Quantum Physics, Measurements and Robert's Functional Dynamics Concept

[Ionel <***>]

I am adding a new part to my response on "States" and the measurement
problem in Quantum Theory. Some authors, such as David Bohm (fmrly. at
Oxford) and MacKay at Harvard, feel strongly that Quantum & Mechanics is
a "misnomer" for quite different reasons, although not totally unconnected.
Thus David Bohm says that all systems are connected in the entire Universe
(s?) at the quantum, microscopic level, and that different properties of an
electron, for example, are exhibited with different interacting systems;
David Bohm in his Quantum Theory (1951 edn, 2nd edn. 1991) also goes
further in stating that the measurement system/detectors/apparatus and the
quantum system that is observed have to be considered as a "whole" in the
quantum theory. Bohmm also states that therefore, even 'simple systems'
such as the electron exhibit complex behaviors at the microscopic level.

This may, thus suggest that complexity, even in Robert's sense, does
originate at the quantum, microscopic level in biological organisms, as he
was pondering on this question back in 1956, in his Quantum Genetics
article published in BMB.

David Bohm also has some other interesting and provoking thoughts on why
and how quantum processes and the thought process in humans exhibit some
basic similarities, and he also cites some older views by Niels Bohr that
are labelled as 'highly speculative' on this subject. (See also my previous
posting on the preprint "N-Categories in Neuroscience" by Ronnie Brown
(freely downloadable at his site). On the whole, Robert's ideas about
measurement in complex systems do seem to be rather similar to David Bohm's,
although Robert doesn't cite Bohm in either his "Essays on Life..." or in
his original article on Quantum Genetics in 1956. Because, really, the root
of all discussion about Schrodinger's "What is Life?" and Robert's "Life
Itself", or F. Crick's "Life Itself..." is Quantum / Molecular Genetics.

MacKay' lecture notes at Harvard on the "Mathematical Foundations of
Quantum Mechanics" (Theory?) makes the point that one cannot define a Phase
Space of single, dynamic state points, in Quantum Statistical Mechanics
because--according to Heisenberg's principle-- one cannot observe
simultaneously velocity and position at any "point in time". (Quantum)
States are then defined by means of a probability measure for certain
observables whose eigenvalues determined through measurement. Moreover,
just like Von Neumann and Robert, he distinguishes between "pure states"
and "mixtures of states" in quantum theory... but no hidden variables.
David Bohm agrees in his new edition: hidden variables won't work in quantum
theory, and therefore, "causality" in the Newtonian mechanical sense- or
Einstein's-- for that matter, won't work in quantum theory.
Both David Bohm and Werner Heisenberg agree on one thing : quantum theory
is not in the final, completed stage yet, more new physics is needed. In
this, Robert is in agreement with both of them. They seem to separate when
it comes to the means by which to achieve/ develop the new physics. David
Bohm doesn't exclude biology from the new , quantum physics
but "speculatively" suggests possible bridges between quantum theory and the
thinking processes in the human brain. In my paper published back in 1972,
"A Category- Theoretical Analysis of Processes involved in EEG.",(RRM),that
we're scanning soon, I have obtained estimates of the energy needed to
sustain 'thinking processes' based in neural circuits/networks localized in
the brain's cortex, based on a combinatorial approach combined with
Category theory.