I seem to remember that Microsoft has
quantum logic software. I do not know
how mature the system design is.

My concern is the formal definition
of what messaging time is. Meaning
there is a difference between creating
a receiver and transmitter as overhead
time to allow the message channel and
simply using the quantum channel.

A polling of the channel might be termed
way to maintain it's "on" state or a case
of verifying message reception.

My concern is the basic use of message
entropy Must a channel create a formal
sign transmittance without violating entropy
speed, c. Or the overhead time always causes
non-violation.

My concern also is- spin state must be known
as a variable in entropy. Implying quantum logic
speed can not exceed c. Does overhead time
obviate spooky action at a distance?

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:07:37 PM UTC-4, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> I seem to remember that Microsoft has
> quantum logic software. I do not know
> how mature the system design is.
>
> My concern is the formal definition
> of what messaging time is. Meaning
> there is a difference between creating
> a receiver and transmitter as overhead
> time to allow the message channel and
> simply using the quantum channel.
>
> A polling of the channel might be termed
> way to maintain it's "on" state or a case
> of verifying message reception.
>
> My concern is the basic use of message
> entropy Must a channel create a formal
> sign transmittance without violating entropy
> speed, c. Or the overhead time always causes
> non-violation.
>
> My concern also is- spin state must be known
> as a variable in entropy. Implying quantum logic
> speed can not exceed c. Does overhead time
> obviate spooky action at a distance?

I forgot. A spin the alter the energetics is speed limited to
c. A spin to alter a mind state is not speed limited?
the quandary is in this basic direction of argument.

Implying the capacity to detect spin without changing it.

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:07:37 PM UTC-4, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> I seem to remember that Microsoft has
> quantum logic software. I do not know
> how mature the system design is.
>
> My concern is the formal definition
> of what messaging time is. Meaning
> there is a difference between creating
> a receiver and transmitter as overhead
> time to allow the message channel and
> simply using the quantum channel.
>
> A polling of the channel might be termed
> way to maintain it's "on" state or a case
> of verifying message reception.
>
> My concern is the basic use of message
> entropy Must a channel create a formal
> sign transmittance without violating entropy
> speed, c. Or the overhead time always causes
> non-violation.
>
> My concern also is- spin state must be known
> as a variable in entropy. Implying quantum logic
> speed can not exceed c. Does overhead time
> obviate spooky action at a distance?

My new(I hope) minister had a warning in his sermon today.

He warned: Why limp along with two opinions
of the same thing.

In complete science there is a quest or use of
a logic to define a scientific fact. In a quest
the fact has yet to be defined. And some people
struggle with varied relations to allow such fact.

My example here is I am a struggler. I am applying
varied relations to seek a discovery. And I limp as an
as an amateur. But so do all quantum theorists.
Quantum theory is not complete.

So as a philosopher I pose the question: Given a sign
defined as a form sensed that causes a state of mind.
Given state with no relation to entropy. Can a mind
cause entrophy(as mental action)?No, Given the mind/
brain theory. Entropy causes senses. Can all of physics
be initiated to completeness by the eye/light form?