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

Journal of Consciousness Studies

The quantum-like brain on the cognitive and subcognitive time scales

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Published Jan 1, 2008• 14 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

This article takes as its point of departure the view that the discovery of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics (QM) was not merely a discovery of a new mathematical way of dealing with ...

Related papers

The Quantum-Like Brain Operating on Subcognitive and Cognitive Time Scales

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We propose a {\it quantum-like} (QL) model of the functioning of the brain. It should be sharply distinguished from the reductionist {\it quantum} model. By the latter cognition is created by {\it physical quantum processes} in the brain. The crucial point of our modelling is that discovery of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics (QM) was in fact discovery of a very general formalism describing {\it consistent processing of incomplete information} about contexts (physical, mental, economic, social). The brain is an advanced device which developed the ability to create a QL representation of contexts. Therefore its functioning can also be described by the mathematical formalism of QM. The possibility of such a description has nothing to do with composing of the brain of quantum systems (photons, electrons, protons,...). Moreover, we shall propose a model in that the QL representation is based on conventional neurophysiological model of the functioning of the brain. The brain uses the QL rule (given by von Neumann trace formula) for calculation of {\it approximative averages} for mental functions, but the physical basis of mental functions is given by neural networks in the brain. The QL representation has a {\it temporal basis.} Any cognitive process is based on (at least) two time scales: subcognitive time scale (which is very fine) and cognitive time scale (which is essentially coarser).

arXiv:0707.1129•Jul 8, 2007•2 citations

Quantum mechanics and the brain

Herbert S. Green, T. Triffet

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry•Jun 18, 2009•2 citations

Beyond the Quantum Formalism: Consequences of a Neural-Oscillator Model to Quantum Cognition

J. Acácio de Barros

arXiv:1309.3775•Advances in cognitive neurodynamics•Dec 1, 2014•11 citations

The Art and Science of Experimentation in Quantum Physics

Arkady Plotnitsky, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Taking its historical point of departure in Heisenberg’s work, this article offers a view of quantum mechanics as, arguably, the first truly experimental and truly mathematical physical theory, that is, a theory concerned with experimenting with nature and mathematics alike. It is truly experimental because it is not, as in classical physics, merely the independent behavior of the system considered, in other words, what happens in any event, that we track, but what kind of experiments we perform that defines what happens. By the same token, the theory is also truly mathematical because, at least in the interpretation adopted here, its mathematical formalism does not stand in the service of a mathematical description of (quantum) physical processes in space and time in the way the formalism of classical physics does, but is only used to predict the outcomes of relevant experiments. It also follows that quantum theories experiment more freely with mathematics itself, since we invent predictive mathematical schemes, rather than proceed by refining mathematically our phenomenal representations of nature, which process constrains us in classical mechanics.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2010•3 citations

The future (and past) of quantum theory after the Higgs boson: a quantum-informational viewpoint

Arkady Plotnitsky

Taking as its point of departure the discovery of the Higgs boson, this article considers quantum theory, including quantum field theory, which predicted the Higgs boson, through the combined perspective of quantum information theory and the idea of technology, while also adopting anon-realistinterpretation, in 'the spirit of Copenhagen', of quantum theory and quantum phenomena themselves. The article argues that the 'events' in question in fundamental physics, such as the discovery of the Higgs boson (a particularly complex and dramatic, but not essentially different, case), are made possible by the joint workings of three technologies: experimental technology, mathematical technology and, more recently, digital computer technology. The article will consider the role of and the relationships among these technologies, focusing on experimental and mathematical technologies, in quantum mechanics (QM), quantum field theory (QFT) and finite-dimensional quantum theory, with which quantum information theory has been primarily concerned thus far. It will do so, in part, by reassessing the history of quantum theory, beginning with Heisenberg's discovery of QM, in quantum-informational and technological terms. This history, the article argues, is defined by the discoveries of increasingly complex configurations of observed phenomena and the emergence of the increasingly complex mathematical formalism accounting for these phenomena, culminating in the standard model of elementary-particle physics, defining the current state of QFT.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Apr 19, 2016•1 citation

The Classical Brain to the Quantum Mind

Josh Roeloffs

The frontiers collection•Jan 1, 2026•0 citations
We propose a {\it quantum-like} (QL) model of the functioning of the brain. It should be sharply distinguished from the reductionist {\it quantum} model. By the latter cognition is created by {\it physical quantum processes} in the brain. The crucial point of our modelling is that discovery of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics (QM) was in fact discovery of a very general formalism describing {\it consistent processing of incomplete information} about contexts (physical, mental, economic, social). The brain is an advanced device which developed the ability to create a QL representation of contexts. Therefore its functioning can also be described by the mathematical formalism of QM. The possibility of such a description has nothing to do with composing of the brain of quantum systems (photons, electrons, protons,...). Moreover, we shall propose a model in that the QL representation is based on conventional neurophysiological model of the functioning of the brain. The brain uses the QL rule (given by von Neumann trace formula) for calculation of {\it approximative averages} for mental functions, but the physical basis of mental functions is given by neural networks in the brain. The QL representation has a {\it temporal basis.} Any cognitive process is based on (at least) two time scales: subcognitive time scale (which is very fine) and cognitive time scale (which is essentially coarser).
Taking its historical point of departure in Heisenberg’s work, this article offers a view of quantum mechanics as, arguably, the first truly experimental and truly mathematical physical theory, that is, a theory concerned with experimenting with nature and mathematics alike. It is truly experimental because it is not, as in classical physics, merely the independent behavior of the system considered, in other words, what happens in any event, that we track, but what kind of experiments we perform that defines what happens. By the same token, the theory is also truly mathematical because, at least in the interpretation adopted here, its mathematical formalism does not stand in the service of a mathematical description of (quantum) physical processes in space and time in the way the formalism of classical physics does, but is only used to predict the outcomes of relevant experiments. It also follows that quantum theories experiment more freely with mathematics itself, since we invent predictive mathematical schemes, rather than proceed by refining mathematically our phenomenal representations of nature, which process constrains us in classical mechanics.
Taking as its point of departure the discovery of the Higgs boson, this article considers quantum theory, including quantum field theory, which predicted the Higgs boson, through the combined perspective of quantum information theory and the idea of technology, while also adopting anon-realistinterpretation, in 'the spirit of Copenhagen', of quantum theory and quantum phenomena themselves. The article argues that the 'events' in question in fundamental physics, such as the discovery of the Higgs boson (a particularly complex and dramatic, but not essentially different, case), are made possible by the joint workings of three technologies: experimental technology, mathematical technology and, more recently, digital computer technology. The article will consider the role of and the relationships among these technologies, focusing on experimental and mathematical technologies, in quantum mechanics (QM), quantum field theory (QFT) and finite-dimensional quantum theory, with which quantum information theory has been primarily concerned thus far. It will do so, in part, by reassessing the history of quantum theory, beginning with Heisenberg's discovery of QM, in quantum-informational and technological terms. This history, the article argues, is defined by the discoveries of increasingly complex configurations of observed phenomena and the emergence of the increasingly complex mathematical formalism accounting for these phenomena, culminating in the standard model of elementary-particle physics, defining the current state of QFT.