Schlosshauer has advanced a theory of minimal no-collapse quantum mechanics for a decoherence-based subjective resolution of the measurement problem. The basic premise being that superposition states are maintained beyond the retinal apparatus, becoming correlated with neuronal arrays located in the occipital lobe of the brain. Decoherence for these neurons in a superposition of firing and resting, leads to an irreversible dynamical decoupling of the two branches, resulting in the emergence of a single subjective perception. Based upon prior retinal research, it is shown that his theory is untenable for several reasons.
Schlosshauer has advanced a theory of minimal no-collapse quantum mechanics for a decoherence-based subjective resolution of the measurement problem. The basic premise being that superposition states are maintained beyond the retinal apparatus, becoming correlated with neuronal arrays located in the occipital lobe of the brain. Decoherence for these neurons in a superposition of firing and resting, leads to an irreversible dynamical decoupling of the two branches, resulting in the emergence of a single subjective perception. Based upon prior retinal research, it is shown that his theory is untenable for several reasons.
Several theories have been advanced recently which appear to offer a resolution to that portion of the measurement problem which previously dealt with a possible reduction of the state vector in a subjective fashion by the brain, mind or consciousness. It now appears, based on both biological and mathematical analysis, that collapse of the wave function always takes place in an objective fashion in the retinal rod-rhodopsin molecule, and that only measured information is ever presented to the brain, mind or consciousness for possible subjective analysis. The remaining portion of the measurement problem has to do with the use and legitimacy of such terms as boundary (Heisenberg or von Neumann cut), information, irreversible, measurement, microscopic, macroscopic, observer (apparatus or measuring system), observed (measured system) and wave function collapse. This portion of the measurement problem may be resolved in two ways. First, by adopting Dirac's theory that it is nature that makes the choice of measuremental result. Second, by the insertion of a mesoscopic bridge between the microscopic and macroscopic worlds, in the existing form of the rhodopsin molecule with its retinal and opsin components.
Abstract Some versions of quantum theory treat wave function collapse as a fundamental physical phenomenon to be described by explicit laws. One motivation is to find a consistent unification of quantum theory and gravity, in which collapse prevents superpositions of space-times from developing. Another is to invoke collapse to explain our perception of definite measurement outcomes. Combining these motivations while avoiding two different collapse postulates seems to require that perceptibly different physical states necessarily create significantly different mass distributions in our organs of perception or brains. This chapter notes problems with earlier analyses which cast some doubt on the claim that there are collapse model parameters consistent with known experiment that imply collapse times within the human eye fast enough to be consistent with our perceptions.
I discuss briefly the foundations of quantum cognition taking as reference an article that appeared on Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience Keywords: consciousness, quantum state, mixed state, probability distribution, dominance duration, quantum superposition principle, quantum collapse, quantum cognition , cognitive science In Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience , general commentary , the authors M. Reza Paraan, F. Bakouie and S. Gharibzadeh ,in date 20 February , 2014(doi:10.3389/fncom.2014.00015) (Paraan M.R. et al, 2014) published a paper entitled A More Realistic Quantum Mechanical Model of Conscious Perception During Binocularly rivalry , discussing and criticizing the basic experimental and theoretical results that I and Khrennikov obtained (Conte E. et al.,2009) examining the possible role of quantum mechanics during the perception and the cognition of ambiguous figures. First of all we retain that , in order to criticize the results of authors , it is appropriate that scholars are aware about all the articulated research that the criticized authors have explained about the matter so to be sure to have fully explored all the obtained results. This is the reason to report in references a long list of publications that such authors have realized (). Unfortunately it may happen that scholars sometimes have not the opportunity to look at all the scientific production of another author and in some cases instead it may contribute to a better definition of his/her production. The feature that such authors seem to outline , is contained in the following their sentence : Technically, a wave-function is a superposition of all the real possible states of a quantum system. We believe that this is an inappropriate take on the problem which leads to inconsistencies within the model. The developers of these two quantum mechanical models believe that the actualization of each quantum state is equal to the activation of neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) of the corresponding perception; a state is actualized when a quantum system is measured (observed) and subsequently its wave-function collapses to that constituent state. Therefore, we believe that wave-function is not a legitimate representation, because it does not describe a real state of a system and is doomed to collapse, and on the other hand, specific NCC of MS (Mixed States duration) or that of indeterminate perception demand a distinct associated quantum state. Their model takes into account the periods when their subjects report indeterminate perception. Indeterminate perception resembles MS in that they are both mental states and are mediated by specific neural correlates. But Conte et al. represent indeterminacy state by the wave-function of the two-state system rather than an additional third quantum state. Technically, a wave-function is a superposition of all the real possible states of a quantum system. We believe that this is an inappropriate take on the problem which leads to inconsistencies within the model (Paraan M.R. et al, 2014).
Abstract: The quantum measurement problem has been the deepest conceptual difficulty since the birth of quantum mechanics. Standard quantum mechanics accepts wavefunction collapse as an independent postulate but never provides a physical explanation. The decoherence approach attributes collapse to the interaction between the system and its environment, but faces two fundamental limitations: the “infinite regress” problem and the “insufficiency of decoherence” problem. Within the framework of the Self-Construction Theory (SCT), this paper provides a complete resolution of the measurement problem. The core thesis is that quantum measurement is not a fundamental process independent of the laws of physical evolution, but rather a local manifestation of constructive renormalization—the scale evolution of the spacetime complex field K from microscopic degrees of freedom to macroscopic effective descriptions. The origins of wavefunction collapse, decoherence, and the Born rule receive a unified first‑principles interpretation in this framework. SCT’s spontaneous decoherence mechanism is the key to the resolution. Constructive renormalization inherently involves information loss—the integrated‑out microscopic degrees of freedom no longer exist in the macroscopic effective description. During a measurement, the measuring apparatus possesses a huge number (∼1023) of microscopic degrees of freedom. When the apparatus interacts with the measured system, constructive renormalization triggers information compression of these degrees of freedom—the apparatus can no longer distinguish which branch of the superposition it is in, and quantum coherence is thus spontaneously lost. No “external environment” is needed—the constructive renormalization dynamics of spacetime itself is the ultimate source of decoherence, thereby completely solving the “infinite regress” problem. Among the probability distribution given by the Born rule, the weights of non‑maximal probability branches are further suppressed by information compression under the huge number of microscopic degrees of freedom, so that macroscopic observers can perceive only a definite outcome in the effective description. The information loss caused by constructive renormalization is ontological—it does not rely on any approximation or truncation, thus fundamentally solving the “insufficiency of decoherence” problem. The Born rule—that measurement outcomes occur with probabilities given by the squared amplitudes—is directly derived from the constructive integral structure in SCT. In the constructive renormalization limit, interference terms between different configurations are naturally suppressed by off‑diagonal phase randomization, and the system automatically switches to a classical probabilistic description. In the diagonal density matrix representation, the squared amplitude is the only natural weight that is simultaneously real and non‑negative. Hence the Born rule is not an additional postulate of quantum mechanics but a necessary and unique manifestation of the relative frequencies of the constructive integral in the constructive renormalization limit. This derivation is rigorous within the mathematical framework of constructive renormalization—it does not rely on any approximations or truncations. SCT’s quantum measurement theory is deeply unified with the black hole information paradox. The “collapse” in quantum measurement and the “information loss” in black hole evaporation are different manifestations of the same core mechanism—the redistribution of information due to constructive renormalization—in two extreme physical situations. In quantum measurement, information is redistributed into the degrees of freedom of the macroscopic apparatus; in black hole evaporation, information is redistributed into the time‑point configurations on the horizon. This unification is the strongest proof of the universality of constructive renormalization as an information‑processing mechanism. Keywords: quantum measurement; spontaneous decoherence; constructive renormalization; Born rule; wavefunction collapse; information redistribution; Self-Construction Theory
In a segment of a recent paper Adler performed an analysis of a CSL reduction mechanism with specific emphasis on where a CSL-type reduction might occur from a biophysical standpoint within the visual system, whether in the retina or in the brain. This revealed that no superposed state can ever be maintained beyond the rod cells of the retina, in agreement with previous non-CSL reduction positions taken by Shimony and the author and, that either approach may lead to a wave function collapse of an objective rather than a subjective nature, providing for a simpler answer to the measurement problem.
In recent decades, progress in the field of neurosciences has triggered an interest in understanding mind-brain relationships. Quantum Mechanics (QM) has been present in the debate from its beginnings through the well-known measurement paradox. The standard interpretation of QM considers two basic, fundamentally irreducible, processes: the deterministic evolution of the wave-function according to the Schrodinger equation, once the initial conditions have been settled; and the indeterministic wave-function collapse into one of the possible outcomes, after performing a specific measurement. So, QM would point to the limits of a purely deterministic view of nature and, in particular, of brains. Nevertheless, QM’s relevance for the brain’s physics is still to be proven. Detractors of the QM influence are confident of the role of decoherent processes at different physical scales in order to ensure a classical deterministic behavior of the brain. However, little attention is paid to the epistemic implications of invoking decoherence for the mind-brain problem. In this paper, (i) we present lasting QM models stating a specific view of human consciousness and make explicit their position regarding the relationship between the physical activity of neurons and/or networks of neurons and the phenomenal conscious experience; (ii) we review the main criticisms of the relevance of QM in the brain and, most importantly, we bring out the philosophical implications behind the usual recourse to decoherence in the transition from the quantum to the classical world, explaining why the mind-brain problem and the measurement paradox should not be disentangled.