Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0706.2488

Should physicists begin experimental study of the God's physical nature?

V. A. Kuz’menko

Published Jun 17, 2007• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Inequality of forward and reversed processes in quantum physics means an existence of a memory of quantum system about the initial state. Importance of its experimental study for correct interpretation of quantum mechanics and understanding of a physical base of a consciousness is discussed.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0706.2488

Related papers

On the Quantum Memory

V. A. Kuz’menko

Nonequivalence of forward and reversed processes in quantum physics directly demands the existence of the memory of quantum system about its initial state. The vacuum is best suited for storing this memory. A careful study of the inequality of differential cross sections of forward and reversed quantum transitions, perhaps, will allow finding in the future new tools for experimental studying of properties of dark matter.

•Dec 1, 2017•1 citation

Quantum theory and its interpretation

Alexander E. Wendt

Introduction Chapter 1 dealt with one of the deepest mysteries in modern science: how to explain consciousness. This Part deals with another mystery: how to make sense of quantum mechanics. Both involve a problem of reconciliation with the classical worldview, which is one hint that the two mysteries might be related. A second is that, unlike classical physics, which makes no reference to or allowance for consciousness, quantum theory raises the issue of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world in a very direct way. These hints do not necessarily mean there is a connection between the two mysteries, but by the end of this Part I hope to have shown why it would be natural to look for one. My more immediate aim here is to give the social scientific reader an introductory understanding of the experimental findings of quantum theory, its key concepts, and the debates about its interpretation. The discussion assumes no prior knowledge of quantum physics and makes no use of mathematics. Quantum theory without equations might seem like an oxymoron, and certainly reading this Part will not enable anyone to use quantum theory. But to a perhaps surprising degree it is possible to understand quantum theory without being able to use it. Its findings can be communicated in ordinary language, and the same goes for its main concepts and interpretive debates. One consequence of this has been the emergence of a virtual cottage industry of books on quantum theory for a lay audience. Most are written by physicists, and many are quite good. However, it is not just popular treatments that do without equations: much of the professional philosophical literature does as well. (I draw on both kinds of literature below.) Philosophers of physics are trained to understand the math, of course, which is necessary for a full appreciation of the issues.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 20, 2015•55 citations

Quantum mechanics, objective reality, and the problem of consciousness

Ranjan Mukhopadhyay

The hard problem in consciousness is the problem of understanding how physical processes in the brain could give rise to subjective conscious experience. In this paper, I suggest that in order to understand the relationship between consciousness and the physical world, we need to probe deeply into the nature of physical reality. This leads us to quantum physics and to a second explanatory gap: that between quantum and classical reality. I will seek a philosophical framework that can address these two gaps simultaneously. Our analysis of quantum mechanics will naturally lead us to the notion of a hidden reality and to the postulate that consciousness is an integral component of this reality. The framework proposed in the paper provides the philosophical underpinnings for a theory of consciousness while satisfactorily resolving the interpretation problem in quantum mechanics without the need to alter its mathematical structure. I also discuss some implications for a scientific theory of consciousness.

arXiv:1804.03606•Journal of Consciousness Studies•Apr 10, 2018•3 citations

What does it mean?

Jim Baggott

Abstract The strange behaviour of photons described at the end of the last chapter immediately raises all sorts of questions about the meaning of quantum theory. We might be encouraged to look for this meaning by going back to the theory’s mathematical structure: perhaps by trying to find out how we might better interpret some of its elements. However, it is a central argument of this book that, no matter where we look, we are always led back to philosophy. At first sight, this might seem to be an odd thing to claim. After all, modern textbooks on quantum physics and chemistry rarely (if ever) discuss philosophy. We accept that the behaviour of photons is strange, but surely it is something that we can at least study experimentally-do we need philosophy in these circumstances? But this is the whole point. Quantum theory directly challenges our understanding of the nature of the fundamental particles and the process of measurement, and we cannot go forward unless we adopt some kind of interpretation. As we will see, this interpretation has to be based on some philosophical position.

•Apr 16, 1992•0 citations

On the Physical Nature of the Superposition of States in Quantum Physics.

V. A. Kuz’menko

The note is devoted to the necessity of experimental study of differential cross sections of forward and reversed quantum processes.

•Sep 1, 2019•0 citations

Reality Begins with Consciousness: A Paradigm Shift That Works

Michael Potts

REALITY BEGINS WITH CONSCIOUSNESS: A PARADIGM SHIFT THAT WORKS (E-book) by Vernon M. Neppe and Edward R. Close. 2nd edition. At: brainvoyage. com, March 2012. Vernon Neppe and Edward Close's book Reality Begins With is an interesting exercise in speculative metaphysics by two physicists. However, this is not the way they envision their work--they consider it a meta-paradigm that has philosophical implications but which belongs in the realm of science. Theoretical physicists are fond of writing philosophical metaphysics in the name of science, for example, David Bohm (1980), Amit Goswami (1995), and Fred Alan Wolf (2011). These physicists usually make use of the alleged implications of quantum mechanics to make broad claims about the nature of reality as a whole: reality is inconnected, everything is one, made the physical world, or we made the physical world. An alternate approach is offered by the biologist Rupert Sheldrake in his theory of resonance, a view with affinities to the philosophical theory of forms, although unlike Plato and Aristotle's forms, his morphic are dynamic and evolving. What these systems have in common is a tendency toward metaphysical monism (often in some version of panpsychism or pantheism). The physics-based systems use nonlocality enshrined in Bell's Theorem in quantum mechanics to assert the interconnectedness of all things. Sheldrake's fields perform a similar role. The physics-based systems focus on the role that consciousness plays in quantum mechanics and assert a strong causal role for consciousness in the formation and functioning of the universe. Neppe, a neuropsychiatrist, and Close, a physicist, have developed what they label a metaparadigm, which is a large-scale research program for the scientific enterprise. Their program is in the general tradition of metaphysical monistic systems that are based on alleged implications of quantum mechanics, although it is broader in scope. For those interested in psi, they discuss in detail how their theory allows psi phenomena to occur. The authors label their paradigm the Triadic Dimensional-Distinction Vortical Paradigm model (TDVP) (Neppe, Author's Preface). This begins one of the chief difficulties with understanding their work--the number of neologisms. Neologisms may be justified, and a revolutionary theory may require multiple neologisms, but when they are used they should be sufficiently clear. Neppe and Close's stipulative definitions of their neologisms are often no clearer than the neologisms themselves. The authors use so many neologisms because they believe that introducing consciousness into the science of nature changes the paradigm that has dominated science since the 17th-century scientific revolution. Their model posits a unified reality of space-time-consciousness. Reality is an infinite unity, nonlocal on a finite level, [existing] as a reality essence (a metareality) involving a persuasive consciousness (information expressed through meaning as metaconsciousness) and order (ordropy [another neologism, M.R--ordropy is defined as the opposite of entropy]) with metalife (all encompassing life in the infinite: potential life--polife)--which then manifests as physical life in the finite when linked with the correct current physiology. (p. 2) Now nonlocality is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, and the view that the universe is infinite may or may not be correct, but it is a defensible philosophical position (Neppe and Close's interpretation of infinity will be discussed below). Metaconsciousness is unclear. The system posits consciousness at the lowest levels of reality, including inanimate objects. It is difficult to understand what it means for a subatomic particle in a rock to be conscious. Consciousness is notoriously difficult to define, but Thomas Nagel makes sense when he states: But fundamentally an has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is to be that organism--something it is like for the organism (Nagel, 1974, p. …

Journal of Parapsychology•Sep 22, 2012•10 citations
Introduction Chapter 1 dealt with one of the deepest mysteries in modern science: how to explain consciousness. This Part deals with another mystery: how to make sense of quantum mechanics. Both involve a problem of reconciliation with the classical worldview, which is one hint that the two mysteries might be related. A second is that, unlike classical physics, which makes no reference to or allowance for consciousness, quantum theory raises the issue of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world in a very direct way. These hints do not necessarily mean there is a connection between the two mysteries, but by the end of this Part I hope to have shown why it would be natural to look for one. My more immediate aim here is to give the social scientific reader an introductory understanding of the experimental findings of quantum theory, its key concepts, and the debates about its interpretation. The discussion assumes no prior knowledge of quantum physics and makes no use of mathematics. Quantum theory without equations might seem like an oxymoron, and certainly reading this Part will not enable anyone to use quantum theory. But to a perhaps surprising degree it is possible to understand quantum theory without being able to use it. Its findings can be communicated in ordinary language, and the same goes for its main concepts and interpretive debates. One consequence of this has been the emergence of a virtual cottage industry of books on quantum theory for a lay audience. Most are written by physicists, and many are quite good. However, it is not just popular treatments that do without equations: much of the professional philosophical literature does as well. (I draw on both kinds of literature below.) Philosophers of physics are trained to understand the math, of course, which is necessary for a full appreciation of the issues.
The hard problem in consciousness is the problem of understanding how physical processes in the brain could give rise to subjective conscious experience. In this paper, I suggest that in order to understand the relationship between consciousness and the physical world, we need to probe deeply into the nature of physical reality. This leads us to quantum physics and to a second explanatory gap: that between quantum and classical reality. I will seek a philosophical framework that can address these two gaps simultaneously. Our analysis of quantum mechanics will naturally lead us to the notion of a hidden reality and to the postulate that consciousness is an integral component of this reality. The framework proposed in the paper provides the philosophical underpinnings for a theory of consciousness while satisfactorily resolving the interpretation problem in quantum mechanics without the need to alter its mathematical structure. I also discuss some implications for a scientific theory of consciousness.
Abstract The strange behaviour of photons described at the end of the last chapter immediately raises all sorts of questions about the meaning of quantum theory. We might be encouraged to look for this meaning by going back to the theory’s mathematical structure: perhaps by trying to find out how we might better interpret some of its elements. However, it is a central argument of this book that, no matter where we look, we are always led back to philosophy. At first sight, this might seem to be an odd thing to claim. After all, modern textbooks on quantum physics and chemistry rarely (if ever) discuss philosophy. We accept that the behaviour of photons is strange, but surely it is something that we can at least study experimentally-do we need philosophy in these circumstances? But this is the whole point. Quantum theory directly challenges our understanding of the nature of the fundamental particles and the process of measurement, and we cannot go forward unless we adopt some kind of interpretation. As we will see, this interpretation has to be based on some philosophical position.
REALITY BEGINS WITH CONSCIOUSNESS: A PARADIGM SHIFT THAT WORKS (E-book) by Vernon M. Neppe and Edward R. Close. 2nd edition. At: brainvoyage. com, March 2012. Vernon Neppe and Edward Close's book Reality Begins With is an interesting exercise in speculative metaphysics by two physicists. However, this is not the way they envision their work--they consider it a meta-paradigm that has philosophical implications but which belongs in the realm of science. Theoretical physicists are fond of writing philosophical metaphysics in the name of science, for example, David Bohm (1980), Amit Goswami (1995), and Fred Alan Wolf (2011). These physicists usually make use of the alleged implications of quantum mechanics to make broad claims about the nature of reality as a whole: reality is inconnected, everything is one, made the physical world, or we made the physical world. An alternate approach is offered by the biologist Rupert Sheldrake in his theory of resonance, a view with affinities to the philosophical theory of forms, although unlike Plato and Aristotle's forms, his morphic are dynamic and evolving. What these systems have in common is a tendency toward metaphysical monism (often in some version of panpsychism or pantheism). The physics-based systems use nonlocality enshrined in Bell's Theorem in quantum mechanics to assert the interconnectedness of all things. Sheldrake's fields perform a similar role. The physics-based systems focus on the role that consciousness plays in quantum mechanics and assert a strong causal role for consciousness in the formation and functioning of the universe. Neppe, a neuropsychiatrist, and Close, a physicist, have developed what they label a metaparadigm, which is a large-scale research program for the scientific enterprise. Their program is in the general tradition of metaphysical monistic systems that are based on alleged implications of quantum mechanics, although it is broader in scope. For those interested in psi, they discuss in detail how their theory allows psi phenomena to occur. The authors label their paradigm the Triadic Dimensional-Distinction Vortical Paradigm model (TDVP) (Neppe, Author's Preface). This begins one of the chief difficulties with understanding their work--the number of neologisms. Neologisms may be justified, and a revolutionary theory may require multiple neologisms, but when they are used they should be sufficiently clear. Neppe and Close's stipulative definitions of their neologisms are often no clearer than the neologisms themselves. The authors use so many neologisms because they believe that introducing consciousness into the science of nature changes the paradigm that has dominated science since the 17th-century scientific revolution. Their model posits a unified reality of space-time-consciousness. Reality is an infinite unity, nonlocal on a finite level, [existing] as a reality essence (a metareality) involving a persuasive consciousness (information expressed through meaning as metaconsciousness) and order (ordropy [another neologism, M.R--ordropy is defined as the opposite of entropy]) with metalife (all encompassing life in the infinite: potential life--polife)--which then manifests as physical life in the finite when linked with the correct current physiology. (p. 2) Now nonlocality is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, and the view that the universe is infinite may or may not be correct, but it is a defensible philosophical position (Neppe and Close's interpretation of infinity will be discussed below). Metaconsciousness is unclear. The system posits consciousness at the lowest levels of reality, including inanimate objects. It is difficult to understand what it means for a subatomic particle in a rock to be conscious. Consciousness is notoriously difficult to define, but Thomas Nagel makes sense when he states: But fundamentally an has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is to be that organism--something it is like for the organism (Nagel, 1974, p. …