Return to Hughes-Buridan Book Review


What are Sophisms?:

Simply? (It takes years of study to get to this first time. After that, to dialectical stux sux "rules fools" it is obvious.):

Sophism is BAWAM many valuedness (Quantonics' "many truthings" AKA Latin omniplex veritas) where, "enlightened" 'science' says veritable logic is EOOO two-valuedness (Bu()sh(), "either you are for us or you are against us...").

Doug - 27Jan2006.

Begin 17Apr2009 Aside on Sophisms:

As time passes...easier, simpler descriptions of omnifficult notions and memeos like 'sophisms' make themselves more evident. Doug finds himself in that situation, here, again.

I am sure that all of this has been said before. Perhaps sophism just takes on more light as timings comvolve coinside our hologramings. Perhaps that light phase~encodes better now than it did when we were just starting our journey together.

If you recall Doug's now 11 year old efforts on memes of OGT in OGC you understand our approach here again. OGC: one global context. OGT: one global truth system (for example, any standard set of axioms and corollaries) which establishes an (some say 'the') OGC.

Classicists assume, presume, and inure the OGC in OGT. Now get this! Classicists assume there is only a single 'context' for their OSFA thing-king.

That is problematic! Why? Sophisms are multi-comtextual, even omnicomtextual! A single sentence which refers, say a stopped context (e.g., a particle) and a moving context (e.g., a waving) together, is a sophism. But a classicist assumes there is only one context! Therefore said sentence, as a proposition, is classically "false." Buridan said so.

If you read Zeno of Elea's four paradice, most of them are multi~comtextual.

Now, what is most interesting about all of this is that when one's systems of thinkqing admit and inure memeos of multi~, even omni~comtextings — classical notions of sophisms as "false" simply evaporate. Multicomtexts admit that what is true in one comtext may not be true in some other context. For example, Christians say "Jesus is God." Muslims say "Allah is God." Which is true? Adept orientals will say "Mu." Adept quantumists will say "All are right in their local comtextings." Pirsig taught us latter! Again, we emphasize quantum~reality! Classicism says "Single contextual propertyesque state is simple." Quantumism says "Multicomtextual fluxing similarities are simpler." Doug, you idiot, how can you write stuff like that? Quantum~empirical SEP is Doug's guide. Add to that Henri Louis Bergson's teaching that "Flux is simple, and state is complex (paraphrased)." If you do due diligence on this memeo of pure excellence you will come to grasp how a taxonomy of objective properties for all formal reality is infinite. By comparison our QMVing of flux omniscovers how a taxonomy of quantum fluxings' similarities is finite. Perhaps someday humanity may realise those two sentences are most economic of any two sentences ever written prior. Doug.

A classical notion of sophism arises when a classicist tries to mix multiple contexts together and force them into one, their, OGC-OGT context. Doug calls that a CONtext. Why? Because those who teach our children that there is only a single context for all thought are pulling a con job on our kids. Reality has unlimited comtextings, all evolving at up to Planck rates.

What system of thought should be indicted for this felony intellectual rape of our children's minds? Dialectic.

Thank you for reading,


End 17Apr2009 Aside on Sophisms.

Philosophers and dialecticians before and since Aristotle worried over sophisms. Simply, in SOMthingk, sophisms are illogical logic. If something should be two valued and somehow it appears many valued, that is just absurd to any dialectical SOMite AKA 'objective scientist.' Sophisms appear often, especially to dialecticians, as oxymora. Sophisms result in SOM paradice (paradoxes).

See Quantonics' Bases of Judgment.

Sophisms cause mind-numbing, endless recursion in a classical mind. Sophisms usually are regarded as paradoxes/dilemmas/oxymora/chimeras in any classical mind. Buridan defines four classes of sophisms. Essentially, using his own classical training, Buridan declares all sophisms, "False!" (answers, classically, MUST be either true or false).

Recently we received a question from a student about sophisms. You may read our response: Student asks about Sophisms.

Bottom Line: A crucial case can be made - classical assessment of sophisms as false is naïve. SOM declares sophisms 'FALSE.' MoQ declares sophisms as both TRUE and FALSE depending on many contexts. SOM denies existence of many truths/contexts, because its syllogistic logic fails when it loses its foundation assumption of a single, conventional context. SOM's absolute truth may only be achieved when one assumes a single conventional context. Clearly, SOM is naïve to think it. SOM's conventional assumption is a pseudo, contrived, simplistic perturbation of reality. Quantum science shows us there are unlimited contexts for reason, each carrying its own local rules of logic.

However 'quantum logic' itself is an oxymoron, so in Quantonics we call it "coquecigrues," in Latin, "omniplex veritas." Doug - 24Sep2005.

Figure 1 - Sophist 'Logic' (rather, coquecigrues) Exemplar

Here is an exemplar of what we mean when we compare dialectical logic to sophist quantum~coquecigrues. Figure 1 shows what we intend. Figure 1 is extraordinarily powerful! How? It shows how ludicrous dialectic really is. It demonstrates that negation is subjective. Saying "negation is subjective" is a way of saying "reality is quantum." Compare that to what dialecticians believe, "negation is objective," which means (to dialecticians) "reality is dialectical, formal, analytic, mechanical, concrete, etc."

Dialecticians, interpreted literally, force implications that humans and animals may be negated so that horse minus horse equals null, zero, nada, etc. But what is minus you? What is minus any physical entity? Show us a negative baseball! As Henri Louis Bergson said so presciently, "We shall never affirm a thing is not." Amen!!! Notice that Bergson's edict absolutely breaks forever classical dialectic! To grasp that Quantonics normative see our SOM's Bases of Judgment.

But Doug, "How does Figure 1 help us?" Let's use our scripts to demonstrate.

OK, dialectically:

  • human = mouse is false (i.e., EOOO(human, mouse), and dichon(human, mouse))
  • human = porpoise is false
  • human = wolf is false
  • human = chicken is false
  • human = horse is false
  • human = chimp is false
  • human = elephant is false
  • human = rabbit is false

    Notice how pluralism destroys any generality of dialectical 'logic.' Especially 1-1 negational correspondence, specifically human -human. (But be sure to also ask, "H5W is minus human?") I.e., there are many human 'nots,' not just one! Classical certainty simply evaporates. This is part of what Bergson intends when he says negation is subjective.

    Plurality plus probabilistic and polytemporal (up to) Planck rate pragmatemporal mutability of paired relations forces 'di' alecticians to rethingk what they mean by 'di.' For example are those relations really 'di' stinct? Can their 'di' versity be 'di' agnosed? Can we 'di' scriminate? Perhaps we might weigh 'omni' vis-à-vis 'di?' How many ideal dialectical 'opposites' does any 'thing' have? Are you 'di' vis-à-vis 'omni' stinguishable from you now compared to you an hour from now? (3600•1013 of your body's cells have quanton(self-euthanized,resurrected) during that one hour period!) Is that comparison an ideal dialectical one? Why? Why 'not?' Doug - 30Oct2005.

    Readers, in that last paragraph we have to change 3600•1013 to 3600•106. See our acronym OEDC to understand why. Doug - 3Apr2006.

    From a quantum perspective, these many dialectical 'nots' are a weak analog of what we intend by quantum~complementarity. Much more strongly, quanton(reality,human).

and following Aristotle's syllogistic 'logic,'

  • A is A ('law' of identity; actually a 'tautological' sophism)
  • A is not B ('law' of contradiction)
  • A is not both A and not A ('law' of excluded-middle)

"then dialectically, classically:

  • human is human
  • human is not mouse
  • human is not both human and mouse

    etc., for porpoise,..., rabbit.

"but sophism demands our coquecigrues quantum~ræhl:

  • human issi b¤th human amd mouse (i.e., BAWAM(human,mouse), amd quanton(human,mouse))
  • human issi b¤th human amd porpoise
  • human issi b¤th human amd wolf
  • human issi b¤th human amd chicken
  • human issi b¤th human amd horse
  • human issi b¤th human amd chimp
  • human issi b¤th human amd elephant
  • human issi b¤th human amd rabbit

In Quantonics we generalize this by saying "Wæ aræ ihn Iht and Iht issi ihn us." That's real quantum sophism!

Figures 2 & 3 summarize graphically what our scripts show in detail:

 Figure 2

Dialectics' Plural Dichons

 Figure 3

Quantum Plural Quantons

In quantum reality there is n¤ ideal classical objective negation! Why? Quantum reality is flux AKA waves. Waves are quantum likelihood omnistributions (QLOs; see peaqlo). In quantum reality likelihood zero and one do n¤t 'exist.' Quantum reality is positive (n¤n negative) without classical idealizations of one and zero! See probability. Further, waves compenetrate ubiquitously: their middles are included and everywhere animately associative and sorso~organizing~networks with profligate kinds of QLO interrelationships including entropa and cohera.

  1. Sophist reality is wholly positive.
  2. Dialectic reality manufactures contradictions!
  3. Sophism emersces success and happiness.
  4. Dialectic conceives dread and hatred.
  5. Sophism qualitatively and proflectively affects.
  6. Dialectic quantitatively and retroflectively effects.

Doug - 24,27Sep2005.


Also look at Sophism Connection, SOM Connection, and Quantum Connection, where your reviewer shows additional evidence for our bottom line statements above. See especially our revisions to Quantum Connection in early paragraphs about Pirsig's and Stein's comments about change.

See Buridan's 20 sophisms.

See our 2002 Riemann Hypothesis work re: i as a sophism. I.e., i as a sophism assumes, classically, i2 = -1 = ei,

(also see our Planck quantum at that pi link)

implicitly, self-reference when Planck rate clocked offers animate EIMA quantum~recursion.

Self-referent calculation of factorial is a mathematical, mechanical implementation of a sophism. Ditto Fibonacci series, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5,... (Note that you can start with any two numbers. If you want to just calculate Fibonacci's ratio,

(AKA phi, the "God Number," e.g., from movie PI and Dan Brown's Demon's and Angels; weigh adelphia: — a del phi a; Greek phi is 'love' and 'emergence;' a in Latin is 'of;' de in Latin is 'God;' so Philadelphia may be viewed as "Love of God's [quantum~]emerging~love~Qualities!" No mention of quantity here; no mention of objectification here; n¤thing Aristotelian-Constantinian-Thomist here; n¤thing dialectic (hate) here,

(except for mathematics' own dialectical foundations; ugh)!


you need not start with zero and one. You can start with 1000, 1000, 2000, 3000, etc., and 4096, 8192, 12288, 20480, etc. Regardless, said limit ratio is 1.618... Phi:

(Why? m = 1 + 1/m. And m2 - m - 1 = 0.

Take a square. Bisect it. Swing diagonal arc. Stretch square in that dimension. Long side is 1.618... times short side!

Do Pythagoras on said figure! (sqrt(5)/2+0.5=1.618...; note that '5' is in phi!) Check positive root (just did in that parenthetical). Now what about quantum~square~root impact?)

Phi, a number itself of — a number which issi — quantum~sophist~evolution.

(You techies should check out delta modulation! Optimum slope for signal integration is phi! And delta mods are quantum~hermaphroditic: a single switch changes goes outta into goes inta! Ponder that in light of cuneiform! Earth's WWW internet is beau coup mazes of delta mods! Delta mods are WWW's, sort of, quantum~included~middle. Now ponder Doug's favorite, a zenith of quantum thinking: phil¤s¤phy! L¤ve ¤f s¤ of~self~awareness, ~self~reference, ~fractal~fibo~recursion, ~quantum~adaptive~evolution,... Doug - 17Sep2005.)

Also said population logistic equation from Doug Hofstadter's Meta Magical Themas, especially Chapter 16 (you'll love this stuff!!! Feigenbaum's 4.6692... natural chaos bifurcation spacing 'constant.'). Any 'equation' can be made sophist like this: xn+1 = f(xn). See attractor of Henon. Also see Benoit Mandelbrot's The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Everything in there is a classical version of sophist self-(other?)-reference-recursion. See our Fractal Connection. Doug - 15Sep2005.

Note that Quantonics' version of quantum reality is sophisms of sophisms. Quantum reality is quantum~self~referent, ~recursive, and quantum~pan~self~aware. Too, it is ~animate and REIMAR based upon its quantum flux, quantum wave, QLO physiality. That's how David E. Pritchard was able to "diffract sodium atoms!" See our precis of Discover's Beams of Stuff.


A Crucial Case: Your reviewer calls this a crucial case, because of its importance when Western culture grasps its essence. It will change our underlying philosophy of Western culture beyond imagination. Future impact of understanding, fundamentally, what this means is simply enormous. It will change virtually everything we know, virtually every aspect of our daily lives at every level of being and inquiry. Return.

Return to Hughes-Buridan Book Review


To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2013 Rev. 19Dec2009 PDR — Created: 17Dec1998  PDR
(15,16,17,24,27Sep2005 rev - Add link to Buridan's 20 sophisms. Add some mechanical sophism examples. Blue text 'coquecigrues' comment. Typos. Red text box at page top.)
(6Feb2006 rev - Near page top red text updates on two valued vav many valued.)
(3Apr2006 rev - Reset legacy red text. Correct error on rate of body cell apoptosis.)
(30Oct2006 rev - Reset legacy red text.)
(1Aug2008 rev - Reformat.)
(28Mar2009 rev - Reformat table holding plural dichons and plural quantons graphics. Add link to CeodE 2009 change: 'Change as Quantum Waves.')
(17Apr2009 rev - Add page top 17Apr2009 aside.)
(19Dec2009 rev - Repair position of a badly placed single, leading quote mark. Reset legacy markups.)