In different paper, we already discussed the major intrinsic limitations of "Science 1.0" brain arbitrary multiscale (AMS) modeling and strategies to get better simulation results by "Science 2.0" approach. This change of paradigm has not yet been completely grasped by many contemporary scientific disciplines and current researchers, so that not all the implications of this big change have been realized hitherto, even less their related, vital applications. The fact that we can build devices that implement the same basic operations as those the nervous system uses leads to the inevitable conclusion that we should be able to build entire systems based on the organizing principles used by the nervous system. Nevertheless, the human brain is at least a factor of 1 billion more efficient than our present digital technology, and a factor of 10 million more efficient than the best digital technology that we can imagine. The unavoidable conclusion is that we have something fundamental to learn from the brain and biology about new and much more effective form of computation. Thus, one of the key questions in understanding the quantum-classical transition is what happens to the superposition as you go up that atoms-to-apple scale. Exactly when and how does "both/and" become "either/or"? As a sound example, we present and discuss the observer space-time splitting case. In other words, we show spacetime mapping to classical system additive representation with loss of overall system fundamental information. It is exactly at this point that "both/and" becomes "either/or" representation by usual Science 1.0 approach. CICT new awareness of a discrete HG (hyperbolic geometry) subspace (reciprocal space) of coded heterogeneous hyperbolic structures, underlying the familiar Q Euclidean (direct space) surface representation can open the way to holographic information geometry (HIG) to recover lost coherence information. CICT can help us to develop strategies to gather much more reliable experimental information from single experimentation and to keep overall system information coherence. In this way, coherent representation precision leads to information conservation and clarity. This paper is a relevant contribute towards an effective and convenient "Science 2.0" universal framework to develop computer science innovative application and beyond.
In different paper, we already discussed the major intrinsic limitations of "Science 1.0" brain arbitrary multiscale (AMS) modeling and strategies to get better simulation results by "Science 2.0" approach. This change of paradigm has not yet been completely grasped by many contemporary scientific disciplines and current researchers, so that not all the implications of this big change have been realized hitherto, even less their related, vital applications. The fact that we can build devices that implement the same basic operations as those the nervous system uses leads to the inevitable conclusion that we should be able to build entire systems based on the organizing principles used by the nervous system. Nevertheless, the human brain is at least a factor of 1 billion more efficient than our present digital technology, and a factor of 10 million more efficient than the best digital technology that we can imagine. The unavoidable conclusion is that we have something fundamental to learn from the brain and biology about new and much more effective form of computation. Thus, one of the key questions in understanding the quantum-classical transition is what happens to the superposition as you go up that atoms-to-apple scale. Exactly when and how does "both/and" become "either/or"? As a sound example, we present and discuss the observer space-time splitting case. In other words, we show spacetime mapping to classical system additive representation with loss of overall system fundamental information. It is exactly at this point that "both/and" becomes "either/or" representation by usual Science 1.0 approach. CICT new awareness of a discrete HG (hyperbolic geometry) subspace (reciprocal space) of coded heterogeneous hyperbolic structures, underlying the familiar Q Euclidean (direct space) surface representation can open the way to holographic information geometry (HIG) to recover lost coherence information. CICT can help us to develop strategies to gather much more reliable experimental information from single experimentation and to keep overall system information coherence. In this way, coherent representation precision leads to information conservation and clarity. This paper is a relevant contribute towards an effective and convenient "Science 2.0" universal framework to develop computer science innovative application and beyond.
Objects in classical world model are in an "either/or" kind of state. A compass needle cannot point both north and south at the same time. The quantum world, by contrast, is "both/and" and a magnetic atom model has no trouble at pointing both directions at once. When that is the case, physicists say that a quantum object is in a "superposition" of states. In previous paper, we already discussed the major intrinsic limitations of "Science 1.0" arbitrary multi-scale (AMS) modeling and strategies to get better simulation results by "Science 2.0" approach. In 2014, Computational information conservation theory (CICT) has shown that even the most sophisticated instrumentation system is completely unable to reliably discriminate so called "random noise" (RN) from any combinatorically optimized encoded message (OECS, optimized exponential cyclic sequence), called "deterministic noise" (DN) by CICT. Unfortunately, the "probabilistic veil" can be quite opaque computationally, and misplaced precision leads to confusion. The "Science 2.0" paradigm has not yet been completely grasped by many contemporary scientific disciplines and current researchers, so that not all the implications of this big change have been realized hitherto, even less their related, vital applications. Thus, one of the key questions in understanding the quantum-classical transition is what happens to the superposition as you go up that atoms-to-apple scale. Exactly when and how does "both/and" become "either/or"? As an example, we present and discuss the observer space-time splitting case. In other words, we show spacetime mapping to classical system additive representation with entropy generation. It is exactly at this point that "both/and" becomes "either/or" representation by usual Science 1.0 approach. CICT new awareness of a discrete HG (hyperbolic geometry) subspace (reciprocal space) of coded heterogeneous hyperbolic structures, underlying the familiar Q Euclidean (direct space) surface representation can open the way to holographic information geometry (HIG) to recover system lost coherence and to overall system minimum entropy representation.
What is consciousness? Conventional approaches see it as an emergent property of complex interactions among individual neurons; however these approaches fail to address enigmatic features of consciousness. Accordingly, some philosophers have contended that "qualia," or an experiential medium from which consciousness is derived, exists as a fundamental component of reality. Whitehead, for example, described the universe as being composed of "occasions of experience." To examine this possibility scientifically, the very nature of physical reality must be re-examined. We must come to terms with the physics of spacetime--as described by Einstein's general theory of relativity, and its relation to the fundamental theory of matter--as described by quantum theory. Roger Penrose has proposed a new physics of objective reduction: "OR," which appeals to a form of quantum gravity to provide a useful description of fundamental processes at the quantum/classical borderline. Within the OR scheme, we consider that consciousness occurs if an appropriately organized system is able to develop and maintain quantum coherent superposition until a specific "objective" criterion (a threshold related to quantum gravity) is reached; the coherent system then self-reduces (objective reduction: OR). We contend that this type of objective self-collapse introduces non-computability, an essential feature of consciousness which distinguishes our minds from classical computers. Each OR is taken as an instantaneous event--the climax of a self-organizing process in fundamental spacetime--and a candidate for a conscious Whitehead "occasion of experience." How could an OR process occur in the brain, be coupled to neural activities, and account for other features of consciousness? We nominate a quantum computational OR process with the requisite characteristics to be occurring in cytoskeletal micro-tubules within the brain's neurons. In this model, quantum-superposed states develop in microtubule subunit proteins ("tubulins") within certain brain neurons, remain coherent, and recruit more superposed tubulins until a mass-time-energy threshold (related to quantum gravity) is reached. At that point, self-collapse, or objective reduction (OR), abruptly occurs. We equate the pre-reduction, coherent superposition ("quantum computing") phase with pre-conscious processes, and each instantaneous (and non-computable) OR, or self-collapse, with a discrete conscious event. Sequences of OR events give rise to a "stream" of consciousness. Microtubule-associated proteins can "tune" the quantum oscillations of the coherent superposed states; the OR is thus self-organized, or "orchestrated" ("Orch OR"). Each Orch OR event selects (non-computably) microtubule subunit states which regulate synaptic/neural functions using classical signaling. The quantum gravity threshold for self-collapse is relevant to consciousness, according to our arguments, because macroscopic superposed quantum states each have their own spacetime geometries. These geometries are also superposed, and in some way "separated," but when sufficiently separated, the superposition of spacetime geometries becomes significantly unstable and reduces to a single universe state. Quantum gravity determines the limits of the instability; we contend that the actual choice of state made by Nature is non-computable. Thus each Orch OR event is a self-selection of spacetime geometry, coupled to the brain through microtubules and other biomolecules. If conscious experience is intimately connected with the very physics underlying spacetime structure, then Orch OR in microtubules indeed provides us with a completely new and uniquely promising perspective on the difficult problems of consciousness.
What is consciousness? Some philosophers have contended that qualia, or an experiential medium from which consciousness is derived, exists as a fundamental component of reality. Whitehead, for example, described the universe as being comprised of occasions of To examine this possibility scientifically, the very nature of physical reality must be re-examined. We must come to terms with the physics of space-time--as is described by Einstein's general theory of relativity--and its relation to the fundamental theory of matter--as described by quantum theory. This leads us to employ a new physics of reduction: which appeals to a form of quantum gravity to provide a useful description of fundamental processes at the quantum/classical borderline (Penrose, 1994; 1996). Within the OR scheme, we consider that consciousness occurs if an appropriately organized system is able to develop and maintain quantum coherent superposition until a specific objective criterion (a threshold related to quantum gravity) is reached; the coherent system then self-reduces (objective reduction: We contend that this type of self-collapse introduces non-computability, an essential feature of consciousness. OR is taken as an instantaneous event--the climax of a self-organizing process in fundamental space-time--and a candidate for a conscious Whitehead occasion of experience. How could an OR process occur in the brain, be coupled to neural activities, and account for other features of consciousness? We nominate an OR process with the requisite characteristics to be occurring in cytoskeletal microtubules within the brain's neurons (Penrose and Hameroff, 1995; Hameroff and Penrose, 1995; 1996). In this model, quantum-superposed states develop in microtubule subunit proteins (tubulins), remain coherent and recruit more superposed tubulins until a mass-time-energy threshold (related to quantum gravity) is reached. At that point, self-collapse, or reduction (OR) abruptly occurs. We equate the pre-reduction, coherent superposition (quantum computing) phase with pre-conscious processes, and each instantaneous (and non-computable) OR, or self-collapse, with a discrete conscious event. Sequences of OR events give rise to a stream of consciousness. Microtubule-associated-proteins can tune the quantum oscillations of the coherent superposed states; the OR is thus self-organized, or orchestrated (Orch OR). Each Orch OR event selects (non-computably) microtubule subunit states which regulate synaptic/neural functions using classical signaling. The quantum gravity threshold for self-collapse is relevant to consciousness, according to our arguments, because macroscopic superposed quantum states each have their own space-time geometries (Penrose, 1994; 1996). These geometries are also superposed, and in some way but when sufficiently separated, the superposition of space-time geometries becomes significantly unstable, and reduce to a single universe state. Quantum gravity determines the limits of the instability; we contend that the actual choice of state made by Nature is non-computable. Thus each Orch OR event is a self-selection of space-time geometry, coupled to the brain through microtubules and other biomolecules. If conscious experience is intimately connected with the very physics underlying space-time structure, then Orch OR in microtubules indeed provides us with a completely new and uniquely promising perspective on the hard problem of consciousness.
What is consciousness? Some philosophers have contended that qualia, or an experiential medium from which consciousness is derived, exists as a fundamental component of reality. Whitehead, for example, described the universe as being comprised of occasions of To examine this possibility scientifically, the very nature of physical reality must be re-examined. We must come to terms with the physics of space-time--as is described by Einstein's general theory of relativity--and its relation to the fundamental theory of matter--as described by quantum theory. This leads us to employ a new physics of reduction: which appeals to a form of quantum gravity to provide a useful description of fundamental processes at the quantum/classical borderline (Penrose, 1994; 1996). Within the OR scheme, we consider that consciousness occurs if an appropriately organized system is able to develop and maintain quantum coherent superposition until a specific objective criterion (a threshold related to quantum gravity) is reached; the coherent system then self-reduces (objective reduction: We contend that this type of self-collapse introduces non-computability, an essential feature of consciousness. OR is taken as an instantaneous event--the climax of a self-organizing process in fundamental space-time--and a candidate for a conscious Whitehead occasion of experience. How could an OR process occur in the brain, be coupled to neural activities, and account for other features of consciousness? We nominate an OR process with the requisite characteristics to be occurring in cytoskeletal microtubules within the brain's neurons (Penrose and Hameroff, 1995; Hameroff and Penrose, 1995; 1996). In this model, quantum-superposed states develop in microtubule subunit proteins (tubulins), remain coherent and recruit more superposed tubulins until a mass-time-energy threshold (related to quantum gravity) is reached. At that point, self-collapse, or reduction (OR) abruptly occurs. We equate the pre-reduction, coherent superposition (quantum computing) phase with pre-conscious processes, and each instantaneous (and non-computable) OR, or self-collapse, with a discrete conscious event. Sequences of OR events give rise to a stream of consciousness. Microtubule-associated-proteins can tune the quantum oscillations of the coherent superposed states; the OR is thus self-organized, or orchestrated (Orch OR). Each Orch OR event selects (non-computably) microtubule subunit states which regulate synaptic/neural functions using classical signaling. The quantum gravity threshold for self-collapse is relevant to consciousness, according to our arguments, because macroscopic superposed quantum states each have their own space-time geometries (Penrose, 1994; 1996). These geometries are also superposed, and in some way but when sufficiently separated, the superposition of space-time geometries becomes significantly unstable, and reduce to a single universe state. Quantum gravity determines the limits of the instability; we contend that the actual choice of state made by Nature is non-computable. Thus each Orch OR event is a self-selection of space-time geometry, coupled to the brain through microtubules and other biomolecules. If conscious experience is intimately connected with the very physics underlying space-time structure, then Orch OR in microtubules indeed provides us with a completely new and uniquely promising perspective on the hard problem of consciousness.
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
In recent decades it has become common throughout the social sciences to think of the human mind simply as a very complex computer. Drawing on an older materialist metaphor of the mind as a machine, the “computational” model of the mind took off after the mid-century invention of the computer and subsequent cognitive revolution in psychology, and has since permeated the social sciences in the form of rational choice and other prominent social theories. The contributions of this model have been huge; but it has always been assumed that the computations going on inside our heads are classical. Quantum brain theory challenges this assumption by proposing that the mind is actually a quantum computer. Classical computers are based on binary digits or “bits” with well defined values (0 or 1), which are transformed in serial operations by a program into an output. Quantum computers in contrast are based on “qubits” that can be in superpositions of 0 and 1 at the same time and also interact non-locally, enabling every qubit to be operated on simultaneously. The idea of a quantum computer was first proposed in the 1980s and is still far from being realized technologically, but it has fired the imagination of scientists by raising the prospect of unimaginable increases in computational power, and other neat tricks besides. If quantum brain theory is true, then our model of the mind would be similarly radically altered, irrespective of the issue of consciousness. Quantum brain theory hypothesizes that quantum processes at the elementary level are amplified and kept in superposition at the level of the organism, and then, through downward causation constrain what is going on deep within the brain. On this view, information from the environment is continuously transformed from the macro- to the micro-level, and then channeled back upward into an “internal quantum state,”