, 'classical object,' for actualized quantum objects. Remember, we said that actualized quantum objects transform from nonspace to space. We do not like the continued use of this phrase, mainly because Stein makes strong negative remarks about the metaphor of, 'classical object,' being outright wrong. As a result the remaining chapters in the book are, in the reviewer's opinion, confusing because Stein intermixes the terms object, quantum object, and classical object at his apparent whim.

To alleviate this problem for you the reader, please bear with this reviewer and allow me to use two simple notations: AQO (Actualized Quantum Object AKA classical object, which Stein tells us confusingly is also a quantum object), and NQO (Nonactualized Quantum Object AKA quantum object). So AQOs and NQOs are both quantum objects (QOs).

Next, instead of reviewing the chapter in prose, for each of the following list of terms allow me to list some Steinian 'axioms' to aid your understanding of nonspace and measurement:

QO axioms (QO Quantum Object)

  1. both AQOs and NQOs are QOs

AQO axioms (AQO = Actualized Quantum Object = classical object)

  1. an AQO is a point, one locus in space; an AQO is at one point in space
  2. AQOs have the property of space
  3. AQOs do not have the property of nonspace
  4. AQOs move totally nonpreferentially in space
  5. over passing time an AQO will find itself, at any given moment, at all possible loci in space (It is now 9Jan2007, and we realize, almost epiphanously, Stein has unwittingly described a hologram! Doug needs to take these axioms and upgrade them with Quantonics' innovations in quantum~memetics, qualogos, quantonics flux~script~EIMA~metaphor, semiotics, memeotics, heuristics, and quantum~hermeneutics. Doug.)
  6. an AQO's mass restricts its possible loci in space
  7. an AQO's mass bounds the average reversal time of each nonpreferential step (necessary to define an AQO)
  8. small mass AQO's have longer reversal times; large mass AQO's have shorter reversal times (de Broglie relation; m µ 1/l; i.e., mass is inversely proportional to nonpreferential step length, or—with relativistic space-time identity—mass is inversely proportional to time reversal steps)
  9. Def.: an AQO is an NQO of ‘essentially infinite’ mass, therefore
  10. an AQO is just a special kind of NQO (in Pirsig's MoQ we say an AQO is a latched portion of an NQO)
  11. AQOs stay at one location or move using a trajectory in space

NQO axioms (NQO Nonactualized Quantum Object)

  1. an NQO is points, loci in nonspace; an NQO is at one or more points in nonspace
  2. NQOs have the property of nonspace
  3. NQOs do not have the property of space
  4. if an NCO's loci were in space, the NQO would be at one of those loci, and if AQOs were at each of those loci, the actualized NQO would be at one of those loci (Stein subtly admits this is unclear. Sections 72 and 73 are extraordinarily difficult for the reviewer. If any reader can clarify, email us and we will revise, with attribution. Stein's apparently inconsistent use of the terms ‘object’ and ‘space’ in these sections aggravates our confusion.)
  5. unmeasured NQOs, over time, occupy a continually increasing set of continuous loci in nonspace (vis-à-vis AQO axiom 11)
  6. measured NQOs, between measurements, do NQO axiom 5

Nonspace axioms

  1. points in nonspace are not points in space
  2. nonspace is what its nonspatial loci would be if they were to become spatial loci (In MoQ and Quantonics, we would say this more simply (to us): nonspace and space are complementary.)
  3. there is no space in nonspace
  4. nonspace is a random walk of non-preferential time reversals in imaginary time, plus a time proxy for mass/energy (See Note tpme)
  5. quantum law rules in nonspace between measurements (see dual statement under space)
  6. nonspace is the reservoir of all possibilities (see dual statement under space)
Note tpme: (added 23Apr99 PDR): Your reviewer finds on other web sites discussions of Vacuum Energy (non)Space. VES' imputed energy density is always some enormous number: ~10^93 grams per cubic centimeter. That energy density says one cubic centimeter of VES can hold about 10^41 of our (known actual/space) universes! Hard to believe... The point here is a calculation for that energy density may use Stein's time proxy. A presumed (I am swagging here) maximum non-preferential time reversal frequency in axiom 4 must be related to Planck's frequency which is about 10^43 alternations per spatial unit reference. Now here comes a real insight of enormous import. How can that much nonspace energy exist and sentients not know about it? Stein tells us nonspace's energy flux is nonpreferential! Its average (so to speak) is zero! Nonspace's energy is isotropic (I do not know the correct word to use here, i.e., a word quantum physicists might choose.)! One more note of interest: apparently a Casimir plenum detects nonspace energy. Search on Casimir.

Measurement axioms

  1. measurement occurs when an AQO in space restricts the nonpreferential choice of an NQO in nonspace because the AQO in space occupies a spatial location that complements one of the nonpreferential loci in nonspace at the NQO's next time reversal step (Reviewer note: this is not how Stein says it. We interpreted his words on page 77, section 74. We think this is clearer, but you will have to absorb Stein's work before you decide to agree.)
  2. Stein extends axiom 1 to the possible more general case of two NQOs co-restricting in nonspace—we quote, "Thus, for any measurements we make, we can say that our classical objects are of effectively infinite mass and in space. Nevertheless, they are not [effectively infinite mass and in space] in actuality. Therefore, the possibility arises that perhaps other than classical objects may make measurements. Perhaps there can be a coincidence of non-classical objects. [Reviewer's note: How else could the first AQO arise?] Perhaps, since strictly speaking no objects, not even the objects we are considering classical, are classical, measurement is not a coincidence of positions but of nonspace 'positions' or states."

    Here Stein makes clear that even he does not understand measurement. That is why it is one of the two big quantum problems remaining: measurement and interpretation. His new ontology supposedly helps us with the latter. Stein's description of measurement helps the reviewer's own sense of measurement immensely, despite his object-based evolutionary approach. Strangely, he apparently self-contradicts, because throughout this work measurement presumes object precedence. As proponents of a MoQ-Quantonic reality, this is a core issue since we presume flux precedence. This largely differentiates Stein's ontology from ours. Also, we need to quote Stein here regarding NQO interaction as it relates to measurement,

    "The existence of interactions, from which we infer the fact that a measurement took place, perhaps need not arise only during classical measurements."

    In other words, perhaps energy-exchanging interactions may occur as a result of NQO measurements in nonspace. Intuitively this is more general and closer to reviewer's own perception of quantum reality.
  3. using axioms 1 and 2 the reviewer extends Stein's remarks to: measurement is both AQOs and/or NQOs compelling NQOs to make spatial choices (Reviewer's note: reader, again, be aware that Stein is only discussing the becoming or actualization aspect of reality. We found no perspicuous text where he describes the inverse. Certainly that is part of reality too.)
  4. measurement is not an interaction (In the reviewer's opinion, Stein's reason for this is unclear in light of his statements that interaction might occur in nonspace. In our own Quantonics, derived and extended from Pirsig's MoQ, measurement is a Quality Event which is a quantonic interrelationship—a Value interrelationship—it is the transformation of Dynamic Quality (nonspace) into Static Quality (space) while simultaneously DQ is co-within SQ! Stein's measurement act performs a SOM 'or' transformation on nonspace to create a new, separate/separable object in space with state and properties. Pirsig's Quality Events perform a 'both/and' emersion on DQ and create a new DQ 'both/and' SQ SPoV with contextual Value interrelationships (s) simultaneously among all other SPoVs, i.e., SPoVsSQDQ. In our own Quantonics, objectspossessing state and properties—do not change with QEs. Interrelationships change with QEs. In Quantonics, Pirsig's SPoVs are defined by their interrelationships vis-à-vis Stein's objects are defined by their properties and state. I.e., in Quantonics DQSQ. The are where the Value is, and where Reality is defined. The reviewer possesses little knowledge of field theory, but guesses fields are all about .)

    (Reviewer note: In Pirsig's MoQ, we see the profound replacement of objective states and properties with Quality or its synonym Value. Pirsig tells us that SPoVs in SQ do- may-not possess Value! SPoVs are Static Patterns of Value co-within Value—DQ! Our current context free mathematics appear incapable of depicting symbolically this co-within-it-ness Pirsig, Capra, Zukav, Zohar, etc., describe. It may, however, just be SOM's blinders imposing their restrictions on our interpretations of current mathematics.)
  5. there are two kinds of measurement: coincidence without interaction and coincidence with interaction (see axioms 6 and 7)
  6. coincidence without interaction changes the state of nonspace
  7. coincidence with interaction changes the state of nonspace and exchanges energy via both nonspace and space (the energy exchange extension to both nonspace and space is from axiom 2 and Stein's interaction-qualifying quote)
  8. measurement transformation of nonspace state eliminates the past of the AQOs and NQOs involved in the measurement
  9. measurement transformation of nonspace state sets the initial conditions for the ensuing [NQO's] nonspace nonpreferential walk

Interaction axioms

  1. interaction may occur with measurement
  2. interactions in space have bounded speed
  3. interactions exchange energy (i.e., require the existence of mass)
  4. a Stein Prologue parenthetical says "The further extension of the ontology into the nature of interactions, giving rise to the concept of field, is not done here—interaction indeed is a very difficult concept to understand." P. 5 (In the reviewer's opinion, this is another pinhole in Stein's ontological dike. Instead of insisting on an ontology of objects, Stein should be insisting on an ontology of quantum interactions (interrelationships) among quantons (i.e., quantum wave functions, quons, fluxons, etc.) Were he to do so carrying over his brilliant prescience from this work, we intuit, his ontology would be both more exegetic and exoteric. See our list of Issues below some of which discuss a few interaction-relevant difficulties.)

Space axioms

  1. points in space are not points in nonspace
  2. wherever there is a point in space there is an AQO and vice versa
  3. space is a property of AQOs (In Quantonics, we would say flux is an interrelationship among all QOs which may be interpreted infinitely in an infinity of local contexts. In the classical SOM reality most Western cultured Homo sapiens intuit—mass-energy, length, and time (real and imaginary) are a few of the interpretations of QO flux interrelationships.)
  4. space is just a special kind of nonspace (see AQO axioms 9 and 10) (in Pirsig's MoQ we say a space is a latched emersion of nonspace)
  5. classical law rules in space between measurements (see dual statement under nonspace)
  6. space is the reservoir of all actualized possibilities (see dual statement under nonspace)

Return to the Review Outline

Summary and Exegesis:
In this chapter, Stein succinctly summarizes his inspiring evolutionary process developed thus far. He lists twelve brief paragraphs which answer, to his level of acceptability, the question, "What is an object?" The first, fifth, and ninth items explicitly answer the question. The others support those three statements. I will quote three and you may read the rest in his book if you wish.

Section 86, sub-paragraph a. "An object is exactly nonspace restricted by a given value of t0, the average "reversal" time in the nonspace."

Section 86, sub-paragraph e. "An object therefore is all kinematical possibilities in nonspace and imaginary time, subject, however, to the restriction noted above [object mass determined by the average of the reversal times], which gives it the property of mass."

Section 86, sub-paragraph i. "Thus, nonspace is the basic reality from which, by measurement, space, time, and classical objects arise."

Finally, in this chapter, Stein implies he may have found a way to answer Dirac's concern about observables' dependence on Lorentzian reference frames.

The reviewer thinks Stein achieves partial exegesis. But what he achieves is superb. We need more...

Return to the Review Outline

Ontology I:   (What Stein discovered in this work.)
Stein discovered (some of the following appears self-contradictory—such is the nature of quantum reality viewed from a SOM mindset):

Stein ends his chapter titled Ontology I with a goosebump-filled simile to Pirsig's MoQ. "I would call...[nonspace]...funda [Dynamic Quality] and...[space]...fundat [Static Quality]...Together, I would call them fundam [Quality]."

Return to the Review Outline

Ontology II: (Stein's tentative answer to, "What is Reality?")
Stein wraps it all up. He tells us that reality is both actuality and potential. Again we see the metaphor to Pirsig. Measurements cause transformations to both potential and/or actuality. Potentiality distinguishes the future from the present. Real time in actuality requires measurement on potential which is change. Classical physics has no way to deal with the concept of change. (i.e., "...the classical object cannot give rise to a non-contradictory concept of change." p. 96. Another Pirsigean SOM-platypus? Appears related to Pirsig's causation platypus.) "The concept of change therefore makes sense only as a quantum mechanical concept."

In a trite and off-handed manner, Stein addresses phenomena in the last full paragraph of the book. That left the reviewer feeling empty. Contrast that empty feeling with the fuller feeling one gets upon grasping Pirsig's MoQ. In the reviewer's opinion, Pirsig's MoQ subsumes most of Stein's new ontology. Also, in reviewer's opinion, MoQ is more exegetic and exoteric than Stein's new ontology.

So you say, "OK Doug, Stein has told us what he thinks Reality is. What do you think Reality is?" Fair question. I have thought long and hard about this. I have read much on philosophy and science. Reality comes down to this for me, personally: Reality is both unlatched flux and latched flux and the transformations from one to the other. To me, Reality is flux-fluxing-flux. Flux is crux! J Thanks for asking! The Zen among you may say I have lost my Quality. Perhaps...

Thanks for reading this far! That ends the review!

Return to the Review Outline

Next is a list of issues which arose during the review:

The following text deals in some detail with issues the reviewer wants some of you to consider if you have time and interest. Let us know what you think.

Issue - Reality must be defined by classical concepts:
Issue - Interaction:
Issue - Length vis-à-vis Flux:
Issue - Imaginary time as a proxy for Casimir energy in nonspace?:
Issue - Assumed unidirectional flow of creation:
Issue - Gœdel—Does Stein understand Gœdelian consistency and completeness?:
Issue - Missing terms in Stein's work—speculation on why?:
Return to the Review Outline

Issue - Reality must be defined by classical concepts:
On pages 82-3 Stein tells us our reality is apparently classically objective. He tells us reality is measured with classical objects. He tells us all nonapparent reality must be defined by apparent classical concepts. We disagree, respectfully.

Objective classical reality is a facade. It is a SOM facade. SOM is a facade! It is a tiny, partial, myopic, tunnel-visioned subset of reality.

Before SOM, reality was not measured with classical objects. For over 100 centuries—before Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, et al.—before the Birth of SOM just 25 centuries ago—sophists measured reality non-objectively, based on value, not objective properties. It is impossible for classical objects to arise without antecedent non-classical measurement. Sophism bore a child—SOM. Its SOM child committed parenticide! We have lived with SOM's ongoing violence for 25 centuries. It is time for a n¤vel quantum ontology parent to correct its child.

In the reviewer's opinion, SOM reality is incapable of defining the nonap-parent via SOM's ap-parent. SOM cannot even define its own concepts of mass, space, time, and change, let alone define the nonap-parent. The only way to define/describe nonap-parent reality is to invent nonap-parent memes which may evolve to post-SOMitic ap-parency—a novel paradigm of thought. In your reviewer's opinion, that is what a n¤vel ontology must accomplish.

Return to Issues List                                                                     Return to Review Outline

Issue - Interaction:
Stein does a brilliant and seminal job of deriving much of quantum theory using his objective approach. He arrives at his own quantum object ontology which not surprisingly is a phenomena-co-dependent-on-proemial-object dual of a particle-wave-based de facto and incomplete quantum ontology. In his book's last full paragraph, Stein tells us that phenomena only arise from object interactions. We see this as a major flaw in Stein's work. Why? We attribute it to his SOM bias. But let's find a source of his flaw.

Stein is brilliant. He is clearly a genius. He is creative. He is efficient. He is productive. He is a consummate, multi-disciplined scientist. But he is just one of us, a Homo sapiens with finite intellect, and his fine sensitivities ken that, and ken that it applies to his audience too — to us.

In a small book of only 100+ pages, how could Stein derive a new ontology and a dual quintessence of quantum mechanics from a concept of classical object? How could he derive a new "exegetic," or explanatory ontology that could be what he calls, "exoteric," or public, not just understandable and explainable among and by some scientific elite? (Reader, you see here eminent nobleness of Stein's endeavors on our behalf. We agree with his goal and importance of seeking a new ontology for physics.)

To attain a truly exegetic, exoteric new ontology, he had to make some very basic assumptions or restrictions (using essentially classical concepts) for a development of his theory and its dual ontology. Those assumptions (see Stein's chapter, Classical Object) are a source of Stein's flaw we mentioned above. He assumes:

  1. a classical point object as foundation
  2. coincidence of point object and a point location in space-time
  3. space exists (a concept associated with Stein's object)
  4. time exists (a concept associated with Stein's object)
  5. separately, space and time functionally define object (initially, for simplicity, prior to relativistic considerations)
  6. object position is a function of time (initially, subsequently replaced by random walk)
  7. an object's defining function of is analytic (initially, subsequently replaced by non-preferential random walk)
  8. present defines future and past (initially, to satisfy Stein's classical object analyticity)
  9. one dimension of space (for simplicity)
  10. one object (for simplicity)
  11. no interaction (for simplicity)
  12. no (inertial) mass (initially, for simplicity; subsequently average step-length of random walk becomes proxy)
  13. objects pre-exist (initially he assumes objects do not arise; subsequently he shows that quantum objects arise)

OK, you say, "Where is that flaw?" It is in item 11 above, Stein's assumption of, "no interaction." (Stein tells us in his 10May2000 email that he did not say "interaction does not exist." We did not mean to imply that he said that. What we mean to imply is that his simplified model axiomatically disallows any interaction (again, appropriately and for model simplicity) among multiple objects or between two objects. Certainly, we mean no offense here! We are reviewing and stating our views and opinions!) For simplicity and explainability (exegesis and exotericus) his new ontology allows no interaction among objects. Yet he claims phenomena arise out of object interactions! There is that flaw! In other words, based on his cherished assumptions, his ontology cannot explain phenomena. Well, almost!

Stein cannot resist and goes ahead and talks about interactions despite his assumptions and this parenthetical remark in his prologue, to which we think he should have paid heed: "(The further extension of the ontology into the nature of interactions, giving rise to the concept of field, is not done here—interaction indeed is a very difficult concept to understand.)" Page 5. Apparently, he thinks he must talk about interactions since his ontology would appear unfinished without describing mass.

He tells us that a simple ontology demands non-interacting objects. But most of us SOMthink of objects classically in a Newtonian sense as substantial, having mass. Looking at reality through our SOM lenses, we see massive objects gravitationally affecting each other and even bumping into, bouncing off, or destroying each other. These behaviors are in the category Stein calls 'interactions.'

Now remember, he assumes no interactions in his new ontology. Further, he tells us that whatever interactions there are occur only in space. But how did his actualized quantum objects AKA 'classical objects' get into space? How did they become massive? From whence their mass?

Stein implies that interactions involve transfer of energy. Mass and energy are duals of one another in much the way space and time are duals of one another. Stein does not use 'energy' as a term when he speaks of nonspace and space. He claims that time is a proxy for mass in nonspace and length is a proxy for mass in space. He tells us massive objects arise in space from nonspace upon measurement.

Allow your reviewer a luxury of equating energy (our newer term is isoflux.) with mass in nonspace. Thus, per Stein's new ontology, on measurement, energy/isoflux from nonspace exchanges or emerges into mass in space. If an interaction is an exchange of energy (transfer of mass if you insist), then is it clear that interaction occurs on certain kinds of measurement?

All of this without even considering his surprising disclosure that interactions may occur in nonspace! Why would they not occur twixt space and nonspace too? Then, were that fact, would not phenomena arise from nonspace?

From your reviewer's perspective, Stein's new ontology requires an assumption of interaction, especially if he insists that phenomena only arise from object interactions. Hmmm...

Return to Issues List                                                                     Return to the Review Outline

Issue - Length vis-à-vis Flux:
In the reviewer's opinion, Stein makes a key object-based, object-biased assumption which is merely a matter of perspective. To show you what we mean, let's ask an elementary question: "Which is more fundamental to your perception of reality, length or flux?" Stein assumes former and denigrates the latter. Stein's most interesting maneuver emerges when his new ontology won't work unless he introduces dynamic change (flux?) to his sacred objective length.

Fundamentally, we know the reciprocal relationship twixt wavelength and frequency. So we can infer that length is a proxy for frequency and vice versa. Given these remarks by Stein, "…[from some calculations based on a random walk] we infer … the de Broglie relationship. This is the source of the so-called "wave" nature of matter in quantum mechanics—and it is not even quantum mechanical! It should be noted that this "wave" nature applies to an ensemble of objects or, if it does apply to a single object, it applies only over many (an infinity of) instants of time. We conclude from this that the de Broglie relationship is not necessarily a quantum mechanical result, but is rather a consequence of a random walk distribution as presented in this chapter. [chap. V]" Page 53.

The reviewer concludes: if the "wave" nature of matter is not quantum mechanical, then neither is the "length" nature of matter.

Which is more fundamental to your perception of reality? Stein says "length," and we say flux. Remember how Einstein unified mass and energy in his famous equation? Are mass and energy more fundamental to your perception of reality than length? Is flux more fundamental to mass and energy? Or is length more fundamental to mass and energy? (Note that Einstein would probably agree with Stein. Einstein unified mass-energy, space-time, et al., but he failed, because of his own SOM bias, to unify particle-wave, and determinism-nondeterminism.)

The reviewer assumes that we can heuristically depict legacy-classical-mechanics' three primal measurables, mass, length, and time, as consequences cum functions of flux, thus:

m f(flux), (the de Broglie relation does this, and Stein uses length as a mass proxy)
 l  f(flux), (this is simply wavelength)
 t  f(flux). (per Stein this is a wavelength identity, also wave period is a time measure)

Now ask yourself, "Which characteristic is more general among these three axioms?" Does length arise conceptually from flux or does flux arise conceptually from length? Clearly they are co-concepts, or may we offer in Niels Bohrese, complementary concepts? But if you have to choose one or the other as more fundamental, in the reviewer's opinion, you must choose flux. Why? The concept which Stein added to his random walk to make his approach work is 'change.' He had to add that concept! So change is not intrinsic to length, is it? Flux is change. Flux is fundamental concept, antecedent to all Homo sapiens' models of Reality.

(Also, reader, note Stein's emphasis on classical physics' inability to represent the concept of change, i.e., flux, and the need for the concept of change to be coherent in his new ontology.)

Return to Issues List                                                                     Return to the Review Outline

Issue - Imaginary time as a proxy for Casimir energy in nonspace?:
Stein assumes there is no 'space' in nonspace, yet Dirac quantum objects take nonpreferential random paths in nonspace whose steps are of varying time reversals—time is imaginary in nonspace—there is no 'space' or 'time' in nonspace! In space Stein defines mass in terms of length. In nonspace Stein defines mass in terms of time, not length. In nonspace we have only imaginary time. Does Stein mean that imaginary time is a proxy for mass? Or might we infer that imaginary time is a proxy for Casimir energy in nonspace, and length is a proxy for mass in space?

Return to Issues List                                                                     Return to the Review Outline

Issue - Assumed unidirectional flow of creation: (i.e., Stein appears not to discuss discreation).
The reviewer was left wanting for Stein's ontology's description of how 'objects' return to his nonspace.

The reviewer has yet to find any of Stein's peers who ponder this issue. Many, as he, ponder creation. But apparently few consider discreation. (Damn those classical laws of thermodynamics! J) (Note: The reviewer, on reading Aristotle, found that he considered discreation, "And in general if a thing is perishing, there will be present something which exists;" See, Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book IV, Chapter 5, ~full paragraph 10.)

Upon review of the small subset of ISMs attributed to SOM, one finds a predilection toward the fundamental Aristotelian ontology. Ontology in the Aristotelian philosophical system, is that branch of metaphysics which considers the nature of being. Among the ISMs, things appear to preexist, mostly. Little is said about becoming (to arise, to be created, to emerge—which Stein covers amply), and your reviewer found virtually nothing in ISMs on the concepts of discreation, de-emergence, devolution, etc.

We would expand ontology to cover: becoming, being with change, being without change, and unbecoming. Stein certainly does not describe the latter in his text.

One senses another limitation of the great SOM legacy here. I.e., once something becomes an object, it is always an object or an objective transformation of an object. In the reviewer's opinion, this is myopic. Our classical thermodynamic laws reflect this near-sightedness. (For example, read Mae-Wan Ho.) Stein's objects in space must have an ontological possibility for a return to nonspace.

Return to Issues List                                                                     Return to the Review Outline

Issue - Gœdel—Does Stein understand Gœdelian consistency and completeness?:
Stein apparently uses the classical senses of completeness or incompleteness, consistency or inconsistency. Stein's appears to be a non-Gœdelian definition or interpretation of completeness/consistency. His use of the word probably assumes SOM's one global/absolute truth in one global context. If so, his ontology is probably at odds with more Gœdelian completeness/incompleteness interpretations of quantum mechanics. If so, it certainly is at odds with the multi- and omni-contextual aspects of quantum science's many isles of truth.

Return to Issues List                                                                     Return to the Review Outline

Issue - Missing terms in Stein's work—speculation on why?: (quantum coherence, complementarity, etc.)
The reviewer thinks this has been one of the major problems in quantum science since its beginning late in the 19th century. Almost no one, because of legacy SOM, could understand Niels Bohr's 'complementarity.' His critics called it, "subjective," again, due to their engrained subject-object schism. In the reviewer's opinion, Stein is showing us some of his personal residuals from the great SOM legacy.

In the reviewer's opinion Bohr's complementarity along with quantum coherency together solve the SOM paradox and concomitant denial of both separation and unification. SOM, due to its foundational axioms, has no way to grasp both subject and object unified, let alone both unified and distinct. Or as Mae-Wan Ho puts it in her, the Rainbow and the Worm, "A coherent state thus maximizes both global cohesion and also local freedom...a domain of coherent, autonomous activity." See pages 151 and 153.

Pirsig, Ho, et al., geniuses in their own right have given us the great gift of a new meme: global coherence balanced with local autonomy/freedom. Pirsig: quanton(DQ,SQ), and Ho: quanton(global_cohesion,local_autonomy).

Clearly, this complementary quantum coherence is a new meme that few have understood. Stein's goal of a new exoteric ontology may not be achieved, in the reviewer's opinion, without it. A great example is that we are incapable of describing how living, biological systems tap the non-dissipative, non-thermalized energy of Stein's nonspace without this new meme.

Return to Issues List                                                                     Return to the Review Outline

Next is some stuff which will be added to the review later:

Issues which will be added to this review:

Artwork which will be added to this review soon:

Next is the end and review adieux:

Return to the Review Outline

End of Review: The last sentence in Stein's book says, "This work is now concluded." The reviewer respectfully disagrees. Stein shows us unambiguously that this work has only begun.

Conclusion: Stein's ontology appears to be a subspecies of Pirsig's MoQ. Pirsig's MoQ contains a superior ontology as a new foundation of physics. Stein offers at least two levels of emergence: first, classical object emerging from nonspace, and second, phenomena emerging from classical-object-to-classical-object interactions. Where Stein's ontology finds phenomena distinct from objects, Pirsig's MoQ finds, everything that we know—a single class of Static Patterns of Value—composes the actual part of reality. Pirsig's SPoVs (Stein's classical objects) emerge from Dynamic Quality (Stein's nonspace) via Quality Events (Stein's measurements) to create Static Quality (Stein's space). The two descriptions are nearly the same. Stein focuses on SOM's legacy Aristotelian object. Pirsig focuses on unified SPoVs which fit the modern quantum wave science more closely in our opinion.
Thanks for reading, and
Many quantum truths to you,

Doug Renselle.

Return to the Review Outline

©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2015 Rev. 3Jul2010  PDR — Created: 28Oct1998 PDR (1 of 2)
(11May2000 rev - Started revision history list at bottom of this page.)
(28Aug2007 rev - Reformat.)
(3Jul2010 rev - Reset legacy markups. Replace some symbols with GIFs.)

Return to Previous Page                                              Return to the Arches

Additional Reviewer comments on the Quantum Schrödinger Object:
The pre-quantum object is no longer analytic. All of time is required to specify its identity. The object is no longer the same from instant to instant. Another way to say that is, there is no analytic f(t) which specifies its precise location from instant to instant—from a given position x, pre-quantum object may move randomly + or - 'stepsize' to its next position in the random walk.

Notice the classical 'or' in that last sentence. Using classical thinking, we cannot make Stein's random walk object (RWO) work, because the decisions at each step of the walk must be non-preferential. But SOMthink tells us to think preferentially, to think, 'or.' Classically, the step must be either + or -.

Stein saw that the step had to be nonpreferential, therefore he concluded what is classically unreasonable: it must go both directions, both + and -, simultaneously. At this point in the evolution of our pre-quantum object, we discard classical object either/or ontology.

For the reviewer this is an awesome place in the evolution of human thought. Right here! The beginnings of quantum enlightenment, right here! We begin the process of departure from SOMthink, and embark on a new Chautauqua of MoQthink, of Quantonic thinking.

Stein describes the walk attributes of this new quantum object, i.e., the object's:

Quickie summary to this point: Stein tells us on page 60 that this nonpreferential walk is ontological basis of quantum mechanics, vis-à-vis the space-time identity as the ontological basis of special relativity, and vis-à-vis the analytic f(t) as the ontological basis for classical mechanics.

At this juncture Stein introduces the critical concept of quantum measurement (AKA special event, Quality Event).

Permit the reviewer to oversimplify here for expediency.

In quantum realm there are two divisions of reality, familiar to some of us by various synonymous pairs of bipolar appellations:

Quantum measurement causes a quantum object to transition from the left division of reality to the right division of reality in each of the above pairs.

(Reviewer's note: Few author's, apparently including Stein, describe transitions from the right division to the left division of reality. Your reviewer is an exception, however. See MoQ and Language on this site.)

Using Stein's vocabulary, for this review, we adhere three terms: measurement, nonspace, and space. His quantum object then, when it is in nonspace is, "entirely at both locations," at each step of its walk. Upon measurement, though, and transition to space, the quantum object has a 50-50 probability of becoming real (actual) in one of the two locations of each step of walk.

Here, by comparison to Pirsig's new philosophy, the MoQ, we see Stein's transition from nonspace to space as a precise dual of MoQ's creation/evolution of Static Pattern(s) of Value, via the Value interrelationship between dynamic nonspace and static space. This is more affirmation of MoQ as a quantum science parent philosophy.

Stein puts much effort into the problematic issues of determinism and free will at this juncture. We leave the details for you to read, but will summarize by saying that Stein's nonspace is deterministic (all possible outcomes exist simultaneously and without preference, achieving nonspace analyticity between transitions to space), and the consequence of measurement, and subsequent quantum object (non-analytic) transition to space, is a probabilistic (Pirsigean Value) choice based upon both nonspace and space initial conditions...

(Instead of: A causes B—Pirsig's SOM causation platypus, Stein's model correctly elicits: B values condition A—Pirsig's Value solution to the causation platypus. More affirmation of MoQ as a quantum science parent philosophy.) the moment of measurement. To quote Stein directly, "...if a made on the nonspace of object, then the totally non-determined except for the restrictions of possibilities determined by the state of the system (its various nonspace 'positions') and the kind of measurement made." Page 60.

Finally Stein tells us that the 'time' of a quantum object may only be determined by its space 'proxy.' At this stage in the evolution of our quantum object, Stein still views the 'proxy' of the quantum object as a classical object. That is, the quantum object is both classical while it is in space, and quantum while it is in nonspace. For the reviewer, this is confusing. He quiets our concerns by reminding us that this is difference twixt space and nonspace.

Again, looking for affirmation of MoQ, we see 'time' as a Static Pattern of Value which demarcates the probabilistic Value creation/evolution nonspace-space transitions of Stein's non-relativistic quantum mechanical model.

In the balance of this chapter, Stein goes on to derive both the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the Schrödinger equation.

He concludes the chapter thus, "I conclude, therefore, that quantum mechanics, at least non-relativistic quantum mechanics, is the description of an object making a 'no-preference' walk in nonspace and imaginary time, while making only a single step between two (real) time instants. Determinism exists, but only in nonspace and only between two time instants. In fact, nothing at all has been assumed about the behavior of objects in nonspace and imaginary time; any property of object between two time a consequence of the nature of the object at (real) time instants." (our color and italic emphases)

The reviewer finds Stein's classical use of the terms 'real' and 'imaginary' misleading in the quantum realm. (See Stein's 10May2000 email to Doug. Also see Doug's more recent Millennium III Map of Reality. Juxtapose it to our previous heuristic which includes Stein's 'space' and 'nonspace.' 20May2000 PDR) Reality is everything! To call part of reality 'real' misleads. From our perspective, Stein's word 'real' should be replaced by 'actual,' or 'known.' Reality then becomes a quantum combination of the known and what he calls the 'imaginary.' (I admit guilt at doing the same thing. This is legacy SOM imposing its facile will on weak.)
Return to Schrödinger Object Review Text

The Typical Path of a Quantum Object:

We found this in, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, by Benoit B. Mandelbrot, W. H. Freeman & Company, 1983, p. 239:


"This discussion can close by mentioning a new fractal wrinkle to the presentation of quantum mechanics. Feynman & Hibbs 1965 notes that typical path of a quantum mechanical particle is continuous and nondifferentiable, and many authors observe similarities between Brownian and quantum-mechanical motions (see, for example, Nelson 1966 and references herein). Inspired by these parallels and by my early Essays, Abbot & Wise 1980 shows that the observed path of a particle in quantum mechanics is a fractal curve with D=2. The analogy is interesting, at least pedagogically."

We found this while researching our next review about, Buridan on Self Reference. We see and think Dr. Stein will see the connection here to his random walk in nonspace.

For the interested reviewer's convenience, we list here the above mentioned references:

FEYNMAN, R.P. & HIBBS, A. R. 1965. Quantum mechanics and path integrals. New York: McGraw-Hill.

NELSON, E. 1966. Derivation of Schrödinger equation from Newtonian mechanics. Physical Review 150, 1079-1085. [Reviewer's note: This sounds very much like what Stein did in his book.]

ABBOT, L.F. & WISE, M. B. 1981 [1980?], Dimension of a quantum-mechanical path. American J. of Physics 49, 37-39.

Return to top of page

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2015 Rev. 3Jul2010  PDR — Created: 28Oct1998  PDR (2 of 2)
(11May2000 rev - Add parenthetical on 'identity' to Special Relativistic Object précis.)
(11May2000 rev - Add ToC link to Reviewer Comments on Schrödinger Object. Revise those comments.)
(20May2000 rev - Add reader note at page top. Add links to recent Stein material. Change apropos classical '=' to Quantonic equals.)
(20May2000 rev - Add links to Stein's 10May2000 email.)
(20May2000 rev - Add links to last two iterations of our evolving Map of Reality at end of Extended Schrödinger section.)
(20May2000 rev - Removed some of Doug's
thelogos from Interaction Issue above.)
(20May2000 rev - Added link to our very recent
Newton Connection under Interaction Issue above.)
(1Jun2000 rev - Add anchor to Stein/Pirsig table of comparisons.)
(18Jan2001 rev - Alter index table's colors.)
(19Dec2001 rev - Add top of page frame-breaker.)
(13Feb2002 rev - Change Planck rate from temporal to spatial reference.)
(20May2002 rev - Add "Need for Special Vocabulary" link to first issue in list of issues. Remediate 1st issue, and add clarifying links.)
(23Jul2002 rev - Change QELR links to A-Z pages.)
(28Jan2003 rev - Add Buridan's Ass link under Quantum Schrödinger Object.)
(22Feb2003 rev - Update return links at page top and bottom.)
(16Nov2003 rev - Reset color text to save bytes. Add anchor for October, 2003 Flash.)
(21-22Feb2004 rev - Add pop-up menus to several occurrences of 'the' thelogos to emphasize overuse of 'the.')
(14Nov2004 rev - Update 'nonspace' analogies list with Polanyi.)
(21Mar2005 rev - Add 'white hole' to list of metaphors of Stein's use of terms.)
(9Jan2007 rev - Add comments to 'Nonspace and Measurement' axioms re Stein's unwitting specification of a hologram.)
(28Aug2007 rev - Reformat. Massive respell. Reset legacy red markups.)
(3Jul2010 rev - Reset legacy markups. Replace some symbols with GIFs.)

Return to Recommended Reading Page                                              Arches