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

Studies in big data

Morphogenetic Sources in Quantum, Neural and Wave Fields: Part 1

Germano Resconi, Koji Nagata, Omar Husain Tarawneh, Ahmed Farouk

Published Oct 13, 2017• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-63639-9_14

Related papers

Computational Wave Field Theory

O. Cem Yilmaz

This book proposes a way of thinking about computation the way physicists think about quantum mechanics. In that picture, a computation is the dynamics of a wave-like field. Events happen at random. If one happens at a given tick, the chance that it happens at each place is the squared amplitude of the field there. The book doesn’t claim that computation is quantum mechanics. Nor does it claim that physical quantum mechanics gives rise to computation. It treats computation as a domain in its own right, e.g., formal systems, cellular automata, neural networks, brains and distributed systems. Each concrete system that carries out a computation, such as a cellular automaton or a brain, is called a substrate. The claim is that this domain has a wave-mechanical description of its own. Its structure runs parallel to the wave mechanics of physical particles, but it is a distinct theory. The framework introduces a substrate-relative quantum of action ℏ𝑐, which plays the role of Planck’s ℏ. It also introduces a substrate-relative speed limit 𝑐𝑐, the analog of the speed of light. Both depend on the substrate, and across the substrates the book considers they span many orders of magnitude. TheframeworkiscalledComputational Wave Field Theory, abbreviatedCWF.Initscurrent form it has two levels, and the key to reading it is to keep them apart. The first level is operational. CWFdefinesasubstrate-relativewavemodelforcomputationalevents. Thesecond level is explanatory. It asks why such a wave is the right object, and the present answer comes in layers. First, computational irreducibility conjecturally explains the wave’s epistemic part, the part that encodes what an observer can know. (Irreducibility means there is no shortcut, so the only way to learn the outcome is to run the computation. How far the epistemic part compresses tracks the causal structure.) Second, in the book’s model theorems, self-reference explains the wave’s genuinely complex phase. Third, holographic encoding, which stores information redundantly on a boundary, explains a substrate’s gravity-like structure. These three sources are distinct and separable. Irreducibility and encoding are two of the book’s three substrate axes, and the remaining axis is dynamical disorder. Self-reference sits off those axes. The book’s long-range target is that nature sits where all three sources meet. The operational postulate lets the framework run.

•Jan 1, 2026•0 citations

Quantum-Neural Interface: A Practical Approach to Biological Integration

Maria Perera

•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations

How to Build Quantum Models of Consciousness

Gary G. Venter

Science is learning more about the brain activity necessary for consciousness, but has not identified any mechanisms for how it could actually arise through neural processes. Here I present ways to build consciousness into the mathematics of quantum mechanics for use in the growing area of quantum neurology. Quantum waves are not physical in the sense of forces acting on particles through cause and effect, and they are expressed using mathematical placeholders that do not have agreed-upon real-world representations. These can be used to represent consciousness. Quantum mechanics has shown how the traditional aspects of the physical world emerge from non-physical quantum information through a combination of mathematical, not causal, determinism, and stochastic interactions. The modeling methods here could help account for how the mental world could also emerge from information fields. Neural interactions for mental experiences are complex, so it is reasonable to expect that consciousness is an emergent property of neural networks. But emergent properties are not magic – they work through procedural mechanisms – in this case for how neural processes generate experiences. No steps for how consciousness could be manufactured in this way are apparent, and philosophers have strong arguments for such not being possible. An alternative is to model consciousness as part of quantum waves, so it is accessed, not created, by the brain. This is a form of neutral monism – the idea that the physical and mental worlds both come from a single underlying source – in this case quantum waves. The classical physical picture of particles and forces acting under cause and effect has developed into a belief system, not just a theory, and this has created difficulties in taking quantum mechanics itself at face value. The result has been the creation of numerous “interpretations” of quantum mechanics that seek to frame it within these philosophical presuppositions. The conceptual framework of Cartesian dualism provides a platform for analysis of the related philosophical issues of consciousness and of quantum mechanics itself.

The Musical Quarterly•Jan 1, 2020•0 citations

Formation of a Morphogen Gradient - Acceleration by Quantum Walks

Carl O. Trindle, Irfan Lone

Biophysical Journal•Feb 1, 2021•1 citation

CLASSICAL WAVE MODEL OF QUANTUM-LIKE PROCESSING IN BRAIN

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

QP-PQ, quantum probability and white noise analysis•Jan 1, 2011•0 citations

Quantum Morphogenetic System in image recognition

Germano Resconi, Chu Kiong Loo, Nuo Wi Tay

Hopfield network requires that state vectors of images to be orthogonal to eliminate cross-talk. In practical sense, it cannot be achieved. A solution is to orthogonalize the state vectors with each other as a pre-processing. The QMS (Quantum Morphogenetic System) is a mathematical model devised to give a different more elegant and intuitive perspective of the pre-processing by assuming a non-Euclidean geometry. Input image is projected to the feature vector in terms of its contra-variant components which are interdependent. Image reconstruction is achieved by parallelogram summation of the vector of those components. Besides, an extension to Holonomic brain model and tensor network theory is discussed.

International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN)•Jun 1, 2009•2 citations
This book proposes a way of thinking about computation the way physicists think about quantum mechanics. In that picture, a computation is the dynamics of a wave-like field. Events happen at random. If one happens at a given tick, the chance that it happens at each place is the squared amplitude of the field there. The book doesn’t claim that computation is quantum mechanics. Nor does it claim that physical quantum mechanics gives rise to computation. It treats computation as a domain in its own right, e.g., formal systems, cellular automata, neural networks, brains and distributed systems. Each concrete system that carries out a computation, such as a cellular automaton or a brain, is called a substrate. The claim is that this domain has a wave-mechanical description of its own. Its structure runs parallel to the wave mechanics of physical particles, but it is a distinct theory. The framework introduces a substrate-relative quantum of action ℏ𝑐, which plays the role of Planck’s ℏ. It also introduces a substrate-relative speed limit 𝑐𝑐, the analog of the speed of light. Both depend on the substrate, and across the substrates the book considers they span many orders of magnitude. TheframeworkiscalledComputational Wave Field Theory, abbreviatedCWF.Initscurrent form it has two levels, and the key to reading it is to keep them apart. The first level is operational. CWFdefinesasubstrate-relativewavemodelforcomputationalevents. Thesecond level is explanatory. It asks why such a wave is the right object, and the present answer comes in layers. First, computational irreducibility conjecturally explains the wave’s epistemic part, the part that encodes what an observer can know. (Irreducibility means there is no shortcut, so the only way to learn the outcome is to run the computation. How far the epistemic part compresses tracks the causal structure.) Second, in the book’s model theorems, self-reference explains the wave’s genuinely complex phase. Third, holographic encoding, which stores information redundantly on a boundary, explains a substrate’s gravity-like structure. These three sources are distinct and separable. Irreducibility and encoding are two of the book’s three substrate axes, and the remaining axis is dynamical disorder. Self-reference sits off those axes. The book’s long-range target is that nature sits where all three sources meet. The operational postulate lets the framework run.
Science is learning more about the brain activity necessary for consciousness, but has not identified any mechanisms for how it could actually arise through neural processes. Here I present ways to build consciousness into the mathematics of quantum mechanics for use in the growing area of quantum neurology. Quantum waves are not physical in the sense of forces acting on particles through cause and effect, and they are expressed using mathematical placeholders that do not have agreed-upon real-world representations. These can be used to represent consciousness. Quantum mechanics has shown how the traditional aspects of the physical world emerge from non-physical quantum information through a combination of mathematical, not causal, determinism, and stochastic interactions. The modeling methods here could help account for how the mental world could also emerge from information fields. Neural interactions for mental experiences are complex, so it is reasonable to expect that consciousness is an emergent property of neural networks. But emergent properties are not magic – they work through procedural mechanisms – in this case for how neural processes generate experiences. No steps for how consciousness could be manufactured in this way are apparent, and philosophers have strong arguments for such not being possible. An alternative is to model consciousness as part of quantum waves, so it is accessed, not created, by the brain. This is a form of neutral monism – the idea that the physical and mental worlds both come from a single underlying source – in this case quantum waves. The classical physical picture of particles and forces acting under cause and effect has developed into a belief system, not just a theory, and this has created difficulties in taking quantum mechanics itself at face value. The result has been the creation of numerous “interpretations” of quantum mechanics that seek to frame it within these philosophical presuppositions. The conceptual framework of Cartesian dualism provides a platform for analysis of the related philosophical issues of consciousness and of quantum mechanics itself.
Hopfield network requires that state vectors of images to be orthogonal to eliminate cross-talk. In practical sense, it cannot be achieved. A solution is to orthogonalize the state vectors with each other as a pre-processing. The QMS (Quantum Morphogenetic System) is a mathematical model devised to give a different more elegant and intuitive perspective of the pre-processing by assuming a non-Euclidean geometry. Input image is projected to the feature vector in terms of its contra-variant components which are interdependent. Image reconstruction is achieved by parallelogram summation of the vector of those components. Besides, an extension to Holonomic brain model and tensor network theory is discussed.