Dear Andrei and List,
I have been reading the session opening post for a few days now and
trying to make sense of it in terms of the Foundations of Information
Science.
These questions continue to be raised and I am glad the session here
causes me to return to them. They continue to be the center of an
ongoing crisis in physics. I am not sure of the state of play - and it
would be useful to me to have a physicist summarize the latest work.
The last paper I reviewed on the subject was James Malley's paper
(http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0402/0402126.pdf)
which, at the
time, I thought convincingly showed that EPR results do not commute. A
paper from Daniele Tommasini
(http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000651/00/locaqft.pdf)
appears to show that EPR is unmeasurable. I'd like to hear the standing
of these papers today, if anyone knows.
I was fortunate to be in a conversation with Roger Penrose a few years
ago about these questions and he put it rather well by saying that he
was troubled that cricket balls did not appear to behave according to
the rules of quantum physics.
I have a number of standing questions about entanglement theory
especially as it related of molecular biology. For example: Is an
entire organism considered to be an entangled entity? What is the
theoretical and experimental justification for stem cells as origin of
entangled cell structures? How does that work according to entanglement
physics? It is simple to consider entanglement in the case of single
photons, it is rather more difficult to generalize it. Although,
aggregate manifestations of entanglement may, in fact, be easier to deal
with both experimentally and theoretically.
What Penrose is getting at by the above remark is that if such states as
entanglement/non-locality and superposition do exist at the quantum
level they must surely manifest at the classical level. Andrei's appeal
to scale in his recent post seems unreasonable (he essentially asks at
what increase of mass entanglement stops).
Hence, entangled states/non-locality, superposition, must necessarily be
in the mechanics of information theory. In other words, we need a
theory of information that unifies classical and quantum theories - or
we need some reasonable explanation of why there should be two theories.
I think there may, in fact, be ready manifestation of
entanglement/non-locality at the classical level underlying the
integration of experience in senses. If this is not a classical level
manifestation of entanglement and non-locality then it requires that we
do something like Jonathan Edwards'
(http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/aw.htm) proposal
and reduce integrated
experience to single cells. This does not seem likely in my view
because the argument reduces to a point and if it does not the locality
issues remain within the cell. However, I do think Jonathan's work is
very interesting and worthy. In my view, even if the manifestation is
isolated to a single cell or just a few cells in the brain, the locality
issue is a problem for sentience engineering and cognitive science.
(Obvious example: smash fingers from both hands in a door. How is it you
can integrate the pain of each together in a single cognition?)
Indeed, I do currently assume in my work that there is this
manifestation of entanglement/non-locality at the classical level of
sentience engineering and that it does explain the integration of
experience. However, whether this non-locality and associated sensory /
cognitive integration relates directly to EPR I leave as an open
question. There are many miles to go before we sleep. It certainly
would be convenient, however, if I could say with some certainty that
all organisms are entangled entities - in a single whole or in parts.
As to the Toshiba device, as they say here in the USA, "I'm from
Missouri" (the "show me" state) - I will wait until they actually have
something to show before passing judgment.
With respect,
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
SEMEIOSIS RESEARCH
INSTITUTE for ADVANCED SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
http://www.semeiosis.org
http://iase.info
Andrei Khrennikov (by way of Pedro Marijuan <marijuan@unizar.es>) wrote:
> *11th FIS Discussion Session:
>
> **QUANTUM INFORMATION*
> *Andrei Khrennikov & Jonathan D.H. Smith
>
>
> *
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu May 18 20:06:14 2006
