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.
Reading this review is different than reading the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 failswe sensealmost 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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...
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 physicsthe Newtonian ontologyit 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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: "...it is the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it purpose of this work only to give a reasonable, coherent definition of the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it end, the concept of object itself is found not to be absolutely basic and dissolves into the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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)
Figure 1 - Comparison of Stein's Ontology to Pirsig's MoQ
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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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:
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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 difficultalmost impossibleto 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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:
After he finishes developing his most general Dirac Quantum Object, Stein provides us with a powerful and useful treatise on one of the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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:
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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it same for you.
Next are some definitions for the review:
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.
Non-actuality. Everything that is not space. Here is a reviewer list of currently known metaphors of Stein's nonspace:
Next is our review:
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, the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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.
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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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.)
Classical Random Walk Object précis: The classical random walk object, RWO, introduces the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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.
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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 here...in 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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
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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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)
AQO axioms (AQO = Actualized Quantum Object = classical object)
NQO axioms (NQO Nonactualized Quantum Object)
Nonspace axioms
Measurement axioms
Interaction axioms
Space axioms
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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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...
Ontology I: (What Stein discovered in this work.) Stein discovered (some of the following appears self-contradictorysuch 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]."
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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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!
Next is a list of issues which arose during the review:
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 centuriesbefore Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, et al.before the Birth of SOM just 25 centuries agosophists 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 childSOM. 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-parencya novel paradigm of thought. In your reviewer's opinion, that is what a n¤vel ontology must accomplish.
Return to Issues List Return to the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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:
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 hereinteraction 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 mechanicsand 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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.)
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 reversalstime is imaginary in nonspacethere 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?
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 emergewhich Stein covers amply), and your reviewer found virtually nothing in the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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.
Issue - GdelDoes Stein understand Gdelian consistency and completeness?: Stein apparently uses the classical senses of completeness or incompleteness, consistency or inconsistency. Stein's appears to be a non-Gdelian 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 Gdelian 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.
Issue - Missing terms in Stein's workspeculation 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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.
Next is some stuff which will be added to the review later:
Artwork which will be added to this review soon:
Next is the end and review adieux:
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 knowa single class of Static Patterns of Valuecomposes 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.
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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 BPirsig's SOM causation platypus, Stein's model correctly elicits: B values condition APirsig's Value solution to the causation platypus. More affirmation of MoQ as a quantum science parent philosophy.)
...at the moment of measurement. To quote Stein directly, "...if a measurement...is made on the nonspace of the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it object, then the result...is 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it object between two time instants...is 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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:
Subtitled, DIMENSION OF PARTICLE PATHS IN QUANTUM MECHANICS
"This discussion can close by mentioning a new fractal wrinkle to the presentation of quantum mechanics. Feynman & Hibbs 1965 notes that the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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 the a an any anyone's anyplace's her his its my our someone's someplace's their your wasted 'the;' don't need it 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