Alignment in Physics, Biology and Psychology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/aivp.115.15414Keywords:
Quantum Mechanics, measurements, protein synthesis, Brain-mind interaction, Universal Law of Generalization, reaction timesAbstract
In a variety of phenomena of our experiences we find that these come into existence (only) thanks to the special way that two disparate items (in the broadest term) are coupled together, which coupling leads to the exclusion of the many more possibilities absent the coupling. Instances of this, here termed ”Alignment”, are discussed within a quantal formalism, for the collapse of wave packets in measurements, for the elongation of protein chains in a cell and for the emergence of awareness resulting from and linked to neural action. For the last, a dual Hilbert-space formulation of mental activities leads to the semi-quantitative explanation of R.N. Shepard’s seminal findings for reaction times in recalls.
References
V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski and E.C.G. Sudarshan, completely positive dy- namical semigroups of N-level systems, J. Math. Phys. 17 821-5 (1976).
G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Com- mun. Math. Phys., 48 112-30 (1976).
S. Weinberg, what happens in a measurement? Phys. Rev. A 93, 032124 1-6 (2016)
E.Merzbacher, Quantum Mechanics, (J. Wiley, N.Y. 1970) 2nd Edition, pp. 290-291.
V.B. Braginsly and F. Ya. Khalid, Quantum Measurements, (Univ. Press, Cambridge U.K., 1990) Section 28* (” action of the measuring device on the measured object”), Section 3.4 (” Formal description of an indirect measure- ment”).
A.J. Leggett, Macroscopic quantum systems and the quantum theory of measurement. Suppl. Progress Theor. Phys. 69, 80 (1980).
D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, (2003). Quantum dy- namics of single trapped ions. Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (1), 281–324 (2003). Doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.281.
R.Englman and A. Yahalom, Foundations of Physics 53 19-30 (2023), doi:org/10.10071/s10701-022-00659-6.
K. Funo, N. Shiraishi and K. Saito, Speed limit for open quantum systems, New J. Phys. 21 0300611 1-9 (2019).
J.M. Horowitz and J.M.R. Parrondo, Entropy production along non- equilibrium jump trajectories, New J. Phys. 15 220601 1-23 (2013).
H.-P. Breuer and F. F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, New York, 2002).
D. Chalmers, Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness, in The Character of Consciousness (University Press, Oxford,2010), 1-28
M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Routledge, New York, 2012).
G. Lakoff, Explaining embodied cognition results, Topics in Cognitive Sci- ence, 4 (4) 773-785.
G. Farthing, The Psychology of Consciousness. Prentice Hall, New York, 1992) ISBN 978-0-13-728668-3.
G. Tononi and G. M. Edelman, Consciousness and complexity, Science 282(5395)1846-51 (1998), doi: 10.1126/science.282.5395.1846.
V.A. Lamme, Towards a true neuronic stance on consciousness. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10 494–501 (2006).
M. Link, Everything and more: the prospects of whole brain simulation, J. Philosophy 1908 444-459 (2022).
A.K. Seth and T. Bayne, Theories of consciousness, Nature Rev. Neuro- science 23 439-455 (2022)
D. Rosenthal, Consciousness and Mind (Oxford University Press, N.Y., 2005)
B. J. Baars, A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1988)
S. Dehaene and L. Naccache, Towards a cognitive science of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework, Cognition,79 1-37 (2001). Englman, R. (2023). Alignment in Physics, Biology and Psychology. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(5). 09-27.
J. Levine, Materialism and Qualia: The explanatory gap, Pacific Philo- sophical Quarterly, LXIV (4) 354-361 (1983).
N. Block, Comparing the major theories of consciousness, in M. Cazzaniga, ed.,The Cognitive Neuroscience (MIT press, Cambridge MA, 2009) 111- 1122.
S. Hameroff and R. Penrose, Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory, Physics of the Life Reviews 11 (1) 39-78 (2014).
E.P. Wigner, Remarks on the mind-body question, in A Scientist Specu- lates; An Anthology on Partly Baked Ideas (Heinemann, London,1961).
M. Asano, M. Ohaya, Y.Tanaka, I. Basieva and A. Khrennikov, Quantum- like model of brain’s functioning: Decision making from decoherence, J. Theoretical Biol., 281 56-64 (2011).
Khrennikov and M. Asano, A Quantum-Like Model of Information Processing in the Brain, Applied Sciences - Basel 10 (2) 707 (2020), doi.org/10.3390/app10020707
Khrennikov, Classical and quantum mechanics on information spaces with applications to cognitive, psychological, social and anomalous phenom- ena Foundations of Physics, 29 1065-98 (2019).
D. Aerts, J. Aerts Argu’elles, L. Beltran, S. Geriente1, M. Sassoli de Bianchi1, S. Sozzo and T. Veloz, Quantum entanglement in physical and cognitive systems: A conceptual analysis and a general representation, European Phys. J. Plus 134, Article 493, 1-20, (2019); DOI 1019-12987-00.1140/epjp/i2
E.M. Pothos, J.R. Busemeyer, can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Behav. Brain. Sci., 36 255-274 (2013).
J.R. Busemeyer and P.D. Bruza, Quantum Models of Cognition and Deci- sion (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 2012).
Z. Wang, et al.,The potential of using quantum theory to build models of cognition, Top. Cogn. Sci., 5 672-688 (2013).
Tversky and D. Kahneman, Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment, Psychol. Rev. 90, 293–315 (1983). doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293
G. Bruckmaier, S.Krauss, K. Binder, S. Hilbert and M. Brunner,Tversky and Kahneman’s cognitive illusions: Who can solve them, and why? Front. Psychol., Article 584689, 1-23 (2021); doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.584689.
J. Grau-Moya M. Kru¨ger and D. A Braun, Non-equilibrium relations for bounded rational decisionmaking in changing environments, Entropy, 20 (1) 1-14 (2018).
D.J. Amit, H. Gutfreund and H. Sompolinsky, Storing infinite numbers of patterns in a spin-glass model of neural networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 1530 (1985)
R.N. Shepard, how a cognitive psychologist came to seek uni- versal laws. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 11 (1) 1–23 (2004), doi:10.3758/BF03206455.
W. Zurek, Quantum Darwinism, classical reality, and the randomness of quantum jumps, Physics Today, October 2014 (Volume 67, Issue 10, Page 44, doi:10.1063/PT.3.2550
T. Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concep- tion of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012 p. 35.
E. Schneidman, M.J. Bery II, R. Segev and W. Bialek, Weak pairwise cor- relations imply strongly correlated network states in a neural population, Nature 440 2007-12 (2006).
J. Shlens, G.D. Field, J. L. Gauthier, M.I. Grivich, D. Petrusca, A. Sher, A. M. Litke and E. J. Chichilnisky, the structure of multi-neuron firing patterns in primate retina. J. Neuroscience, 26 (3) 8254-66 (2014).
G. Tkaˇcik, O. Marre, D. Amodei, E. Schneidman, W. Bialek and M. J. Berry, II, Searching for collective behavior in a large network of sensory neurons, PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Jan; (10):1.
W. H. Zurek, Quantum theory of the classical: Einselection, Quan- tum Darwinism and Extantons, Entropy 24,(11) 1520-1618 (2022): 1520. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24111520.
S. F. Greenbury, S. Schaper, S. E. Ahnert, and A. A. Louis, Genetic cor- relations greatly increase mutational robustness and can both reduce and enhance e, PLOS Computational Biology 12, e1004773 (2016).
A Sappington and V. Mohanty, Probabilistic genotype-phenotype maps reveal mutational robustness of RNA folding, spin glasses, and quantum circuits, ArXiv:2301.01847 (05 Jan 2023)
M. Asano, M. Ohya, Y. Tanaka, A. and I. Basieva, On application of Gorini-Kossakowski-Sudarshan-Lindblad equation in cognitive psychology, Open Systems & Information Dynamics 18(1) 55-69 (2012).
D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, (Columbia, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Columbia USA, 2013)
R.N. Shepard, Stimulus and response generalization: Deduction of the generalization gradient from a trace model. Psychological Review, 65 (4) 242–256 (1958), https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043083
R.N. Shepard, Towards a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science 237 1317-1323 (1987).
R.N. Shepard, Perceptual-cognitives universals as reflections of the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 24 712-748 (2001), DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X01000085.
J.B. Tenenbaum and T.L. Griffiths, Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 629-640 (2001).
N. Chater and P.M.B. Vit´anyi, The generalized universal law of gen- eralization. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 47 (3) 346–369 (2003). https: oi.org/10.1016/S0022-2496(03)00013-0
R. Chocholle, Variation’s ds temp de r´eactions audits en fonction de l’intensit’e a diverse frequences. L’Ann´ee Psychologique 41 65-124 (1940).
R.D. Luce and D.M. Green, A neural timing theory for response times and the psychophysics of intensity, Psychological Review 79 14-57 (1972).
J. Bell, Physics World, 3 33-4 (1990). Englman, R. (2023). Alignment in Physics, Biology and Psychology. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(5). 09-27.
APeres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods, (Kluwer Academic, Norwell MA, 1998)
W. H. Zurek, Quantum theory of the classical: Einselection, Quan- tum Darwinism and Extantons, Entropy 24, (11) 1520-1618 (2022): 1520. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24111520
P. Colciaghi et al., Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment with two Bose- Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021031-36 (2023).
M. D. Reid, Realizing the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox for atomic cloud, Physics 16 92(2023
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 R. Englman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
