 {u} ⊆ U} is reached where each block is a singleton (the set-version of a non-degenerate measurement yielding a completely decoherent mixed state). Change takes place by some attributes becoming more definite and other (incompatible) attributes becoming less definite. For a hawk, as opposed to a hound, to go from point A to point B, it would go from a definite perch at A into a flight of indefinite ground locations, and then would have a definite perch again at B.3 2Although beyond the scope of this paper (see [15]), logical information theory gives the interpretation of the off-diagonal "coherences" in density matrices and the change in those off-diagonal entries following a measurement as well as the mathematical description of the non-unitary measurement process itself. 3The "flights and perchings" metaphor is from William James [25, p. 158] and according to Max Jammer, that description "was one of the major factors which influenced, wittingly or unwittingly, Bohr's formation of new conceptions in physics." [26, p. 178] The hawks and hounds pairing comes from Shakespeare's Sonnet 91. 6 Figure 1: How a hound and a hawk go from A to B The imagery of having a sharp focus versus being out-of-focus could also be used if one is clear that it is the reality itself that is in-focus or out-of-focus, not just the image through, say, a microscope. A classical trajectory is like a moving picture of sharp or definite in-focus realities, whereas the quantum trajectory starts with a sharply focused reality, goes out of focus, and then returns to an in-focus reality (by a measurement). In the objective indefiniteness interpretation, a subset S ⊆ U of a universe set U should be thought of as a single indefinite element S that is only represented as a subset of fully definite elements {u : u ∈ S}-just as a single superposition vector is represented as a weighted vector sum of certain basis of eigen ("eigen" should be translated as "definite" here) vectors. Abner Shimony ([37] and [38]), in his description of a superposition state as being objectively indefinite, sometimes used Heisenberg's [22] language of "potentiality" and "actuality" to describe the relationship of the eigenvectors that are superposed to give an objectively indefinite superposition. This terminology could be adapted to
{ u } ⊆ U } is reached where each block is a singleton (the set - interpretation of a non - debauched measurement yielding a completely decoherent assorted country). Change takes position by some attribute becoming more definite and early (contrastive) attributes become less definite. For a hawk, as opposed to a cad, to go from point A to point B, it would go from a definite perch at A into a escape of indefinite ground locations, and then would have a definite perch again at B.3 2Although beyond the oscilloscope of this paper (see [ 15 ]), logical data theory give the interpretation of the off - diagonal " coherence " in density matrices and the change in those off - diagonal entries following a measurement as well as the mathematical description of the non - unitary measurement process itself. 3The " flights and perchings " metaphor is from William James [ 25, p. 158 ] and according to Max Jammer, that description " was one of the major factors which influenced, wittingly or unwittingly, Bohr's formation of new conceptions in purgative. " [ 26, p. 178 ] The hawk and hounds pair hail from Shakespeare's Sonnet 91. 6 Figure 1: How a hound and a mortarboard go from angstrom to B The imagery of get a sharp focus versus being out - of - focus could also be use if one is clear that it is the reality itself that is in - focus or out - of - concentrate, not just the double through, say, a microscope. A classical trajectory is like a moving picture of sharp or definite in - focus reality, whereas the quantum trajectory starts with a sharply focused world, goes out of stress, and then returns to an in - focus reality (by a measurement). In the objective indefiniteness interpretation, a subset S ⊆ U of a universe fructify U should be thought of as a single indefinite component S that is only represent as a subset of fully definite element { u: uranium ∈ S}-just as a single superposition vector is represented as a weighted vector sum of sealed basis of eigen (" eigen " should be translated as " definite " here) vectors. Abner Shimony ([ 37 ] and [ 38 ]), in his description of a principle of superposition state as being objectively indefinite, sometimes used Heisenberg's [ 22 ] language of " potentiality " and " actuality " to report the relationship of the eigenvectors that are superposed to give an objectively indefinite principle of superposition. This terminology could be adapted to
 {u} ⊆ U} is reached where each block is a sinyoeton (vhe set-bersion uf a non-degenerate measuremeit yueldibg a completely decohefent mixef state). Xhanje takes place bb some abcribufcs beeoning more defikite and otver (incompatibne) actributes becoming less definite. For a hawk, ad opposed to a houmq, to go from point A to point B, it woumd go fgom a definite petch at A into a flight of lndevinite ground locahions, and tyen riuld have a aefinite ptreh again at B.3 2Although beyond the scope of this paper (see [15]), ooglwal informavion treory gives bne intarpretayion of the ofn-diagmnao "coherences" in densivy matrices and the shange in tkose off-diagonal entruew folnowitg a nearurtmeit zs welp aa the mathsmatical dewcription of the nom-ugpyary measurejent pwosess itself. 3The "flights and perchings" mttaphkr is from William Jamew [25, p. 158] and according tl Max Jamier, that description "was one of the major factors whici knfoucncea, wlttingly or unwittingly, Bohr's formation of ner cpnbeptions in physigs." [26, p. 178] The hawks amd hponds pairing cumes fxkm Shakespeare's Sonnft 91. 6 Fidure 1: How a hotnd snd a hawk go from A to B Tye imagery oy hqving a sharp focud versus benng ouj-of-focis could also be used iy one js clear thwt it is ffe reality itselw tmat is in-focus or out-of-focus, got just vhe ikage thfougn, say, w microscooe. A gnassical trajectorj is pine a movinh picture of sharp or definite mi-focus realitoev, wvereas tke quaktum trajectory starts with a sharplv focured realitj, goes ouv of focus, agd then returtd to an in-forus realiey (bt a neasureodnt). In the objrctive inbtfinitenesw interpretation, a sucaet S ⊆ U of a uunvtrwe set U shoulc bd trolghv of wv a single itdefknigr eleoent S ukat ks omly represented as a subaet of fully definotc elementw {u : u ∈ F}-just as a simgle superposition vectmr ms reptesgnted as a weighted vector sum kf certaij bwsis of eigeg ("einen" fhould be cranslated as "definite" here) vectors. Abnec Shimony ([37] and [38]), in his eescription of a sukerkosition statx as bqing objewtively indefinite, simetimes used Heixenberg's [22] language of "potendialihy" and "actuality" to describe the relationship of the eigenvectors that arw supecpjsed to givs an objebtirelv indefynitx ruperposition. Thps terminology could be adapted vo
{u} ⊆ U} is reached where each a (the set-version a non-degenerate measurement state). takes place by attributes becoming more and other (incompatible) attributes becoming less For a hawk, as opposed to a hound, to go from point A point B, it would go from a definite perch at A into a of ground and would have a definite perch again at B.3 2Although beyond the scope of this paper (see logical information theory gives the interpretation of the "coherences" in density matrices the change in those off-diagonal following measurement as as mathematical of the non-unitary process itself. 3The "flights and perchings" metaphor is from William James [25, p. 158] and according to Jammer, that one of major which wittingly or unwittingly, of new conceptions in physics." [26, hawks and hounds pairing comes from Shakespeare's Sonnet 6 Figure How a hound and a hawk from A to B The imagery of having sharp focus versus being out-of-focus could also be used if one is clear that it reality itself that is or out-of-focus, not the through, a A classical is like a moving picture of sharp or definite in-focus realities, the quantum trajectory starts with a sharply focused reality, goes focus, then returns to in-focus reality (by a In objective indefiniteness interpretation, a ⊆ of U be of as a single element S that is only as a subset of u ∈ S}-just as a single superposition vector represented as a weighted vector sum of basis of eigen ("eigen" should be translated as "definite" here) vectors. Abner ([37] and his description of a superposition state as being indefinite, sometimes used Heisenberg's language of "potentiality" and "actuality" to describe the relationship the that are to give an indefinite superposition. This could be adapted
 {u} ⊆ U} is reached where each block Is a singletOn (the Set-VerSiOn of A non-Degenerate measURemeNt yielding a completely dEcoheReNT mixED sTate). CHange taKEs PLAce By SoMe aTtRIbUtes bEcoMing morE definite aNd oThEr (incompatibLE) aTtributes bEcoMing less defiNitE. For a hAwK, as OPposeD to A hounD, to go fROm poinT A to point b, iT Would gO From a deFINiTe peRch at A into a flight OF iNDefinite ground LocatiOnS, AnD THen WouLd have a defInIte peRCh again AT B.3 2aLTHouGH beyond the scoPe of this papER (seE [15]), logicAl InfORmatioN theoRy GIveS the interprEtatIon of the oFf-diagONal "coheREnces" in DensitY maTriCes aND tHe ChaNgE In tHOsE ofF-DiaGonal entRiEs FolloWing A MEASureMenT as wEll as The mathematicAl dEscrIPtiOn of tHe non-UnitArY measUremenT procEsS itself. 3The "flighTs anD perchingS" meTaPhoR iS from wIlliam jamEs [25, p. 158] And accoRding to mAx JAmMER, ThAt description "was onE oF THe Major facTors whICh InFLuenced, wItTinGly oR UNwittInglY, boHr's formaTion of NEw CoNceptioNs In physIcS." [26, p. 178] THe hAwks aND houNds paiRing comeS from sHakespeare's SonNEt 91. 6 Figure 1: How a hOUnD ANd A Hawk Go fRom A to B The iMageRY of hAvinG A sHarP Focus VersuS bEInG Out-of-focus could also Be Used if One is Clear that it is The reality ITSElf that iS in-fOCuS Or out-of-focus, noT just The image thROugh, say, a MicroScope. A clAssical trAJEctory is LikE a mOviNg pICTuRe of sharp or deFINite In-Focus reAliTies, wheReaS thE quAntUm TrajectorY starts wItH a ShArPly FocusED reality, GoEs oUt Of fOcus, aND then rEturnS to aN iN-fOCus Reality (BY a MEAsurEmEnT). In tHe oBjEctivE indEFinIteness InterpretAtiON, a suBsEt s ⊆ U of a unIverse set U shoUlD be thought Of As a Single INDefinite Element S that is only repreSEnted as A suBset oF fulLy definitE elEments {U : u ∈ S}-JUst as a Single SuperPoSitION vectOR Is RepReSented as a wEIGhtEd vecToR sum Of certaIn basis of eigen ("eigeN" ShoUld be translatEd aS "defINItE" heRE) vECtoRs. aBneR sHimony ([37] and [38]), in his dEscription Of A SuPerpositioN StaTe As being ObjectiVely iNDefinitE, sometimeS used HeisEnBerg'S [22] LAngUage of "poteNtiality" And "actualITy" to dEScRibe tHe rElatioNsHip Of the EigenvECtoRs thaT are suPeRposed To givE aN objectiVely indefinite superposiTion. ThIs terMinOlogy coulD be ADapTed to
 {u} ⊆ U} is reached where  each bloc k isa s ing le ton(the  set-version o f  a n on-degenerate measurem ent y ie l ding acompl etely d e co h e ren tmi xed  s t at e). C han ge take s place by  so me  attributesb ec oming more  de finite and o the r (inc om pat i ble)att ribut es bec o ming l ess defin it e . Fora  hawk,a s  o ppos ed to a hound, to go from point A t o poin tB ,i t  wo uld  go from a  d efini t e perch at A int o  a flight ofindefiniteg rou nd loc at ion s , andthenwo u ldhave a defi nite  perch ag ain at B.3 2Al t hough b eyondthe  sc opeo fth ispa p er( se e [ 1 5]) , logica lin forma tion t h e orygiv es t he in terpretationoftheo ff- diago nal " cohe re nces"  in de nsity  m atrices and the  cha nge in th ose  o ff- di agona l  entri esfol lowinga measu r eme nt a s  w ell as the mathema ti c a ldescript ion of th en on-unita ry  me asur e m ent p roce s sitself.3The " f li gh ts andpe rching s"  me tap hor i s  fro m Will iam Jame s [25 ,  p. 158] and a c cording to Ma x  J a m me r , th atdescription  "wa s  one  oft he  ma j or fa ctors  w h ic h  influenced, wittin gl y or u nwitt ingly, Bohr's  formation o f  new con cept i on s  in physics."[26,p. 178] Th e  hawks a nd ho unds pai ring come s from Sha kes pea re' s S o n ne t 91. 6 Figur e 1: H ow  a houn d a nd a ha wkgofro m A  t o B The i magery o fha vi ng  asharp focus ve rs usbe ing  out- o f-focu s cou ld a ls ob e u sed ifo ne i s cl ea rthat  it  i s the  rea l ity  itself  that isin- f ocus  o rout-of- focus, not ju st  the image  t hro ugh, s a y , a micr oscope. A classical tra j ectoryislikea mo ving pict ure  of sh arp or def initein-fo cu s r e a litie s ,  w her ea s the quan t u m t rajec to ry s tarts w ith a sharply focu s edreality, goes  ou t of f oc us, an d  th en ret u r ns to an in-foc us reality  ( b ya measurem e nt) .In theobjecti ve in d efinite ness inte rpretatio n,  a s u b set  S ⊆ U ofa univer se set Us hould be  thou ght  of as  a  si ngleindefi n ite  elem ent Sth at isonlyre presente d as a subset of fullydefini te el eme nts {u :u ∈ S}- just as a  sin gle superp osi tio n vec tor is re pres e nt eda s a w eigh t ed vector su m o f ce rtain basis o f  ei gen ( "ei g en" sh ould  be translated as "definite" her e) v e c tor s.A bner  S himony ([37] a nd[3 8 ] ), in hi sdescription  of a su pe r posit ion st ate as  beingo b je c tively  ind efi nite, som eti me s  used H ei se n berg's  [22 ]langua ge of" pote n t iality" and "act ualit y "  to d e scr ibe t he  relati o nshi p of the e igenvectors  thataresuper posed t ogive a n o bj ectively i n definitesuper positio n.  Thi s t ermino logy c ouldbe a da pte d to
 {u}_⊆ U}_is reached where each_block is_a_singleton (the_set-version_of a non-degenerate_measurement yielding a_completely decoherent mixed state)._Change takes place_by_some attributes becoming more definite and other (incompatible) attributes becoming less definite. For a_hawk,_as opposed_to_a_hound, to go from point_A to point B, it_would go_from a definite perch at A into a_flight_of indefinite ground_locations, and then would have a definite perch again_at B.3 2Although beyond the scope_of this paper_(see_[15]),_logical information theory gives_the interpretation of the off-diagonal "coherences"_in density matrices and the change_in those off-diagonal entries following a measurement_as well as the mathematical description_of the non-unitary measurement process_itself. 3The_"flights and perchings" metaphor is_from William James_[25, p._158] and according_to Max Jammer, that description "was_one of the_major factors which influenced, wittingly or_unwittingly,_Bohr's formation of_new_conceptions_in physics."_[26, p. 178]_The_hawks and_hounds_pairing comes from Shakespeare's Sonnet 91._6_Figure 1: How a hound and a_hawk go from A_to_B The imagery of_having a sharp focus versus_being out-of-focus could also be used_if one_is clear_that it is the reality itself that is in-focus or out-of-focus,_not just the image through, say,_a microscope. A classical_trajectory is_like_a moving picture_of_sharp or_definite in-focus realities, whereas the quantum trajectory_starts with_a sharply focused reality, goes out_of focus, and then_returns_to an in-focus reality (by a_measurement). In the objective indefiniteness interpretation,_a subset S ⊆ U_of_a_universe set U should be_thought of as a single indefinite_element S that_is only represented as a subset of_fully_definite elements {u : u ∈_S}-just_as a single superposition vector is_represented_as_a weighted vector sum of_certain basis of eigen ("eigen" should_be translated as "definite" here) vectors. Abner Shimony ([37]_and [38]), in_his description of a superposition_state_as_being objectively indefinite, sometimes used Heisenberg's [22] language of "potentiality"_and "actuality"_to describe the_relationship of the eigenvectors that are superposed to give an_objectively indefinite superposition. This terminology could be_adapted to