Biochemistry and Wave functions

[Varon]

Biochemistry doesn't use the concept of wave functions because biochemistry deal with big things that are much larger than the quantum realm. But isn't it that stochastic quantum process can affect the probability of certain occurences that can amplitude up and affect Biochemistry? Chaos and non-linear process can amplify via the butterfly effect. Now to what extend is this overcrowded by thermally driven Brownian motions? And can the quantum indeterminacy cause macroscopic effect? Perhaps when the average of Brownian motions and quantum indeterminacy is added. It can affect the macrostate by the different microstate changes.

I'm asking this because Stapp proposed that the mind external to the brain can affect quantum indeterminacy and bias it in such a way that the macrostate is affect by the influence of the mind on the microstate causing the brain and body to act in certain ways. Now I wrote this so someone can overwhelmingly refute Stapp by arguing that brownian motions would always rule and no amount of quantum indeterminacy and biasing and influence can overtake the brownian motions in Biochemistry. Is this correct just for this argument (ignoring Stapp speculations). I want the definite arguments that thermal motions overtake any quantum input no matter how large is the quantum biasing of influence. Thanks.

 

[SpectraCat]

Biochemistry doesn't use the concept of wave functions because biochemistry deal with big things that are much larger than the quantum realm. But isn't it that stochastic quantum process can affect the probability of certain occurences that can amplitude up and affect Biochemistry? Chaos and non-linear process can amplify via the butterfly effect. Now to what extend is this overcrowded by thermally driven Brownian motions? And can the quantum indeterminacy cause macroscopic effect? Perhaps when the average of Brownian motions and quantum indeterminacy is added. It can affect the macrostate by the different microstate changes.

I'm asking this because Stapp proposed that the mind external to the brain can affect quantum indeterminacy and bias it in such a way that the macrostate is affect by the influence of the mind on the microstate causing the brain and body to act in certain ways. Now I wrote this so someone can overwhelmingly refute Stapp by arguing that brownian motions would always rule and no amount of quantum indeterminacy and biasing and influence can overtake the brownian motions in Biochemistry. Is this correct just for this argument (ignoring Stapp speculations). I want the definite arguments that thermal motions overtake any quantum input no matter how large is the quantum biasing of influence. Thanks.

Decoherence .. look into it. It holds the answers you seek.

 

[Varon]

Decoherence .. look into it. It holds the answers you seek.

I know about decoherence, the article I read says it thus:

"... the movements of dust particles performing Brownian motions are indeterminate although decoherence immediately removes all quantum effects. The same will apply for the
brain. Even if all superpositions immediately decohere, neuronal processes will nevertheless be indeterminate. Decoherence theory explains why in the macro-realm only classical states and trajectories can be observed. However, it does not explain why a particular pointer state (like for example ‘cat dead’or ‘channel open’) is realized and not another one."

Hence random quantum processes can create chaotic effect that can cause a non linear amplication that can ultimately affect channel open or channel close. This means wave function can eventually affect biochemistry. Pls. comment. Thanks.

 

[SpectraCat]

I know about decoherence, the article I read says it thus:

"... the movements of dust particles performing Brownian motions are indeterminate although decoherence immediately removes all quantum effects. The same will apply for the
brain. Even if all superpositions immediately decohere, neuronal processes will nevertheless be indeterminate. Decoherence theory explains why in the macro-realm only classical states and trajectories can be observed. However, it does not explain why a particular pointer state (like for example ‘cat dead’or ‘channel open’) is realized and not another one."

Hence random quantum processes can create chaotic effect that can cause a non linear amplication that can ultimately affect channel open or channel close. This means wave function can eventually affect biochemistry. Pls. comment. Thanks.

Your last statement does not follow from the previous one. Can you elaborate on the circumstances which would allow the "non-linear amplification" you mention to occur? Can you give examples where this has been shown to happen? If not, then it is just idle speculation. My understanding is that decoherence rapidly reduces systems to the classical statistical mechanical description, muting any quantum effects ... you are describing a case that is manifestly non-statistical.

That said, there are cases where quantum effects do affect biochemistry ... for example H/D exchange experiments. Photosynthesis is another area where quantum effects are important .. a few years ago it was shown that there are long-lived coherences of electronic states in the proteins after photon absorption. Of course, in these sorts of cases, decoherence is either suppressed (photosynthesis), or else the process is so fast that decoherence doesn't have time to occur (H/D exchange), so that doesn't really apply to your initial question I guess.

 

[Varon]

Your last statement does not follow from the previous one. Can you elaborate on the circumstances which would allow the "non-linear amplification" you mention to occur? Can you give examples where this has been shown to happen? If not, then it is just idle speculation. My understanding is that decoherence rapidly reduces systems to the classical statistical mechanical description, muting any quantum effects ... you are describing a case that is manifestly non-statistical.

That said, there are cases where quantum effects do affect biochemistry ... for example H/D exchange experiments. Photosynthesis is another area where quantum effects are important .. a few years ago it was shown that there are long-lived coherences of electronic states in the proteins after photon absorption. Of course, in these sorts of cases, decoherence is either suppressed (photosynthesis), or else the process is so fast that decoherence doesn't have time to occur (H/D exchange), so that doesn't really apply to your initial question I guess.

I'm not talking about non-statistical quantum influence. What I simply want to know is whether random quantum processes can amplify to random biochemical properties. For example, is the following true:

"Indeterministic quantum events give rise to indeterminate thermal and chemical fluctuations which leads to indeterminate neural noise and thereby to indeterministic processes within the neural network of the brain."

 

[John37309]

I'm not talking about non-statistical quantum influence. What I simply want to know is whether random quantum processes can amplify to random biochemical properties. For example, is the following true:

"Indeterministic quantum events give rise to indeterminate thermal and chemical fluctuations which leads to indeterminate neural noise and thereby to indeterministic processes within the neural network of the brain."

I will just throw in my opinion here simply cos I'm curious.

Varon if i read between the lines of what your saying, i get the impression your suggesting that random quantum "noise" might be contributing to some of the neural activity in the brain to some small extent. My opinion would be that the frequency of the random fluctuations would be very different to the frequencies used by the neural cells themselves and they would be unlikely to interfere with each other. Kinda like having 2 radios in your house and listening to two different radio stations. The radio stations are both all around you, but they don't interfere with each other.

In saying that, the human body and human mind does not like it very much if our body temperature goes above or below 37 degrees C.

John.

 

[Varon]

I will just throw in my opinion here simply cos I'm curious.

Varon if i read between the lines of what your saying, i get the impression your suggesting that random quantum "noise" might be contributing to some of the neural activity in the brain to some small extent. My opinion would be that the frequency of the random fluctuations would be very different to the frequencies used by the neural cells themselves and they would be unlikely to interfere with each other. Kinda like having 2 radios in your house and listening to two different radio stations. The radio stations are both all around you, but they don't interfere with each other.

In saying that, the human body and human mind does not like it very much if our body temperature goes above or below 37 degrees C.

John.

What do you think of this (from Peter Ryser article "Creative Choices"):

"The fluctuations of membrane ion channels between the open and closed states are thermally driven and therefore in a way amplify these thermal fluctuations (see DeFelice, 1981, for a review). Since ion channels regulate the transmembrane voltage gradient, their fluctuations
influence the firing behaviour of the neurons. Chemical synapses are not deterministic switches that convert incoming action potentials into the release of fixed packets of neurotransmitters.
Instead, they release the transmitter in a probabilistic manner and often at a low rate even spontaneously (see Koch, 1999, for a review). Synaptic release noise is caused by molecular events that occur when the action potential invades the synaptic bouton. The firing probability
is modulated by the history of firing of both the pre- and the postsynaptic neuron.We can assume that depending on these modulations and on the strength of the incoming potential, the situation at the synaptic cleft becomes more or less unstable and a release happens
spontaneously due to thermal and chemical fluctuations. Since the underlying fluctuations are indeterminate, we can conclude that the resulting neural noise is also indeterminate."

 

[John37309]

What do you think of this (from Peter Ryser article "Creative Choices"):

"The fluctuations of membrane ion channels between the open and closed states are thermally driven and therefore in a way amplify these thermal fluctuations (see DeFelice, 1981, for a review). Since ion channels regulate the transmembrane voltage gradient, their fluctuations
influence the firing behaviour of the neurons. Chemical synapses are not deterministic switches that convert incoming action potentials into the release of fixed packets of neurotransmitters.
Instead, they release the transmitter in a probabilistic manner and often at a low rate even spontaneously (see Koch, 1999, for a review). Synaptic release noise is caused by molecular events that occur when the action potential invades the synaptic bouton. The firing probability
is modulated by the history of firing of both the pre- and the postsynaptic neuron.We can assume that depending on these modulations and on the strength of the incoming potential, the situation at the synaptic cleft becomes more or less unstable and a release happens
spontaneously due to thermal and chemical fluctuations. Since the underlying fluctuations are indeterminate, we can conclude that the resulting neural noise is also indeterminate."

Ok, you might kill me for saying this, but i will say it anyway. That piece of quoted text is speculative. Now I'm saying that from an electrical signalling point of view. Neural activity in the brain, for all intensive purposes, is instant or near the speed of light. The signalling is electrical, or in electrical terms, its movement of electrons.

"thermally driven and therefore in a way amplify these thermal fluctuations"
Thats just wrong! I don't care what anyone says. Every cell in the body has its own "battery power". the mitochondria. So signals are not simply amplified. Its movement of electrons from molecule to molecule.

Ahhhh... This is outside my league. I'm more likely to send you wrong or give you bad advice. I'm sorry, i don't want you thinking my thoughts if your working on some person who's sick.

John.

 

[Varon]

Ok, you might kill me for saying this, but i will say it anyway. That piece of quoted text is speculative. Now I'm saying that from an electrical signalling point of view. Neural activity in the brain, for all intensive purposes, is instant or near the speed of light. The signalling is electrical, or in electrical terms, its movement of electrons.

"thermally driven and therefore in a way amplify these thermal fluctuations"
Thats just wrong! I don't care what anyone says. Every cell in the body has its own "battery power". the mitochondria. So signals are not simply amplified. Its movement of electrons from molecule to molecule.

Ahhhh... This is outside my league. I'm more likely to send you wrong or give you bad advice. I'm sorry, i don't want you thinking my thoughts if your working on some person who's sick.

John.

But neurotransmitters are chemical events.. not electrical.. familiar with the synapse?

"Chemical synapses are not deterministic switches that convert incoming action potentials into the release of fixed packets of neurotransmitters. Instead, they release the transmitter in a probabilistic manner and often at a low rate even spontaneously (see Koch, 1999, for a review)."

Of course I'm not defending any of it. I'm just asking.

 

[SpectraCat]

But neurotransmitters are chemical events.. not electrical.. familiar with the synapse?

"Chemical synapses are not deterministic switches that convert incoming action potentials into the release of fixed packets of neurotransmitters. Instead, they release the transmitter in a probabilistic manner and often at a low rate even spontaneously (see Koch, 1999, for a review)."

Of course I'm not defending any of it. I'm just asking.

All of that can be explained using statistical mechanics, without resorting to concepts of "quantum indeterminacy". However, the question still arises, where does the "random" character of statistical mechanics come from? What is causing the fluctuations? Since the fluctuation-dissipation theorem is equally valid for dealing with thermal fluctuations in quantum and classical systems, I suppose one could argue that the "randomness" associated with thermal fluctuations is a manifestation of the statistical ensembels produced by the decoherence of the underlying quantum systems (i.e. molecules, atoms and electrons).

I am not saying my casual analysis above is correct, or even that it is particularly plausible. What I am saying is that I cannot say right now with any degree of certainty that it is *incorrect*. I reserve the right to change my mind after further consideration

 

[SpectraCat]

Ok, you might kill me for saying this, but i will say it anyway. That piece of quoted text is speculative. Now I'm saying that from an electrical signalling point of view. Neural activity in the brain, for all intensive purposes, is instant or near the speed of light. The signalling is electrical, or in electrical terms, its movement of electrons.

"thermally driven and therefore in a way amplify these thermal fluctuations"
Thats just wrong! I don't care what anyone says. Every cell in the body has its own "battery power". the mitochondria. So signals are not simply amplified. Its movement of electrons from molecule to molecule.

Ahhhh... This is outside my league. I'm more likely to send you wrong or give you bad advice. I'm sorry, i don't want you thinking my thoughts if your working on some person who's sick.

John.

Sorry, but that is not even close to correct. Neuronal signals do have electrical character, however the charge carriers are ions, not electrons, and they move at nothing remotely close to the speed of light. The estimates I am familiar with are on the order of 120 m/s or so, which is 40% of one-one millionth of the speed of light.

 

[John37309]

Yea, i should never have commented, its outside my field of study. Sorry about that guys.

John.

 

[Varon]

Your last statement does not follow from the previous one. Can you elaborate on the circumstances which would allow the "non-linear amplification" you mention to occur? Can you give examples where this has been shown to happen? If not, then it is just idle speculation. My understanding is that decoherence rapidly reduces systems to the classical statistical mechanical description, muting any quantum effects ... you are describing a case that is manifestly non-statistical.

That said, there are cases where quantum effects do affect biochemistry ... for example H/D exchange experiments. Photosynthesis is another area where quantum effects are important .. a few years ago it was shown that there are long-lived coherences of electronic states in the proteins after photon absorption. Of course, in these sorts of cases, decoherence is either suppressed (photosynthesis), or else the process is so fast that decoherence doesn't have time to occur (H/D exchange), so that doesn't really apply to your initial question I guess.

Any idea why photosynthesis can exhibit quantum coherence and it can suppress decoherence?

Anyway. In my thread, I'm not asking about quantum coherence in biochemistry but whether indeterministic quantum effects can produce indeterminacy in the biochemistry scale.

 

[alxm]

That said, there are cases where quantum effects do affect biochemistry ... for example H/D exchange experiments. Photosynthesis is another area where quantum effects are important .. a few years ago it was shown that there are long-lived coherences of electronic states in the proteins after photon absorption. Of course, in these sorts of cases, decoherence is either suppressed (photosynthesis)

I wouldn't say decoherence is 'suppressed' there, or even particularly long-lived. The timescale involved was, IIRC, on the order of 10^-13 s.

It would be a long-lived coherence compared to what one would expect for bulk solution, which is where the coherence estimates done by e.g. Max Tegmark come from, which are the ones usually cited when you want to debunk the whole quantum-consciousness nonsense. I think they've been misleading when claiming their result as an unexpectedly long decoherence time for a biochemical system and comparing to arguments made from the situation in bulk solution, since there's a world of difference between the environments.

You can't have long-range or long-lived coherences regarding what's going on outside the protein. Coherences within a single molecule are a different matter. The argument against quantum brain BS still stands, since there's simply nothing going on at the cellular level that depends on what a single enzyme does, or a single molecule. Cells are statistical machines. So no, quantum indeterminacy does not translate to the biochemical scale in the sense that any biochemical action or cellular action depends on the outcome of any single quantum 'measurement'.

 

[SpectraCat]

I wouldn't say decoherence is 'suppressed' there, or even particularly long-lived. The timescale involved was, IIRC, on the order of 10^-13 s.

It would be a long-lived coherence compared to what one would expect for bulk solution, which is where the coherence estimates done by e.g. Max Tegmark come from, which are the ones usually cited when you want to debunk the whole quantum-consciousness nonsense. I think they've been misleading when claiming their result as an unexpectedly long decoherence time for a biochemical system and comparing to arguments made from the situation in bulk solution, since there's a world of difference between the environments.

You can't have long-range or long-lived coherences regarding what's going on outside the protein. Coherences within a single molecule are a different matter. The argument against quantum brain BS still stands, since there's simply nothing going on at the cellular level that depends on what a single enzyme does, or a single molecule. Cells are statistical machines. So no, quantum indeterminacy does not translate to the biochemical scale in the sense that any biochemical action or cellular action depends on the outcome of any single quantum 'measurement'.

Well, I more or less said all that ... that was also why I gave a one-word answer in my original response. I also should have said "quantum effects can be observed in biochemical systems", rather than "quantum effects do affect biochemistry", which perhaps implies more than I meant to say. I should also have pointed out explicitly (as you did) what specific time-scales we are discussing here. In the case of the photosynthesis system, I think we are saying the same thing ... in that case the decoherence is a couple of orders of magnitude slower than in solution, precisely because the photosynthetic proteins have evolved to produce an environment where decoherence is "suppressed" relative to solution. That is all I was saying. My point was that there are only a limited number of cases where quantum effects can even be observed in biochemical systems, and that they are, as you say, primarily statistical mechanical systems.

 

[Varon]

All of that can be explained using statistical mechanics, without resorting to concepts of "quantum indeterminacy". However, the question still arises, where does the "random" character of statistical mechanics come from? What is causing the fluctuations? Since the fluctuation-dissipation theorem is equally valid for dealing with thermal fluctuations in quantum and classical systems, I suppose one could argue that the "randomness" associated with thermal fluctuations is a manifestation of the statistical ensembels produced by the decoherence of the underlying quantum systems (i.e. molecules, atoms and electrons).

Decoherence doesn't cause collapse so no determinate values are chosen, quantum indeterminacy is still responsible for the random values. What I simply want to know is if this random quantum values can be amplify to produce random biochemical values or properties or behavior. This is what I simply want to know in this thread. Thanks.

 

[SpectraCat]

Decoherence doesn't cause collapse so no determinate values are chosen, quantum indeterminacy is still responsible for the random values. What I simply want to know is if this random quantum values can be amplify to produce random biochemical values or properties or behavior. This is what I simply want to know in this thread. Thanks.

I sincerely doubt it based on my own understanding of quantum phenomena, and I cannot think of an example that can be explained in such terms. That's as close to a "no" as you will get from me.

 

[Varon]

I sincerely doubt it based on my own understanding of quantum phenomena, and I cannot think of an example that can be explained in such terms. That's as close to a "no" as you will get from me.

What do you make of the following? What's the flaw?

"When two water molecules interact with each other, the different possible results of the interaction will interact differently with other molecules which then interact with other particles and so forth. Thus, the result of a single thermal interaction will quickly influence the
thermal fluctuations in the whole brain, thereby influencing the states of many ion channels and synapses. The macroscopic indeterminacy described [... ] is the sum effect of billions of such quantum events happening within and around the brain." (by Peter Ryzer)

 

[SpectraCat]

What do you make of the following? What's the flaw?

"When two water molecules interact with each other, the different possible results of the interaction will interact differently with other molecules which then interact with other particles and so forth. Thus, the result of a single thermal interaction will quickly influence the
thermal fluctuations in the whole brain, thereby influencing the states of many ion channels and synapses. The macroscopic indeterminacy described [... ] is the sum effect of billions of such quantum events happening within and around the brain." (by Peter Ryzer)

Well .. it depends .. if by "macroscopic indeterminacy" he is just talking about the sort of random behavior that is assumed in statistical mechanical treatments of large molecular ensembles, then I don't think anything is wrong with that statement.

If he means, as you have suggested in earlier posts on this thread, that some *non-random* macroscopic phenomena are arising from such microscopic interactions, then I have a big problem with it. Things don't work that way .. the only way a single quantum event can have macroscopic effects like the ones (vaguely) alluded to is if it is coherently amplified in some fashion. I have already explained why I think that cannot happen in biological systems on any time-scale that is macroscopically meaningful. Since microscopic effects between individual molecules are not coherently amplified, they are simply averaged out over large ensembles, producing the observed stochastic behavior that can be explained using statistical mechanics.

I just realized that I am repeating what has already been said by myself and others many times on this thread (and others) .. oh well, maybe this time you will understand ...

 

[Varon]

Well .. it depends .. if by "macroscopic indeterminacy" he is just talking about the sort of random behavior that is assumed in statistical mechanical treatments of large molecular ensembles, then I don't think anything is wrong with that statement.

If he means, as you have suggested in earlier posts on this thread, that some *non-random* macroscopic phenomena are arising from such microscopic interactions, then I have a big problem with it. Things don't work that way .. the only way a single quantum event can have macroscopic effects like the ones (vaguely) alluded to is if it is coherently amplified in some fashion. I have already explained why I think that cannot happen in biological systems on any time-scale that is macroscopically meaningful. Since microscopic effects between individual molecules are not coherently amplified, they are simply averaged out over large ensembles, producing the observed stochastic behavior that can be explained using statistical mechanics.

I just realized that I am repeating what has already been said by myself and others many times on this thread (and others) .. oh well, maybe this time you will understand ...

What do you make of the following?

"In this picture two different kinds of causes exist: the parts (the elementary particles) and their interactions causally affect the whole by determining the possibilities. The whole (the mind) affects the parts by influencing which possibility is realized. So we have upwards and downwards causation. In a probabilistic way, these two directions of causation would determine how our reality proceeds.

A possible objection against this model would be that it violates the statistical laws of quantum theory. Here it should be noted that the physical laws have been developed to understand the dynamics of physical fields and particles. They have been tested on non-living systems in the absence of any significant mental causation. It would be surprising if the same natural laws that describe non-living systems could also explain the interactions between the mind and the physical brain. We can expect that an extension of physics and new natural laws are necessary to understand these interactions." (Ryzer)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Supposed for sake of discussion we assume the Mind (Wigner wise) can do this trick affecting quantum probabilities. Then if Mind can influence and bias the quantum indeterminacy, it can influence and bias macroscopic state like biochemistry? Consequence of this is for example:

"Therefore, I suggest that the mental causation increases the occurrence probability of macroscopic brain states by increasing the probability of all micro-states that realize this macro-state. A mental impulse to lift my arm would increase the probability of all possible realities or universal states giving rise to the action ‘lifting of my arm’." (Ryzer)

 

[SpectraCat]

What do you make of the following?

"In this picture two different kinds of causes exist: the parts (the elementary particles) and their interactions causally affect the whole by determining the possibilities. The whole (the mind) affects the parts by influencing which possibility is realized. So we have upwards and downwards causation. In a probabilistic way, these two directions of causation would determine how our reality proceeds.

A possible objection against this model would be that it violates the statistical laws of quantum theory. Here it should be noted that the physical laws have been developed to understand the dynamics of physical fields and particles. They have been tested on non-living systems in the absence of any significant mental causation. It would be surprising if the same natural laws that describe non-living systems could also explain the interactions between the mind and the physical brain. We can expect that an extension of physics and new natural laws are necessary to understand these interactions." (Ryzer)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Supposed for sake of discussion we assume the Mind (Wigner wise) can do this trick affecting quantum probabilities. Then if Mind can influence and bias the quantum indeterminacy, it can influence and bias macroscopic state like biochemistry? Consequence of this is for example:

"Therefore, I suggest that the mental causation increases the occurrence probability of macroscopic brain states by increasing the probability of all micro-states that realize this macro-state. A mental impulse to lift my arm would increase the probability of all possible realities or universal states giving rise to the action ‘lifting of my arm’." (Ryzer)

I think that it is completely and utterly hypothetical, and lies in the realm of metaphysics and philosophy rather than science. He has not one shred of evidence that "the mind" (whatever that is) can interact with microscopic quantum systems to affect macroscopic behavior. The whole arm-raising example is not relevant, because it is well-understood how neuronal impulses generate mechanical reactions in muscles. Not only can I raise *my* arm this way, but if you let me stick electrodes in your brain, I can raise your arm as well. It's no more mystical than turning on a television. The only open question is on the nature of consciousness, specifically what precisely occurs in your brain when your consciousness (whatever that is) decides to raise your arm, and I don't see how anything in what you have posted addresses that in any scientifically substantive way.

 

[Varon]

I think that it is completely and utterly hypothetical, and lies in the realm of metaphysics and philosophy rather than science. He has not one shred of evidence that "the mind" (whatever that is) can interact with microscopic quantum systems to affect macroscopic behavior. The whole arm-raising example is not relevant, because it is well-understood how neuronal impulses generate mechanical reactions in muscles. Not only can I raise *my* arm this way, but if you let me stick electrodes in your brain, I can raise your arm as well. It's no more mystical than turning on a television. The only open question is on the nature of consciousness, specifically what precisely occurs in your brain when your consciousness (whatever that is) decides to raise your arm, and I don't see how anything in what you have posted addresses that in any scientifically substantive way.

I know this mind thing is controversial and hypothetical, that was why I didn't mention it in the beginning and avoiding it. I was just asking generally to what extend is biochemistry affected by quantum indeterminacy. Since I didn't say that I was basing it on the Mind affecting the quantum indeterminacy biasing and causing some kind of artificial coherence.. you didn't get my question and it is unanswered.

So again my question is (let's ignore this Mind able to influence microscopic thing but for sake of discussion of the microstates affecting macroscopes, let pretend something can influence the quantum indeterminacy).

Supposed quantum indeterminacy can be influenced and biased. To what extend can this affect Biochemistry (and which molecule and behavior most affected)? In other words, Supposed quantum indeterminacy were influenced in such a way that it behaves like there was quantum coherence.. what part of Biochemistry can be affected?

Or maybe let me put it this way. Supposed quantum coherence can be initiated, what is the biggest effect on biochemistry (and which behavior) can be affected by this?

(let me find other ways to say it if I'm not yet being clear)

You would say quantum coherence was not true. I know. I'm just asking supposed it were true. What biochemistry profile (or let's just say MACROstates) can be most influenced. Hope you get my questions. I'm not trying to support the article. In fact I want to refute it (maybe write another article) so I need to understand each step and refute each step like the biochemistry part.

 

[SpectraCat]

I know this mind thing is controversial and hypothetical, that was why I didn't mention it in the beginning and avoiding it. I was just asking generally to what extend is biochemistry affected by quantum indeterminacy. Since I didn't say that I was basing it on the Mind affecting the quantum indeterminacy biasing and causing some kind of artificial coherence.. you didn't get my question and it is unanswered.

So again my question is (let's ignore this Mind able to influence microscopic thing but for sake of discussion of the microstates affecting macroscopes, let pretend something can influence the quantum indeterminacy).

Supposed quantum indeterminacy can be influenced and biased. To what extend can this affect Biochemistry (and which molecule and behavior most affected)? In other words, Supposed quantum indeterminacy were influenced in such a way that it behaves like there was quantum coherence.. what part of Biochemistry can be affected?

Or maybe let me put it this way. Supposed quantum coherence can be initiated, what is the biggest effect on biochemistry (and which behavior) can be affected by this?

(let me find other ways to say it if I'm not yet being clear)

You would say quantum coherence was not true. I know. I'm just asking supposed it were true. What biochemistry profile (or let's just say MACROstates) can be most influenced. Hope you get my questions. I'm not trying to support the article. In fact I want to refute it (maybe write another article) so I need to understand each step and refute each step like the biochemistry part.

Those are not meaningful questions .. if the effects were large enough, I could make your head explode just by wishing it. It's hard enough to deal with what actually *is* in physics ...I am not prepared to speculate about what *might be if things were different*. I don't see the point.