A look at music suggests there is. In a given piece, let’s say a monomelodic piece with a single voice, there will only be changes in quantity, frequency of tone, volume, length, intervals, numerical relationships between all. Yet these quantic alterations produce qualitative differences.
If the only change is quantic and the effect is qualitative, then is not a relationship between quantity and quality suggested?
In music, there are not merely changes in quantity; there are changes in quantities of certain somethings, i.e. the levels of air pressure around our eardrums. This thing that, when we breathe in and out, and wave our hands around inside of, that we call air, is, on first inspection, some kind of undifferentiated mass. As a mass, it is resistive, that is, it pushes and pulls on our sensory organs. Quality is that which is “felt” during the immediate act of organic sensation.
Qualia is, in itself, pure. The sentence, “Quantic alterations produce qualitative differences” therefore suffers from a categorical mistake. It should be rephrased “Quantic alterations [of something-or-other-out-there] produces qualitative sameness [of my internal state]”.
The sensation of purely red light is an idea that makes sense. But we cannot yet have a category called “color” at this point. We need different instances of color in order for “color” to emerge as a thinkable concept. This just means that there must be at least two representative examples (i.e. species) before there can truly be a class (i.e. genus).
So, the concept of qualia-as-such does not, in fact, require differentiation; it does, in fact, require the opposite of differentiation, which is sameness.
The question asks of the nature between the realms of quanta and qualia. But this question is asked in a purely theoretical kind of way, that is, abstracted of all sense-derived worldly experience. The question is then devoid of sense, i.e. senseless.
At a deeper level, the question is really asking about the ultimate structure of any possible conscious experience. But even to imply that consciousness may itself be structured is to do violence to the Subject/Object dualism that lurks in the very heart of all Occidental (Western) thinking. To say that a thing is structured is to say that is has a graphical nature, i.e. that it occupies space. To question in this way is to bring our questioning, full circle, back into the modes of questioning of the very first thinkers of the tradition that we have inherited, that is, back to the ways in which the pre-Socratic Greeks did their thinking.
Words like “high-quality” are wise man’s words.
The word only works for the clever minded ones.
everything that can be considered, perceived, conceptualized, etc is related so yes.
Less is more?
Maybe they are linked mathematically is some way… quadratics?
The same manner in which the calculations of certain harmonics tend to form mathematically formed relations quantifiable as repeating patterns of thematic tonality within calculable progression of formal sequencing.
phi, golden ratio?