Conscious Decisions And The Probability Fields Of The Wave Function

[QuantumTantrum]

Exploring the mind has implications in quantum mechanics. The wave function is a fundamental property, a statistical property at that of the world around us.

This wave is real, it governs the actions of quantum systems and there is hypothesized a wave function for the extremely large world, however the wave function is too small to be seen.

The dichotomy between the microscopic and the macroscopic world when concerning the wave function isn't fully understood, only that thereappears to be a threshold when the wave function (which is like a field which governs the statistical likelihood of something happening) is still shrouded in mystery when it concerns consciousness.
The wave function however ''has been seen,'' indirectly using vibrating semi-quantum objects. You see, you can't actually observe the wave function, any attempt to do so destroys all the statistical variables which surround the field.
What is interesting is that in the subatomic world, having a wave function means having ''choices'' so one might even extend that to ask, if the wave function is responsible for actions in themselves, on the macroscopic scale, does this correspond to actions we take in consciousness?

This is a question I bring to the table today, the idea that quantum mechanics probably not only has applications to the conscious mind but that having choices could correspond to the analogue of a quantum superposition.
In this sense, a superposition can be a composite choice of either saying, ''yes'' or ''no.'' What decides the 'yes' and what decides the 'no?' If quantum mechanics is right in its interpretation, then the wave function of possible realities allowed us to manifest different actions in the world around us. Each time in other words, we decide to make an action, whether it be a 'yes' or 'no' action requires a deflation in the statistical field, it means the wave function collapses each time the mind decides something.

 

Now let's make a simple mathematical analogy.

 

Let us say [math]A[/math] is ''yes'' and [math]B[/math] is the ''no'' in a conscious choice. Such a configuration can be given as a system

 

[math]\beta(1)| \uparrow > + β(2)| \downarrow >[/math]

 

And so the probability amplitudes for the yes or no selections are

 

[math]A = |\beta(1)|^2[/math]

 

for a yes answer and for the ''no'' answer

 

[math]B = |\beta(2)|^2[/math]

 

Probabilities being simple enough to state the normalization (we use the logic symbol ''or'' denoted as [math]\mathbf{V}[/math])

 

[math]A \mathbf{V} B = |\beta(1)|^2 + |\beta(2)|^2 = \mathbf{1}[/math]

 

More complicated actions involving more than one decision will create more complicated statistical fields in the macro-quantum phenom on the decision-making of quantum mind and similar systems.

Edited June 1, 2015 by QuantumTantrum

[QuantumTantrum]

Why Should Consciousness be Described by Quantum Physics?

The idea that biological entities could require some kind of quantum description has been accepted for quite a long time now. In fact it was coined as ''quantum biology''  by the Legendary Erwin Schrodinger, the man who created the wave equation of matter in his infamous book ''What is Life''  in 1946. Actually, Schrodinger made a number of predictions in his book, such as predicting a crystal-like structure which would encode the information of a single strand of DNA, it was later discovered and named the Double Helix. It was said, that his prediction was a brilliant one, made from the postulates of quantum mechanics.

Quantum biology includes concepts of superpositioning, quantum tunneling and entanglement. It may also involve other concepts which cannot be explained except for inferring on quantum behaviour. Many plantforms make good use of quantum behaviour, such as photosynthesis. Even birds make good use of quantum behaviour. Their magnetoreceptors are directly caused by the quantum phenomenon of the zeno effect, a subject which might be important for consciousness, as we will see later.

It would seem therefore, folly to assume that consciousness has absolutely no place in quantum mechanics. We haven't studied all the dynamics relating to consciousness to draw such a conclusion. There has been some suggestions that there are magnetites located in the human noes or eye which may have some effects on our own types of magnetoreceptors; in other words, the types of quantum effects on consciousness could be vast. We will not know, until we have a full-working theory of consciousness which might or might not work well within the classical low energy limit of nuerons. 

Edited June 1, 2015 by QuantumTantrum

[QuantumTantrum]

The idea has caught on - decisions/choices are quantum analogues of a superpositioning.

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-cognitive-decision-collapse-quantum-superstate.html

Edited August 27, 2015 by QuantumTantrum

[Turtle]

The idea has caught on - decisions/choices are quantum analogues of a superpositioning.

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-cognitive-decision-collapse-quantum-superstate.html

From your link:

...It's important to note that the researchers are not suggesting that the brain is a quantum computer; they specifically note that their report uses quantum dynamics only metaphorically. ...

So it's just a metaphor, and I note the annoying trend for every Tom, Dick, and Harry that are all-a-gush with a 'new' theory to tack the denomination 'quantum' to it. The authors of the article finish, saying:

They conclude, "...quantum random walk theory provides a previously unexamined perspective on the nature of the evidence accumulation process that underlies both cognitive and neural theories of decision making."

Decision making is not consciousness as you imply when you said "Why Should Consciousness be Described by Quantum Physics?", even if decision making may be a part of consciousness. The best description of consciousness that I have seen to date is Hofstadter's tangled hierarchy of strange loops.

 

In cognitive science

Strange loops take form in human consciousness as the complexity of active symbols in the brain inevitably leads to the same kind of self-reference which Gödel proved was inherent in any complex logical or arithmetical system in his Incompleteness Theorem.[1] Gödel showed that mathematics and logic contain strange loops: propositions that not only refer to mathematical and logical truths, but also to the symbol systems expressing those truths. This leads to the sort of paradoxes seen in statements such as "This statement is false," wherein the sentence's basis of truth is found in referring to itself and its assertion, causing a logical paradox.[2]

 

Hofstadter argues that the psychological self arises out of a similar kind of paradox. We are not born with an ‘I’ – the ego emerges only gradually as experience shapes our dense web of active symbols into a tapestry rich and complex enough to begin twisting back upon itself. According to this view the psychological ‘I’ is a narrative fiction, something created only from intake of symbolic data and its own ability to create stories about itself from that data. The consequence is that a perspective (a mind) is a culmination of a unique pattern of symbolic activity in our nervous systems, which suggests that the pattern of symbolic activity that makes identity, that constitutes subjectivity, can be replicated within the brains of others, and perhaps even in artificial brains.[2]

...

[xyz]

 

Exploring the mind has implications in quantum mechanics. The wave function is a fundamental property, a statistical property at that of the world around us.

This wave is real, it governs the actions of quantum systems and there is hypothesized a wave function for the extremely large world, however the wave function is too small to be seen.

The dichotomy between the microscopic and the macroscopic world when concerning the wave function isn't fully understood, only that thereappears to be a threshold when the wave function (which is like a field which governs the statistical likelihood of something happening) is still shrouded in mystery when it concerns consciousness.

The wave function however ''has been seen,'' indirectly using vibrating semi-quantum objects. You see, you can't actually observe the wave function, any attempt to do so destroys all the statistical variables which surround the field.

What is interesting is that in the subatomic world, having a wave function means having ''choices'' so one might even extend that to ask, if the wave function is responsible for actions in themselves, on the macroscopic scale, does this correspond to actions we take in consciousness?

This is a question I bring to the table today, the idea that quantum mechanics probably not only has applications to the conscious mind but that having choices could correspond to the analogue of a quantum superposition.

In this sense, a superposition can be a composite choice of either saying, ''yes'' or ''no.'' What decides the 'yes' and what decides the 'no?' If quantum mechanics is right in its interpretation, then the wave function of possible realities allowed us to manifest different actions in the world around us. Each time in other words, we decide to make an action, whether it be a 'yes' or 'no' action requires a deflation in the statistical field, it means the wave function collapses each time the mind decides something.

 

Now let's make a simple mathematical analogy.

 

Let us say [math]A[/math] is ''yes'' and [math]B[/math] is the ''no'' in a conscious choice. Such a configuration can be given as a system

 

[math]\beta(1)| \uparrow > + β(2)| \downarrow >[/math]

 

And so the probability amplitudes for the yes or no selections are

 

[math]A = |\beta(1)|^2[/math]

 

for a yes answer and for the ''no'' answer

 

[math]B = |\beta(2)|^2[/math]

 

Probabilities being simple enough to state the normalization (we use the logic symbol ''or'' denoted as [math]\mathbf{V}[/math])

 

[math]A \mathbf{V} B = |\beta(1)|^2 + |\beta(2)|^2 = \mathbf{1}[/math]

 

More complicated actions involving more than one decision will create more complicated statistical fields in the macro-quantum phenom on the decision-making of quantum mind and similar systems.

 

A weird coincidence that I joined this forum and spotted this thread just happened to me.  I am not entirely sure what you are talking about but I clicked your link and observed random walks.  I have no idea if my thoughts are related to your point but do believe I know something.

 

X is not equal to Y , when Y is choice. 

 

 

I do not believe that the worlds brains are perceiving things correctly. 

 

 

If I take a coin and tossed it , you  know the chance of H or T is 1/2, you know this is also the chance for any other coin. 

 

 

If I tossed 10 individual coins one after each other and recorded the results of each coins toss, then asked you to pick any of the tosses 1 to 10, you know your chance remains 1/2.

 

This is wrong and a trick your brain is playing on you, 

 

Because the event has already happened, you have ten unknown variants aligned to your choice, 

 

 

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

 

P(H)=0_1/10

 

P(T)=0_1/10

 

1/2 becomes obsolete and by adding choice, makes a multivariate, and we take a random leap rather than a random walk, bringing values forward in time. 

 

 

Also in your link the dots travel neither left or right, there is no decision to make, left and right is arbitrary and left could be up for all we know.

 

 

If the dots were on a sheet of glass and on each side of the glass was a student, they would both argue the opposite. 

 

Yes or no is not a definite answer, either can be persuaded by interaction,   Certainty is 1/2 

Edited August 28, 2015 by xyz

[Turtle]

... 

 

If I take a coin and tossed it , you  know the chance of H or T is 1/2, you know this is also the chance for any other coin. ...

What is the probability that after a toss a coin will come to rest on its edge? :vava:

[xyz]

 

 

What is the probability that after a toss a coin will come to rest on its edge? :vava:

1/3

 unlikely but not impossible aided by cracks in the pavement etc.

Edited August 28, 2015 by xyz

[Turtle]

1/3

 

but unlikely

But if it's 1/3 then it's as likely as a heads or tails.

[xyz]

But if it's 1/3 then it's as likely as a heads or tails.

Not when you consider gravity it is not  and the shape of the coins mass spread across a circumference, if the shape was equal then yes,it is a balance thing v force of impact

Edited August 28, 2015 by xyz

[Turtle]

Not when you consider gravity it is not  and the shape of the coins mass spread across a circumference, if the shape was equal then yes,it is a balance thing v force of impact

But unlike the faces, there are many spots on the edge for it to land. Theoretically, infinitely many.

EDIT: Seems the work has been done.

Probability of a tossed coin landing on edge

Abstract

An experiment is reported in which an object which can rest in multiple stable configurations is dropped with randomized initial conditions from a height onto a flat surface. The effect of varying the object's shape on the probability of landing in the less stable configuration is measured. A dynamical model of the experiment is introduced and solved by numerical simulations. Results of the experiments and simulations are in good agreement, confirming that the model incorporates the essential features of the dynamics of the tossing experiment. Extrapolations based on the model suggest that the probability of an American nickel landing on edge is approximately 1 in 6000 tosses.

...

Anyway, this was off the topic of consciousness but as the article in the OP isn't about consciousness either I suppose it didn't matter. Start a new thread or maybe a mod will split this and you can argue to your heart's content.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Turtle