Our research forms two directions, the first considers two approaches to the brain, one based on classical mechanics, the second using quantum physics, the second direction of research refers to the dynamics of0 information as an interaction between differential geometry, mathematical statistics, probability theory. and quantum mechanics which led to the construction of classical and quantum information geometry. Financial entanglement is multidimensiona in time and space, dynamic, less understood and interesting because it functions in real life, like the brain. Neuroscientists who focus on mathematical frameworks for how the brain’s shape affects its activity—an area of mathematical neuroscience called neural field theory will begin to understand the relationship between brain shape, structure, and function in yet another way. Analysis of research into the geometry of the brain’s contours, that is, the way in which brain activity resonates over and through its architecture, is perhaps more significant than the connections between neurons. Research by scientists from the University of Sydney and Monash University showed that the overall shape and geometry of the human brain – its contours and curvature – has a greater influence on brain dynamics than the internal connectivity of brain cells (Our brain shape influences how it works, 2023) in short, Australian scientists indicate the possibility of predicting brain function directly from its shape. “We have long thought that specific thoughts or sensations elicit activity in specific parts of the brain, but this study reveals that structured patterns of activity are excited across nearly the entire brain, just like the way in which a musical note arises from vibrations occurring along the entire length of a violin string, and not just an isolated segment,” (Dr J. Pang,2023).”We found that eigenmodes defined by brain geometry – its contours and curvature – represented the strongest anatomical constraint on brain function, much like the shape of a drum influences the sounds it can make” (A. Fornito, 2023). “Using mathematical models, we confirmed theoretical predictions that the close link between geometry and function is driven by wave-like activity propagating throughout the brain, just as the shape of a pond influences the wave ripples that are formed by a falling pebble” (A. Fornito, 2023).
Our research forms two directions, the first considers two approaches to the brain, one based on classical mechanics, the second using quantum physics, the second direction of research refers to the dynamics of0 information as an interaction between differential geometry, mathematical statistics, probability theory. and quantum mechanics which led to the construction of classical and quantum information geometry. Financial entanglement is multidimensiona in time and space, dynamic, less understood and interesting because it functions in real life, like the brain. Neuroscientists who focus on mathematical frameworks for how the brain’s shape affects its activity—an area of mathematical neuroscience called neural field theory will begin to understand the relationship between brain shape, structure, and function in yet another way. Analysis of research into the geometry of the brain’s contours, that is, the way in which brain activity resonates over and through its architecture, is perhaps more significant than the connections between neurons. Research by scientists from the University of Sydney and Monash University showed that the overall shape and geometry of the human brain – its contours and curvature – has a greater influence on brain dynamics than the internal connectivity of brain cells (Our brain shape influences how it works, 2023) in short, Australian scientists indicate the possibility of predicting brain function directly from its shape. “We have long thought that specific thoughts or sensations elicit activity in specific parts of the brain, but this study reveals that structured patterns of activity are excited across nearly the entire brain, just like the way in which a musical note arises from vibrations occurring along the entire length of a violin string, and not just an isolated segment,” (Dr J. Pang,2023).”We found that eigenmodes defined by brain geometry – its contours and curvature – represented the strongest anatomical constraint on brain function, much like the shape of a drum influences the sounds it can make” (A. Fornito, 2023). “Using mathematical models, we confirmed theoretical predictions that the close link between geometry and function is driven by wave-like activity propagating throughout the brain, just as the shape of a pond influences the wave ripples that are formed by a falling pebble” (A. Fornito, 2023).
This paper focuses on the study of the functional relationships between the tools of neuroscience, neurofinance and psychology on the one hand, and quantum physics / quantum mechanics and neurophysiology on the other. Can physics / quantum mechanics help explain / understand human behavior through the Shrödinger cat platform (perhaps we can explain the most mysterious phenomena: human behavior - cerebral secretion?)? The concepts of quantum mechanics allow a good prediction of human decision making within Schrödinger's cat (two particles can talk to each other even at a distance of a galaxy, perhaps in this sense can help explain an extremely complex decision making system), and define the "connection of quantum models with neurophysiological processes in the brain “... which is a very complex problem.” (Haven and Khrennikov) The application of quantum physics and neuroscience in finance allows us to consider the complexity of financial decision making, while the connection between quantum physics and psychology manifests itself as the field of quantum physics seeks to understand the fundamental nature of particles. while the field of psychology seeks to explain human nature along with its inherent misconceptions.If decision-making is a process of gathering evidence in favor of different alternatives over time, the process is discontinued once the decision limit is reached, followed by choice of decision. e activity within the posterior parietal cortex several important questions remain unanswered. Neural mechanisms that support the accumulation of evidence record the activities of individual neurons in different parts of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and the lateral intraparietal area (LIP).
This paper focuses on the study of the functional relationships between the tools of neuroscience, neurofinance and psychology on the one hand, and quantum physics / quantum mechanics and neurophysiology on the other. Can physics / quantum mechanics help explain / understand human behavior through the Shrödinger cat platform (perhaps we can explain the most mysterious phenomena- human behavior - cerebral secretion?)? The concepts of quantum mechanics allow a good prediction of human decision making within Schrödinger's cat (two particles can talk to each other even at a distance of a galaxy, perhaps in this sense can help explain an extremely complex decision making system), and define the "connection of quantum models with neurophysiological processes in the brain “... which is a very complex problem.†(Haven and Khrennikov) The application of quantum physics and neuroscience in finance allows us to consider the complexity of financial decision making, while the connection between quantum physics and psychology manifests itself as the field of quantum physics seeks to understand the fundamental nature of particles. while the field of psychology seeks to explain human nature along with its inherent misconceptions.If decision-making is a process of gathering evidence in favor of different alternatives over time, the process is discontinued once the decision limit is reached, followed by choice of decision. e activity within the posterior parietal cortex several important questions remain unanswered. Neural mechanisms that support the accumulation of evidence record the activities of individual neurons in different parts of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and the lateral intraparietal area (LIP).
The nervous system probably cannot display macroscopic quantum (i.e. classically impossible) behaviours such as quantum entanglement, superposition or tunnelling (Koch and Hepp, Nature 440:611, 2006). However, in contrast to this quantum ‘mysticism’ there is an alternative way in which quantum events might influence the brain activity. The nervous system is a nonlinear system with many feedback loops at every level of its structural hierarchy. A conventional wisdom is that in macroscopic objects the quantum fluctuations are self-averaging and thus not important. Nevertheless this intuition might be misleading in the case of nonlinear complex systems. Because of a high sensitivity to initial conditions, in chaotic systems the microscopic fluctuations may be amplified upward and thereby affect the system's output. In this way stochastic quantum dynamics might sometimes alter the outcome of neuronal computations, not by generating classically impossible solutions, but by influencing the selection of many possible solutions (Satinover, Quantum Brain, Wiley & Sons, 2001). I am going to discuss recent theoretical proposals and experimental findings in quantum mechanics, complexity theory and computational neuroscience suggesting that biological evolution is able to take advantage of quantum-computational speed-up. I predict that the future research on quantum complex systems will provide us with novel interesting insights that might be relevant also for neurobiology and neurophilosophy.
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.
This paper explores the intricate relationship between geometric shapes and quantum entanglement, proposing a novel theoretical framework centered on the analysis of shape topology. We investigate how the inherent structure of geometric forms can provide a fundamental basis for understanding the nature of quantum entanglement, ultimately aiming to delineate potential avenues for quantum information processing. The research leverages geometric topology to uncover the potential origins of quantum entanglement and employs shape-specific characteristics to model and simulate this correlation. This work represents a significant departure from traditional approaches, focusing on a less explored intersection of geometry and quantum mechanics.
Abstract The nervous system probably cannot display macroscopic quantum (i.e. classically impossible) behaviours such as quantum entanglement, superposition or tunnelling (Koch and Hepp, Nature 440:611, 2006). However, in contrast to this quantum ‘mysticism’ there is an alternative way in which quantum events might influence the brain activity. The nervous system is a nonlinear system with many feedback loops at every level of its structural hierarchy. A conventional wisdom is that in macroscopic objects the quantum fluctuations are self-averaging and thus not important. Nevertheless this intuition might be misleading in the case of nonlinear complex systems. Because of a high sensitivity to initial conditions, in chaotic systems the microscopic fluctuations may be amplified upward and thereby affect the system's output. In this way stochastic quantum dynamics might sometimes alter the outcome of neuronal computations, not by generating classically impossible solutions, but by influencing the selection of many possible solutions (Satinover, Quantum Brain, Wiley & Sons, 2001). I am going to discuss recent theoretical proposals and experimental findings in quantum mechanics, complexity theory and computational neuroscience suggesting that biological evolution is able to take advantage of quantum-computational speed-up. I predict that the future research on quantum complex systems will provide us with novel interesting insights that might be relevant also for neurobiology and neurophilosophy.