'Understanding' requires consciousness, and cannot be reproduced in a computer.
Depends what you mean by “computer.”
Consciousness cannot exist in any classical machine. (Henry Stapp)
Consciousness cannot exist in any orthodox quantum computer as currently conceived. (David Deutsch)
However, the micro-tubule networks are a biological nano-scale post-quantum computer.
Consciousness is excited in the Bohm quantum active information pilot field by direct back-reaction of the classical physics structures it is piloting.
Sarfatti explains back reaction
This forms an adaptive self-organizing feedback “creative Godel strange loop” e.g.
Orthodox quantum theory only works for closed systems with linear unitary dynamics between strong measurements.
Indeed, orthodox quantum theory in Copenhagen, Many-Worlds and Transactional throw the classical baby out in the quantum bath water.
The only have the wave without the particle so to speak. In terms of Max Tegmark’s picture, Levels 1 and 2 do not exist. Only Level 3 is real.
There is no direct back-reaction of classical be-ables to their qubit pilot waves in this limiting case, which is why the eigenvalues appear randomly in accord with the Born probability rule. Entanglement signaling is impossible in this limit. There is no setting dependence and the eigenvalues appear randomly in parts of the entangled whole.
Post-quantum theory obeys nonlinear non unitary dynamics in open systems pumped far from thermodynamic equilibrium.
Applied Bohmian Mechanics
Albert Benseny1, Guillem Albareda2, Angel S. Sanz3, Jordi Mompart4, and Xavier Oriols5a
1 Quantum Systems Unit, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University, 904-0495 Okinawa, Japan
2 Departament de Qumica Fsica and Institut de Qumica Teorica i Computacional, Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona,
3 Instituto de Fsica Fundamental (IFF-CSIC), Serrano 123, 28006 Madrid, Spain
4 Departament de Fsica, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
5 Departament d'Enginyeria Electronica, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
Received: October 21, 2014/ Revised version
"Abstract. Bohmian mechanics provides an explanation of quantum phenomena in terms of point-like particles guided by wave functions. This review focuses on the use of nonrelativistic Bohmian mechanics to address practical problems, rather than on its interpretation. Although the Bohmian and standard quantum
theories have different formalisms, both give exactly the same predictions for all phenomena. Fifteen years ago, the quantum chemistry community began to study the practical usefulness of Bohmian mechanics. Since then, the scientific community has mainly applied it to study the (unitary) evolution of single-particle
wave functions, either by developing efficient quantum trajectory algorithms or by providing a trajectory-based explanation of complicated quantum phenomena. Here we present a large list of examples showing how the Bohmian formalism provides a useful solution in different forefront research fields for this kind of problems (where the Bohmian and the quantum hydrodynamic formalisms coincide). In addition, this work also emphasizes that the Bohmian formalism can be a useful tool in other types of (nonunitary
and nonlinear) quantum problems where the influence of the environment or the nonsimulated degrees of freedom are relevant. This review contains also examples on the use of the Bohmian formalism for the many-body problem, decoherence and measurement processes. The ability of the Bohmian formalism to analyze this last type of problems for (open) quantum systems remains mainly unexplored by the scientific community. The authors of this review are convinced that the nal status of the Bohmian theory among
the scientific community will be greatly influenced by its potential success in those types of problems that present nonunitary and/or nonlinear quantum evolutions. A brief introduction of the Bohmian formalismand some of its extensions are presented in the last part of this review."
Subquantum Information and Computation
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
"It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)."
Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
Report number: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
(or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)
Free Will and Retrocausality in the Quantum World
A conference held under the auspices of the JTF-funded project, New Agendas for the Study of Time
Venue: Winstanley Lecture Theatre, Trinity College, Cambridge
Dates: 1—4 July 2014
Programme [with links to videos of talks and discussion sessions]
Why retrocausality — and why free will?
The 'classic' motivation for retrocausal models in QM stems from Bell's Theorem, and the nonlocality it seems to entail. Nonlocality is often felt to be counterintuitive in itself, and the source of an unresolved tension between quantum theory and special relativity. As Bell himself described the implications of his famous result: “[I]t's a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial ... [T]he cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincaré thought that there was an aether — a preferred frame of reference — but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether.''
As Bell was well aware, the dilemma can be avoided if the properties of quantum systems are allowed to depend on what happens to them in the future, as well as in the past. Like most researchers interested in these issues, however, Bell felt that the cure would be worse than the disease — he thought that this kind of “retrocausality” would conflict with free will, and with assumptions fundamental to the practice of science. (He said that when he tried to think about retrocausality, he “lapsed into fatalism”.)
If this objection to retrocausality in QM is well-founded, it raises interesting issues about the nature and origins of this "free will", that turns out to play such a surprising role in the foundations of physics. If the objection is not well-founded, then it is high time it is moved aside, so that the retrocausal approach can be given the attention it otherwise seems to deserve.
Moreover, there are other motivations for exploring retrocausal models in QM, some the focus of considerable current research. Examples include:
The proposed retrocausal explanation of the results of 'weak measurements' by Aharonov, Vaidman and others.
The relevance of retrocausality to the issue of the viability of an 'epistemic' interpretation of the quantum state, especially in the light of recent results such as the PBR Theorem.
Recent work throwing new light on the relation between retrocausality in QM, on the one hand, and time-symmetry and other symmetries, on the other.
For these reasons, too, there is a pressing need for a better understanding of notions of free will and causality, and of their relevance to the retrocausal approach to the quantum world. This conference brought together many of the leading writers and researchers on these topics, to discuss these issues.
Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics – Entangled Many-Particle Case
Roderick I. Sutherland
Centre for Time, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
"A Lagrangian formulation is constructed for particle interpretations of quantum mechanics, a well-known example of such an interpretation being the Bohm model. The advantages of such a description are that the equations for particle motion, field evolution and conservation laws can all be deduced from a single Lagrangian density expression. The formalism presented is Lorentz invariant. This paper follows on from a previous one which was limited to the single-particle case. The present paper treats the more general case of many particles in an entangled state. It is found that describing more than one particle while maintaining a relativistic description requires the introduction of final boundary conditions as well as initial, thereby entailing retrocausality.
This paper focuses on interpretations of QM in which the underlying reality is taken to consist of particles have definite trajectories at all times1. It then enriches the associated formalism of such interpretations by providing a Lagrangian description of the unfolding events. The convenience and utility of a Lagrangian formulation is well-known from classical mechanics. The particle equation of motion, the field equation, the conserved current, action-reaction, the energy-momentum tensor, , etc., are all easily derivable in a self-consistent way from a single expression. These advantages continue in the present context. Since a Lagrangian description is available in all other areas of physics and continues to be useful in modern domains such as quantum field theory and the standard model, it is appropriate to expect such a description to be relevant and applicable here as well2.
In addition to the advantages already listed, the Lagrangian approach pursued here to describe particle trajectories also entails the natural introduction of an accompanying field to influence the particle’s motion away from classical mechanics and reproduce the correct quantum predictions. In so doing, it is in fact providing a physical explanation for why quantum phenomena exist at all – the particle is seen to be the source of a field which alters the particle’s trajectory via self-interaction.”
What Retrocausal Explanations Look Like
Department of Physics and Astronomy, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192-0106
"While it is generally known that retrocausal models can provide an account of Bell-inequality violations in terms of spacetime-local beables, new models can now explicitly show how this comes about. By analyzing a simple local-beable model that precisely recovers the quantum joint probabilities for measurements on a Bell state, general concerns about retrocausal models can be analyzed
at a much deeper level than previously possible. (Including questions of locality, fine-tuning, free settings, etc.) With this framework it is possible to assess whether various general concerns apply to this specic model, instead of mere straw-man alternatives. In this workshop, I am particularly interested to see whether surviving concerns are better classied as outstanding physics questions
or philosophical objections.
Bell's theorem has ruled out local past-common-cause explanations of observed Bell-inequality violations, but this has not stopped research into more general causal explanations of such phenomena, in terms of beables localized
in spacetime. The options on the table include superluminal causal inuences, retrocausal explanations, and a casual restriction on the measurement settings themselves. I have always found retrocausal explanations by far more
compelling than the other options (including giving up on causal explanations entirely). But this opinion is an extreme minority among physicists, largely, I suspect, because most physicists do not know what a retrocausal explanation
might look like in the rst place (or have an incorrect straw-man view of what retrocausality might entail). This short paper aims to rectify this situation, and to address the points at which physics-based objections might be raised
against such models.
To this end, I will begin by describing an explicit retrocausal model with well-dened, continuous, spacetime-local beables. This model is completely successful at reproducing the joint probabilities predicted by QM for a Bell state
of two spin-1/2 particles in a singlet conguration, but is limited in that there is no obvious extension to cases of non-maximally entangled states. Nevertheless, since this model explicitly violates the Bell-inequalities, it serves as an
excellent testbed for an analysis of retrocausal models in general. The model provides the ability to directly answer questions like: Is this model "local"? Is it fine-tuned" to prevent non-local signaling? Does it violate the ability of
the experimenters to freely choose measurement settings?
While I doubt that many will be swayed by this particular model, it may help one to sharpen the main points of concern, beyond a supercial and circular “I don't like retrocausal models because I don't like retrocausality". Indeed, I
suspect that most of the sharpest objections will boil down to not physics arguments, but rather a philosophical distaste of concepts that are already present in other well-established physical theories. If so, logical consistency requires one to also reject these problematic concepts in all contexts. And if one is not willing to reject the block universe of general relativity, or to replace the perfect CPT-symmetry of quantum field theory with some deep time-asymmetry,
the logical consequence may be that one is also forced to seriously consider retrocausal explanations of Bell-inequality violations. At minimum, by aligning itself with these well-established concepts, retrocausal explanations arguably
comprise just as viable a research program as anything else on the table."
This is the implication of both John Searle's 'Chinese room argument' and Penrose's Godel theory argument in Emperor's New Mind.
Understanding requires a 'non-computable' effect, and the only source is quantum collapse via Platonic values.
On a related matter, see (click on video)
They used genetic engineering to produce quantum coherence via exciton hopping in viruses, precisely the mechanism we've proposed (since 2002) in microtubules.