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

NeuroQuantology

On the Unification of Mind and Matter

Brian J. Flanagan

Published Sep 12, 2007• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The “hard problem” is considered vis-a-vis Godel’s work on formal systems, tensor network theory, the vector character of sensory qualities, the symmetries and phase relations of those qualities and Heisenberg’s matrix formulation of quantum theory. An identity is proposed between the secondary properties of perception and (1) the hidden variables of quantum theory; (2) the internal spaces of gauge theory; and (3) the additional dimensions of M-theory.

DOI
10.14704/nq.2007.5.4.149

Related papers

Notes Toward A Theory Of Artificial Sentience

Brian J. Flanagan

An identification of the hidden variables of quantum mechanics ( 1) is made. A theory embodying a unitary description of mind and matter is sketched. A. novel interpretation of neural network architecture & function is formulated.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Feb 19, 1988•1 citation

Are Perceptual Fields Quantum Fields?

Brian J. Flanagan

We discuss Chalmers ’ “hard problem ” in respect of a mind/brain identity theory. We examine a handful of mathematical parallels between the visual field and its concomitant quantum field, and argue for an identity between the two fields.

NeuroQuantology•Sep 4, 2007•10 citations

Reduced Tensor Network Formulation for Non-Abelian Gauge Theories in Arbitrary Dimensions

Atis Yosprakob

Abstract Formulating non-Abelian gauge theories as a tensor network is known to be challenging due to the internal degrees of freedom that result in the degeneracy in the singular value spectrum. In two dimensions, it is straightforward to “trace out” these degrees of freedom with the use of character expansion, giving a reduced tensor network where the degeneracy associated with the internal symmetry is eliminated. In this work, we show that such an index loop also exists in higher dimensions in the form of a closed tensor network that we call the “armillary sphere”. This allows us to completely eliminate the matrix indices and reduce the overall size of the tensors in the same way as is possible in two dimensions. This formulation allows us to include significantly more representations with the same tensor size, thus making it possible to reach a greater level of numerical accuracy in the tensor renormalization group computations.

arXiv:2311.02541•Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics•Jun 19, 2024•4 citations

Lattice gauge tensor networks

Pietro Silvi, Enrique Rico, Tommaso Calarco +1 more

We present a unified framework to describe lattice gauge theories by means of tensor networks: this framework is efficient as it exploits the high local symmetry content native to these systems by describing only the gauge invariant subspace. Compared to a standard tensor network description, the gauge invariant model allows one to increase real and imaginary time evolution up to a factor that is square of the dimension of the link variable. The gauge invariant tensor network description is based on the quantum link formulation, a compact and intuitive formulation for gauge theories on the lattice, which is alternative to and can be combined with the global symmetric tensor network description. We present some paradigmatic examples that show how this architecture might be used to describe the physics of condensed matter and high-energy physics systems. Finally, we present a cellular automata analysis which estimates the gauge invariant Hilbert space dimension as a function of the number of lattice sites that might guide the search for effective simplified models of complex theories.

arXiv:1404.7439•New Journal of Physics•Oct 9, 2014•97 citations

Basic Theory

Inge Svein Helland, Harish Parthasarathy

In the Preface of this book, we have mentioned several approaches [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] to the problem of connecting quantum theory and general relativity theory. In our opinion, before a final thinking around this problem, it is vital to make some efforts to find a new and less formal foundation of quantum theory. This has now been done by the first author in a process starting with the book [ 5 ] and further developed in a series of articles. A summary of the theory is now given in [ 6 ]. Central to the theory is a simple model of the mind of an observer, a model which may be generalized to the mind of any person. It first relies on what is called theoretical variables , which may be physical variables, but in the process of planning, doing, or interpreting experiments, the variables are also assumed to exist in the mind of a relevant actor. From a mathematical point of view, our only requirement for the theoretical variables is the following: If λ is a theoretical variable and θ = f ( λ ) for some fixed function f , then θ is also a theoretical variable.

CRC Press eBooks•Oct 23, 2025•0 citations

Quantum Physics and Consciousness: The Quest for a Common Conceptual Foundation

Thomas Filk A, Albrecht von Müller

Similar problems keep reappearing in both the discussion about the “hard ” problem of consciousness and in fundamental issues in quantum theory. We argue that the similarities are due to common problems within the conceptual foundations of both fields. In quantum physics, the state reduction marks the “coming into being” of a new aspect of reality for which no causal explanation is available. Likewise, the self-referential nature of consciousness constitutes a “coming into being ” of a new quality which goes beyond a fully causal account of reality. Both subjects require a categorical scheme which is significantly richer then the one used in addressing factual aspects of reality alone. While parts of this categorical scheme are realized in the formalism of quantum theory, they are seldom applied in the context of consciousness. We show what the structural limitations of a classical categorical framework are, how a richer framework can be developed, and how it can be applied to both quantum physics and consciousness. Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought”, “a priori givens”, etc. The path of scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors. Therefore it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their excessive authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, or replaced if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason.

Mind and Matter•Jan 1, 2009•26 citations
The “hard problem” is considered vis-a-vis Godel’s work on formal systems, tensor network theory, the vector character of sensory qualities, the symmetries and phase relations of those qualities and Heisenberg’s matrix formulation of quantum theory. An identity is proposed between the secondary properties of perception and (1) the hidden variables of quantum theory; (2) the internal spaces of gauge theory; and (3) the additional dimensions of M-theory.
Abstract Formulating non-Abelian gauge theories as a tensor network is known to be challenging due to the internal degrees of freedom that result in the degeneracy in the singular value spectrum. In two dimensions, it is straightforward to “trace out” these degrees of freedom with the use of character expansion, giving a reduced tensor network where the degeneracy associated with the internal symmetry is eliminated. In this work, we show that such an index loop also exists in higher dimensions in the form of a closed tensor network that we call the “armillary sphere”. This allows us to completely eliminate the matrix indices and reduce the overall size of the tensors in the same way as is possible in two dimensions. This formulation allows us to include significantly more representations with the same tensor size, thus making it possible to reach a greater level of numerical accuracy in the tensor renormalization group computations.
We present a unified framework to describe lattice gauge theories by means of tensor networks: this framework is efficient as it exploits the high local symmetry content native to these systems by describing only the gauge invariant subspace. Compared to a standard tensor network description, the gauge invariant model allows one to increase real and imaginary time evolution up to a factor that is square of the dimension of the link variable. The gauge invariant tensor network description is based on the quantum link formulation, a compact and intuitive formulation for gauge theories on the lattice, which is alternative to and can be combined with the global symmetric tensor network description. We present some paradigmatic examples that show how this architecture might be used to describe the physics of condensed matter and high-energy physics systems. Finally, we present a cellular automata analysis which estimates the gauge invariant Hilbert space dimension as a function of the number of lattice sites that might guide the search for effective simplified models of complex theories.
In the Preface of this book, we have mentioned several approaches [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] to the problem of connecting quantum theory and general relativity theory. In our opinion, before a final thinking around this problem, it is vital to make some efforts to find a new and less formal foundation of quantum theory. This has now been done by the first author in a process starting with the book [ 5 ] and further developed in a series of articles. A summary of the theory is now given in [ 6 ]. Central to the theory is a simple model of the mind of an observer, a model which may be generalized to the mind of any person. It first relies on what is called theoretical variables , which may be physical variables, but in the process of planning, doing, or interpreting experiments, the variables are also assumed to exist in the mind of a relevant actor. From a mathematical point of view, our only requirement for the theoretical variables is the following: If λ is a theoretical variable and θ = f ( λ ) for some fixed function f , then θ is also a theoretical variable.
Similar problems keep reappearing in both the discussion about the “hard ” problem of consciousness and in fundamental issues in quantum theory. We argue that the similarities are due to common problems within the conceptual foundations of both fields. In quantum physics, the state reduction marks the “coming into being” of a new aspect of reality for which no causal explanation is available. Likewise, the self-referential nature of consciousness constitutes a “coming into being ” of a new quality which goes beyond a fully causal account of reality. Both subjects require a categorical scheme which is significantly richer then the one used in addressing factual aspects of reality alone. While parts of this categorical scheme are realized in the formalism of quantum theory, they are seldom applied in the context of consciousness. We show what the structural limitations of a classical categorical framework are, how a richer framework can be developed, and how it can be applied to both quantum physics and consciousness. Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought”, “a priori givens”, etc. The path of scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors. Therefore it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their excessive authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, or replaced if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason.