Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Peter Jackson: on 3/26/17 at 19:47pm UTC, wrote Biswaranjan, Apologies I'd witten the below a while ago but mistakenly...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 3/23/17 at 6:26am UTC, wrote Dear Biswaranjan, With great interest I read your essay, which of course...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 3/18/17 at 10:34am UTC, wrote Dear Prof Dikshit, I want you to ask you to please have a look at my...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 3/12/17 at 12:16pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Dikshit! I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian...

Anonymous: on 3/11/17 at 5:13am UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Dikshit, You have made a very interesting postulate. I do admire...

Lawrence Crowell: on 2/21/17 at 1:22am UTC, wrote That was the sense I got. This is similar to other QM set ups, such as Bell...

Biswaranjan Dikshit: on 2/17/17 at 17:45pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr Lawrence B. Crowell, Thank you very much for your appreciation of...

Lawrence Crowell: on 2/17/17 at 16:07pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Dikshit, Great essay! I have one small quibble with it, but over...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Gary, the article was posted in regard your assertion that numbers don't..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Gary Simpson: "Georgina, I am sure that you think you have answered my question but you..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Georgina Woodward: "James, I'm sorry for getting the way you define mass wrong. It is clear to..." in Sounding the Drums to...

John Cox: "James, Now, please. Do not take umbrage. I fully accept covariance within..." in Sounding the Drums to...

ms office support: "There are many users of MS Office who use different applications of it for..." in Are We Merging With Our...

Samaira Khan: "Hi there, I enjoy reading through your article post. I like to write a..." in Retrocausality,...

Nitina oania: "http://freerobuxgenerator.net" in Quantum Replicants:...

Nitina oania: "We below at Chikara Video Game" understand exactly what it resembles to..." in Quantum Replicants:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.


FQXi FORUM
August 20, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Theoretical proof of biased will of nature as the origin of quantum mechanical results by Biswaranjan Dikshit [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Biswaranjan Dikshit wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 16:16 GMT
Essay Abstract

Although quantum mechanics can accurately predict the probability distribution of outcomes in a large number of identical systems, it cannot predict the result of individual experiment. So, Schrodinger and others had hypothesized the existence of free will in every particle which causes randomness in individual results. This free will theory however failed to quantitatively explain the quantum mechanical results. In this article, by assuming the will of particles to be biased to satisfy the goals of the collective system or universe, we mathematically derive the correct spin probability distribution without using quantum mechanical formalism (operators and Born’s rule). Similarly, by using biased will, we exactly reproduce quantum mechanical spin correlation in entangled pairs of particles. Finally and most importantly, using the biased will approach, we develop a scientific justification for the form of quantum mechanical wave function of free particle (which is conventionally and till date a postulate of quantum mechanics). Thus, we prove that the will of the object biased by universe is the origin of quantum mechanical results. So, we can say that mindless mathematical laws of quantum mechanics give rise to aims and intention in complex systems because the microscopic entities from which the larger system is made up of, are biased to contribute in achievement of the collective goal of the system. Finally, in this paper we show that by using our biased will theory, we can find answers to many important philosophical questions such as how life and intelligence could have been created in nature.

Author Bio

Author has a PhD degree in Engineering and graduation degree in Electrical Engineering. Presently, he is working as a Scientific Officer in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai and is recognized as Associate Professor of Homi Bhabha National Institute, India. He has published a good number of papers in peer reviewed journals on topics related to foundations of physics. His current interests include quantum mechanics, quantum biology, quantum field theory and philosophical aspects of physics.

Download Essay PDF File




Harry Hamlin Ricker III wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 16:59 GMT
Hi, I don't see any relation between this essay and the topic of the essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Biswaranjan Dikshit replied on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 17:18 GMT
This essay for the first time mathematically proves that (even for nonliving fundamental particles like electrons, protons, photons etc) collective goal affects the individual behavior in quantum mechanics. So, through this essay, it is scientifically proved that we all (irrespective of living or nonliving collection of particles) are always unconsciously approaching towards achieving certain goals. Thus, the topic of essay is related to "Wandering towards a goal".



Harry Hamlin Ricker III replied on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 17:55 GMT
Hi, I am sorry but Your essay is obscure and doesn't seem to prove what you say. You say we all are unconsciously approaching towards achieving certain goals and that demonstrates wandering towards a goal. But wandering means aimless and pointless or having no goal. So I am not convinced this relates to the topic specified.

report post as inappropriate


Avtar Singh wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 21:58 GMT
You are using a circular logic in this article, ".....instead of taking the will of nature as completely free, we have taken it to be biased to satisfy some laws and intentions (or motivations) of the universe. By this, we could form a foundation on which the postulates of quantum mechanics can stand..."

First a "biased will" cannot be "Free Will". Secondly, a biased will towards universal laws will of course follow the universal laws. Bias predetermines the outcome, hence a circular logic.

Moreover, QM is a statistical theory while Free Will is founded on certainty and not uncertainty. Hence, they are not compatible concepts.

report post as inappropriate

Author Biswaranjan Dikshit replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 02:08 GMT
I want to clarify your three doubts. First, you have written that "biased will" cannot be "Free Will" ". Of course, in this essay, I have nowhere written that particles have free will. I have written that particles have "biased will". Because it is a will, at the individual level, particle behavior looks random or aimless. Because this will is biased, the whole or collective result progresses towards a goal.

Second you have written that "Bias predetermines the outcome, hence a circular logic". I emphasize that, by taking bias, I could mathematically derive exact quantum mechanical results which has never been done earlier. Thus, I prove the existence of biased will in nature.

Lastly, I don't agree with your statement, ".... while Free Will is founded on certainty". Actually, free will is completely random or uncertain. But, QM has a specific probability distribution i.e. collective behavior along with randomness at the individual level (For example, interference by particles). In my case, "biased will" correctly reproduces the QM results because I take partial randomness in form of "biased will".



Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 17:20 GMT
Dear Professor Dikshit,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible “quantum particles.”

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 22:38 GMT
Dear Prof Dikshit,

You say - "Because it is a will, at the individual level, particle behavior looks random or aimless. Because this will is biased, the whole or collective result progresses towards a goal."

A biased free will at the individual level must also be biased towards a goal because it is not absolutely free will. Why do you say that particle behavior is random but system is not while both have biased will?

A theory that has to be biased to achieve a desired result is not a real theory but an empirical correlation. That is a real weakness of the QM theory. Another huge weakness is that QM predicted vacuum energy is 120 orders of magnitude higher than the observed vacuum energy density of the universe. When Einstein had to use a bias or fudge factor of cosmological constant to achieve the observed vacuum energy results, he called it the biggest blunder.



Regards

Avtar

report post as inappropriate


Jack Hamilton James wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 22:13 GMT
Thanks for the submission. I thought it was pretty interesting. Could you further explain your assumption?

e.g. "assuming that the inanimate particles have a will and that is biased to

satisfy the laws of universe such as conservation laws and symmetry of space."

I am reminded of Einstein adding in a t dimension to account for time, then finding it all works well with t just added in there, and of course it had to.

Best,

Jack

report post as inappropriate


Lee Bloomquist wrote on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 02:22 GMT
Dear Biswaranjan Dikshit,

You write:

"...since all processes occurring in the universe are governed by quantum physical laws which incorporate the biased will of the nature (as demonstrated in this paper), every system is inherently goal oriented whether we are able to perceive it or not."

Does your work involve "fixed points?"

That is, "Wandering towards a goal" in the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Biswaranjan Dikshit replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 02:37 GMT
Thanks for interest in my essay. I agree with you that knowledge of the "self" is required to choose a particular path out of many options. Perhaps, this self consciousness exists in every (inanimate) objects in the universe !



Lee Bloomquist replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 13:23 GMT
"I agree with you that knowledge of the "self" is required to choose a particular path out of many options."

I would respectfully add: "By following a 'map' in which the self has the possibility to see itself represented"-- perhaps like the "map" a person of that day could have experienced when listening to Parmenides express a version of his poem for a particular time, place and audience, which would be lost to us today because we lack not only the accurate translation but also the required context of time, place and feeling expressed at that time in the voice and body language of the poet's moment-- poetic feeling which would have been required in order to convey the non-verbal knowledge of which Parmenides was speaking, and the map to it, which he was trying to convey.

"Perhaps, this self consciousness exists in every (inanimate) objects in the universe !"

Perhaps. But I suspect most people, creatures, and somehow analogically, quantum particles are unconscious of such a map, even if they have been lucky enough to see it, but instead are driven in their choices by unconscious fear, mostly of being wrong, fear which binds many of us to some group whose strongly emotional beliefs we share. Living in constant fear, like the laboratory animal being observed in experiments on "probability learning," we seem to behave as in the Nash equilibrium evident in foraging experiments, where the animals congregate in stable groups around various probabilistic feeding stations. I may be afraid, but at least I'm together with others who express a terrifyingly strong reaction to that fear.

Hence (and perhaps sadly) the title of my essay.

report post as inappropriate


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 13:41 GMT
Dear Mr. Biswaranjan Dikshit

Article is brilliant. That's how I imagined an essay on a given topic. Everything is rational and logical.

However, I would reformulated two of your conclusion. I would say a) The answer to first question (a) is that since all processes occurring in the universe are related.

In my essay, you can see my definition of the Mach principle and mathematical proof of this assertion.

biased will of the nature resulting from the interaction of the whole and the parts of the universe. Part can not be the cause of the whole, but related with the whole.

In the b) I use Occam's razor and say: Answer to second question (b) is that some amount of goal oriented behavior is there in every system.

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate


Natesh Ganesh wrote on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 19:14 GMT
I am curious to know what the author means by the term 'will' and 'free will'. What does it mean for particles to have a 'will' and 'biased will' on top of that?

Is the author suggesting, that the 'will' in all particles is some kind of fundamental property of everything in the universe? Are they only limited to particles or do fields and waves have a 'will' too?

Can we measure the actual 'will' of a particle, or only infer it from how it follows the laws of the universe?

report post as inappropriate

Author Biswaranjan Dikshit replied on Feb. 2, 2017 @ 03:30 GMT
Dear Mr Natesh Ganesh,

Thank you very much for reading my article and for asking the specific questions. The 'will' is a kind of creativity which is fundamentally present in everything in this universe. If this 'will' were free, it would have led to purely random results everywhere. But practically, we see a specific probability distribution which is conventionally explained by quantum mechanics. However in this essay, I have mathematically proved that not only the observed probability distribution but also the postulates of quantum mechanics can be derived just by taking the 'will' biased by the whole or collection.

To answer your second question,since everything (including particles, fields, waves etc) obey quantum mechanics, all of them have 'biased will'.

Your third question 'Can we measure the will?' is very interesting. To answer this, let us understand what do we mean by measurement. In any measurement process, we first predict the consequence of a particular value of variable and compare it to experimental observation. If the prediction and observation match, we take that the assumed value of variable is correct. For instance, how do we measure position of a stationary particle? We predict that if another moving particle hits the stationary particle at assumed position, the moving particle should be deflected. If this happens in experiment, we take assumed position as the measured value. To cite another example, how will you measure temperature of your body? You predict that if the mercury level in a glass thermometer touching your body reaches the mark 98.6 0F, your temperature is 98.6 0F. Similarly, as the assumed existence of "biased will' in nature predicts exactly correct and experimentally verified probability distribution of events, we take that 'biased will' does exist in everything.



Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 2, 2017 @ 17:45 GMT
Dear Professor Dikshit,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible “quantum particles.”

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Gerold Gruendler wrote on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 09:55 GMT
Dear Biswaranjan, you claim to present `a scientific proof´ that some `will´ is active in each particle or microscopic object, and that this will is biased by the `will of nature´, or biased `to satisfy ... intentions (or motivations) of the universe´.

Note that you could present by exactly the same arguments `a scientific proof´ that the course of events in this world is steered by...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Biswaranjan Dikshit replied on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 12:05 GMT
Dear Gerold Gruendler,

Thank you very much for your interest in my essay. Of course, if we want, we can replace the "will of nature" in my essay as "will of God" provided we assume that nature having a will is same as God . I would also like to point out that nature here simultaneously refers to microscopic particle on which experiment is carried out, other particles/systems which are in quantum coherence with it and the whole universe that tries to impose conservation laws. But, I don't agree with you that "will of nature" can be replaced by "chance" as in my essay it is the "will of nature" that imparts a goal oriented behavior leading to quantum mechanical probability distribution where as "chance" is completely random.

You have commented- "´superiority of law of quantization of spin over the law of conservation of angular momentum.´. No such superiority of laws does exist nor is needed in physics.".

I agree that presently no such law now exists in physics. But you can conclude about the truth by following reasoning. Suppose initially a single electron spin is oriented along Z-axis so that its spin along Z-axis is +1/2. Now you try to measure the spin of same electron along X-axis. Naturally, by conservation of angular momentum, you will expect spin angular momentum to be zero where as practically you will get +1/2 or -1/2. How will you understand this? This can be understood by accepting the superiority of law of quantization of spin over the law of conservation of angular momentum.




Andrew R. Scott wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 20:01 GMT
You say "In this paper, by assuming that the inanimate particles have a will..."; but why should we assume any such thing? And if we did make that assumption, and if it was true, it would just move the puzzle of the origin of will back into the question of how do inanimate particles possess "will".

report post as inappropriate

Author Biswaranjan Dikshit replied on Feb. 5, 2017 @ 05:14 GMT
Since the assumption of 'will' in fundamental particles has led to exactly correct and experimentally verified probability distributions in my essay, I take that my assumption is correct.

Main motivation of this method is that it provides a mathematical justification for basic form of quantum mechanical wave function.

You have also raised the question "How do inanimate particles possess "will"?". My answer is that every fundamental or inanimate particle in this universe inherently posses 'will' just like it contains energy. It is present in the particle since the time of its creation. When in an assembly of such particles, these 'will' of different members become coherent, the assembly shows a life like behavior such as that of a living cell.




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 11:47 GMT
Dear Prof Dikshit,

Thank you for your essay. So you mean to say all the particles will have ‘biased will’. Would it be same ‘biased will’ to every particle in the universe? If it is different, who would be deciding that each ‘biased will’ and how that ‘biased will’ would be transferred to every individual particle…?

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 10:34 GMT
Dear Prof Dikshit,

I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at the essay…...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 16:07 GMT
Dear Dr. Dikshit,

Great essay! I have one small quibble with it, but over all this was great. I boosted your score from the doldrums.

I am immediately convinced that Born's rule and the Tsirelson bound can be derived this way. I am going to go about working on that soon. If you have ideas along these lines I would be interested in knowing.

My small quibble is whether what you call bias is really just the endpoint of a path integral, or in a more philosphical sense the final cause in Aristotle's metaphysics. It is then uncertain to me that this is teleonomy in a standard sence. The only way I can see that is with teleonomy with the setting of a measurement apparatus.

If you are interested you can look at my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2737 (the site to attach links does not work for me) I take a somewhat different approach.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Biswaranjan Dikshit replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 17:45 GMT
Dear Dr Lawrence B. Crowell,

Thank you very much for your appreciation of my essay. About your query, I would like to say that the biasing in my essay is same as the Aristotle's final cause (or purpose) which is proved to generate the laws of quantum mechanics which finally govern all the processes in this universe.

Of course, I will read your essay very soon and comment.

Regards

Biswaranjan Dikshit



Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 01:22 GMT
That was the sense I got. This is similar to other QM set ups, such as Bell theorem with initial states and final outcomes in pointers.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 05:13 GMT
Dear Dr. Dikshit,

You have made a very interesting postulate. I do admire the creativeness.

I have thought along similar lines but still ended up in the philosophical soup: All the parts cause the whole and the whole causes all the parts. Reference my website www.digitalwavetheory.com

Nevertheless this is a valiant effort, that I like. I call it intelligent creativity. This is needed when the foundations created by the founders of quantum theory need some shoring up.

Thanks for your entry,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 12:16 GMT
Dear Dr. Dikshit!

I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic

I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it.

If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better.

I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.

The concept of moving space-matter helped me:

- The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter;

- Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter;

- Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz;

- Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe;

- To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in his essay I gave The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural . Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space. Hope you rate my essay as high as I am yours. I am waiting your post.



Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 06:26 GMT
Dear Biswaranjan,

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high praise.

You are absolutely right that «that motivations of the universe not only in form of conservation laws and spatial symmetry but also in form of other intentions such as minimizing potential energy, collective goal of complex system etc. affect the quantum mechanical results.»

I believe that it is provisions of yours that are the key to the answer about the self-organization of matter and to the question set by this contest.

Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded people.

You might also like reading my essay .

I wish you success in the contest.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 19:47 GMT
Biswaranjan,

Apologies I'd witten the below a while ago but mistakenly pasted it to your similarly named neighbours essay string! I see I also haven't scored yours yet.;

I enjoyed the original and interesting proposal in your nicely written essay.

Indeed I agree there is a 'bias' in nature in the same way that there's an unexplained asymmetry of the CMB radiation. However such asymmetries ask a question 'why?', or 'how'.

I published a paper on the CMB identifying a coherent mechanism uniquely matching all data, then set about QM, which it seemed may not have had an entirely different cause. I discuss this and the 'classical derivation of QM it allows in my essay. Radical stuff! - but you seem unafraid of advancing old doctrine.

I also show how that bias you correctly identify and quantum interactions in our neural network can produce what we understand as 'aims', again consistent with your view (if not mechanism).

Well done for yours, which I feel should be better supported.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.