Unremediated Text	QELRed Text
Margenau2 on Probability - a mostly classical view, with subtle quantum avatars and intuitions Margenau di-stinguishes probability as a posteriori and likelihood as a priori5. Students of Quantonics will find this classical notion similar our own memeotic interrelationships among classical cause and quantum affectation. Both views (pastistic decidability vis-à-vis nowistic choosings, chancings, and changings) also appear somewhat akin Will Durant's interpretation of Charles Sanders Peirce's pragmatism which appears in Durant's Story of Philosophy. Margenau offers valuable examples and gedankenments. Most of his jargon, though as recent as 1968, is still and yet classical but he uses it to introduce quantum memes. We see and intuit his own mind in a process of evolution away from classical stuckness toward quantum freedom.	Margenau2 on Probability - a mostly classical view, wihth subqtle quantum avatars amd ihntuihti¤ns Margenau di-stinguishes probability as a posteriori and likelihood as a priori5. Studænts ¤f Quantonics wihll find this classical notion similar our ¤wn mæmæ¤tihc ihnterrelati¤nships am¤ng classical cause and quantum affectation. Both views (pastistic decidability vis-à-vis n¤wistihc ch¤¤sings, chancings, amd changings) also appear somewhat akin Will Durant's interpretation of Charles Sanders Peirce's pragmatism which appears in Durant's Story of Philosophy. Margenau offers valuable examples and gedankenments. Most of his jargon, though as recent as 1968, is still and yet classical but he uses it to introduce quantum memes. We see and intuit his own mind in a process of evolution away from classical stuckness t¤ward quantum frææd¤m.
Probability - a posteriori (see a priori, below under Likelihood) Margenau shows us unambiguously that probability is about ensembles. Classically, any ensembles must be ensembles of ideally homogeneous and state-ic actuality3. Certainly then, classicists resist any notions of ensemble probability. It, quite simply, denies any classical notions of absolute determinism. Margenau offers a simple yet crucial observation: "Probability is not about single events." We can make an inference here, "Single events are improbable."4 Stronger: "We cannot predict single event probabilities." (Note a fine point that "single events" only occur once; they are quantum novel.) However we can predict probabilities of events which appear to recur. Why do we say, "...appear to recur?" In quantum reality classically ideal ensemble recurrence is simply impossible. Classicists ineptly force an appearance of ensemble recurrence using stoppable reference frames and 'reproducible,' 'identical,' 'conventional-conveniently-Flatland-limited,' 'initial conditions.' These are just more classical delusions (even when viewed macroscopically and cosmically). Reality is not stoppable! However, reality is quantum sophist! Quantum reality is fractal~sorso. So Quantonics can extend Margenau's observation. "Probability is not about novel events." Probability demands heterogeneity! Probability has no meaning in an entirely homogeneous, i.e., classical, system. Latter blends a quantum hue into chance: affective local and nonlocal ensemble choosings. Classical chance is about actuality (its 'known' constituents) and offers no capability of assessing any novel emergent events. Notice how this nicely explains why classicists have been unable to describe interstate process. Interstate processes always harbor some quantum novelty! We call it "quantum chaos." Yes! You are correct, to retain our quantum chastity we must say, Bergsonian durationally, "There is no (ideal classical) state." Quantum chance shows us that novel realities may emerge which we have not seen before, which have had no prior existence. First 'time' this happens, it is apparitionally, only apparently a classical, single 'event' and classical probability has no means of anticipating it. Students of Quantonics, however, are vividly aware of quantum times as heterogeneous. So in quantum reality, apparent classical single events, are rather, animate EIMA quantum ensembles. We call them "peaqlos." See our discussion of peaqlo at our 3D Fuzz¤n. This added text is relevant our page top box, re: "nowings." Nowings imply heterogeneous ensemble timings. So what do we intend when we say, "heterogeneous ensemble timings?" In Quantonics we intend "all hermeneutics and perspectives which are quantum affectings nowings and nowings' CH3ings." So, then, what are those? Are (none, some, any, most, all) ensemble pastings' ensembles affectings nowings? Yes. Are (none, some, any, most, all) ensemble nowings' ensembles affectings nowings? Yes. Are (none, some, any, most, all) ensemble futurings' ensemble potentia affectings nowings? Yes. Again, we see an extraordinary and unusual trichotomous quanton(pastings,nowings,futurings) which is a more fuzzonic quantum animate, heterogeneous, EIMA analogue of classical reality's unitemporal time line and Einstein-Minkowski's space-time light cone. "But Doug, how can quantum: futuringsclassical: futurerelative: futures quantum: beingsclassical: berelative: plural be affectingsaffectaffects nowingsnownows?" Via memeos of quantum expectation, quantum anticipation, quantum a priori. Margenau calls it "likelihood." We quantumly think of quantum reality as capable of qubital (Bohm might say, "holographic") computation. If that is so, then quantum reality "quantum computes" all potentia, all likelihoods. Quantum reality anticipates all potentia more and less. Now some essence. Doesn't this show explicitly "why ('classical') quantum theory ('mechanics') quasi~works?" We say, "Yes!" Doug - 14Aug2004.	Probability - a posteriori (see a priori, below under Likelihood) Margenau shows us unambiguously that probability is about ensembles. Classically, any ensembles must be ensembles of ideally homogeneous and state-ic actuality3. Certainly then, classicists resist any notions of ensemble probability. It, quite simply, denies any classical notions of absolute determinism. Margenau offers a simple yet crucial observation: "Probability is not about single events." We can make an inference here, "Single events are improbable."4 Stronger: "Wæ cann¤t 'predict' single event probabilities." (N¤te a fihnæ p¤ihnt that "sihnglæ ævænts" ¤nly ¤ccur ¤nce; they aræ quantum n¤vel.) H¤wævær wæ can predihct pr¤babilihties ¤f ævænts which appear to recur. Why do we say, "...appear to recur?" Ihn quantum ræhlihty classically ideal ensemble recurrence is simply impossible. Classicists ineptly force an appearance of ensemble recurrence using stoppable reference frames and 'reproducible,' 'identical,' 'conventional-conveniently-Flatland-limited,' 'initial conditions.' These are just more classical delusions (even when viewed macroscopically and cosmically). Ræhlihty issi n¤t st¤ppable! H¤wævær, ræhlihty issi quantum s¤phist! Quantum ræhlihty issi fractal~sorso. So Quantonics can extend Margenau's observation. "Pr¤babilihty issi n¤t ab¤ut n¤vel ævænts." Pr¤babilihty dæmamds heter¤gæneihty! Pr¤babilihty has n¤ mæaning in an entirely homogeneous, i.e., classical, system. Lattær blænds a quantum hue ihnt¤ chance: affæctihve l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal ænsehmble ch¤¤sings. Classical chance is about actuality (its 'known' constituents) and offers no capability of assessing any novel emergent events. Notice how this nicely explains why classicists have been unable to describe interstate process. Ihnterstatæ pr¤cæsses ahlways harb¤r s¤mæ quantum n¤velty! Wæ cahll iht "quantum cha¤s." Yæs! Y¤u aræ c¤rrect, t¤ rætain ¤ur quantum chastihty wæ must sahy, Bergsonian durationally, "Thæræ issi n¤ (ideal classical) state." Quantum chance sh¤ws us that n¤vel ræhlihties may æmærgæ which wæ have n¤t sææn bæf¤re, which have had n¤ pri¤hr e[istænce. Fihrst tihmings this issi happænings, iht issi apparitionally, only apparently a classical, single event and classical probability has no means of anticipating it. Studænts ¤f Quantonics, h¤wævær, aræ vihvihdly awaræ ¤f quantum tihmings as heterogæne¤us. S¤ ihn quantum ræhlihty, apparænt classihcal sihnglæ ævænts, aræ rather, anihmatæ EIMA quantum ænsehmbles. Wæ cahll thæm "peaqlos." Sææ ¤ur discussi¤n ¤f peaqlo at ¤ur 3D Fuzz¤n. This addqæd text issi rælævant ¤ur pagæ t¤p b¤x, re: "n¤wings." N¤wings ihmply heterogæne¤us ænsehmble tihmings. S¤ what d¤ wæ ihntændings when wæ sahy, "heterogæne¤us ænsehmble tihmings?" Ihn Quantonics wæ ihntændings "ahll hermæneutihcs amd pærspæctihvæs which aræ quantum affæctings n¤wings amd n¤wings' CH3ings." S¤, then, what aræ th¤se? Aræ (n¤ne, s¤mæ, any, m¤st, ahll) ænsehmble pahstings' ænsehmbles affæctings n¤wings? Yæs. Aræ (n¤ne, s¤mæ, any, m¤st, ahll) ænsehmble n¤wings' ænsehmbles affæctings n¤wings? Yæs. Aræ (n¤ne, s¤mæ, any, m¤st, ahll) ænsehmble futurings' ænsehmble p¤tæntia affæctings n¤wings? Yæs. Again, wæ sææ an extra¤hrdinary amd umusual trihch¤t¤m¤us quanton(pahstings,n¤wings,futurings) which issi a m¤re fuzz¤nihc quantum anihmatæ, heterogeneous, EIMA analogue of classical reality's unitemporal time line and Einstein-Minkowski's space-time light cone. "But Doug, how can quantum: futuringsclassical: futurerelative: futures quantum: beingsclassical: berelative: plural be affectingsaffectaffects nowingsnownows?" Via mæmæos ¤f quantum expectati¤n, quantum antihcipati¤n, quantum a pri¤hri. Margænau cahlls iht "lihkælih¤¤d." Wæ quantumly think ¤f quantum ræhlihty as capable ¤f qubihtal (Bohm might say, "holographic") computati¤n. Ihf that issi s¤, then quantum ræhlihty "quantum computes" ahll p¤tæntia, ahll lihkælih¤¤ds. Quantum ræhlihty antihcipatæs ahll p¤tæntia m¤re amd less. N¤w s¤mæ æssænce. D¤æsn't this sh¤w explihcihtly "why ('classical') quantum theory ('mechanics') quasi~works?" Wæ sahy, "Yæs!" Doug - 14Aug2004.
Likelihood - a priori Here, we would essentially repeat our above a posteriori discussion while emphasizing affectation above cause. Essence: likelihood (looking forward and choosing potential better) bears more quantum intrinsic hermeneutics than probability (looking backward and deciding 'what happened'). Quantum likelihood advances pastistic probability to nowings. See C. S. Peirce's (pronounced Purse's) abductive logic (as compared to inductive and deductive logics). "Abduction...makes its observations without reference to any previously propounded question, but, on the contrary, itself starts a question, or problematically propounded hypothesis, to explain a surprising observation." C. S. Peirce, from Memoir 19, Draft E: On Arguments, 1902.	Likelihood - a priori Hæræ, wæ w¤uld æssæntiahlly ræpeat ¤ur ab¤ve a p¤steri¤hri discussi¤n while emphasizing affectation above cause. Æssænce: lihkælih¤¤d (l¤¤king forward amd ch¤¤sing p¤tæntial bættær) bæars m¤re quantum ihntrinsihc hermæneutihcs than probability (looking backward and deciding 'what happened'). Quantum lihkælih¤¤d advances pahstistihc pr¤babilihty t¤ n¤wings. See C. S. Peirce's (pronounced Purse's) abductive logic (as compared to inductive and deductive logics). "Abduction...makes its observations without reference to any previously propounded question, but, on the contrary, itself starts a question, or problematically propounded hypothesis, to explain a surprising observation." C. S. Peirce, from Memoir 19, Draft E: On Arguments, 1902.
Classical Cause You may notice how probability as a classically a posteriori notion begs attending notions of classical causation which further begs maltuitions of determinism.	Classical Cause You may notice how probability as a classically a posteriori notion begs attending notions of classical causation which further begs maltuitions of determinism.
Quantum Affectation You may also notice how likelihood as a quantum a priori meme simply shows us that quantum emergent and novel "whatings happenings nextings" are always quantum uncertain and outside any likelihood assessment while affective ensemble "whatings happenings nextings" offer extraordinarly good likelihood assessments. What does that mean? It means that quantum emergent creation and novel creation are outside our capabilities to assess their likelihood. When we do ensemble likelihood assessments we intrinsically leave out any means of assessing them.	Quantum Affæctati¤n Y¤u may als¤ n¤tihce h¤w lihkælih¤¤d as a quantum a pri¤hri mæmæ sihmply sh¤ws us that quantum æmærgænt amd n¤vel "whatings happænings ne[tings" aræ ahlways quantum umcærtain amd ¤utsihde any lihkælih¤¤d assæssmænt while affæctihve ænsehmble "whatings happænings ne[tings" ¤ffer extra¤hrdinarly g¤¤d lihkælih¤¤d assæssmænts. What d¤æs that mæan? Iht mæans that quantum æmærgænt cræati¤n amd n¤vel cræati¤n aræ ¤utsihde ¤ur capabilihties t¤ assæss their lihkælih¤¤d. When wæ d¤ ænsehmble lihkælih¤¤d assæssmænts wæ ihntrinsihcahlly læave ¤ut any mæans ¤f assæssing thæm.
Quantum Emergence and Likelihood Classically, likelihood and probability are about actuality, what we know. Quantum emergence is a process of creation, a process creating that about which we have no know-ledge and direct experience. Quantum emergence creates that which is wholly novel and previously non existent. Classical notions of likelihood and probability which are based upon actuality have no means of anticipating novel emergence. (Classical-causal-determinism essentially says, "If you cannot predict it, it shall not, indeed cannot happen." HyperBoole!)	Quantum Æmærgænce amd Lihkælih¤¤d Classically, likelihood and probability are about actuality, what we know. Quantum æmærgænce issi a pr¤cæss ¤f cræati¤n, a pr¤cæss cræating that ab¤ut which wæ have n¤ kn¤w-lædgæ amd diræct e[pæriænce. Quantum æmærgænce cræatæs that which issi wh¤lly n¤vel amd prævi¤usly n¤n e[istænt. Classical notions of likelihood and probability which are based upon actuality have no means of anticipating novel emergence. (Classical-causal-determinism essentially says, "If you cannot predict it, it shall not, indeed cannot happen." HyperBoole!)
Scaling and Sophism as Tells Margenau tells us that quantum probability, at atomic and subatomic scales, is quantum uncertain, but classicists insist that quantum 'uncertainty' becomes insignificant at classical superatomic scales of reality. If that were so, probability would be less uncertain (more certain, ideally classical deterministic) at macroscopic scales of reality. But, again by observation, by direct experience, we understand that microscopic uncertainties can and do assemble and aggregate and scale to macroscopic uncertainties. Margenau uses Heisenberg's uncertainty to mimic how classicists improperly thingk about this: p·q = h/2· (the minimum, specific, quantum uncertainty under ideal classical measurement conditions) where p is position, q is momentum, h is Planck's constant and pi is a natural irrational 'constant' 3.1415926... p·q h/2· (a more general quantum uncertainty; a quantum tell here: uncertainty is usually 'larger' and usually not 'minimum') Classicists misinterpret and misuse latter to 'prove' Heisenberg's uncertainty is insignificant at macroscopic scales, as we shall show below. In Quantonics we believe our following is a better interpretation of above (and offers a better hermeneutic of classicists' misuse of it shown further below): p·q N·(h/2·) ( a Quantonic, scaling of animate general quantum uncertainty ) where is our animate EIMA quantonic "equalings" semiotic, N is a scaling 'factor' for macroscopic — ensemble~aggregate — quantum systems. Ponder how our assumption attends Planck's own epiphany about any actual system's total energy: E = Nhv where E is total system energy, N is number of (h issi least energy with composites of n·h) subsystems composing a system, h is Planck's constant, and v is frequencyj of subsystemi. In Quantonics script: Esystemq Nsubsystemsqhqvq. To illustrate classicists' misinterpretation of a 'nonscaling' quantum uncertainty, let's quote Margenau; classicists assume: "...that the indeterminacy of [the quantum microcosm's] atomic events is ironed out in the macrocosm. The assertion is respectable for since we do not understand the function of physiological complexes in terms of atomic processes it can not be disproved. "Another, slightly different consideration, leads to the same result. If the principle of indeterminacy is written for position (x) and velocities (v) it reads "x·v h/2·m "m being the mass of the object whose motion is being studied. Now for an electron the quantity on the right of this inequality is about 1 (in c.g.s. units). Hence if we assume its position to be wholly uncertain within the volume of the atom, where it usually resides, and assign to x the value 10-8 cm (size of an atom), v must be about 108 cm/sec; the indeterminacy in velocity amounts to more than 100 times the speed of an ICBM. Many unforeseeable things can happen within that range of ignorance. "For a brain cell, m is at least one trillion times as great as it is for an electron, hence the uncertainty is a billion times smaller. Even if we assume again that x = 10-8 cm, we find v = 1 millimeter per sec. But for something as large as a cell it is unreasonable to allow x so small a value, which is far beyond the limit of detection. If we increase it 1,000-fold, the indeterminacy in velocity goes down to 10--3 mm/sec, a value so small as to be quite uninteresting." Pp. 74-76. (Our brackets and link.) Notice how classicists divide by m! Quantonics says scaling reigns and we must multiply (i.e., due quantum heterogeneous, affective, animate, EIMA subsystem aggregation) by N! Classicists are guaranteeing their belief-prescribed, thus presumed, macroscopic outcome by dividing instead of multiplying. ("Multiply and prosper, divide and suffer." Modern 'enlightened' science is a formal metastasis of dialectic. You can see that here on a small scale. To see it on a larger scale notice how classical quantum scientists apply dialectic thus: dialectical_reality = dichon(microcosm, macrocosm). SOM's wall is erected substantially twixt macro and micro. An easy way to noodle this: "animate EIMA multiplicity, AKA quantum rhetoric, attends heterogeneity (quantum pluralism)," where "inanimate EEMD division, AKA classical dialectic, attends homogeneity (classical monism)."). We believe classicists are wrong! Microcosmic atomic events are not schismatically walled off and "ironed out in [any] macrocosm!" Classicists want atomic events to be "ironed out in the macrocosm," else their classical 'laws' and 'determinisms' fall apart. All atoms, indeed all quantons (Margenau calls them "onta") have arbitrary heterogeneous spatial and heterogeneous temporal probability distributions. They quantum superpose to greater and lesser extents. To us, in Quantonics, that allows us an important inference of a quantum included-middle. When we add absolute quantum animacy, quantum flux, semper flux, we can further infer quantum reality's sophism, its quantum fractal recursion, its means of entanglement and interference which we call self~other~referent~sophism, sorso. When we use such QTMs, and subsume CTMs, we realize probability and likelihood scale. Further, heterogeneity scales. Heisenberg's uncertainty scales. Quantum uncertainty scales. What we believe we see here is another classical delusion. Classicists appear to assume that bullets, arrows, baseballs, golf balls, rockets and planets are Newtonian-homogeneous aggregates. See our Newton Connection. However they are not! All macroscopic chunks of material reality are quantum heterogeneous ensemble~assemblies. Their constituents are atoms and atoms' electrons. Such an aggregate~ensemble quantum system is fermionic. What does that mean? Fermions wobble! They exhibit quantum spin 1/2 rotational nonsymmetry. From a quantum indeterminacy~uncertainty perspective wobble is a huge affector. Now ponder how every atom's nuclei and electrons are all, each, fermions and all of them wobble. And their wobblings are asynchronous, actually polychronic, as Dirac suggested in his meme of "many times." Such an aggregate of heterogenous internal wobblings, as it passes through quantum vacuum flux, generates chaotic micro affects which are unpredictable for a system's ultimate journey. We can predict a probability distribution, however we cannot predict a single outcome for said ensemble. Now that is quantum real! That is why we say we must multiply by N vis-à-vis divide by m (mass). Are we right? Are we wrong? Ask and answer some questions: What will Earth do next? What can be scope of any nextings? Solar system? Milky Way? Speed up Earth's history cinematographically so that you can view it in one hour? Do you see any scaling macroscopic quantum uncertainty eventings? Is there any way those can be classically determinate? What do you have to presume to make it so? Are your assumptions valid? Prove it. Classicists exhibit similar errors of judgment. Other examples we offer include Didenko and Suslick's maltuitions against Sonoluminescence as a means of accessing free energy, and A Quantum Pendulum. Also See American Physical Society Executive Board's attempts to 'outlaw' "perpetual motion." There are countless other examples to offer here. Students of Quantonics may note that Didenko and Suslick's thingking is extraordinarily similar Margenau's. Didenko and Suslick claim an SL pulse's energy when made macroscopic (energy budgeted, spread out, over full SL bubble acoustic cycle) shows no excess energy. Margenau essentially says that uncertainty at an atomic level when 'spread out' over a macroscopic range shows no excess macroscopic uncertainty! HyperBoole! In quantonics we use some new memes which you may pursue if you want to dig deeper. See Zeno (esp. his first paradox), EQCx, ECOo, EQEG, EQI, IPAC, MTBUE, PSIUE, QEQI, QTP, QVP, sorso, EIMA, etc. See an applied discussion of most of those terms here. Study equilibrium and far from equilibrium systems.       How does Doug think about this? Doug asks, "What are some quantum tells of macroscopic quantum uncertainty?" To Doug, these are all direct experience exemplars: Indonesia's 9 Richter quake and solitonic quantum tsunami which killed hundreds of thousands of humans and spawned devastation 'measured' in billions of dollars. (This is our best and most recent example. It also shows why people using classical mechanics and CTMs who attempt to predict Earth's future re: any scalarbative CTM-methods are simply pseudoscientists! Doug - 4Jan2005.) Columbia space shuttle (this disaster was avoidable, in our opinion, if NASA hadn't taken a classical view of reality) Challenger space shuttle (environmental qualities, e.g., temperatureq, are massively quantum uncertain) 1929 stock market crash Shoemaker-Levy comet crashing into Jupiter Automobile accidents (and ponder specifically human abilities to avoid them: we are quantum beings!) Target practice Golf Baseball Tennis etc. Another way is using Mean Time Between Failure, MTBF. Doug looks at MTBF like this: Macroscopic_Quantum_Uncertainty_of_Failure MTBF ± MTBF/Nq where Nq is macroscopically quantum uncertain. To widen our scope of quantum qualitative sensibilities use MTBE where our E is for macroscopically quantum uncertain Events.	Scaling and Sophism as Tells Margenau tells us that quantum pr¤babilihty, at at¤mihc amd subqat¤mihc scalæs, issi quantum umcærtain, but classicists insist that quantum 'uncertainty' becomes insignificant at classical superatomic scales of reality. If that were so, probability would be less uncertain (more certain, ideally classical deterministic) at macroscopic scales of reality. But, again by ¤bservati¤n, by diræct e[pæriænce, wæ umdærstamd that mihcrosc¤pihc umcærtainties can amd d¤ assæmble amd aggrægatæ amd scalæ t¤ macr¤sc¤pihc umcærtainties. Margenau uses Heisenberg's uncertainty to mimic how classicists improperly thingk about this: p·q = h/2· (the minimum, specific, quantum uncertainty under ideal classical measurement conditions) where p is position, q is momentum, h is Planck's constant and pi is a natural irrational 'constant' 3.1415926... p·q h/2· (a m¤re genæral quantum umcærtainty; a quantum tæll hæræ: umcærtainty issi usuahlly 'largær' amd usuahlly n¤t 'minimum') Classicists misinterpret and misuse latter to 'prove' Heisenberg's uncertainty is insignificant at macroscopic scales, as we shall show below. Ihn Quantonics wæ bæliæve ¤ur f¤ll¤wing issi a bættær ihnterpretati¤n ¤f ab¤ve (amd ¤ffers a bættær hermæneutihc ¤f classicists' misuse of it shown further below): p·q N·(h/2·) (a Quantonic, scaling ¤f anihmatæ genæral quantum umcærtainty) where is ¤ur anihmatæ EIMA quantonic "equalings" mæmæ¤tihc, N issi a scaling 'fahct¤r' f¤r macr¤sc¤pihc — ænsehmble~aggrægatæ — quantum systæms. P¤ndær h¤w ¤ur assumpti¤n attænds Planck's ¤wn epiphany ab¤ut any ahctual systæm's t¤tal enærgy: E = Nhv where E issi t¤tal systæm enærgy, N issi n¤mbær ¤f (h issi læast enærgy wihth c¤mp¤sihtes ¤f n·h) subqsystæms c¤mp¤sing a systæm, h is Planck's constant, and v is frequencyj of subqsystæmqi. Ihn Quantonics scrihpt: Esystæmq Nsubqsystæmsqhqvq. To illustrate classicists' misinterpretation of a 'nonscaling' quantum umcærtainty, let's quote Margenau; classicists assume: "...that the indeterminacy of [the quantum microcosm's] atomic events is ironed out in the macrocosm. The assertion is respectable for since we do not understand the function of physiological complexes in terms of atomic processes it can not be disproved. "Another, slightly different consideration, leads to the same result. If the principle of indeterminacy is written for position (x) and velocities (v) it reads "x·v h/2·m "m being the mass of the object whose motion is being studied. Now for an electron the quantity on the right of this inequality is about 1 (in c.g.s. units). Hence if we assume its position to be wholly uncertain within the volume of the atom, where it usually resides, and assign to x the value 10-8 cm (size of an atom), v must be about 108 cm/sec; the indeterminacy in velocity amounts to more than 100 times the speed of an ICBM. Many unforeseeable things can happen within that range of ignorance. "For a brain cell, m is at least one trillion times as great as it is for an electron, hence the uncertainty is a billion times smaller. Even if we assume again that x = 10-8 cm, we find v = 1 millimeter per sec. But for something as large as a cell it is unreasonable to allow x so small a value, which is far beyond the limit of detection. If we increase it 1,000-fold, the indeterminacy in velocity goes down to 10--3 mm/sec, a value so small as to be quite uninteresting." Pp. 74-76. (Our brackets and link.) Notice how classicists divide by m! Quantonics sahys scaling reihgns amd wæ must multiply (i.e., due quantum heterogæne¤us, affæctihve, anihmatæ, EIMA subqsystæm aggrægati¤n) by N! Classicists are guaranteeing their belief-prescribed, thus presumed, macroscopic outcome by dividing instead of multiplying. ("Multiply and prosper, divide and suffer." Modern 'enlightened' science is a formal metastasis of dialectic. You can see that here on a small scale. To see it on a larger scale notice how classical quantum scientists apply dialectic thus: dialectical_reality = dichon(microcosm, macrocosm). SOM's wall is erected substantially twixt macro and micro. An easy way to noodle this: "animate EIMA multiplicity, AKA quantum rhetoric, attends heterogeneity (quantum pluralism)," where "inanimate EEMD division, AKA classical dialectic, attends homogeneity (classical monism)."). Wæ bæliæve classihcists aræ wr¤ng! Mihcroc¤smihc at¤mihc ævænts aræ n¤t schismatically walled off and "ironed out in [any] macrocosm!" Classicists want atomic events to be "ironed out in the macrocosm," else their classical 'laws' and 'determinisms' fall apart. Ahll at¤ms, ihndææd ahll quantons (Margenau calls them "onta") have arbihtrary heterogæne¤us spathial amd heterogæne¤us tehmp¤ral pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns. They quantum supærp¤sæ t¤ greatær amd læssær e[tænts. T¤ us, ihn Quantonics, that ahll¤ws us an ihmp¤hrtant ihnferænce ¤f a quantum ihncludæd-mihddle. When wæ addq abs¤lutæ quantum anihmacy, quantum flux, sæmpær flux, wæ can further ihnfer quantum ræhlihty's s¤phism, ihts quantum frahctal ræcursi¤n, ihts mæans ¤f æntanglæmænt amd ihnterferænce which wæ cahll sælf~¤thær~referænt~s¤phism, s¤rs¤. When wæ usæ such QTMs, amd subqsumæ CTMs, wæ ræhlihze pr¤babilihty amd lihkælih¤¤d scalæ. Further, heter¤gæneihty scalæs. Heisenberg's umcærtainty scalæs. Quantum umcærtainty scalæs. What wæ bæliæve wæ sææ hæræ issi an¤thær classical delusion. Classicists appear to assume that bullets, arrows, baseballs, golf balls, rockets and planets are Newtonian-homogeneous aggregates. See our Newton Connection. H¤wævær they aræ n¤t! Ahll macr¤sc¤pihc chumks ¤f matærial ræhlihty aræ quantum heterogæne¤us ænsehmble~assæmblies. Their comstihtuænts aræ at¤ms amd at¤ms' electr¤ns. Such an aggrægatæ~ænsehmble quantum systæm issi fermi¤nihc. What d¤æs that mæan? Fermi¤ns w¤bble! They exhibiht quantum spihn 1/2 r¤tati¤nal n¤nsymmætry. Fr¤m a quantum ihndætærminacy~umcærtainty pærspæctihvæ w¤bble issi a huge affæct¤r. N¤w pondær h¤w æværy at¤m's nuclæi amd electr¤ns aræ ahll, each, fermi¤ns amd ahll ¤f thæm w¤bble. Amd their w¤bblings aræ asynchr¤n¤us, ahctuahlly p¤lychr¤nihc, as Dirac suggæsted ihn his mæmæ ¤f "many tihmæs." Such an aggrægatæ ¤f heterogen¤us ihntærnal w¤bblings, as iht passes through quantum vacuum flux, genæratæs chaotihc mihcro affæcts which aræ umpredihctable f¤r a systæm's ultimatæ j¤urney. Wæ can predihct a pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤n, h¤wævær wæ cann¤t predihct a sihnglæ ¤utc¤mæ f¤r saihd ænsehmble. N¤w that issi quantum ræhl! That is why we say we must multiply by N vis-à-vis divide by m (mass). Are we right? Are we wrong? Ask and answer some questions: What will Earth do next? What can be scope of any nextings? Solar system? Milky Way? Speed up Earth's history cinematographically so that you can view it in one hour? Do you see any scaling macroscopic quantum uncertainty eventings? Is there any way those can be classically determinate? What do you have to presume to make it so? Are your assumptions valid? Prove it. Classicists exhibit similar errors of judgment. Other examples we offer include Didenko and Suslick's maltuitions against Sonoluminescence as a means of accessing free energy, and A Quantum Pendulum. Also See American Physical Society Executive Board's attempts to 'outlaw' "perpetual motion." There are countless other examples to offer here. Students of Quantonics may note that Didenko and Suslick's thingking is extraordinarily similar Margenau's. Didenko and Suslick claim an SL pulse's energy when made macroscopic (energy budgeted, spread out, over full SL bubble acoustic cycle) shows no excess energy. Margenau essentially says that uncertainty at an atomic level when 'spread out' over a macroscopic range shows no excess macroscopic uncertainty! HyperBoole! In quantonics we use some new memes which you may pursue if you want to dig deeper. See Zeno (esp. his first paradox), EQCx, ECOo, EQEG, EQI, IPAC, MTBUE, PSIUE, QEQI, QTP, QVP, sorso, EIMA, etc. See an applied discussion of most of those terms here. Study equilibrium and far from equilibrium systems.       H¤w d¤æs Doug think ab¤ut this? Doug asks, "What aræ s¤mæ quantum tælls ¤f macr¤sc¤pihc quantum umcærtainty?" T¤ Doug, these aræ ahll diræct e[pæriænce e[æmplars: Indonesia's 9 Richter quake and solitonic quantum tsunami which killed hundreds of thousands of humans and spawned devastation 'measured' in billions of dollars. (This is our best and most recent example. It also shows why people using classical mechanics and CTMs who attempt to predict Earth's future re: any scalarbative CTM-methods are simply pseudoscientists! Doug - 4Jan2005.) Columbia space shuttle (this disaster was avoidable, in our opinion, if NASA hadn't taken a classical view of reality) Challenger space shuttle (environmental qualities, e.g., temperatureq, are massively quantum uncertain) 1929 stock market crash Shoemaker-Levy comet crashing into Jupiter Automobile accidents (and ponder specifically human abilities to avoid them: we are quantum beings!) Target practice Golf Baseball Tennis etc. An¤thær way issi using Mæan Tihmæ Bætwææn Failure, MTBF. Doug l¤¤ks at MTBF lihkæ this: Macr¤sc¤pihc_Quantum_Umcærtainty_of_Failure MTBF ± MTBF/Nq where Nq is macr¤sc¤pihcahlly quantum umcærtain. T¤ wihdæn ¤ur sc¤pe ¤f quantum qualihtatihvæ sænsibilihties usæ MTBE where ¤ur E issi f¤r macr¤sc¤pihcahlly quantum umcærtain Ævæntings.
Is Probability Value? Consider: classical: probability likelihood quantum: probability likelihood Classical probability and likelihood are non quantum for countless 'reasons:' formalism mechanics analytics lisrability stability independence identity tautology EEMD dialectics EOOO etc. Pirsig's version of probability as Value is closer to being quantum since his MoQ demands probability is quanton(DQ,probability). But that script is quantum real regardless what SQ pattern we place right of our quanton's comma~nospace. Here too MoQ agrees. SQ is Value which is always in DQ and DQ is always in SQ. What is essential is Pirsig's memeo of cowithinitness which is one of many analogues of quantum reality's included~middle (refuting ideal classical independence). DQ de facto is quantum animacy (refuting ideal classical stability). "Is Probability Value?" If probability is based upon animate EIMA quantum numeric qubital monitorings, yes. However, as soon as we take this approach we have switched from a quantum memeo of probability (pastistic) to a quantum memeo of likelihood (nowistic). Quantum science, unlike classical science, does not predict single, non ensemble 1:1 correspondent, stoppable, state-ic, inanimate, number-latched, scalar 'events.' Quantum science predicts a probability (Quantonics' version anticipates~expects QLOs; latter superposes and coheres quantons(pasticity_fuzzons,nowicity_fuzzons,futuricity_fuzzons)). See fuzzon. However that probability and its parent distribution are not classically state-ic, and classically stoppable. They too are animate processes which are evolving durationally. A quantum predictions' probability distribution(ings) ensemble has countless ensemble affectors and attractors whose own ensembles are quantum animate EIMA processes each of which offers hermeneutics of its animate probability distribution(ings).	Is Probability Value? Consider: classical: probability likelihood quantum: pr¤babilihty lihkælih¤¤d Classical probability and likelihood are non quantum for countless 'reasons:' formalism mechanics analytics lisrability stability independence identity tautology EEMD dialectics EOOO etc. Pirsig's version of probability as Value is closer to being quantum since his MoQ demands pr¤babilihty issi quanton(DQ,pr¤babilihty). But that script is quantum real regardless what SQ pattern we place right of our quanton's comma~nospace. Here too MoQ agrees. SQ is Value which is always in DQ and DQ is always in SQ. What is essential is Pirsig's memeo of cowithinitness which is one of many analogues of quantum reality's included~middle (refuting ideal classical independence). DQ de facto is quantum animacy (refuting ideal classical stability). "Issi Pr¤babilihty Valuæ?" Ihf pr¤babilihty issi basæd uhpon anihmatæ EIMA quantum n¤mærihc qubihtal m¤niht¤rings, yæs. H¤wævær, as s¤¤n as wæ takæ this appr¤ach wæ have swihtched fr¤m a quantum mæmæo ¤f pr¤babilihty (pahstistihc) t¤ a quantum mæmæo ¤f lihkælih¤¤d (n¤wistihc). Quantum scihænce, umlihkæ classical science, d¤æs n¤t predict single, non ensemble 1:1 correspondent, stoppable, state-ic, inanimate, number-latched, scalar 'events.' Quantum scihænce predihcts a pr¤babilihty (Quantonics' værsi¤n antihcipatæs~expects QLOs; lattær supærp¤sæs amd c¤heres quantons(pahstihcihty_fuzz¤ns,n¤wihcihty_fuzz¤ns,futurihcihty_fuzz¤ns)). Sææ fuzzon. H¤wævær that pr¤babilihty amd ihts parænt ¤mnistrihbuti¤n aræ n¤t classically state-ic, and classically stoppable. They t¤¤ aræ anihmatæ pr¤cæsses which aræ æv¤lving duhrati¤nahlly. A quantum predihcti¤ns' pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤n(ings) ænsehmble has coumtless ænsehmble affæct¤rs amd attrahct¤rs wh¤se ¤wn ænsehmbles aræ quantum anihmatæ EIMA pr¤cæsses each ¤f which ¤ffers hermæneutihcs ¤f ihts anihmatæ pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤n(ings).
"Is Likelihood Value?" Quanton(Yes,No)Mu. Why? Quantum likelihood works (i.e., squareing of an ensemble's affective probability distribution) as long as emergent novelty doesn't impose itself on our processes. At issue here is quantum reality is always creating novelty. That means, in our opinion, that our likelihood assessments always harbor some quantum uncertainty. Why? As we stated above probability~likelihood of unique events is indeterminate. We need to include (novel, emergent aspæcts of) DQ in our SQ likelihood assessments, however we do not know operationally how to do that...yet. Regardless, we will never be able to predict a first occurence of a novel quantum event. In Quantonics, our view is that quantum computers whose qubits are quantum real, not artificially superposed 'pairs' of classically-analogue 'fuzzy' states, will permit us to move closer to better likelihood assessments. However, we must remember that even reality, from our Quantonics quantum perspective, does not know what novelties will emerge next. (Students please ponder our composite of remarks on this web page from omniffering Quantonics sorso perspectives: "Quantum flux issi simple, classical state is complex." "Quantum~individual freedom issi (ISP¤Vs are) simple. Classical social con(notso)finement is (SSPoVs are) complex (plus, expensive and inhumane)." If you di-sagree, then we must quote Heraclitus, "You thus are not [yet] standingunder quaLogos."J) Years ago, in Bergson's Creative Evolution, topic 25, we attempted to show, using classical mathematics what Quantonics' version of quantum uncertainty looks like. We repeat it here FYE: ensemble quantum uncertainty, i.e., u1 q(complement1·complementsn), where our plural use of "complements" represents heterogeneity of other quantum complementsn which have ensemble affective quantum uncertainty interrelationships with complement1, including complement1's uncertainty interrelationships with itself. (Our use of classical analytic mathematics is inappropriate here, and we do so only to bequeath a heretofore and yet wanting semantic of real ensemble quantum uncertainty.) That 'model' of Quantonics' quantum uncertainty is too specific for our immediately prior discussion. It only shows one quanton in all its potential interrelationships. For a baseball or a planet, we would have to iterate over all fermions in said 'entity' to 'calculate' total quantum uncertainty. That is a shear impossibility for classical, von Neumann architectured computers. It is relatively trivial for a general quantum computer. And as we observe, routinely, Nature does it with ease: s-he is quantum! What does MoQ say about quantum novelty? It issi MoQ's highest formation of SQ Valuæ, and it cannot happæn without DQ's Bergsonian vital impetus. Doug - 6-8May2004.	"Is Lihkælih¤¤d Valuæ?" Quanton(Yæs,N¤) Mu. Why? Quantum lihkælih¤¤d w¤rks (i.e., squarqeing ¤f an ænsehmble's affæctihve pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤n) as l¤ng as æmærgænt n¤velty d¤æsn't ihmp¤sæ ihtsælf ¤n ¤ur pr¤cæsses. At ihssue hæræ issi quantum ræhlihty issi ahlways cræating n¤velty. That mæans, ihn ¤ur ¤pihni¤n, that ¤ur lihkælih¤¤d assæssmænts ahlways harb¤r s¤mæ quantum umcærtainty. Why? As wæ statæd ab¤ve pr¤babilihty~lihkælih¤¤d ¤f ¤mnique ævænts issi ihndætærminatæ. Wæ nææd t¤ ihnclude (n¤vel, æmærgænt ashpæcts ¤f) DQ ihn ¤ur SQ lihkælih¤¤d assæssmænts, h¤wævær wæ d¤ n¤t kn¤w opærati¤nahlly h¤w t¤ d¤ that...yæt. Rægardless, wæ wihll nævær bæ able t¤ predihct a fihrst ¤ccurænce ¤f a n¤vel quantum ævænt. Ihn Quantonics, ¤ur vihew issi that quantum computers wh¤se qubihts aræ quantum ræhl, n¤t artihfihciahlly supærp¤sæd 'pairs' ¤f classically-analogue 'fuzzy' statæs, wihll pærmiht us t¤ m¤ve cl¤ser t¤ bættær likelih¤¤d assæssmænts. H¤wævær, wæ must ræmæmbær that ævæn ræhlihty, fr¤m ¤ur Quantonics quantum pærspæctihvæ, d¤æs n¤t kn¤w what n¤velties wihll æmærgæ next. (Students please ponder our composite of remarks on this web page from omniffering Quantonics sorso perspectives: "Quantum flux issi simple, classical state is complex." "Quantum~ihndihvihdual freedom issi (ISP¤Vs aræ) simple. Classical social con(notso)finement is (SSPoVs are) complex (plus, expensive and inhumane)." If you di-sagree, then we must quote Heraclitus, "You thus are n¤t [yet] standingumder quaLogos."J) Yæars ag¤, ihn Bergson's Creative Evolution, topic 25, wæ attæmpted t¤ sh¤w, using classical mathematics what Quantonics' værsi¤n ¤f quantum umcærtainty l¤¤ks like. Wæ ræpeat iht hæræ FYE: ænsehmble quantum umcærtainty, i.e., u1 q(c¤mplæmænt1·c¤mplæmæntsn), where ¤ur plural usæ ¤f "c¤mplæmænts" ræpresænts heter¤gæneihty ¤f ¤thær quantum c¤mplæmæntsnq which have ænsehmble affæctihve quantum umcærtainty ihnterrelati¤nships wihth c¤mplæmænt1q, ihncluding c¤mplæmænt1q's umcærtainty ihnterrelati¤nships wihth ihtsælf. (Our use of classical analytic mathematics is inappropriate here, and we do so only to bequeath a heretofore and yet wanting semantic of real ænsehmble quantum umcærtainty.) That 'model' of Quantonics' quantum umcærtainty issi t¤¤ specihfihc f¤r ¤ur ihmmædiatæly pri¤hr discussi¤n. Iht ¤nly sh¤ws ¤ne quanton ihn ahll ihts p¤tæntial ihnterrelati¤nships. F¤r a basæbahll ¤hr a planet, wæ w¤uld have t¤ ihteratæ ¤vær ahll fermi¤ns ihn saihd 'entity' to 'calculate' t¤tal quantum umcærtainty. That is a shear impossibility for classical, von Neumann architectured computers. Iht issi rælatihvely trihvial f¤r a genæral quantum computer. Amd as wæ observe, r¤utinely, Nature d¤æs iht wihth ease: s-he issi quantum! What d¤æs MoQ say ab¤ut quantum n¤velty? Iht issi MoQ's highest æmærqancy ¤f SQ Valuæ, amd iht cann¤t happæn wihth¤ut DQ's Bergsonian vital impetus. Doug - 6-8May2004.

Notes:

Note 1 - In Quantonics, MoQ has at least two flavors: MoQ I and MoQ II. MoQ I is Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality which, in Quantonics, we view as a parent quantum philosophy of MoQ II (which we usually think of as nMoQ II) Quantum Science AKA quantum (non)Mechanics of Quanta. Our non prefix in latter flavor acknowledges and abides David Bohm's belief that quantum reality is non-classically-mechanical.

Note 2 - Our reference here is Henry Margenau's 1^st ed. Scientific Indeterminism and Human Freedom, 1968, ArchAbbey Press, 111 total pages including errata. This text is somewhat unique, among our experiences with textbooks of this calibre, in that p. 63 is missing. In its place is p. 73 which appears twice both in p. 63's place and in its standard sequence. Margenau attained his Ph.D. from Yale in 1929. He became Eugene Higgins Professor of Natural Philosophy and Physics. Students of Quantonics should also read Max Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, in which Jammer offers countless comments about and by Margenau. Most appear at and after p. 226 in TPoQM's 1st ed. Also see our brief on Margenau's Rejection of the Projection Postulate.

Note 3 - That is, a Newtonian reality with an "enlightened" Newtonian ontology. A monotemporal reality. A monological reality. A monocontextual reality. An immutable, impenetrable reality. An ideally lisrable reality (which is essentially an Aristotelian reality), and so forth... In such a reality heterogeneity is a manifestation of infinite objective spatio-temporal divisibility: ideal formal mechanism attended by ideal radical onset and finality with initial conditions identifiable and effective analytically everywhere (e.g. Newtonian gravity). From this set of classical notions, thingkers might imagine a demon of unlimited omniscience who could predicately orchestrate all formal activity everywhere. Of course in retrospect we view that reality as naïve and local and inarguably anti-quantum. One must also observe that most classical scientists, a la Einstein's ilk, are classicists wallowing in this naïve 'realism.' Further, that same naïve 'realism' is what makes Einstein's brand of Relativity bogus. He assumed and required objective invariant geometric interval to make it classically viable, and that made it quantum dopey.
Doug - 7May2004.

Note 4 - Astute readers may find a nexus here with Bergson's memes of Radical Mechanism and Radical Finalism and Quantonics' criticisms of classical notions of 'begin' and 'end,' and Aristotelian notions of events as non process state transitions (e.g., apple on tree state; transition to apple on ground state; classically, Aristotle did not view apple on tree as process nor apple on ground as process, and Aristotle completely ignored change from apple on tree to apple on ground as process latter which became a precedent for all 'enlightened' 'scientific' endeavor which dominates now at Millennium III's commencement) and more recent 'scientific' notions of events simply as states without any capability and concern regarding real interstate process description (e.g., Errol E. Harris' descriptions of Relativity in his The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science, Ch. III, Relativity). Latter we refer as analytical strobing and analytical sample and holding. But Bergson showed us that real durational process is nonanalytical. Zeno of Elea showed us real durational process is unstoppable. Reality never holds still! Gives a cold chill when one hears 'scientists' speaking of "natural constants," and "geometric invariants," (upon which Relativity depends, enormously) doesn't it? Doug's neck hair actually stands up now when he hears 'scientifically disciplined and ethical experts' speak in such terms.

Note 5 - "The first recorded occurrence of the phrases is in the writings of the 14th-century logician Albert of Saxony. Here, an argument a priori is said to be "from causes to the effect" and an argument a posteriori to be "from effects to causes." Similar definitions were given by many later philosophers down to and including G.W. Leibniz, and the expressions still occur sometimes with these meanings in nonphilosophical contexts. It should be remembered that medieval logicians used the word "cause" in a syllogistic sense corresponding to Aristotle's aitia and did not necessarily mean by prius something earlier in time. This point is brought out by the use of the phrase demonstratio propter quid ("demonstration on account of what") as an equivalent for demonstratio a priori and of demonstratio quia ("demonstration that, or because") as an equivalent for demonstratio a posteriori. Hence the reference is obviously to Aristotle's distinction between knowledge of the ground or explanation of something and knowledge of the mere fact." From Encyclopedia Britannica, 2003 CD-ROM. Keyword "priori." Our bold for easy visual access. Our Quantonics quantum hermeneutics for these terms include: a priori as futurisitc and a posteriori as pastistic. We need novel quantum linguistics for nowistic. (See red text box there. We shall leave that red text box for several months for your convenience. 11May2005 - Doug.) Of course, in Millennium III, we understand that quantum reality is non classically causal-effective. Quantum reality is affectational, which this page demonstrates with contemporary quantum thinking modalities, QTMs.