Neurophysiology mediates classical and quantum measurement

[Loren Booda]

In my article "Neurophysiological Uncertainty" on my website http://www.quantumdream.net, I introduce a classical neuronal analog to quantum uncertainty.

Here I wish to explore the relative correspondence to the observer by quantum and nonquantum systems. In the quantum system, measurement is mediated by Planck's constant, h, and in the classical case (derived in my article) by neuronal action, Psi=10¹⁰h.

Measurement of quanta is reciprocal to that of macroscopic objects in that the subjectivity of the one transposes with the objectivity of the other, from the perspective of the observer. In quantum observation, neurophysiology takes the role of a comparatively macroscopic system, while it takes the role of a comparatively microscopic system with observation of correspondent classical systems.

 

[WWW]

Hi Loren Booda,

What is your opinion about Roger Penrose ideas about the connection between QM phenomena and our neurophysiology? ( http://www.friesian.com/penrose.htm )

 

[Loren Booda]

There is a limit to objectivity with observer/object duality. A neurophysiological algorithm attempts eventual objectivity.

Observer and object interaction process on the quantum - neuron - brain levels; the nexus of participation rests in the totality of "observer-object."

Observers are hybrid quantum/classical computers. Artificial Intelligence cannot reproduce the brain unless it develops an effective quantum/classical interface (e. g., neuronal action).

Brain and quantum, considered together at the neuronal synapse, support an algorithm of both sentient organism and environment (observer-object) simultaneously.

 

[WWW]

There is a limit to objectivity with observer/object duality...

So what do you think is the unique property of obsevation, which does not exist in what you call an object?

And what laws do you think governing obsevation?

 

[Loren Booda]

WWW,

The physical property I propose unique to observation is complementarity between observer and object, in the entity I call the "observer-object." Refer again to my web page below, under the article "Configuration Complementarity."

The laws governing observers themselves are those governing the physics of observation, and vice versa. A physical analog of free will perception with mutual participation manifests in the quantum quasi-randomness between interactive complementary observers (in the person of an observer-object or an object-observer).

 

[WWW]

I think we need a new logical point of view here, which is not a excluded-middle point of view, for example: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/SimSym.pdf

What to you think?

You wrote:

a "random" process has as its complement anentropic memory.

Please give a simple explanation for this beautiful idea.

 

[Loren Booda]

The Many-Worlds heiarchy ("a 'random' process"), founded on free will, translates its lost order into evolving observer intelligence ("anentropic memory").

Lineage of measurement derives its classical logic from the cohering of superposed probabilistic states; i. e., underdetermined classical information arises from that of overdetermined quantum.