The macroscopic reality of 0 - 1 bits is built from the quantum qbit.
The qbit can have a value of 0 or 1 or any of an infinite range of
values between zero and one.  Actually if you view a qbit as a sphere,
with the north pole being 1 and the south pole being 0, the qbit can
have a value anywhere on the surface, expressed in terms of the
longitude and latitude. It isn't simple!

Scientific American November 2002, Page 67, "Rules for a Complete
Quantum World".

Marshall

Malcolm Stebbins wrote:

>  Hi Jack;  On the question of time - introduced by you and highlighted
> by JO-H - and defining reality - it ain't the only problem.
> On the question of the binary nature of reality - it may or may not be
> "particulate" so to speak, but may be a continuum, thus not either "A
> or nonA" but conditions of becoming.  Zeno's paradox deals with this.
> I don't know if this adds to your confusion or reduces it, but what
> the hey?!
>
> Malcolm
>
> "I was looking for a job when I got this one"
>
> At 03:34 PM 11/3/02 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>>      From: Malcolm Stebbins <[email protected]>
>>      Subject: RE: CS>Reality lives !!
>>      Resent-From: [email protected]
>>      Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 22:13:38 -0800
>>
>>      Hi;   'Not only'.  On the quantum level, time is reversible;
>>      "instantaneous" does not depend on particulate time, such as
>>      the Bhuddist 'Kalapa' the smallest unit of time deemed
>>      possible, and avoiding the sillophophical stuff that just begs
>>      to be thrashed on the question of time, . . . . Existence and
>>      becoming (and un-becoming) may or may not be 'binary'.  In
>>      Mathematics the open interval, f'rinstance, is a little jolt;
>>      the interval [1 - 2), open at the upper end, never reaches
>>      "two"; there's always an infinitude of points between
>>      however-close-you-are to "two", and "two" itself.  This is
>>      similar to the race between Achilles and the Tortoise in one
>>      sense, but avoids the issue of time.  Also, If something is not
>>      complete how can it exist?  On the other hand, how can "it" not
>>      exist, if you can tell "it" is not complete?  And for a more
>>      binary disclaimer, It's only fair I confess; I always lie:
>>      always!
>>      Phast Phred (aka: "A")
>>
>>      ***************************
>>
>>      Say WHAT?
>>
>>      Jack
>>