Ludus vitalis: revista de filosofía de las ciencias de la vida = journal of philosophy of life sciences = revue de philosophie des sciences de la vie

El “darwinismo cuántico” de Zurek y su extrapolación a la evolución de los sistemas adaptativos

Eugenio Andrade

Published Oct 6, 2017• 0 citations

OpenAlex

Abstract

Zurek’s “quantum Darwinism” and its translation into the evolution of adaptive systems In this work I justify a scheme that favors a non-reductive integration between physical and biological approaches based on the notion of information as interpretation. I start with a discussion on the cross fertilization and feedbacks between physics and biology for it helps to explain Maxwells demon metaphor as a forerunner of a notion of information applicable to the problem of biological adaptation that is best conceived today as information gathering and using systems (IGUS) in the sense of Zurek. It is shown how IGUS by means of measurements generate informative correlations between micro-states (genotype) and macro-states (phenotype), and between macro-states (phenotype) and environment. I further examine Zureks decoherence theory dubbed “quantum Darwinism” according to which the environment eliminates most of the superpositions of quantum systems leaving only a set of preferred states, among which are chosen those that are in fact realized in the classical world. In this view IGUS are equated to non-conscious agents of quantum measurement, a posture that modifies Copenhagen interpretation without falling into the difficulties of the “many worlds” interpretation. I, thus, propose that in order to tackle the problem of biological adaptation, it would be important to understand information as IGUS’ interpretative activity thought as physical and/or biological systems that actualize an organizing potential in accordance to an “internal model” of systems environment interactions, so that they interpret physical perturbations as informative signals that orient structural adjustments to be adopted and the actions that are projected to the external milieu. To end up I show how this model may serve to account for the origin of adaptive mutations in bacteria and to formally describe developing epigenetic systems. In this way the classical debate between Lamarckian and Darwinian schools must be reframed and perhaps superseded as the new scheme of interpretation is validated with more experimental evidence. To conclude I argue that semiosis is the clue to justify the deep analogy that allows to establishing bidirectional bridges between physical and biological models of adaptive evolution. key words. Quantum Darwinism, Neo-Lamarckism, natural selection, information, IGUS, adaptation, coherence, superposition, entanglement, sign, observer, measurement, ci Copenhagen interpretation, many worlds interpretation, epigenetics.

Related papers

La evolución de los sistemas complejos adaptativos según el “darwinismo cuántico” de Zurek

Eugenio Andrade

I argue for a non-reductive integration between physical and biological approaches based on the notion of information as interpretation. Thus I outline a scheme based on Peirce’ semiosis in which the relation between environmental physical perturbations and responses (internal and external) are mediated by the “system of interpretation” that detects and interpret them as informative signals, so giving rise to structural internal accommodations and to actions that are implemented on the external environment. Therefore I argue that “systems of interpretation” can be equated to Zurek´s information gathering and using systems (IGUS) and complex adaptive systems (CAS). In order to apply these model to the problem of adaptive evolution, I examine Zurek´s theory known as “quantum Darwinism”, according to which the environment eliminates the immense majority of the super-positions of quantum systems leaving only the “preferred states”, among which are chosen those that are in fact can be realized in the classical world. To end up I justify that semiosis permits to apply quantum Darwinism to the evolution of CAS, and I argue that the debate between (Neo)-Lamarckian and Neo-Darwinian schools must be reassessed in terms more in accord with quantum physics. Finally semiosis (that is information understood as interpretation) would justify the deep analogy between quantum physical and biological models of adaptive evolution.

Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la CienciaAug 3, 20170 citations

LA DECOHERENCIA CUÁNTICA Y LA FORMULACIÓN DE UNA NOCIÓN DE INFORMACIÓN APLICABLE A LA BIOLOGÍA

Eugenio Andrade

I will discuss the notion of information that can be inferred from Zurek's theory of quantum decoherence. I will show three distinctive traits in contrast with the standard Shannon information theory, i.e. (1) the information source as a potential inherent to quantum systems. (2) Instead of reception of information, an actualization prior denition of really attainable states by the environment. (3) Instead of information transmission channel, the role of theenvironment as a selector of preferred states (possible andhighly probable) to be actualized, and as a reservoir ofunaccesible information (possible but highly improbable).It is proposed a clarication of these ideas, aiming at their applications for the understanding of living systems as quantum-like. The survival of selected information will account for the coordination and propagation of epigenetic variants that are responsible for cell dierentiation in the context of cell and environment reciprocal functional and structural coupling. In this manner a parallel between Darwinian and (Neo)-Lamarckian algorithm is discussed.

MOMENTOOct 27, 20190 citations

Unraveling the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics… The Encounter Between 'Quantum Darwinism' and Biology

inquantio

∙ Quanta Magazine analyzes the principles of macroscopic world formation through quantum decoherence and quantum Darwinism. ∙ 'Einselection' fixes specific quantum states… similar to how life preserves information. ∙ Integrating quantum biology from physical and philosophical perspectives, redefining the fundamental principles of life's information processing. [Quantum Biology Society] An in-depth analysis has been proposed on how the bizarre phenomena of quantum mechanics transform into the solid macroscopic reality we observe, and what connection this process has with the evolution of life. Recently, the science media outlet Quanta Magazine reported through a contribution by renowned science writer Philip Ball that the theories of 'Quantum Darwinism' and 'Decoherence,' pioneered by physicist Wojciech Zurek, are the key to connecting biological systems with the macroscopic world. ■ The Reality of 'Survival of the Fittest' Created by 'Einselection' In the quantum realm, particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously (superposition), but in the macroscopic world we observe, they appear in only one definite state. According to Dr. Zurek's theory, this happens because quantum systems continuously interact with their surrounding environment, undergoing a process of 'decoherence' where information is dissipated. The core of this process is 'Einselection' (Environment-Induced Superselection). The environment does not accommodate all states; instead, it selects only the most stable and predictable states, known as 'pointer states,' and replicates them innumerably within the environment. Just as only the genetic information advantageous for survival is passed on and spreads in natural selection, the essence of 'Quantum Darwinism' is that quantum information also undergoes a 'survival of the fittest' process dictated by the environment. This ultimately forms an objective macroscopic reality that all of us can commonly perceive. ■ Life, a Product of Evolution that Anchors Quantum Information into Reality Philip Ball noted that these physical principles are strikingly similar to the way biological systems process information. He explains that the vital activities of living organisms—such as recognizing external stimuli, preserving genetic information, and controlling complex metabolic processes—are fundamentally the very processes of filtering meaningful information from quantum superpositions and anchoring them into the physical states of the real world. This report suggests that quantum biology is not merely a discipline that investigates microscopic reactions within cells. Rather, it is a grand unified theory explaining how life has utilized the universe's fundamental principles to process information and evolve. Built upon the theories of Dr. Zurek, a master of modern physics, this analysis presents a new philosophical and physical paradigm that views life as a cosmic entity where matter, information, and quantum mechanics are perfectly integrated.

Jul 13, 20260 citations

Decoherence and Quantum Darwinism

Wojciech Hubert Zurek

The measurement problem has been a central puzzle of quantum theory since its inception, and understanding how the classical world emerges from our fundamentally quantum universe is key to its resolution. While the 'Copenhagen' and 'Many Worlds' interpretations have dominated discussion of this philosophically charged question, Zurek builds on the physics of decoherence and introduces the theory of 'Quantum Darwinism' to provide a novel account of the emergence of classical reality. Opening with a modern view of quantum theory, the book reconsiders the customary textbook account of quantum foundations, showing how the controversial axioms (including Born's rule) follow from the consistent core postulates. Part II discusses decoherence and explores its role in the quantum-to-classical transition. Part III introduces Quantum Darwinism, explaining how an information-theoretic perspective complements, elucidates, and reconciles the 'Copenhagen' and 'Many Worlds' interpretations. This insightful book is essential reading for any student or researcher interested in quantum physics.

Cambridge University Press eBooksMar 6, 202512 citations

Classical selection and quantum Darwinism

Wojciech Hubert Zurek

Zurek replies: Repeatability is a textbook postulate—not mine, as the comment by Alexia Auffèves and Philippe Grangier suggests. However, I like the idea of a “context,” provided its origin is quantum. Using an ab initio classical apparatus (made out of quantum atoms!) to supply a context is inconsistent. The Copenhagen interpretation used it as an ingenious and successful ad hoc fix, but it cannot be a fundamental solution. The inability to delineate a quantum–classical boundary makes matters worse. Textbooks adopt such a “shut up and calculate” ploy to paper over the inconsistency of their axioms.Quantum Darwinism and decoherence favor quasi-classical pointer states, accessible indirectly to many observers via the imprints they deposit in the environment. Pointer states in turn depend on the quantum context provided by the environment. They emerge from a quantum substrate and supply context for the quantum states of microsystems.Quantum theory is universally valid. Quantum Darwinism and decoherence explain why macrosystems behave classically: Decoherence limits the validity of the quantum principle of superposition. Preferred states are a compromise between amplification, which calls for many copies of the original, and the no-cloning theorem. An unknown state can’t be cloned, but decoherence can amplify pointer states and disseminate information about them throughout the environment.Observers access only environment fragments, hence they extract only classical information. Quantum coherence, as explained in my article, is out of reach. Observers will agree about states communicated by environment fragments, but only data about pointer states can be shared.11. M. Zwolak, W. H. Zurek, Sci. Rep. 3, 1729 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01729A. Streltsov, W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 040401 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.040401 Objective existence arises from epiontic—that is, epistemic and ontological—quantum states via the proliferation of information. Robust, quasi-classical branches and elusive information about them both emerge via amplification-like decoherence.Deducing the measurement postulates—Born’s rule and hermiticity of observables—from a simple, self-consistent credo is an advance. The assumptions, that states inhabit Hilbert space and evolve unitarily, should be judged by what follows from them and not by an intuitive appeal to classical prejudices. After all, counterintuitive assumptions—for example, that the speed of light is independent of an observer’s motion—have led to deep and valid consequences.The comment by Ruth Kastner states that phase randomness is key for decoherence and quantum Darwinism and that it is unlikely. Both are incorrect: Random phases between states are typical when phases can be defined. Moreover, random phases aren’t essential for decoherence; an outflow of information suffices. Indeed, standard models—for example, of quantum Brownian motion—often employ environments in equilibrium, for which phases are undefined and the question of their randomness is ill-posed. An initial correlation with the environment complicates calculations,22. L. D. Romero, J. P. Paz, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4070 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.55.4070 but it does not eliminate decoherence. As difficulties encountered by quantum computing research show, decoherence is generic and hard to avoid.Quantum Darwinism requires more than decoherence; it relies on an environment that can store and communicate information. Solar radiation enables that,33. C. J. Riedel, W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 020404 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.020404New J. Phys. 13, 073038 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/13/7/073038M. Zwolak, C. J. Riedel, W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 140406 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.140406 since the Sun is a localized photon source. Quantum Darwinism is impossible in a completely equilibrated environment, whose subsystems cannot store information.The question of how to define systems is indeed of interest, and I have noted it before.44. W. H. Zurek, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A 356, 1793 (1998); https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1998.0250Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 715 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715 The answer must go beyond decoherence: What constitutes a system depends on interactions that make or break it; molecules, for example, would fall apart if atomic interactions weakened.There is no reason to complicate matters by making the definition of a system part of the measurement problem. Systems are there from the start—Schrödinger’s cat is obviously distinct from the nucleus that determines the cat’s fate—and their presence alone does not solve the problem. Indeed, the measurement problem disappears absent a system distinct from a measuring apparatus. Quantum evolution of a universe without parts is deterministic. There is no apparatus to record a definite outcome and so no need to talk about measurement outcomes: There is literally nothing to explain. Recognizing the role of the environment—as another system—is then natural in seeking answers.I am in good company when accused of the H-theorem “mistake.” Still, Ludwig Boltzmann dealt with the evolution of a many-body system that is classical and isolated. In that classical setting, probability was a fault of an observer ignorant of the system’s precise state. Boltzmann’s Stosszahlansatz postulates uncorrelated trajectories and is a way of representing that ignorance. Although the Boltzmann equation is useful, calling on Stosszahlansatz to prove the H-theorem—that is, the second law of thermodynamics—was suspect. Evolution is deterministic and reversible, so while observers’ ignorance may increase, microscopic entropy of the closed system cannot change. Moreover, the information and hence ignorance of observers is irrelevant for classical dynamics.As I show in my article, in our quantum world probabilities arise via entanglement. A single photon that escapes with information about the fate of Schrödinger’s cat is enough to decohere the cat’s state. An observer can never catch up with the photon, so reversibility of the equations of motion notwithstanding, information loss can be irreversible for prosaic yet compelling reasons. The resulting entropy production can be accounted for by decoherence.55. W. H. Zurek, J. P. Paz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2508 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.2508The whole measurement (or Schrödinger’s cat) setup starts far from equilibrium. Quantum Darwinism and decoherence show why, in such nonequilibrium multipartite settings, pointer states—and not their superpositions—survive and information about them is amplified and recorded in many copies by the environment. Both the nonequilibrium setting and the division of the universe into systems are needed to state the problem. When certain assumptions are needed to state the problem, surely they can be used to solve it.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. M. Zwolak, W. H. Zurek, Sci. Rep. 3, 1729 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01729, Google ScholarCrossrefA. Streltsov, W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 040401 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.040401, , Google ScholarCrossref2. L. D. Romero, J. P. Paz, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4070 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.55.4070, Google ScholarCrossref3. C. J. Riedel, W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 020404 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.020404, Google ScholarCrossrefNew J. Phys. 13, 073038 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/13/7/073038, , Google ScholarCrossrefM. Zwolak, C. J. Riedel, W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 140406 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.140406, , Google ScholarCrossref4. W. H. Zurek, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A 356, 1793 (1998); https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1998.0250, Google ScholarCrossrefRev. Mod. Phys. 75, 715 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715, , Google ScholarCrossref5. W. H. Zurek, J. P. Paz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2508 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.2508, Google ScholarCrossref© 2015 American Institute of Physics.

Physics TodayApr 30, 20159 citations

A last word on quantum Darwinism

Wojciech Hubert Zurek

Zurek replies: When quantum objects interact, they can entangle, as does a system with an apparatus or environment in models of measurement or of decoherence. The envariance-based derivation I gave of Born’s rule relies on a quantum indeterminacy that precludes simultaneous complete knowledge of both the entangled whole and its parts. Probabilities that quantify the resulting ignorance about parts follow from symmetries of entanglement.The so-called problem of outcomes is therefore not a bug but a feature of quantum physics: The ignorance it reflects leads to Born’s rule.Ignorance disappears only when an observer correlates with an outcome, precipitating a specific perception. Observers acquire information indirectly, using environments—photons, for example—as communication channels.Quantum Darwinism recognizes that decoherence doesn’t just hide quantum information. Rather, an environment is a repository and a conduit for multiple copies of information about outcomes, classical pointer states that survive decoherence intact. Flagrantly quantum effects are simultaneously hidden out of the observer’s reach.11. M. Zwolak, W. H. Zurek, Sci. Rep. 3, 1729 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01729Classical physics dealt with an objective reality that was believed to exist and evolve independently of information. Measurements had predetermined outcomes. Information was an inconsequential illusion, irrelevant to what happened. In the classical universe, observers were like puppets, their strings pulled by Newtonian dynamics.Quantum theory shattered that view. Information is no longer a shadow of the classical states of a clockwork universe; it helps define the underlying quantum states. When a state is entangled, the ignorance of outcomes implied by quantum indeterminacy yields the probabilities that are reflected in the mixed state of the system.This interdependence between what is and what is known means that a quantum state represents partly existence and partly information. In the classical world, one could theorize about the precise state of the system and blame ignorance on observers. When, in our quantum universe, a pure entangled state is known, that fact implies complementary ignorance about parts; information and existence are inextricably intertwined.The decohered cat is neither dead nor alive. However, it is also no longer a superposition of dead and alive. The information amplified by decoherence and disseminated—for example, by photons—contains multiple records of the fate of the cat. Observers will agree about what happened and will take for granted the objective nature of the past.22. C. J. Riedel, W. H. Zurek, M. Zwolak, arXiv:1312.0331REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. M. Zwolak, W. H. Zurek, Sci. Rep. 3, 1729 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01729, Google ScholarCrossref2. C. J. Riedel, W. H. Zurek, M. Zwolak, arXiv:1312.0331, Google Scholar© 2015 American Institute of Physics.

Physics TodayNov 30, 20150 citations