Quantum Neurophysics
and the Measurement Problem

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 13:27:36 -0800
From: Gordon Globus <gglobus@orion.oac.uci.edu>
To: quantum-d@teleport.com
Subject: Quantum Neurophysics and the Measurement Problem


	In discussions of the measurement problem in quantum physics, 
the theory of perception is strangely left out, left for someone else to 
deal with, as if it were not a profound problem inextricably tangled with 
the measurement problem. This absence can be discerned in the opening 
sentence of Umezawa's (1993) admirable "Advanced Field Theory." Umezawa 
extends the quantum field description of  *microwelt* objects, like 
photons, to *mitwelt* objects of macroscopic scale, like stones, silicon 
computers and brains. (The scale extension to macroscopic objects is 
achieved by Bogoliubov transformation of the quantized field.) Yet 
Umezawa opens 1.1 with the statement: "Most of the phenomena that we 
observe in nature are of a macroscopic nature." In thus speaking of 
observables, Umezawa adds an undefined theory of perception to his 
quantum field description at the macroscopic scale. 

	I think this is a good point on the trajectory of discourse 
about the measurement problem to focus in on the neglected problem of 
perception, a good time because with the burgeoning work in quantum 
neurophysics, a quantum theory of perception is in sight. I hope to 
cast fresh light on the measurement problem in this communication, by 
presenting a quantum theory of perception based in Yasue's "quantum 
brain dynamics" (QBD) (Jibu and Yasue, 1995). 

	In QBD brain biosubstrates spontaneously generate various 
second-order quantum fields that interact. Stones, silicon computers 
and brains all come under first-order quantum field description, but 
stones and computers don't themselves hoist second order quantum 
fields (whatever the computer might simulate), whereas brains do. Each 
of the participating second-order quantum fields subserves a different 
function, are "representatives" of memory, cognition, and reality. 
Perception of the world *results* from the quantum field interaction, or 
better, the perceptible world *unfolds* from the quantum field 
interaction (or even better, "thrownness in the world" continually 
unfolds from the interaction). Paraphrasing Neisser in "Cognition and 
Reality," perception is where quantum cognition, quantum memory and 
quantum reality meet.

	It should be appreciated here that "representatives" are 
mathematically complex unobservables. They are Schroedinger-like 
wave functions over quantum fields. (So I use "representatives" rather 
than "re-presentations," since the wave function per se is unpresentable. 
"Representatives" imply an influence; its connotation is more cybernetic 
to my ear than passive "re-presentations.") Observables appear as 
complex representatives find conjugate representatives. I think of 
quantum memory and cognition as a store of superposed possibilities 
from which actualities (observables) continually unfold in the 
interaction with the quantum reality representative.

	It is also important to appreciate the relationship between 
second-order unfolded observables and first-order quantum reality. 
Fundamental physical conservation laws insure that observables are 
symmetry-conserving with respect to reality (Yasue, Jibu and Pribram, 
1991). (Yasue extends Hamilton's principle of least action to a 
principle of least neural action in which a neural Lagrangian is 
minimized, which functionally means that the velocity and acceleration 
of ionic currents in the perimembranous bioplasma are minimized.) 
Observables can stand in for quantum reality because they conserve 
invariances within the input flux. 
	
	Let me apply this theory of perception to the measurement 
problem, and then illustrate with Schroedinger's cat. Both microscopic 
and macroscopic reality come under first-order quantum field description. 
But certain real macroscopic objects have the capability of hoisting 
second-order quantum fields and supporting their interactions, and out 
of those interactions observables are continually unfolded. Observables 
are thus derivative (*maya*?). The first-order ontology is unbroken 
(whereas with the Heisenberg actual events Stapp (1993) likes, the primary 
ontology is punctuated by collapses, and so duality is fundamental). 
*The wave function never collapses,* not even in measurement, and so 
first-order ontology is not torn. That putative event of collapse is 
replaced by the match between a complex representative and its conjugate 
on a second-order level. 

	To illustrate with Schroedinger's cat: The essentials of the 
puzzle are that a closed box is contrived to contain, according to 
quantum physics, a superposition of a dead cat and a live one. It is 
Schroedinger's conscious observation on opening the box that appears 
to "collapse the wave function" and the observable cat is found, dead 
or alive as the case may be. Thus Schroedinger's observation takes the 
cat out of the quantum superposition; half the time his very act of 
conscious observation wrenches poor kitty from quantum limbo to her 
sadly observable death.

	My "solution" is to understand the Schroedinger equation in the 
illustration as quantum neurophysical; the equation is not describing the 
evolution of Schroedinger's world but his brain. The wave function is 
in some sense subjective, as Bohr and Heisenberg surmised early on. The 
superposition of "cat dead" and "cat alive" is a superposition of 
Schroedinger's cognitive expectations under the experimental conditions. 
This cognition is carried by a phase wave over quantum fields (hoisted 
by a nanolevel web of filamentous proteins, including the much-discussed 
microtubules). As such, cognition is cybernetic, offering possibilities 
to the complex match with invariants in the input flux, and thereby 
controlling the unfolding of macroscopic objects.

	When Schroedinger prepares to open the box, the cat under quantum 
field description is already either dead or alive. (Don't think of "dead" 
and "alive" as observables here.) Schroedinger's cognition as carried by 
Schoedinger-like phase waves in his brain is a superposition of two 
possibilities brought to the match with input that will take place on 
opening the box. If the cat is in fact alive, then on opening the box a 
match will be made with the alive possibility and a live cat will be 
unfolded in Schroedinger's perception. 

	So the so-called collapse of the wave function is quantum 
neurophysical--but "collapse" is misleading, what's happening here is 
a match of a complex representative and its conjugate representative 
in second-order quantum field interactions, and the unfolding of 
observable order in the match. (In Bohm's [1980] terms, cognitive 
expectations are "implicate orders" and observables are "explicate 
orders.") 

	One big fly in this ointment is that brains turn out to be 
windowless monads within which worlds are unfolded out of second-
order quantum field interactions. The world in common fragments into 
parallel worlds (kept coherent to the extent that input, memory and 
cognition are similar). Ah, the existential isolation, each of us 
enclosed within a quantum monad (where it would take a sorcerer to 
feel at home), ensnared in *maya*--which is admittedly all hard to 
accept! But it should not be surprising that extending the quantum 
revolution to quantum neurophysics would again powerfully solicit 
common sense...

Bohm, D. (1980), Wholeness and the Implicate Order (Boston: Routledge and  
  Kegan Paul).
Jibu, M. and Yasue, K. (1995), Quantum Brain Dynamics and Consciousness   
  (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins).
Neisser, U. (1976),  Cognition and Reality (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman).
Stapp, H.(. (1993),  Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics (Berlin, Heidelberg 
  and New York: Springer Verlag).
Umezawa, H. (1993), Advanced Field Theory: Micro, Macro, and Thermal
  Physics (New York: American Institute of Physics).
Yasue K., Jibu M. and Pribram K.H. (1991), Appendix to K.H. Pribram, Brain 
  and 
  Perception (Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.).