On The Possibility That We Think in A Quantum Probabilistic Manner

NeuroQuantology | December 2010 | Vol 8 | Issue 4 | Supplement Issue 1| Page S3‐47 S3
Conte E., On the possibility that we think in a quantum probabilistic manner
Original Article

On the Possibility That We Think in a
Quantum Probabilistic Manner

Elio Conte
Abstract
My discussion is articulated under the neurological as well as the psychological
profile. I insist in particular on the view that mental events arise in analogy with
quantum probability fields. I review some results obtained on quantum cognition
discussing in detail those that we obtained on quantum interference in mental
states during perception‐cognition in ambiguous figures. Frequently, I use the
approach to quantum mechanics by Clifford algebra. I insist in particular on two
recent results. The first is the justification that I obtain of the von Neumann
postulate on quantum measurement and the second relates my Clifford
demonstration on the logical origins of quantum mechanics and thus on the
arising feature that quantum mechanics relates conceptual entities. The whole
discussion aims me to support the conclusion that we think in a quantum
probabilistic manner.

Key Words: quantum cognition, Clifford algebra, quantum probability fields,
logical origins of quantum mechanics
NeuroQuantology 2010; 4: S3‐47

1. Introductory Remarks1 These are very valuable studies

With the advent of functional brain imaging providing knowledge on the functional role
technologies, neuroscience and neuro- of different brain areas. However
psychology have reached satisfactory levels neuroscience finds it hard to identify the
of understanding and knowledge. It is of crucial link existing between empirical
great relevance that has been identified brain studies that are currently described in
areas that are involved in a wide variety of psychological terms and the data that arise
brain functions including learning and instead as described in neuro-physiological,
memory. On the other hand, the genetic and genetic, and biochemical applications. These
biochemical approaches offer a constant studies continue every day with a
contribution in this direction producing step methodological approach that is well clear.
by step new important advances under the We have a kind of prevailing tendency in
profile of the investigation, research, and which we are inclined to assume that the
clinic application. measurable properties of the brain through
functional imaging technology and
biochemical discoveries, should be finally
Corresponding author: Elio Conte sufficient to achieve an appropriate
Address: Department of Pharmacology and Human Physiology ‐ explanation of the psychologically
Tires, Center for Innovative Technologies for Signal Detection and
Processing, Department of Neurological and Psychiatric Sciences, phenomenology that occurs during
University of Bari, Bari, Italy. School of Advanced International neuropsychological experiments.
Studies on Theoretical and Non Linear Methodologies in Physics,
Bari‐Italy. I am a physicist that has some mental
Phone: +390805242040 reservation on this approach. I am convinced
e‐mail: elio.conte@fastwenet.it that intrinsically mental and experiential
Submitted for Publication: June 4, 2010; final revision received Sept
20, 2010; accepted Oct 15, 2010.
functions such as "feeling" and "knowing"
ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com
and the other basic psychological functions one. It is this virtual nervous system that for
and attitudes cannot be described exclusively Walker produces consciousness and that it
in terms of knowledge achieved by the can direct the behavior of the real nervous
previously mentioned approach. They system. In short the real nervous system
require in addition an adequate physics in operates by means of synaptic messages
order to be actually explained. I am while the virtual one operates by means of
profoundly persuaded about such basic quantum tunneling. I think that we arrive to
statement, and I will explain here the a similar conclusion adopting the view of
reasons of my firm belief. Let me start with Eccles and of Margenau. It is the abstract
some considerations. field of probabilities that in quantum
We have some well established ideas mechanics determines events. In his 1992
about some foundations on the manner in article, Eccles offered plausible arguments
which biological systems work. Biological for mental events causing neural events via
matter, including the brain, is ubiquitously the mechanism of wave function collapse.
arranged by protein molecules. According to Conventional operations of the synapses
Monod, allosteric enzymes are logic depend on the operation of ultimate synaptic
elements. They interact in information- units called buttons. Eccles states that, these
processing circuits whose very fundamental synaptic buttons, when excited by an all-or-
structure is essentially probabilistic. In nothing nerve impulse, deliver the total
textbooks neurons are described quite content of a single synaptic vesicle, not
classically with their tree-like dendrites and regularly, but probabilistically. In Eccles
spines functioning essentially as words;
deterministic adding devices. They weight “Excitation of synaptic buttons delivering
sums of synaptic inputs. However, the total content of a single synaptic
neurophysiological research has often vesicle represents the first intrinsically
evidenced that such approach could be also probabilistic event in the brain. Eccles
studied in detail the problem, evidencing
profoundly approximated. A single neuron
that a refined physiological analysis of the
could be very distant from being a simple synapse shows that the effective structure
additive device. According to Crick and to of each button is a paracrystalline
Koch (Crick & Koch, 1998) it could be a kind presynaptic vesicular grid with about 50
of highly complex information-processing vesicles. The existence of such a crystalline
structure. Studies by artificial neural structure is suggestive of quantum
networks are revealing that in a general physical laws in operation.”
framework we could be in presence of a very Eccles focused attention on these para-
large and highly complex stochastic- crystalline grids as the targets for non-
computational arrangement about which we material events. He discussed in detail how
know very little in detail. the probability field of quantum mechanics,
Eccles and Beck in 1992 (Beck and which carries neither mass nor energy, can
Eccles, 1992; 2003; Eccles, 1990; Beck, 1996; nevertheless be envisioned as exerting
Margenau, 1950; 1953; Wolf, 1989) obtained effective action at the microlevels of
by direct calculations that the synapses in quantum events. In the event of a sudden
the cortex may respond in a probabilistic change in the probability field brought on by
manner to neural excitation; a probability the observation of a complementary
that, given the small dimensions of synapses, observable, there would be a change in the
should be governed by quantum uncertainty. probability of emission of one or more of the
These authors produced direct estimations vesicles. The action of altering the
that still today result very convincing. The probability field without changing the energy
first detailed quantum model of quantum of the physical system involved can be found
conjunction synapse was given by the by the equation governing the Heisenberg
physicist, Evan Walker (Walker, 1977). In principle of uncertainty.
1970 he proposed a synaptic tunneling model To be clear: for cortical nerve
in which electrons can "quantum tunnel" terminals, the observed fraction of action
between adjacent neurons, thereby creating potential pulses that result in exocytosis is
a virtual neural network overlapping the real considerably less than 100%. This can also
be modeled classically, but the large probability fields of quantum mechanics are
Heisenberg uncertainty in the locations of causatively responsible for physical events.
the triggering calcium ions, entails that the As well as Wolf outlines (Beck and Eccles,
classical uncertainties will carry over to 1992; 2003; Eccles, 1990; Beck, 1996;
similar quantum uncertainties. At this stage Margenau, 1950; 1953; Wolf, 1989) For
of elaboration some different authors completeness we report here in Fig1 also the
suggested that the sudden change in the basic scheme as it was used, published,
probability field resulting from an represented and discussed in detail by
observation could be the mechanism by Eccles in all his papers on this matter
which mental events trigger neural events.
Eccles concluded that calculations
based on the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle show that the probabilistic
emission of a vesicle from the paracrystalline
presynaptic grid could conceivably be
modified by mental intention in the same
manner that mental intention modifies a
quantum wave function.
For experimental evidence showing
how mental events influence neural events,
Eccles pointed to the papers by Roland et
al., (Roland et al., 1980) who recorded, using
radioactive xenon, the regional blood flow
(rBF) over a cerebral hemisphere while the
subject was making a complex pattern of
finger-thumb movements. They discovered
that any regional increase in rBF is a reliable
indicator of an increased neuronal activity in
that area. Another evidence, using the same
technique of monitoring rBF, showed that
silent thinking has an action on the cerebral
cortex. For example, merely placing one’s
attention on a finger that was about to be
touched, showed that there was an increase
in rBF over the postcentral gyrus of the Figure 1. (A) Three‐dimensional construct by J.
cerebral cortex as well as the mid-prefontal SzentAgothai showing cortical neurons of various types. (B)
area. A lot of studies conducted in recent Detailed structure of a spine (sp) synapse on a dendrite
(den); st: Axon terminating in synaptic bouton or
years by fMRI substantially indicate that this
presynaptic terminal (pre); sv: synaptic vesicles; c:
is the way. presynaptic vesicular grid; d: synaptic cleft; e: postsynaptic
Eccles concluded that non-material membrane; a: spine apparatus; b: spine stalk; m:
mental events in the brain are at individual mitochondrion. Figure 1 has been taken Proc Natl Acad Sci
microsites, the presynaptic vesicular grids of U S A. 1992; 89 (23): 11357–11361.
the buttons. Each button operates in a
probabilistic manner in the release of a All these are important and
single vesicle in response to a presynaptic fundamental elaborations. I have used terms
impulse. It is this probability field that Eccles as probability, link of quantum filed of
believed to be influenced by mental action probability and mental events, irreducible
that is governed in the same way that a indeterminism. When a physicist starts to
quantum probability field undergoes sudden speak about structures that admit a so large
change when as a result of observation the number of abstract entities, he always feels
quantum wave function collapses. By this to be panic-stricken. I am speaking about
way we arrive to the following basic science or idealizations!
conclusion: mental events cause neural
events analogously to the manner in which
To be clear: all the scientific theories bound in the molecule that is separated by
introduce mathematical models, and all they the synaptic cleft from a second similar
"approximate" or "idealize" in some manner molecule, its energy E and the frequency
our reality. When in such text I use terms as ν by which the electron attempts to escape
probability or quantum field of probabilities for realizing quantum tunneling are well

or "equivalence of probability with space of known experimentally. The frequency ν by
mental events", or still irreducible which the electron makes quantum
indeterminism, it is here that I see the risk of tunneling from the first to the second
idealizations also if, generally speaking, the molecule realizing vesicle release results to
admissibility of idealizations in theorizing is be
and remains of main interest in science. To
ν=ν P (1)
comment the previous conclusions by
Walker, Eccles, Beck and Margenau, I being P the probability of tunneling that will
certainly appreciate their highly fascinating be function P (Vo ,V1 ) with V0 height of the
content but on the other hand I must be care potential barrier. For purpose of calculations
that some idealizations certainly avoid the we assume here it having the value of
risk to result so extreme as to be considered 0.118 eV as it arises from the experimental
physically inadmissible. As a rule, we need data and V1 being instead the presynaptic
unquestionable verifications to accept any
depolarization. The value, L , of the synaptic
thesis in science. Therefore let us go on step
cleft is considered to be of 180 A0 as it is
by step.
obtained from experimental data.
First. In order to take seriously in
consideration the possibility that synaptic
transmission is realized by quantum
tunneling and thus by the foundations and
the rules of quantum mechanics, we have to
perform direct calculations. In detail we
need to calculate the MEEP, (miniature end
plate potentials) – Frequency of vesicle
release as it is obtained by quantum
mechanics and to compare such obtained
theoretical results with the existing
experimental data. Only such comparison
may indicate if we have an agreement or not
between experimental and theoretical data
and, in case, such positive result may
orientate in some manner our thesis that
quantum mechanics has a fundamental role.
In quantum tunneling model
formulated by Walker (Walker, 1977) we
have that an electron transfer is made
between two macromolecules, proteins lying
in the presynaptic dark projections of Gray
and the postsynaptic density at the cleft. It is
postulated that the charge transferred across
the synapse results in raising the protein in Figure 2. In ordinate we have the values of Mepp‐frequency
the presynaptic dark projections of Gray at (frequency of vesicle release in sec‐1) and in abscissa those
higher energy levels. As consequence, of depolarization potential. We have the theoretical curve
conformational changes in these molecules as given by the (1) with the (3) and the experimental values,
forming the vesicle gates in the cleft represented by data points, as they were obtained by Liley
membrane alter their size determining the in 1956. Liley studied the appearance of MEPPs in isolated
rat phrenic nerve‐diaphram preparations. More recently
macrogates both to open and to eject a
experimental results were obtained also by H. von
vesicle that is to say its contents realizing Gersdorff and coauthors (private communication) and they
synaptic conjunction. If we have an electron result very similar to those had by Liley time ago.
The performed calculations give the A neuron takes n-inputs i j . A weight

following expression for the potential function is defined, and still a threshold ϑ
barrier: and an output function f , and the complex
V1 − V0 mechanism may be summarized as it follows
V (x) = ( ) x + V0 0≤ x ≤ L (2)
L n
1 if ∑ w j i j >ϑ
and the value of probability quantum f =−1 otherwise
j =1
tunneling results after calculations to be

(V0 − E )3/2 V1 3/2 In (2) we have given the expression of
P(Vo ,V1 ) = exp(−α (1 − (1 − ) )) , the acting potential barrier between the two
V1 V0 − E
adjacent neurons when the action potential
4 2m arrives, but may we reconcile such
α= L (3)
3= expression with the time dependent
mechanism that we have just evidenced by
In (1) all the data are known and thus
the output function f ?
we may compare it with the experimental
data of vesicle release for different values of I attempt to answer to the first
the depolarization potential V1 .The results question. Science is based on the evidence of
are given in Figure 2. experimental results. I follow Walker in this
argument. There is an experiment that was
It may be observed that the
performed by Babich, AL. Jacobson, Bubash,
agreement between theoretical and
and A. Jacobson in 1965. It was published on
experimental data is excellent,
Science (Babich et al., 1965). The title of the
( R2 = 0.992204 ). I think that a more paper evidences immediately its content. It
satisfying result cannot be asked in a states: Transfer of a response to naïve rats by
comparison between experimental and injection of ribonucleic acid extracted from
theoretical data. So we may reach the first trained rats. Rats were trained in a Skinner
conclusion of the present text. I call it box to approach the food cup when a distinct
Evidence n.1. click was sounded. Ribonucleic acid was
extracted from the brains of these rats and
Evidence n.1 injected into untrained rats. The untrained
It seems that we may conclude on the role of rats then manifested a significant tendency
quantum mechanics in synaptic (as compared with controls) to approach the
conjunction. Obviously it is only evidence. food cup when the click, unaccompanied by
The agreement is excellent but is it sufficient food, was presented. The conclusion seems
such result to conclude the argument of to be: RNA serves to transfer information. It
synaptic conjunction? Certainly, this is not. I is well known that it does not affect the
pose to myself the following questions and I synaptic structures, but it is distributed
think that the same neuroscientist will throughout the brain. So, the explanation
expect a precise indication about at least two seems evident. RNA molecules develop the
other basic problems. role of propagator molecules. Note that they
a) We have given here precise live within few hundred angstroms of one
indications about the possible another. Electron could use such propagator
fundamental role of quantum molecules as stepping ones, by subsequent
mechanics in conjunction synapse tunneling into such propagator molecules
between two adjacent neurons, but they could develop the role to enable the
what is the counterpart of such electron to connect two distant synaptic
conclusion for distant neurons? It is molecules. Their lying within a few hundred
not the case that I insist here to angstroms, assures us that the quantum
outline the importance of such so probability tunneling is not so drastically
fundamental question. decreased by their presence. We have the
potential barrier with the adjacent ones as
b) As basic rough scheme of functioning due to such intermediate, propagator
of a neuron we have the following molecules and in this manner information
scheme. may be transferred over large distances in
the brain (Fig. 2a). We have here long-range
quantum mechanical effects in the brain proposed at the same time to investigate
because we have to consider such succession quantum mechanical corrections to be added
of short range quantum effects in the time to the deterministic dynamics using
dependent formalism of quantum mechanics quantum-mechanical tunneling. On the
and the arising result is that we have a final general plane this procedure recalls in some
wave function spreading out until it invades manner a new program of investigating what
the entire space that it is allowed to it. is usually called the border region between
classical and quantum. These authors have
studied in particular quantum corrections of
an associative (attractor) neural nets. They
adopt a very interesting strategy since they
start from classical physics models of the
associative neural nets and simultaneously
they investigate quantum tunneling posing
the question of minimizing the quantum
fluctuations that are due to the tunneling.
They consider the physical states of
the associative neural nets represented in the
configuration (q-V) space. Here, each point
Figure 2a. Quantum tunneling at large distances by RNA of the horizontal axis represents a unique
propagator molecules
configuration, denoted by the vector q. In
the vertical axis they represent the values of
These considerations, here arranged the potential energy of each configuration.
in accord to Walker, seem to give a possible The vector q having components
answer to the first posed question. However q1,q2,………….,qn determines the state of the
I have some basic comments. The first network as a whole while each qi describes
question is that, as well as I know, the the state of each constituent neuron or,
experiment by the RNA never was repeated equivalently, of each synapse in the net
with success. But this may be a datum Generally speaking, the (q-V) region has
responding only to my insufficient several potential wells that represent the
documentation on this matter. The second patterns and, exhibiting the neural network
comment is that under a probabilistic profile quantum mechanical features, we may have
it does not seem so unreasonable to me the tunneling between the patterns during a
possibility of a step by step continued certain time interval τ . In brief we have as in
quantum tunneling. Let me do a digression physics a particle oscillating with a given
on this matter. frequency around the bottom of the well the
moving is driven by external stimuli and
We know that neural networks are
results in the complex process of pattern
retained the most promising models in
formation and of pattern recognition.
cognitive neuroscience. In the classical
approach the neural nets are retained as fully The tunneling between the patterns is
deterministic systems. The information a tunneling between bound states; we have a
processing of the neural nets bears the similar effect to the case of macroscopic
classic physics with basic determinism and quantum tunneling in superconducting
locality. On the other hand there is an devices. For the formalization the authors
alternative approach in which the dynamics use Pauli master equations. It may be
of the neural nets is modeled quantum assumed that only transitions between
mechanically and in this case it is assumed neighbor wells are effective and thus
that a full quantum mechanical treatment is considering equations of the following form
required. I am attempted to consider such dpm
two approaches as extreme idealizations. = W ( pm + 1 + pm −1 − 2 pm )
dt
There is instead an alternative approach
developed by Dugic and Rakovic (2000) in where the transitions Wmn = W are assumed
which it is proposed that the neural networks to be constant and the ratio τ / τ tunneling is
are classical physical systems but they are considered, being τ the time in which the
energy surface (q-V) remains unchanged Entanglement Swapping

and τ tunneling that one of tunneling effect to In the last few years many results have been
occur. The pm are the tunneling probabilities. obtained on entanglement swapping. We
may have entanglement swapping between
This completes our reasoning on two entangled pairs of particles (Des
possible repeated quantum tunneling. Let us Brandes et al., 2006; Bouda et al., 2001;
go now back to our previous questions. There 2005). The theory shows that if a
is still another comment. In (1) with (3) we measurement is made simultaneously on
calculated the probability of electron elements (B) and (D) of the entangled pairs
tunneling. Actually, the frequency of vesicle (A) (B) and (C) (D), the entanglement on
release fmepp will depend on the number m pairs (A) (B) and (C) (D) collapses, but the
giving the product of the actual number of elements (A) and (C) become entangled
electrons per molecule in the gate that must although they have never been in contact
tunnel to determine conformational change before. Other example. Entanglement
and the number of molecule in the swapping between two entangled gamma
macrogate. Indicating by b the number of and two electrons. Let us admit two
transmitting molecules in the postsynaptic entangled gamma (0) and (1), interacting
elements for gate, and calling N the number simultaneously with two electrons (2) and
of gates in the synapse, the fmepp frequency of (3), as example in a crystal. We have the
vesicle release is entanglement of the electrons (2) and (3)
and the entanglement collapse between (0)
Nbν and (1). These entangled electrons are then
f mepp = .
m captured in the crystal traps and may stay as
According to the calculations such in the traps for months or years at
performed by Walker, the presynaptic ambient temperature.
membrane must have an electric charge Still we have (Wu et al., 2004) a
Q = CV1 sufficient to close the gates between different paradigm for entanglement
firings of the synapse. Thus it must be generation: it is possible to entangle two
Q ≈ mNe being e the electron charge. From particles that never interact directly by
existing experimental data we deduce that means of repeated measurements of a third
Q ≈ 646e as Walker calculates and m ≈ 9 . In subsystem that interacts with both. In
addition to its conceptual interest, it is
conclusion we have a number of electrons
evident that this scheme offers practical
involved. Also discharging the hypothesis of
advantages for long-range entanglement
propagator molecules, it remains as more
generation.
efficient the possibility of swapping quantum
entanglement and of quantum entanglement Finally, it has been shown that
as induced by noise. Let me give a very rough entanglement between two qubits can be
manner to explain quantum entanglement. generated if the two qubits interact with a
Two particles are entangled when their states common heat bath in thermal equilibrium,
are correlated (generally exactly opposite) but do not interact directly with each other.
but both uncertain. To take a macroscopic In most situations the entanglement is
example but only as general indication of created for a very short time after the
quantum mechanics, imagine flipping a coin interaction with the heat bath is switched on,
in a way where the flip was truly random, but depending on system, coupling, and heat
and covering it up before there was any bath, the entanglement may persist for
observation of which side it landed on. In a arbitrarily long times. This is an excellent
quantum sense, the coin is literally both mechanism that gives new light on the
heads and tails until somebody looks - its creation of entanglement (Braun, 2002).
wavefunction is a superposition of both Let us consider that brain contain
states. Once somebody observes its state, the basic noise. As example thermal excitations
wavefunction collapses to one state or the give origin to conformational change in
other. Examples of quantum entanglement molecules and thus cause spontaneously
swapping may be given quantal release. The probability to find a site
in an higher energy state is
p = e − E / kT another and tend to surround blood vessels,

forming the blood-brain barrier. Astrocytes
and thus the probability that the previously also surround synaptic clefts, scavenging
( m ) sites will open at a given instant of time glutamate or other neurotransmitters that
is spill out of the synapse. Some people
pm = e − mE / kT hypothesize that astrocytes even form their
own network, feeding off the synapses of
Scientists regularly discard up to 90 neurons like pyramidal cells.
percent of the signals from monitoring of
brain waves, one of the oldest techniques for 3. Microglia
observing changes in brain activity. They Microglia clear away dead or dying cells.
discard this data as noise because it produces These small glial cells can become activated
a seemingly irregular patterns. The noisy and perform the function of a rudimentary
activity of the brain at rest and in the immune system in the brain. Microglia are
background when we perform tasks, actually activated by trauma and help destroy
represents the majority of what the brain is infectious cells.
really doing. The case is when we measure 4. Schwann Cells
the cost of running the brain and find that
this background activity accounts for most of Schwann cells form myelin sheaths in the
it. There is pioneering research as major step peripheral nervous system (more commonly
forward in helping us in understanding how known as the spinal cord). Unlike
this background activity is organized. oligodendrocytes, each of which can
myelinate more than one axons (in some
cases up to 30 different axons), each
Still We have Glial Cells in the Brain Schwann cell only myelinates one axons.
When we consider the cells in the brain they This completes our discussion on Evidence
are often too quick to overlook the most n.1 .
abundant type of brain cell. Scaffolding cells,
otherwise known as glial cells, outnumber The second. We have still the more
other types of neurons in the brain. complex problem. It is that we relate the
Oligodendrocytes alone outnumber neurons space of mental states with the field of
by an estimated ratio of 3:1. There are four probability as previously discussed. Is it an
different types of glial cells – extreme idealization totally excluded from
oligodendrocytes, astrocytes, microglia, and the possibility to be admitted in science? I
Schwann Cells – each with its own specific answer as it is in my knowledge. We have
attributes, functions, and characteristics. given in the (2) the expression of the
potential barrier when the action potential is
1. Oligodendrocytes arriving to the presynapse. It is obvious that
Oligodendrocytes are what many people it is a rough model that of course furnishes
consider the classic glial cell. This is the cell an excellent agreement with the
that forms a myelin sheath around axons. experimental data. According to the classical
The myelin formed by these sheaths (or scheme of neuron that we have previously
laminae) allows an action potential to illustrated, we are actually in presence of
propagate faster than if the axon were several inputs that are elaborated and
unmyelinated because of the time it takes for combined by the neuron mechanism
sodium channels to open. It takes longer for according to some different weight factors.
the channels to open than it does for the Thus, in conclusion, the potential given in
action potential to propagate, so a (2) is a rough, a mean approximation. We
myelinated axon will transmit a signal at may refine it considering that the arriving of
about 1.7 times the speed of an unmyelinated the n-inputs induces in the potential given in
axon. (2) some fluctuations that result time
2. Astrocytes dependent. In conclusion, instead of
considering the (2) as final expression of the
Atrocities have many functions, some of potential barrier between the two synapse
which are unknown. Astrocytes have long molecules, we must introduce instead a time-
processes, at the ends of which are footpods
(or feet). These form tight junctions with one
dependent potential tunneling containing In conclusion, the concept to relate

random fluctuations. the space of mental states with the filed of
In order to account for such feature probability does not represent an extreme
we may as example write the (2) in the idealization.
following time-dependent form However, by this way we reach an
V ( x ,t ) = k(t )V ( x ) impasse. Quantum mechanics has a basic
foundation. It is signed by an irreducible
where we assume now that the barrier indeterminism. According to McIntyre
height, including k(t ) , is now time- (McIntyre, 2007), a paper written time ago
dependent. We may also consider other more on the general problem of “Thinking
detailed models in order to account for such probabilistically”, the arising problem is to
random fluctuations in time. On this basis explain how in our thinking sphere, the
we may refine our calculations on quantum exquisite sense of mathematical precision, of
tunneling realizing synapse conjunction. unassailable mathematical truth, of the
There is a fundamental aspect that we have Platonic beauty and precision of simple
still to outline here. Quantum tunneling is mathematical curves and other deterministic
an essential feature of quantum processes constructs arise in our brain from the actions
signed by irreducible indeterminism. of our tens of billions of interconnected
Let us consider a tunneling process. neurons subsisting in a immeasurable
We have to connect it to a quantum wave coexistence of fluctuations and of irreducible
function state that is the superposition of the stochasticity and indetermination.
two possible alternatives How is it that from a so high complex
ψ = c1 ψtunneling − yes + c2 ψtunneling − not system, governed by stochasticity and by
random fluctuations, by quantum intrinsic
2
where c1 represents the probability that the and irreducible indetermination, by a mental
2 space conceived in some sense in an
tunneling happens and c2 the probability
isomorphic field of probabilities and, more
that it does not happen. precisely, of quantum probability fields, it
Now, in this quantum mechanical arises our thinking and our reasoning that
approach it is evident that we have a results to be precise, austere, and
profound link between the quantum deterministic?, just using McIntyre
2
probability ψ and the weight factors adjectiveness.
w j that are represented in the more classical It is true. We are in accord with
McIntyre paper. Our reasoning at the first
scheme of the neuron given by stage uses an Aristotelian logic and its
n
1 if ∑ w j i j >ϑ further developments. An unequivocal logic
f =−1 otherwise
j =1 of thinking on which all we derive the
uprightness of our thinking approach,
arriving up to the abstract mathematical
A Quantum Mechanical Model of level of our formal advances.
Neuron Note that I have used two
Of course the idea to connect the weight fundamental terms: determinism and
factors to the quantum wave function arises Aristotelian logic. Let me comment about
also in studies on artificial neuron networks such two basic statements. By this way we
with quantum mechanical properties will indicate if previously we used extreme
(Ventura et al., 1997). The basic idea here is idealizations or not.
that we have a direct link with the
mechanism of synaptic conjunction The first is the determinism. Are we
explained in quantum mechanical terms on sure about determinism in our reality and in
the basis of the previous arguments, and this our thinking?
gives a complete quantum mechanical model It is a celebrated statement that the
of the human neuron supported also from classical dynamics of physics describes
the previous experimental results. systems to be fully deterministic. It is still a
paradigma that Nature exhibits determinism
at the macroscopic level of description that F must satisfy Lipschitz condition and
pertaining to classical physics. The governing restriction we have the solution that is
equations of classical dynamics derive from currently exposed in textbooks. We have
Lagrange equations, from variational ∂F
principles or from Newton’s laws of motion. v = v0 e −( k / m )t with k = −( )v = 0 > 0 ( v → 0)
∂v
However, we must be careful in admitting
determinism so at all. Determinism does not We unrealistically accept that the
arise from this contextual physical particle has v → 0 for t → ∞ . We admit that
framework. Our abstract mathematical level the velocity of the particle goes to zero only
of reasoning and our precise thinking after an infinite time. This is an abstraction
tendency to couple our statements with in contrast with all that we actually observe
ordinary experience, lead directly to with the experience. However, this is what
determinism. However, starting from this we accepts and it results to be consolidated
framework, often we do not sufficiently as arising from classical physics about such
evidence or imprudently it is given silent system. Really the matter does not go in this
that, in order to satisfy the requirement of manner. We pay dear for such assumed
determinism, we do not use only the Lipschitz condition, and we accept
previously mentioned physics. We add a consequently that the particle approaches
posteriori a further relevant restriction. We the equilibrium ( v = 0) after an infinite time
force to coexist the governing equations of while instead really it approaches such
classical dynamics and given initial physical condition in a finite time. Such
conditions with an ad hoc added physics describes an unreal situation.
mathematical restriction. In order to obtain Let us assume instead that the law of
that our systems actually exhibit the motion is
claimed determinism, we impose to all such
theoretical edifice of physics from the F = −kv − k1 vα
outside, that the differential equations with k1 << k and
describing a physical system, must satisfy
the so called Lipschitz condition with the n
α= with n >> 1 , (5)
basic consequence that all the derivatives n+2
that we introduce at the mathematical and being an odd number
physical level, must be bounded.2
For α ≡ 1 you see that the two
We are used to admit reality going in equations, the (4) and the (5), are very
a certain conceptual direction as it derives similar with the only exclusion of a small
from our macroscopic experienced neighborhood of the equilibrium point
reasoning. Really, there is not another way ( v = 0) with the fundamental difference that
for arising determinism. We admit it by an
this time at this point the Lipschitz condition
ad hoc assumption. It seems to respond
is violated. The little but substantial
more to and our kind of wishful thinking
difference between our usual manner to
than other. And in fact we pay dear for such
solve this problem (the (4)) and the (5) gives
our tendency.
enormous differences on the conceptual
Let me give only one example. It is plane and on the plane of the Newtonian
simple but very convincing. Take a particle in dynamical results. First of all, using the (5),
a one-dimensional motion decelerated by a correctly we have now that the time of
friction force approaching the equilibrium, v = 0 , is finite
dv as it must be. This time results to be
F ( v) = m = −kv (4)
dt mv01 − α
t0 = .
with m and v mass and velocity of the k1 (1 − α)
particle. Invoking the ad hoc assumption In addition, in a finite time the
motion of the particle can reach the
2
It is such ad hoc mathematical restriction, that we choose to add equilibrium and switch to the singular
from the outside that guarantees determinism in classical dynamics solution, and this switch is irreversible. The
since it guarantees the uniqueness of the solutions of the used equilibrium point v = 0 of equation (5)
differential equations that are subjected to fixed initial conditions.
represents a terminal attractor which is In conclusion, we must be care in

infinitely stable and is intersected by all the accepting determinism as universal
attracted transients. The uniqueness of the paradigma in our reasoning and thinking.
solution at v = 0 is violated and also the Note that the implications of such possible
motion for t < t0 is totally forgotten. This is failure are of enormous importance for the
to say that we have irreversibility of the argument that we have here in
dynamics as required. The conclusion of this consideration. Take a differential equation as
exposition is that if we let go out the it was formulated by Zak starting with 1998.
Lipschitz restriction in some cases, we obtain Write it as it follows
a correct description of our reality. dx
+ α xk = 0 (6)
So, is determinism an actual dt
foundation or does it represent rather an with k < 1
expression of our obstinate wishful
thinking? The results to let go out Lipschitz Here the Lipschitz condition fails at the
condition is not new here. It was introduced equilibrium point x = 0 .
in literature by Michail Zak and Joseph P. With α = −3 / 2
Zbilut (Zak, 1997; Zak et al., 1997; Zbilut,
2004). Systems violating Lipschitz The solutions are
conditions do not represent an abstract x (t ) = 0 (7)
mathematical formulation. We have concrete and
cases of Lipschitz violation particularly in the
sphere of the biological dynamics. With A. x(t ) ≅ ±(t − A)3/2 (8)
Federici and J.P. Zbilut (Conte et al., 2004; where A is an arbitrary parameter. The
2004; Zbilut et al., 1996; Zimatore et al., consequences of losing uniqueness of the
2000; Vena et al., 2004), I was author of a solution are enormous for the problem that
number of papers showing violation of we have in consideration here. Consider a
Lispchitz restriction in the sphere of particle located at some summit at rest with
biological dynamics. In a case we showed as the trivial solution holding for all times
the biological control mechanisms,
r(t ) = 0 .
formulated by a bicompartment model,
violate Lipschitz conditions. The same This mass simply remains at rest for
violation was observed by us during human all times (solution (7)). However, it exists
respiration by inspection of tracheal and also the other class of solutions given in the
pulmonary sounds. We gave a model of (8) so that we may write for any possible
biological neuron implemented on the basis radial direction of the mass that
of a formulation violating Lipschitz r(t ) ≅ (t − A)3/2 for all times t > A
condition. Heartbeat dynamics was analyzed
by violation of Lipschitz condition. and
Previously, other authors gave very r(t ) = 0 for all times t ≤ A (9)
important contributions in this direction,
and in particular A. Giuliani. For brevity in
(Conte et al., 2004; Zbilut et al., 1996; Note the very important thing. We
Zimatore et al., 2000; Vena et al., 2004) we are describing the condition of a particle that
add only some of such fundamental is sitting at rest at the summit whereupon at
contributing papers but really there is a lot of an arbitrary time A it spontaneously moves
such important papers that our references in a certain arbitrary chosen radial direction.
does not take into account as it should be Note the language we are using: arbitrary
necessary. In short, here is a lot of time and spontaneously moves. Arbitrary
ascertained violations while we are time and spontaneous movement are two
accustomed to continue to assume expressions that stimulate all our
determinism as basic universal paradigma at consideration in relation to the matter that
the foundation of our reality and of our we have here in consideration.
reasoning without exceptions.
Arbitrary time spontaneous spontaneous arising movement are involved.

movement They do not represent extreme idealizations
We are adopting here terms as spontaneous as we have seen in detail, and so the arising
movement after an arbitrary time. Are we conceptual view is perfectly accepted. We
using extreme mathematical model have also the sphere of spontaneous
idealizations or are we remaining instead in emergence in our reality, and we must take
the scheme of classical Newtonian physics? care of such conclusion when discussing the
The solutions (9) are in perfect accord with initial Eccles proposal about abstract field of
Newton's first and second laws. In the probability causing neural events.
absence of a net external force, a body is un- We may still comment about them
accelerated. In fact we obtain that for all clearing in detail our view point. The variable
times t < A , there is no net force applied, X = (t − A) > 0 results to be essentially a
since the particle is at rest at position r = 0, random variable in our scheme. Thus we
it is un-accelerated. For all times t > A , have a probability P ( X ) . We may assert
there is a non-zero net force applied, since
here that we have a variable expressing a
the mass is at positions r > 0 and the mass
fundamentally random length of time after
accelerates in accord with the second
giving origin to a spontaneous movement.
Newton law F = ma . Finally, when t = A ,
the direct computation of the mass Let us introduce a scheme of Clifford
acceleration from the equation (9) gives us algebra as we use it usually in our Clifford
scheme of quantum mechanics. Let us
3 indicate the random X variable by the
a(t ) ≅ (t − A)−1/2 (10)
4 e3 Clifford basic element so that it is a
so that at t = A , the mass is still at the force- dichotomic variable being e3 → +1 for
free summit, r=0, and the mass acceleration t − A ≤ 0 and e3 → −1 for t − A > 0 . It has a
a(0) is equal to zero. Again we have no force
mean value < e3 > that is regulated from its
and no acceleration, as exactly the first
Newton law requires. Acceleration exists probability field:
only for times t > A . At time t = A still < e3 >= (+1) p(+1) + (−1) p(−1) (11)
acceleration does not exist. So in short we
are in perfect accord with Newton’s laws. We
are not in the case of extreme idealization being p(+1) the probability for e3 to assume
but on the other hand we are in front of two the value +1 and p(−1) the probability for
basic concepts of our reasoning: we have
e3 to assume the value –1.
here a model predicting an arbitrary time of
spontaneous movement and the possibility So in conclusion. Have we acausation
of an arising spontaneous movement. I in generation of such spontaneous
interpret such last expression as essentially movement? I think otherwise. I retain that
indicating that something happens we have a probability field, as evidenced in
spontaneously or, that is to say, without a (11), which is responsible of such
cause. Something may happen in our reality spontaneous movement. In this manner we
spontaneously, that is to say, without cause. re-obtain the language of quantum
It is the physical model that is able to predict mechanics that we introduced previously
that the thing may go also in this manner. when we outlined that the probability fields
Let me clear here. My aim is not to of quantum mechanics are causatively
discuss here the mechanical features of the responsible for physical events. It is the
example that we have in consideration. This abstract field of probabilities that in
argument could be clearly debated on the quantum mechanics determines events. In
pure physical level but this is not our this manner it becomes evident that we may
purpose here. I intend to discuss about the re-hook Margenau and Eccles position
principia regarding our reality. We have when these authors affirm that mental
examples in which determinism is violated, events trigger neural events. Mental events
causation seems to be violated, and still an causing neural events analogously to the
example in which an arbitrary time and manner in which probability fields of
quantum mechanics are causatively
responsible for physical events, as Wolf from a single primordial idea that involves in
outlined. Margenau and Eccles conclusion a natural way the fact that the information is
do not pertain to extreme idealization involved. So we have two unavoidable
according to the examples that we have given starting points. The first is that Aristotelian
previously. I think that we should consider logic is part of probability theory. The second
seriously their position when considering the is that probability theory can be deduced
spontaneous arising and link of mental from the single primordial idea that involves
events with neural events. the fact that the information is involved. This
There is still another important is obtained not on the basis of assumptions
feature that we have to outline here. The or elaborations, but instead on the basis of a
model that we have introduced from the (6) precise theorem that is shown in
to the (11) evidences the possible existing mathematics and it is called the “Cox
events marked by a fundamentally random Theorem” (Cox, 1961). This theorem
length of time giving origin to spontaneous delineates one of the most important
movement. It has thus profound statements of this paper. Summarizing, it
implications under the psychological profile. may be expressed in the following manner:
We have here a clear indication on the Cox’s theorem states that, under certain
manner in which it may arises the assumptions, any measure of belief is
subjective experiences of space and of time isomorphic to a probability measure. Note
in humans, and we know that the the presence of terms as "belief" and
investigation of subjective experiences of "probability measure" in the proposition of
space and time is at the core of this theorem. The conclusion that arises is
consciousness research. For the first time we clear and evident: We think in a probabilistic
have here a mathematical formalism and a manner and all the previous reservations
conceptual framework explaining it. that we introduced about determinism,
Aristotelian logic and its further
developments receive now their complete
Evidence n.2 and significant arrangement.
Let us examine now the second theme that
we introduced. The argument of the By the term plausibility we must intend a
Aristotelian logic and its further thing that seems or is apparently valid,
developments used in our reasoning. likely, or acceptable or credible. In our
reasoning we have to start from Cox basic
We have still some comment here. postulates. Cox wanted his system to satisfy
We have eminent mathematicians as the following conditions:
Mumford and Jaynes who have dedicated a
lot of their fundamental work to explain the 1. Divisibility and comparability - The
very foundations of the mathematics and plausibility of a statement is a real
they have also given important contributions number and is dependent on
in the field of understanding the origins of information we have related to the
our human functions of knowing and statement.
cognition. Munford has been very clear when 2. Common sense - Plausibilities
explaining that the very foundations of should vary sensibly with the
mathematics should be reformulated on a assessment of plausibilities in the
stochastic basis (Mauford et al., 2000). model.
Mumford quotes the important 3. Consistency - If the plausibility of a
contributions of Jaynes in this direction. statement can be derived in many
I totally agree with these authors ways, all the results must be equal.
when reaching the conclusion that We may give more convincing
Aristotelian logic must be seen as part of expressions of such statements:
probability theory. I may understand that
this conclusion is shocking but it is so. We may say that Cox’s probability
theory is not defined by precise axioms, but
Still, the important results do not by three "desiderata":
stop here. There is a further step on. All the
rules of probability theory can be deduced (I) representations of plausibility
are to be given by real numbers;
(II) plausibilities are to be in field at the level of brain structure. As

qualitative agreement with common counterpart, we have probability as
sense; expression of the subjective plausibility. As
(III) the plausibilities are to be example, that A is true given that I is true.
"consistent", in the sense that
anyone with the same information 2. We Think In a Quantum
would assign the same real numbers Probabilistic Manner
to the plausibilities. The arguments that we have developed in the
"Common sense" includes previous section are indicative. They are
consistency with Aristotelian logic when based only on the rigid elaboration of
statements are completely plausible or objective formal derivations and in any
implausible. We may say that according to manner they take into account also only
Cox, probability theory derives from such some of the real features of thinking
basic statements and it is a precise conceived in a pure rational suit. Reasoning
mathematical formulation of plausible instead is based at all on human, individual,
reasoning. subjective, qualitative features. The
observations of the previous sections may be
The conclusion seems to be evident. useful to arrange in some manner the
We think in a probabilistic manner. To general problem of thinking but they are
explain in detail: we have a given actually distant to approach actually the real
background knowledge. We call it the features of our reasoning. Any psychologist
information I . Our brain works in a manner will agree that humans are not expression of
so that it has the ability to attribute a degree pure rationality. Humans don’t always make
of plausibility to any new statement that is the most rational decisions. There is a lot of
posed to the subject. Call it A . It may be a studies that probe in a clear manner that
proposition, a statement or an hypothesis or even when logic and reasoning point in one
other. Brain attributes a degree of direction, our thinking often chose the
plausibility to A on the basis of the opposite direction. Our reasoning is
background knowledge, I . I relates the motivated not only from rationality but from
human mental condition that he has in the our personal bias. We may accept the basic
moment in which A is posed. It relates his framework to consider our reasoning as
knowledge, feeling, rationality, emotions, developing on probabilistic manner but the
and so on. This is to say that brains classical probabilistic procedure outlined in
attributes a degree of plausibility by the previous section could result profoundly
evaluating the real quantity P ( A / I ) in the incomplete. It does not take in consideration
context dependent condition in which A is all the components that actually assemble to
posed. In other terms, it evaluates the determine our reasoning. We have also the
function P ( A / I ) . It is the probability (degree wishful thinking, as example, in which we
of plausibility) that brains attributes to A in arrive to admit that some given statement is
subordination to the background true only because we wish that it is true.
information I that it has, including in I , as Therefore, the approach of the previous
previously said, the contextual mental section could be incomplete, not decisive.
background in which A is posed. Just to support our thesis, using it only as an
In this manner the circle is closed. At example, we may remember here that,
the level of structure, according to Eccles, according to Jung, humans have four
Beck and Walker, we have probability signed psychological functions that are respectively
by the irreducible indeterminism of quantum the Thinking, the Feeling, the Sensing and
mechanics. This is to say, we have quantum the Intuition with the two basic attitudes that
probability in quantum electron tunneling, are the Introversion and the Extraversion.
in order to realize conjunction synapse. At Humans use all such four psychological
the level of thinking, we have again functions and attitudes in the structure of
probability that is the degree of plausibility their Self and also for their cognitive
that brains attributes to a given statement performance. Each individual has his direct
A . From one hand we have a probability preferences for what functions and attitudes
he uses predominantly. Thinking means first
of all evaluating information or ideas at the level of their intellectual profile,

rationally, logically. Certainly information certainly cannot be ignored at all. My
develops a central role in our reasoning but position is that quantum mechanics has
also Feeling, just like Thinking, are matter origin in the logics; it is the first "physical
for evaluating information. Sensing theory" of cognition and reasoning. To
evaluates information also if takes support such thesis we should evidence that
information by the senses. Intuiting is a kind the concepts in our mind may combine
of perception, and based on information, following also quantum mechanics. Let us
works outside of the usual conscious start introducing an experimental procedure.
processes. It works like sensing but comes Let us elaborate by considering the
from the complex integration of large following experimental situation. We have an
amounts of information. So we have all such abstract or material entity that we call S that
psychological functions and, as the reader is constituted by a pair of separated sub
may verify, each of such functions is marked entities S1 and S2 on which we may perform
by the term information. Our reasoning
depends from all such psychological four experiments that we call respectively
a1 , a2 , a3 , and a4 .Let us still consider that
functions just to account only for the
contributions indicated by Jung. each of the experiments ai (i = 1,2,3,4) has two
Arguments, in which it appears so possible outcomes, or +1 (r+ ) or −1 (r− ) . Still,
evident the high complex nature of our continue to admit that some of these
reasoning, induce some psychologists often experiments may be performed together,
to consider that the physics is out from the respectively on S1 and S2 , and we will call
possibility to describe such mechanisms. them coincidence experiments aij
Other psychologists remain instead more
(i , j = 1,2,3,4) . The experiment aij has four
possibility and in some manner claim that
physics, and in particular quantum possible results, which are
mechanics, could contribute in explaining ai (r+ )a j (r+ ) , ai (r+ )a j (r− ), ai (r− )a j (r+ ), ai (r− )a j (r− ) (12)
the nature of our reasoning. My position is
net. I am convinced that quantum mechanics We may also introduce the
is the first "physical theory" of reasoning and expectation values for such coincidence
of our cognitive processes. I retain that experiments. We call them Eij , and according
quantum mechanics is the link between to the definition, we have that
cognition and reasoning from one hand and Eij = (+1) p( ai (r+ )a j (r+ ) )+(-1)p(
the physical reality from the other hand. I do
not forget here the split that occurred ai (r+ )aj (r− )) +(−1)p( ai (r− )aj (r+ ) +(+1)p(ai (r− )aj (r− )) (13)
between psychology and physical sciences
Obviously, pij means the probability
after the establishment of psychology as an
independent discipline, and I am convinced that the coincidence experiment ai j gives the
that it contributed to the delay in outcomes ri rj while, generally speaking,
acknowledging a possible link between such pi will represent the probability that the
two disciplines. Still, I do not forget that N.
single experiment ai will give outcome
Bohr, in formulating his basic principle of
complementarity as foundation of quantum ri (i, j = +, −)
mechanics, realized such principle reading This is a basic scheme that in several
James as well as I do not ignore the our previous papers we have discussed in the
consistent work that arose from the framework of the so called Clifford algebra
collaboration of Pauli with Jung. Certainly, I by which we have realized a rough or "bare
agree that these are only general arguments bone skeleton" of quantum mechanics
that may give little contribution to the more (Conte, 2000; 2010; Conte et al., 2006). We
articulated problem to establish that will not discuss further such elaboration here
quantum mechanics is the first theory of addressing the reader to the above quoted
cognition and reasoning, but certainly, on papers for a close examination.
the other hand, the profound meaning of
contributions of founding fathers as Pauli, In the forthcoming steps of this paper
Bohr, James, and Jung and their high weight we will describe the physical conditions in
which by using the (12) and the (13), we may entity, its state changes probabilistically, and
derive the celebrated Bell inequality which this change of state is called quantum
states explicitly collapse.
E13 − E14 + E23 + E24 ≤ 2 (14) In pure quantum mechanics, if H 1 is
the Hilbert space representing the state
Summarizing, we have an entity S space of the first subentity, and H 2 the
constituted by two separated components
Hilbert space representing the state space of
entities S1 and S2 . We may perform an
the second subentity, the state i.e., H 1 ⊗ H 2 .
experiment a1 on S1 obtaining as result r+ or
These are standard notions in quantum
r− . We may still perform an experiment mechanics. Aerts has repeatedly outlined an
a2 on S1 still obtaining as result or r+ or r− . important feature at cognitive level (Aerts et
We may perform an experiment a3 on S2 and al., 2011; 2005a; 2005b; 2000; Gabora et al.,
it may be also similar to a1 on S1 with 2009; 2007; 2002; Bruza et al., 2009). He
discusses in detail that the tensor product
possible results r+ or r− , and finally an always generates new states with new
experiment a4 on S2 that may be similar to properties, specifically the entangled states.
a2 on S1 with possible results r+ or r− . Now, Thus the space of the composite system is
the experiment a1 may be performed in not the Cartesian product, as in classical
physics, but the tensor product, and it is
coincidence with the experiments a3 and a4 ,
used to describe the spontaneous generation
and thus we denote such coincidence of new states with new properties.
experiments by a13 and a14 respectively, and
Entanglement was recognized early
thus obtaining E13 and E14 . We may also as one of the key features of quantum
perform the coincidence experiments a23 mechanics. Entanglement still can be
and a24 obtaining E23 and E24 . All such described as the correlation between distinct
subsystems and such correlation cannot be
expectation values are considered in the created by local actions on each subsystem
previous (14). separately. The advantage given by quantum
In quantum mechanics, we choose entanglement relies on the crucial premise
the set of observable properties of a quantum that it cannot be reproduced by any classical
entity to which we are interested. These theory (Aerts et al., 2011; 2005a; 2005b;
constitute the state of the entity. We also 2000; Gabora et al., 2009; 2007; 2002;
define a state space, which delineates the Bruza et al., 2009). Despite the fact that the
possible states of the entity. A quantum possibility of quantum entanglement was
entity is described using not just a state acknowledged almost as soon as quantum
space but also a set of measurement theory was discovered, it is only in recent
contexts. The algebraic structure of the state years that consideration has been given to
space is given by the vector space structure finding methods to quantify it, and to
of the complex Hilbert space: states are analyze it in the framework of the cognitive
represented by unit vectors, and level (Aerts et al., 2011; 2005a; 2005b;
measurement contexts by self-adjoint 2000; Gabora et al., 2009; 2007; 2002;
operators. Bruza et al., 2009). Historically, the Bell
The crucial notion on which we may inequalities are seen as a means of
fix our consideration is the notion of determining whether a two quantum state
quantum entanglement. With reference to system is entangled.
entity S and to the two composing It was known that the larger the
subentities S1 and S2 , one says that a violation of the Bell inequality is, the more
quantum entity is entangled if it is a the entanglement is present in the system.
composite of subentities that no more can be This led to the perception that to some
factorized in their components that of degree the Bell inequalities were a measure
course may can be identified only by a of entanglement in such systems.
separating measurement. When a In this manner we arrive to the point
measurement is performed on the entangled that we can use the violation of Bell
inequality as an experimental indication for dentist and cardiologist and both such
the presence of a quantum structure. If Bell specializations are identified by E03 . This is
inequalities are satisfied for a set of to say that he considers E03 → +1 when he
probabilities connected to outcomes of the
previously considered experiments, there selects dentist while instead he considers
E03 → −1 when he selects cardiologist. Now
exists a classical Kolmogorovian probability
model. In such model the probability can be introduce the second group of
explained as due to a lack of knowledge specializations, A' : anaesthetist and
about the precise state of the system under urologist. Both such specializations are
consideration. If, on the other hand, Bell identified by E02 , and he considers E02 → +1
inequalities are violated, as shown in (Aerts when he selects anaesthetist while instead
et al., 2011; 2005a; 2005b; 2000; Gabora et he considers E02 → −1 when he selects
al., 2009; 2007; 2002; Bruza et al., 2009; urologist. Now we consider concepts
Pitowsky, 1989), no such classical connected to anatomic structures. Call B:
Kolmogorovian probability model exists. heart and teeth. Both they are identified
Quantum states arise as having ontological by E30 . The subject considers E30 → +1 when
potentiality and thus intrinsic irreducible
indeterminism. Probabilities in this he selects heart while instead he selects
case i = 1,2,3) are involved as non classical E30 → −1 when he selects teeth.
and thus become the non classical Finally we call B ' : bones and
probabilities, that is to say, the quantum prostate. Both they are identified by E20 . The
probabilities that characterize the sphere of subject considers E20 → +1 when he selects
quantum ontological processes. This reason
bones while instead he considers E20 → −1
because to examine the (14) is so important.
when he selects prostate. In this manner we
D. Aerts was the first to consider the
have four conceptual groups, A, A' , B, B ' , and
opportunity to analyze concepts and their
combination through quantum mechanics we may analyze how it is the conceptual
showing their possibility to violate Bell behavior of the subject when he combines
inequality (Aerts et al., 2011; 2005a; 2005b; such conceptual groups under the common
2000; Gabora et al., 2009; 2007; 2002; conceptual requirement of "to cure a
Bruza et al., 2009 ). We will follow this disease". The subject may perform such
scheme but based once again on our basic combinations: AB, AB ' , A' B, A' B ' . In algebraic
scheme with Clifford algebra. Let us consider terms we have AB = E03 E 30 , AB ' = E03 E20 ,
two Clifford sets based on the following basic A' B = E02 E30 , A ' B ' = E02 E20 . According to our
elements:
rules of our quantum Clifford algebraic
( E01 , E02 , E03 ) , scheme, we may also calculate the
E02i = 1 ( i = 1,2,3) , E0 i E0 j = − E0 j E0 i ; expectation values, writing < E03 E30 > ,
E0 i E0 j = iE0 k ( i ≠ j ≠ k ) < E03 E20 > ,
and cyclic permutation of (1, 2, 3); < E02 E 30 > ,

( E10 , E20 , E30 ) , < E02 E20 > ,
Ei20 = 1 ( i = 1,2,3) , Ei 0 E j 0 = − E j 0 E i 0 ; and assuming conceptual independence, it
results that each of such expectation values
Ei 0 E j 0 = iE k 0 ( i ≠ j ≠ k ) may assume or the +1 or the value –1. On
and cyclic permutation of (1, 2, 3); (15) the other hand the Bell inequality says that
E0 i and Ei 0 are basic abstract entities
of our mind representing concepts. Each < E02E20 >+< E02 E30 > + < E03E20 >−< E03E30 > ≤ 2 (16)
basic element, according to the (15), may
assume the numerical values or +1 or −1 . Let
us admit we ask to a subject to concentrate Of course the (16) may be re-written in the
himself on the class of medical following manner:
specialization. Call A the specializations :
< ( E02 + E20 )2 > −2 < ( E02 + E30 ) > −2

2 The anaesthetist cures the heart
+
2 2 The urologist cures the teeth.
(17)
< ( E03 + E20 )2 > −2 < ( E03 + E30 )2 > −2
+ − ≤2
2 2 In the case < A' B >= −1 , it is
The anaesthetist cures the teeth
Note that we may have
The urologist cures the heart
E03 → +1 , E30 → −1 , E20 → +1
Also in this case the subject should find more
E03 → −1 , E30 → +1 ; plausible the case
E02 → −1 , E20 → −1 ; (18) < E02 E 30 > = < AB
'
>=+1 . (20)
E02 → +1 , E30 → +1 . Finally, let us consider the case < A' B ' >= +1 .
It is
Let us observe that with such values
inserted in the (17), we obtain the final value The anaesthetist cures the bones
of 4 and this is to say that Bell inequality is The urologist cures the prostate
violated. We have quantum entanglement.
Let us examine under the conceptual profile Instead, in the case < A' B ' >= −1 , it is
what actually happens. First let us translate The anaesthetist cures the prostate
the case < AB >= +1 . Return to our previously The urologist cures the bones.
mentioned notion of plausibility. We ask to
Again in this final case the subject
the subject what conceptual combinations he
should find more plausible the case
finds plausible:
< E02 E20 > = < A' B ' >= +1 .
The dentist cures the heart
Inserting such values in the (16), one
The cardiologist cures the teeth
finds that in perfect accord with the (18) the
Bell inequality is violated, gives value equal
Otherwise let us translate the case < AB >= −1 . to +4, and thus we may conclude that in such
We ask to the subject what conceptual conceptual case the subject combines
combinations he finds plausible. concepts and does plausibility, using
quantum entanglement. In conclusion we
The dentist cures the teeth
have reached the evidence n.3
The cardiologist cures the heart.
Evidence n.3
Without doubts, inspecting both such pair of Combinations of concepts may follow
sentences the subject should find more quantum entanglement
plausible the case that we write We re-outline here. Such studies are due to
< E03 E30 > = < AB >= −1 . (19) D. Aerts. We have here reformulated the
question using a proper example using the
Let us now examine the case < AB ' >= +1 . It is Clifford algebra that usually we engage as
The dentist cures the bones rough bare bone skeleton of quantum
mechanics.
The cardiologist cures the prostate
We have to consider now the problem
of the Self. May we introduce a
In the case < AB ' >= −1 it is mathematical-physical model of the Self?
The cardiologist cures the bones Also if we mentioned previously that
The Dentist cures the prostate. the first psychological studies and physics
went both in psychology at the first starting
of this discipline, today they are seen
In this case he should find more plausible together so infrequently. May be that when
the case < E03 E20 > = < AB ' >= +1 . physics is considered so linked to
mathematics as it is the case of the present
Let us examine now the case < A' B >= +1 . It is elaboration, both fields seem so abstract that
describing one in terms of the other is seen behavior such that some kind of similarity is
soon with some prejudice and considered established between the subject himself and
notable of giving some advantage. his second order image of the self.
Previously we have outlined instead Still, quantum mechanics is based on
that these two ways, particularly when its basic formulation of intrinsic and
physics is supported from strong irreducible indeterminism.
mathematics, represent two ways of thinking Would psychologists speak about
developed integrally in the same individual. indetermination or inter-determination?
However, Freud, as example, developed his Many disorders of the Self consist in the
results using symbols, analogies, figures in spreading between the subjective and
the world of the arts and of the literature but objective features of the self. In
never he used mathematics or physics. hallucinations, as example, dreams,
Instead we have quoted previously eminent imaginations the subjective and objective
figures of mathematicians that have given features separate. In the intrinsic
fundamental contributions having had so undependability of self-observation, a dose
much to say about the workings of mind and of intrinsic and irreducible indetermination
Descartes gave in my modest opinion the arises for us all and we have unconscious as
first psychological legacy to physical relevant counterpart. At the extreme limits
knowledge by his Cogito ergo Sum that in we have the whole spectrum of
some manner will represent the anticipated psychopathology. So, the importance of a
conclusion to which I will arrive examining model arises.
some recent results obtained by me in
quantum mechanics. As previously said, we use Clifford
algebra to represent a bare bone skeleton of
In this paper I would be able to quantum mechanics.
indicate some result in the direction of
mapping the structure of the self by using Let us give an example of our
quantum mechanics: To present some approach. Let us introduce three basic
modeling example aiming to match the algebraic abstract elements ei , i = 1,2,3 ,
human experience of selfhood. I am having the following basic features:
encouraged by this way since previously I 1) ei2 = 1 and 2) ei e j = −e j ei = iek with
gave examples of spontaneous arising
i , j , k = 1,2,3 , ijk = permutation of 1, 2, 3 and
abstract probability fields in accord with the
genuine nature of mental events as they were i 2 = −1 . (21)
postulated by Margenau and Eccles.
We see that the axioms 1) and 2)
In modeling the Self I outline here his introduce the two basic requirements that we
first nature that is reflectivity. Self is by its invoke for quantum mechanics: potentiality
nature self-referential. It is at once subject and non commutative. The first axiom in fact
and object, observer and observed of itself as introduces an abstract entity, ei , but at the
well as of the others. This attitude has often same time fixes that its square is 1. This is to
lead psychologists to consider dualistic say that to each ei with i = 1,2,3 , under
theories. Self-observation is the key concept
here. Lefebvre's mathematical approach to particular conditions in such an algebra, may
social psychology is often referred to as correspond or the value +1 or the value -1.
reflexive theory - presumably due to the For each ei we have the ontological
reflexive nature of taking into account potentiality to link one of such possible
subjects' self-image(s). I would obtain here numerical values. The second axiom
that the centuries-old philosophical and introduces non commutative for ei (i = 1,2,3) .
psychological idea that man has an image of The abstract elements ei are marked
the self containing an image of the self
by irreducible, intrinsic indetermination.
obtains a new advance in the mathematical-
We may calculate their mean values, < ei >
physical model of the subject possessing
reflection that I outline here. One considering the probabilities for +1 or for -1
assumption underlying the model is that the values, and writing
subject tends to generate patterns of < e1 >= ( +1) p(+1) + (−1) p(−1) ,
< e 2 >= (+1) p(+1) + (−1) p(−1) , E0i and Ei 0 are the same basic elements but
< e3 >= (+1) p(+1) + (−1) p(−1) (22) at order n=4.
In the case of the Self, we are
where p(+1) and p(−1) represent the accustomed to conceive the simplest features
probabilities for +1 and -1 values, of observer and observed that in our
respectively, with p( +1) + p( −1) = 1 . The interpretation become the inside and outside
quantum like features of this algebra may be respectively. The fact that they are separate
synthesized in the following equation that we and at the same time have unity, appears
discussed in our previous work (Conte, impossible to us but actually it is due to an
2000; 2010; Conte et al., 2006): artifact of our traditional point of view on
< e1 >2 + < e2 >2 + < e3 >2 ≤ 1 (23) this matter. This is precisely the question
with all dualism in psychology. However this
In this manner a quantum is a matter that may be overcome accepting a
mechanical scheme may be represented by less ingenuous and less modest vision of our
such algebra. We may introduce the well reality. Think as example about the concept
known Pauli matrices at order n=2 as of quantum entanglement in quantum
representative for the basic elements ei . This mechanics or consider E0i E j 0 = E j 0 Ei 0 of our
is an important operation since, from one algebraic basic scheme. They give rise to the
hand, it helps us to identify some hidden new algebraic basic set E ji or Eij .
features of our algebra, and, on the other
hand, it introduces for the first time the Note that for the first time we have
possibility of a self-referential operation. Let also introduced a self referential
us proceed with the aid of an example. Let us mathematical formalism. To explain such a
suppose that in the operation of a referential mathematical operation, let us
progressive description of some entity or return to our basic algebraic scheme but
structure, we have arrived at the condition evidencing what Lefebvre (Lefebvre, 2002)
that two dichotomous variables A and B are recently outlined. As we know, the central
actually required in order to characterize it. topic of Western philosophy, starting with
We may use the matrix representation of the John Locke, was the problem of representing
basic elements ei and we may realize some mentally one’s own thoughts and feelings.
Actually, it is a very difficult concept to
new algebraic elements given by the direct
represent. This is the reason to use here a
product of matrices. In this case, we will
pictorial representation, the same figure that
have new basic elements in the following
Lefebvre introduced to describe his
manner:
formulation (Lefebvre, 2002). We may
Eoi = I ⊗ ei and Eio = ei ⊗ I being I express self attitude through the reflection. A
the unit matrix, i = 1,2,3. (24) subject having reflection may be conceived
as a miniature human figure with the image
Note that E0 i and Ei 0 will satisfy the same
of the self inside his head. We recover it here
rules that were given in 1) and 2) for ei . In in the following figure. It represents with
detail we will have that care the subject with reflection. We prefer to
E02i = 1 , E0i E0 j = iE0 k , and Ei20 = 1 , and call it the picture of a subject having
perception of itself. In this figure, following
Eio E jo = iEk 0 . (25) VA. Lefebvre, we may say that inside the
It is important to observe that we will have subject’s inner domain, there is an image of
also that E0i E j 0 = E j 0 Ei 0 for any ( i , j ) and the self with its own inner domain. An image
of the self is traditionally regarded as the
i = 1,2,3; j = 1,2,3 .
result of the subject’s conscious constructive
As required, we have now two activity.
dichotomous variables, E0i and Ei 0 , Let us analyze now the mathematical
i = 1,2,3, to describe. Let us consider still that operation given in (24). It is the faithful
ei are the basic elements of our algebra given correspondent of the self-picture given in
at order n=2 in our isomorphism while figure in which, in fact, E0i , for example, or
also Ei 0 , contain in their inside that image of
itself that is ei . We may conclude that, at coherent whole unifies consciousness and
least for our present possibilities of unconscious of a person. The Self, according
understanding what the self is and its self- to Jung, is realized as the product of
perception represents, we have for the first individuation, which in Jungian view is the
time identified a basic algebraic scheme and process of integrating one's personality.
the corresponding mathematical operations What distinguishes Jungian
to represent it. psychology is the idea that there are two
centers of the personality. The ego is the
center of consciousness, whereas the Self is
the center of the total personality, which
includes consciousness, the unconscious,
ei
and the ego. The Self is both the whole and
the center. While the ego is a self-contained
little circle off the center contained within
the whole, the Self accounts for the observed
E0i individual differences in people personality.
or A large number of personality theorists have
Ei0 contributed to the field but there is no
integrated theory and we are left with a
variety of individual approaches.
Let us return briefly to the question,
This completes our brief exposition before mentioned, of basic four psychological
on self introduced by a bare bone skeleton of functions of Thinking, Feeling, Sensing,
quantum mechanics using the Clifford Intuiting and Attitudes (Introversion and
algebra. Note the important interface that we Extraversion) as they were considered by
are delineating. As repeatedly outlined we Jung. Certainly, if I claim here that such
use a bare bone skeleton of quantum psychological function are linked and inter-
mechanics using the Clifford algebra. The related with attitudes in humans, I do a so
basic elements are the ei . Note. They do not general and unspecific statement that all the
represent traditional quantum observables psychologists will agree with me. However,
but abstract entities. Of course it is an interesting thing could be to advance such
traditionally accepted in standard quantum so phenomenological approach only, and
mechanics to connect to the operators ei , the attempt to give to the basic four
spin components. We know that previously psychological functions and to the attitudes a
other authors (Hu et al., 2002; 2004) theoretical formulation so that we may
outlined the role of spin as self-referential experiment about, and obtain precise and
variable and its possible role on the advent of quantitative results.
consciousness. They introduced the spin- As example, a question that I pose to
mediated consciousness theory. We will myself is the following: once again could
discuss in detail such feature in the last psychological functions be quantum
section entitled "Further Advances", but we entangled with attitudes? If such kind of
may anticipate here that matter and its possible correlations should be evidenced, I
physical properties must be considered to be certainly will obtain first of all a further
interfaced with cognitive feature. This could evidence of the effective role explained from
be one of the profound reasons because in quantum mechanics in brain and mind, and,
their papers in (Hu et al., 2002; 2004) it was in addition, a new quantum model of Jung
evidenced the so important role for the spin. theory of personality should arise, this time
In particular these authors arrived to give based on the principles of a well defined
explanation of its role and function, giving physical theory.
also some important neurophysiological
Let us indicate me the Feeling by F,
correlates.
the thinking by T, the sensing by S and the
Now we may pass to consider a Intuition by I. Still I call E the extroversion
possible theory of personality. In Jungian and I1 the introversion.
theory, the Self is one of the archetypes. The
My approach should be well known admitted that also the irrational functions
to the reader by this time. I introduce now are opposites from each other.
some Clifford basic elements. I call the Obviously, consider that, using the
Thinking function (T) by E03 . It is a (26) and the (27), we enter by Clifford
dichotomous that as previously explained, algebra in a quantum bare bone skeleton of
may admit values or +1 quantum mechanics. This is to say that
or –1. E03 → +1 means that the subject is rational as well as irrational functions have
an irreducible intrinsic indetermination in
Thinking. E03 → −1 means that he is Feeling their state. This is to say that the person has
(F). an ontological potentiality, a quantum
So I have that superposition of alternatives, to be T or
F becoming actually T or F when his Self is
T = − F = E03 (26)
submitted to direct self or outside direct
This is the quantum scheme for rational observation. The same thing happens for
functions. Now I introduce the irrational psychological functions S and I being the
functions. I call the Sensing (S) by the person in a superposition of such states and
Clifford basic element E01 to which again are becoming actually S or I . Obviously, the
linked the values ±1 . E01 → +1 means that selection of the state T or F , and,
the subject is Sensing while instead E01 → −1 respectively, S or I is only a matter of
probability that is enhanced in favoring one
means that he is Intuitive (I). So I have psychological function respect to the other in
S = − I = E01 . (27) dependence of the inner structure of his Self
These are the four psychological functions. and of the context in which the self is under
Let us now introduce the attitudes of the direct observation.
Self, calling E extroversion and This is the quantum scheme of the
I 1 introversion. Let us consider another approach. In other terms both superior and
algebraic Clifford Element inferior functions coexist, and it is only a
matter of our inner developed structure and
E = − I 1 = E 30 (28) of the instantaneous context that,
E30 → +1 means extroversion, otherwise probabilistically speaking, one function
results prevailing on the other in our
E30 → −1 means introversion.
subjective dynamics.
Finally, let us consider another Clifford basic Fixed such important conceptual
element representing that accounts for states points, let us attempt to give soon some
of explicit intermediation between result confirming possibly that we are
extraversion E and Introversion I 1 . I call it formulating a theory in a correct direction.
M , and I pose Let us calculate the expectation value (mean
M = E10 (29) value, of T , F , S , and I ). Looking at our
basic relation of Clifford algebraic scheme of
with the realization that it assumes quantum mechanics given in the (23), we
E10 → +1 when the subject is in a state of obtain immediately that
equal superposition of pure extroverted and < T >= cosϑ , < F >= − cosϑ ,
pure introverted condition while instead we
have E10 → −1 otherwise. < S >= senϑ , < I >= −senϑ (30)
where ϑ is an arbitrary angle ranging from
In this manner we have realized two
−π to π
basic features. The first is that by
introducing the (26), we have fixed that the Let us schematize the results of the
rational functions are opposites from each (30) in Fig.3. We obtain the behaviors of the
other and, considering the (27), we have expectation values for such psychological
functions.
1.0
0.6
0.2
-0.2
-0.6
-1.0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
angle Π
Figure 3. Expectation values of the four psychological functions.
It is easily observed that we obtain eight balancing in normal as well in pathological

corresponding sections: conditions. This is an interesting step on.
1) F>I>S>T This last conclusion completes our
exposition on the Jung four psychological
2) I>F>T>S functions as elaborated by a bare bone
3) I>T>F>S skeleton of quantum mechanics.
4) T>I>S>F Now the attitudes of the Self. The
5) T>S>I>F different attitudes of the Self may be
extraversed or introversed, and they have
6) S>T>F>I been quantum mechanically expressed by us
7) S>F>T>I in the (29) and the (30). According to our
8) F>S>I>T quantum language, as previously for the four
psychological functions, also here the
There is no doubt that our approach
situation is now conceptually changed. We
reproduces perfectly the eight different
may have pure extroversed or pure
proportions that were identified also by Jung
introversed states but we may also have the
theory when he characterized the superior ontological true potentiality, signed from
and secondary psychological functions of a
irreducible indeterminism, of potential
subject. Remember that he outlined that we
superpositions of extroverted and
just have them in different proportions. We introverted states. Here, this feature is also
have a superior function which we prefer and
enhanced from the presence of the Clifford
it is best developed in us, and a secondary
algebraic element
function of which we are aware and we use in
support of our superior function. The M = E10
personality of a person conflicts if the Self to which we attribute the numerical value of
has to realize two opponent functions in the –1 if the subject always collapses to a
same attitude. Here it is one of the possible state of extraversion or intraversion
interesting features of such our results while it still remains to be +1 if the subject
obtained by Clifford algebraic scheme of remains in an uncollapsed state of equal
quantum mechanics. superposition of pure introvetrted and pure
By using the (30) we may now extroverted states. Also in this case we may
experimentally estimate the values of the calculated the mean values obtaining
possible ratios of T , F , S , I , and evaluate their
< E >= cos φ , < I >= − cos φ , psychological functions T and S . All we
know about the MBTI that is to say the
< M >= senφ (31)
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. We may use
Under the profile of the experimental MBTI to classify the personality of the
investigation we may repeat here all that we subject adopting some predefined sentences.
have previously outlined for the I give here a brief introduction to the
psychological functions. We may explore the experiment that is still in progress, and it
attitudes of the Self and his balancing. It is will be exposed in detail elsewhere (Conte,
relevant to outline here further the 2010d).
importance of such acquired possibilities
under the basic theoretical profile of the My colleagues and I decided to use
elaboration as well as in the case of analyzing the MBTI to submit the (32) to experimental
possible implications under the clinical verification in order to evaluate if or not we
profile. may speak about quantum entanglement
between psychological functions and
Now a step one. It may be useful to attitudes in human subjects. We decided to
repeat here the notion of quantum perform an experiment that I prepared with
entanglement that we have also prospected A. Khrennikov, R. Blutner, A. Federici, O.
previously. Using very simple terms we may Todarello, V. Laterza, A. Losurdo, and S.
say that quantum entanglement is a pure Goffredo. We thought the experiment in the
quantum phenomenon in which the states of following manner. Using the sentences given
two or more objects or entities anyway in the MBTI, we prepared possible pairs of
separated, remain linked together so that sentences ( M ,T ),( M , S ),( E ,T ),( E , S ) coupling
one object can no longer be described
them in a computer archive. Male and
without considering its counterpart. A female normal subjects were selected with
quantum interconnection maintains between
age ranging from twenty to thirty years old.
the two components also for any space
Each subject was subject to simultaneous
distance separation between the two sentences ( M ,T ), soon after ( M , S ) , then
separated objects, leading to a net
( E ,T ) and finally ( E , S ) , each pair of
correlation between measurable observable
properties of such two or more components. sentences given to subject after a short time
We need to re outline here that such very from the other. Each pair of sentences was
extraordinary property of correlation at selected at random by the computer from the
distance relates only quantum entanglement previously arranged archive and given to the
that is exhibited only from systems subjected subject. In this manner we calculated
to the principles and to the rules of quantum E ( M ,T ), E ( M , S ), E ( E ,T ), E ( E , S ) for each
mechanics. We need the previously subject. For each person we repeated the
mentioned Bell inequality. If it is violated, we experiment three times selecting at random
have quantum entanglement. every time the pairs of sentences. Each
administration was given to the subject after
Our attempt is to verify if or not Jung
a period of at rest for the subject of about 15
theory has a possible quantum formulation.
minutes. The experiment is still in progress,
By this way we may admit that human
thus we are in the condition to give here only
subjects in some conditions realize quantum
some preliminary indications, but of course
entanglement in the sense that psychological
we may give us some important anticipation.
functions are entangled with Self-attitudes
As previously said a group of three
and we may write Bell inequality linking
psychologists, specialized in the
psychological functions and attitudes. With
administration of psychological tests, were
clear evidence of the used symbolism, we
active in the experiment. One of them found
write in this case the Bell inequality in this
that the Bell inequality was violated in the
manner
58% of the investigated cases, the other
psychologist found instead Bell violation in
E ( M ,T ) − E ( M , S ) + E ( E ,T ) + E ( E , S ) ≤ 2 (32) the 62% of cases, and the third psychologist
found a violation in the 73% cases. As said,
E states for expectation value. M, T, also if such data do not give us still a
S, E state for attitudes M , and E and for complete indication, however the
experimental seems to evidence quite clearly mechanics has a determinant role. We need a
the final results that we may expect. Subjects criterium to select between such alternatives
showed in percent a violation of Bell and it must be so robust that on its basis we
inequality and this is to say that in such case must accept or not if mental states followed
psychological functions and attitudes in or not quantum mechanics during the
these subjects gave quantum entanglement. performed experiment. I think that we have
an unquestionable criterium to adopt. It runs
Evidence n 4 as it follows: if we are able to reconstruct
The Self and psychological functions in quantum wave function of such
humans, as considered by Jung, seems to psychological system, we are in the condition
agree with the rules of quantum mechanics. to conclude in an unquestionable manner
In particular, psychological functions and that such system is governed by quantum
attitudes seem to realize in a large mechanics. There are in psychology several
percentage of cases quantum entanglement. well known techniques, also statistically, to
I have not stated first such my specification select if a given model at cognitive level is
to give here more emphasis and importance: better than another. But in my opinion they
I must now complete here this discussion are not sufficient in this case. If we arrange
evidencing that the first idea to use two an experiment, and we have the finality to
qubits for Jung’s theory of personality is due ascertain that this experiment is involving a
to Reinhard Blutner, and Elena Hochnadel. human cognitive system that is supported
They started this very important work, based from quantum mechanics, we have
on this excellent idea in 2009 with a number consequently to proof only one thing …. and
of preprints available on line precisely … that such system admits a well
(www.illc.uva.nl) and recently they have also defined and correctly calculated quantum
published this elaboration on Cognitive wave function, reconstructed from the
Systems Research. I ask to the reader to read obtained experimental data. It is certainly
these papers with great interest because, in true that in the domain of quantum
my modest opinion, they are excellent and of mechanics, the wave function is that “dark
basic importance (Blutner et al., 2010). object” that cannot be observed directly. It
does not represent a quantum observable in
I take now a further step one. the traditional sense of this term, but, if
Starting with 1972, I began to elaborate a existing, we may still reconstruct it starting
quantum mechanical approach with relation from measurements, thus from experimental
to the field of the Clifford algebra. In data. Therefore, the only robust criteria is to
particular in 1983 (Conte, 1983; Conte et al., reconstruct quantum wave function, and, if
2009), I advanced the basic elaboration existing and reconstructed correctly, we have
having the finality to reconstruct the the decisive element to conclude about the
quantum wave function, if existing, for a fundamental role of quantum mechanics in
system, starting from the experimental data. the system having as counterpart the data
Why such elaboration may be so obtained by the experiment. This was
important here! Obviously, physicists study essentially the aim of my elaboration in
usually quantum systems and rarely they are 1983.
interested to reconstruct the quantum wave Starting with 1992 Andrei Yuri
function for the considered system. Khrennikov (2009) gave an appropriate
Obviously they are interested in selecting quantum-like description and treatment of
some quantum observable of interest and cognitive systems, also suitable for
thus in estimating the possible eigen values application by experiments at cognitive level.
and the corresponding probabilities of such On the basis of such indications, with
obtainable results. In our cognitive- Khrennikov, Todarello, Federici, in years
psychological framework, the background is from 1993 to 2010, I have given a lot of
totally different. experimental confirmations on the existing
A priori we do not know anything mental states following quantum mechanics
about the human cognitive system that we at the perceptive-cognitive level in humans
are exploring by our tests. We do not know if (Conte 2008; Conte et al., 2003; 2008;
it is classical or if, instead, quantum 2007; 2009a; 2009b; 2008a; 2008b). Let us
explain briefly the problem in a rough p( A = +1) = p( B = +1) p( A = +1 / B = +1)

+
manner but satisfactory to be followed also + p( B = −1) p( A = +1 / B = −1)
for scholars that have not a deep knowledge
of quantum mechanics. +
2 p(B =+1)p(A =+1/ B =+1)p(B =−1)p(A =+1/ B =−1 cos J
Let us select two psychological tests A
and B to be given to a subject. Let us realize (34)
such A and B tests so that such variables A, B Therefore, in the case of quantum
are dichotomic. This is to say that they may interference, we have a further term:
assume only two values ( ±1 ) being, as
2 p(B =+1)p( A =+1/ B =+1)p(B =−1)p(A =+1/ B =−1 cosϑ
example, +1 Yes and –1 Not. Let us admit
now that we select two appropriate
populations of subjects, the group C and the respect to the classical case given in (35).
group D. To each component of the group C, Obviously, a similar relation hold in the case
we give the test A. Each subject will answer of p( A = −1) .
with Yes or Not so that at the end of the
Now, I will not discuss here the
experiment we will have the probability
quantum interference for brevity. The reader
p( A = +1) and the probability p( A = −1) with
is again sent to deep this argument. I will
p( A = +1) + p( A = −1) = 1 . limit myself to outline that it is at the basic
Now we consider the group D. To foundation of quantum mechanics. This
each of such subjects we give first the test B theory runs about two basic foundations, one
immediately followed by the test A. is the irreducible indeterminism and the
other is the quantum interference. There is
In this case we will estimate the
no way to escape to quantum interference if
probabilities p( A = +1 / B = +1) ,
the investigated phenomenon drops into the
p( A = +1 / B = −1) , p( A = −1 / B = +1) , domain of quantum mechanics. In
and p(A=-1/B=-1) conclusion we have reached a very power
scheme to verify if mental states follow or
with p( A = +1 / B = +1) + p( A = −1 / B = +1) = 1 , not quantum mechanics. We may perform
and p( A = +1 / B = −1) + p( A = −1 / B = −1) = 1 . the previous mentioned experiments on the
In order to exemplify the argument I two groups C and D, and, calculated all the
will not enter here in the discussion on the probabilities given in (33), we may finally
basic foundations of probability theory, on decide if the obtained results are in accord
Kolmogorov approach and on other very with the (33) or with the (34). We have not
important basic foundations of probability possible alternatives. If the (34) is
calculus. Of course Andrei Khrennikov has confirmed, there is no doubt that mental
deepened largely such basic argument also in states follow classical probability regime. If
his recent book that I have previously instead the experimental results confirm the
quoted. I will remain at the most simple (35), we have to conclude that they follow
basic step that, as it is well known, is quantum mechanics. So, as previously said,
represented by the Bayes theorem. As we we have performed a lot of experimental
know, according to Bayes, we obtain that verifications in years (Conte 2008; Conte et
al., 2003; 2008a; 2007; 2009a; 2009b;
2008b; 2008c). We have examined a sample
p( A = +1) = p( B = +1) p( A = +1 / B = +1) of about 250 subjects. Always we have
(33)
+ p( B = −1) p( A = +1 / B = −1) obtained that it is the (34) to be validated
and never the (33). Let us specify in detail
A similar relation holds for p( A = −1) . the nature of the results that we have
What is now the basic foundation of obtained. We have executed three kinds of
our experiments! It is that the (33) pertains experiments. In the first case we used
to classical probability theory while instead it ambiguous figures, as test A and B, and they
is violated in the case of quantum mechanics. are given in Figure (4), and thus investing
In quantum mechanics a further quantum the perceptive-cognitive functions. Without
interference term appears and, instead of the any doubt the (34) has resulted always
(33), we obtain validated confirming quantum interference
at the level of mental states. In 68 subjects quantum interference as indicated by the

we also examined the Stroop effect whose (34). Finally, we studied also the
importance is well known. EEG and phenomenologies that often are retained
functional neuroimaging studies of the anomalies in our cognitive performance. We
Stroop effect have consistently revealed know that humans don’t always take the
activation in the frontal lobe and more most rational decisions. There is a lot of such
specifically in the anterior cingulate cortex cognitive performance that often have been
and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, two characterized by the term of anomalies.
structures hypothesized to be responsible for More technically they are expressions of our
conflict monitoring and resolution. wishful thinking in which a subject decides
Accordingly, patients with frontal lesions that something is true because he would like
obtain lower punctuations in the Stroop test it to be true. We selected the "anomaly" of
when compared to those with more posterior the conjunction fallacy that of course is well
lesions. However, these frontal regions are known. Also in this case we had confirmation
not the only ones implicated in the effect. that the (34) hold and that we have quantum
Stroop performance has also been associated interference also when exploring such our
with the correct functioning of the cognitive tendency. So, the conclusion seems
hippocampus or posterior brain areas. By to be evident. In the cases under our
using Stroop effect we thus explored high experimentation we have found without
level cognitive functions in brain, and also in exceptions that mental states follow
this case we obtained confirmation of quantum mechanics.
Test B. Are these two equal segments? Test A. Are these two equal circles?
Figure 4. Ambiguous figure used during experimentation on quantum interference effects.
However, I expect some important criticism explained previously, if a system is really

on this matter so that I will follow step by quantum, it must have the so called quantum
step all the comments that could arise. wave function ψ . Quantum interference
The first is quantum interference. arises from existing wave functions and their
Please, note carefully that the finality of our behaviours in quantum mechanics.
experiments was to estimate the quantum Consequently, if we aim to evidence that in
interference term but in substance my our experiments we examined a quantum
crucial point is and was another. As I behaviour of mental states, we have to show
that we reconstructed an existing and
corresponding wave function ψ of the N complex equations and this is to say that
explored mental states of the humans under we have a set of 2N real equations. The basic
investigation. Here is one of the central problem for us is represented from the
points of our experimental work. The determination of the phases αn and βm . If the
question arises because the so called (39) enable us to obtain an unique
Schrödinger’s wave function is not an determination of such phases, we may
observable and consequently it cannot be conclude with certainty that we have
estimated. Be carefully. It cannot be measured a real quantum system. If the (39)
measured in the usual sense of this world but are not soluble for such phases, this means
nevertheless, it may be determined provided that we have measured a mixture and this is
to follow a given procedure. This was in to say that we have examined a classical not
effect the basic aim in writing my paper in quantum system. If, finally, we obtain that
1983. We may reconstruct the wave function the (39) does not permit an unique
ψ if really existing and to this purpose we calculation of the phases, we have to
may follow just the procedure that I conclude that the measured A and B result
indicated in 1983. I repeat it here for dependent one from each other and thus that
clearness. we have to change the selected set of
observables.
I select a set of observables, that, just
to maintain the correlation with our previous In conclusion, the (39) is conceived
discussion on our experiments, I call A, and I in so manner that if we arrive to a unique
perform the measurement of such determination of the phases, we cannot have
observable. I will obtain a statistical set of doubt: we are in presence of a real quantum
possible results that I call An (n = 1,2,3,.....) . I system. And consequently we estimate also
will obtain also the corresponding the interference term. Therefore, the first
probabilities and thus I will determine the problem is to reconstruct, if existing, the
possible wave function and this was precisely
absolute values an of the coefficients of the
the result that we reached in our
decomposed Schrödinger ψ function experimental paper of 2009 on
ψ = ∑ an ψ An (35) NeuroQuantology. In the case of our
n experiments we may perform all the
calculations, and we have that
We have not reconstructed the ψ - function
because, in order to determine the a1 = b1 c11 + b2 c21
ψ completely, we have to determine the most a2 = b1 c12 + b2 c22 (40)
important parameters of quantum
mechanics that are the phases. Actually it is
Call
an = an e iαn (36)
To reach this objective, I measure now
c11 = p( A = +1 / B = +1) = ρ1
another set of observables that this time I
call B. Following the same procedure of the c21 = p( A = +1 / B = −1) = ρ2
previous case I will obtain this time
c12 = p( A = −1 / B = +1) = ρ3
ψ = ∑ bm ψBm (37)
m
c22 = p( A = −1 / B = −1) = ρ4 (41)
We introduce the decomposition
ψBm = ∑ cmn ψ An (38)
n a1 = ρ5 e iφ1
and we obtain the final and decisive
a2 = ρ6 e iφ2
equations
an = ∑ bm cmn (39) b1 = b1 = ρ7
m
b2 = ρ8 e iω (42)
Here is the reason because the (39) is
so important. We have here a set of, say,
Note that we have not taken in consideration I may take now a further step on.
the phases for cij . Someone could object as example that in
principle we can obtain interference also in
Let us now apply the (39). We obtain that the classical wave mechanics, and thus,
ρ5 e iφ1 = ρ7 ρ1 + ρ2 ρ8 e iω evaluating in this manner, I should not be so
convincing to have indicated that mental
Solving we obtain states follow quantum mechanics. As answer
ρ52 − ρ22 ρ82 − ρ12 ρ72 ρ2 ρ8 I evaluate that existing interference in
cos ω = ; senφ1 = senω (43) classical mechanics is certainly true.
2ρ1 ρ2 ρ7 ρ8 ρ5
However, the essence of quantum
interference is that it exists for discrete
Note that, explicating the (43), we obtain observables, detectors, clicks, and it is hard
to find such example in classical physics.
There is still a conceptual comment
p(A=+1)−p(A=+1/B=−1)pB
( =−1)−p(A=+1/B=+1)pB
( =+1) that seems of relevance for me. Quantum
cosω=
( =+1)pB
2 pB ( =−1)p(A=+1/B=+1)p(A=+1/B=−1) mechanics runs about the superposition
(44) principle of states that we have repeatedly
that is just the formula for quantum used in the present formulation. In an
interference that we introduced in the (34). elementary exposition it may be re-
conducted to two basic statements. If the
Let us now apply again the (39). This time system is in states that may be described by
we obtain the quantum wave functions ψ1 and ψ2 , it
ρ6 e iφ2 = ρ3 ρ7 + ρ4 ρ8 e iω may be also in states constituted by ψ1 and
Solving we obtain ψ2 , according to the linear transformation
ρ62 − ρ42 ρ82 − ρ32 ρ72 ρ4 ρ8 ψ = a1 ψ1 + a2 ψ2 . (47)

cos ω = ; senφ2 = senω (45)
2ρ3 ρ4 ρ7 ρ8 ρ6 Still, if a wave function is multiplied
by a complex number different from zero,
the new wave function will represent the
Note that explicating the (45), this time we same quantum state.
obtain that The thing that we intend to outline
p(A=−1)−p(A=−1/B=−1)pB
( =−1)−p(A=−1/B=+1)pB
( =+1) here with careful consideration is that the
cosω=
( =+1)pB
2 pB ( =−1)p(A=−1/B=−1)p(A=−1/B=+1) quantum superposition of states is different
(46) substantially from superposition of
oscillations in classical physics in classical
that is still the formula of quantum physics we may have superposition with
interference. The probabilities represent the greater or less amplitude. We have also
experimental values that we obtained in the states in which the amplitude is everywhere
experiments. Inserting such values in the (43 equal to zero. In quantum mechanics,
and 45), we calculate, if exist, the phases instead, the nullity of the wave function
φ1 ,φ2 , and ω , and, finally we may estimate the simply corresponds to such non existing
quantum interference term. In this manner state.
we reconstruct the existing quantum wave I think to have introduced
function of the mental states and the satisfactory comments also on this point. Let
quantum interference: us examine now the final question that in my
ψ( A = + ) = ρ5 e iφ1 ; ψ( A = −) = ρ6 e iφ2 ; opinion could be raised and in particular
from the psychologists. They could introduce
ψ( B = +) = ρ7 ; ψ( B = −) = ρ8 e iω
the following observation. One feature of the
where, by using the experimental data we experiment is that with one group of
have calculated cosω from the (43), and thus subjects, we test B and a brief time later we
we have estimated sen(φ1 ) from the (43) and test for A. With another group of subjects we
thus sen(φ2 ) from the (45). test only for A. Then we analyse the obtained
statistical results inserting them in formulas
in order to identify if existing or not
quantum interference that is at basis of may consider in detail the following model.
quantum mechanics. To avoid confusion by the symbolism let us
It could be instead that what we are invert the order of the tests A and B. Reason
really testing, is a correlation between the in the following manner. Let us assume that
results of B followed by A. In substance, we a person who does the test A has a tendency
could have a classical correlation. The to remember the colour of the pattern he
reason is that if the human mind first has to recognized and will subconsciously try to
solve one task of pattern recognition and look for the pattern with the same colour in
then has to solve a similar task of pattern the test B which followed after a brief time
recognition only a short time later, the later. This will be a kind of mental influence
experience of the first task could influence of the result A on the result B.
how the mind approaches the solution of the For instance, test A resulted in the white
second task. There are so many mental pattern (A=+). When the person does test B,
processes going on subconsciously, which some little time later, he will subconsciously
are very likely just classical computation, also try to identify a white pattern (B=+). But
that the results of the experiments are a it could also be the other way around. If he
consequence of these classical computational recognized the white pattern in test A (A=+)
processes, and have nothing to do with he may have a tendency to recognize more
quantum mechanics and quantum evolution. easily the black pattern in the subsequent
This objection is so serious that it test B (B=-). One may writes this in the
deserves careful consideration. Let us me general formula:
add some comments. p( B = + / A = + ) = p( B = + ) + R p( B = −) (48)
1) I introduced the (35-40) in 1983 just to where R may be considered to be a
avoid the risk previously mentioned. correlation parameter varying between -1
Remember that our starting point is and 1, which allows to go from correlation to
extremely clear. If we have a real quantum anti correlation, but also to no correlation
system, we must arrive to reconstruct when R = 0 . Similarly, one may write that
uniquely the existing phases of the quantum (49)
p( B = − / A = −) = p( B = −) + S p( B = + )
wave function. When we arrived to write the
where S is still a correlation parameter
(39) and thus explicitly the (40) relating
ranging between -1 and 1, and also with
directly our experiment, we also were
possible value S = 0 .
induced to conclude for three and only three
possible cases. Or we arrive to an unique Of course, the conditional
determination of the phases (real quantum probabilities p( B = − / A = +) and p(B = + / A = −)
mechanical case), or we are in the impossible are the complementary of the previous ones.
condition to determine the phases (classical By this classical model one may reproduce
case) or we are in the case of an impossible our results estimating a value for R and one
unique determination of the phases and this for S . This is a possible classical model. It
means that we selected B and A as was suggested to me from a dear colleague
dependent and thus correlated. Without (private communications).
exceptions the results of our experiments However, let us look carefully to it.
always lead to a reconstruction of the
Let us examine in detail the model. Without
quantum wave function, thus to a unique loss of generality, assume
determination of the phases, and this should
exclude the possible case of dependence p( A = + ) = cos2 α , p( A = −) = sen 2 α ,
between B and A. p( B = +) = cos 2 ϑ , p( B = −) = sen 2ϑ
2) This is an argument that is rather The proposed classical model is the
convincing under the profile of quantum following:
theory but the psychologist has all the right
to advance his detailed knowledge and thus p( B = + / A = + ) = p( B = + )
prospect his counter example. Let us + R(1 − p( B = + )) = p( B = + ) + Rp( B = −)
examine such possible objection. In order to p( B = − / A = −) = p( B = −)
show that the results of the experiments can
+ S (1 − p( B = −)) = p( B = −) + Sp( B = + )
also be explained in a classical manner, one
p( B = − / A = + ) = 1 − ( p( B = + ) + Rp( B = −)) encouraging results do not authorize in any

manner this definitive conclusion. I may say
p( B = + / A = −) = 1 − ( p( B = −) + Sp( B = + )) (50)
that the experiments give evidences about
Now let us estimate that they must the role of this theory in our mind dynamics
simultaneously hold. So we have that but I think that we cannot go on so much
p( + / +) + p( + / −) = 1 − M cos 2 ϑ + Nsen 2ϑ
longer such threshold.
Here basic science and psychology
p( − / +) + p(− / −) = 1 + M cos 2 ϑ − Nsen 2ϑ may open wide. I elaborate here under the
p(+ / +) + p( − / + ) = 1 perspective of science. It never accepts
results as conclusive and definitive. It only
p(+ / −) + p( − / −) = 1 (51) may accept results as established, and this
where M = S − 1 and N = R − 1 . situation happens only when it reaches
conceptual and scientific foundations that it
The objection that we may move is must have in its hands. Let us make an
that it does not result fully consistent. Just to example in order to further elucidate my
give an example: the fourth equation results position. Quantum mechanics was
equal to the sum of the first two minus the introduced from its founding fathers as
third. Therefore, also in this case in my Bohr, Heisenberg, Jordan, and Pauli, just to
opinion we do not reach a fully effective quote some authors only. The starting
classical counter example. We could motivation was to study the atoms. Why
continue to develop such argument should this physics pertain to our mind
introducing still some more technical dynamics if it was introduced to study the
comments relating in detail quantum microphysical level of our reality? It is
principles and the experimental conditions certainly true that in following years
in which we investigated. However, I see that quantum mechanics has been found to have
all such final comments may be overcome a role also in studies of macroscopic objects.
also by the direct knowledge of the reader so
that, for brevity, I avoid to comment also Andrei Khrennikov has recently
them. Therefore I arrive to introduce the written an excellent book (Khrennikov,
evidence n. 5 2009) that we have also quoted previously. It
has a significant title: Ubiquitous Quantum
Structure. I invite the reader to read it
Evidence n.5 because it is illuminating under such profile.
By using appropriate tests we arrive to We could list more and more fields in which
reconstruct quantum wave function and to the profile of quantum mechanics seems to
estimate quantum interference of mental arise. But in any case the problem remains in
states relating both our perceptive-cognitive our theme. Quantum mechanics is by this
functions as well as cognitive functions only. time more than eighty years old. It started
and still continues to throw a dramatic mess
3. Further Advances in the basic apparatus of our traditional
I may now attempt to reach the final reasoning: irreducible, ontic
conclusion of such a so long presentation. I indetermination, quantum probability fields,
limit my considerations to the experimental superposition of states, quantum
results discussed in the previous section. We interference, quantum entanglement,
have obtained a number of experimental quantum tunneling, quantum collapse, are
results that seem to move all in the same only some of the extraordinary conceptual
direction. We have five evidences indicating features that this theory introduces, and it
that quantum mechanics is directly involved strongly indicates that they are at the basic
in the dynamics of the mental states. Are foundation of our reality.
such experimental results sufficient to
establish in a final form that consequently So again. Why should quantum
we think in a quantum probabilistic manner? mechanics have a role in our mind
dynamics? What should be the link between
This kind of answer cannot be quantum mechanics and mind? Why should
accepted as definitively satisfactory. The we accept to consider a theoretical body of
theme is so complex and articulated that also physics as entering strongly in the
description of mind processes when years measure a dynamical variable, call it A,

and years of studied have clearly indicated belonging to some quantum given system S.
that mind is an abstract entity escaping If S is initially in an eigenstate of A, then the
possibly to any tentative to give it a formal pointer of the instrument will show the
physical support and justification? corresponding eigenvalue on it. Now, the
It is certainly true that from its rather unusual problem arises instead if S is
advent quantum mechanics accustomed us initially in the so called quantum
to look at our reality in a completely new superposition of two quantum states. In this
manner respect to traditional approach to case the pointer will indicate either the value,
reality as described by classical physics. As say ai , or a j with probabilities. It will not be
just said, Heisenberg indetermination partly at ai , and partly at a j , even if the initial
principle, irreducible indeterminism, the sate is a superposition of the two quantum
principle of the superposition of states, states. Therefore the superposition principle
quantum interference, the question of the is violated in a measurement. At this stage
quantum measurement, the quantum the problem becomes very complex. The
entanglement are only few examples of the theory divaricates. In brief, in quantum
new and upsetting scheme of reality that mechanics we have a type of time quantum
quantum mechanics points out. Why all this evolution that is causal and it is described by
new approach should relate directly our Schrödinger equation. But this theory is not
mind dynamics? sufficient to describe what happens during a
It is so hard to answer to a so measurement with the above example. We
complex question. But fortunately science have a second type of time quantum
does not ask to find an answer to such evolution that this time is non causal and
problem immediately and in a definitive that is due to the casual change during a
manner. Science strongly demands another measurement. This second mechanism is the
thing. In order to accept quantum mechanics mystery of quantum mechanics. It is often
having a role in mental dynamics, it called the collapse of the wave function or
demands to find a profound and well fixed wave function reduction just to mention two
conceptual foundation convincing ourselves most used terms to represent this process.
that quantum mechanics relates mind Where is the problem? It is that no one
phenomenology. Otherwise, in absence of knows how it is the manner in which such
such discovered foundations, the problem mechanism is realized in Nature. The actual
remains suspended because it has not a situation is that the previously mentioned
theoretical and conceptual support, and we violation of superposition principle in a
may only accumulate quantum evidences quantum measurement led von Neumann in
and no more. 1935 to postulate that we have two
This is the direction about which I fundamentally different types of evolution
move our argumentation. To this purpose, for a quantum system, the first, as said, is the
there is an excellent phrase of Davis-Hersh causal Schrödinger evolution holding in
and repeatedly quoted also by Mumford absence of measurement and the second, the
those lights the way we have to go along if collapse of the wave function, that is the non
our aim is to give actual advance about this causal change of the wave function during a
problem. It states that the study of mental quantum measurement.
objects with reproducible properties is called Note the fundamental term about
mathematics. which runs our reasoning. Von Neumann
Therefore, we need mathematics. We introduced an ad hoc postulate about the
need to give proof of theorems if we actually happening of wave function collapse, and in
intend to give support to the problem and fact quantum physicists mention quantum
this is precisely the way we have to pursue mechanics speaking of von Neumann
here. Let us sketch the problem briefly. postulate on quantum measurement.
Obviously the presence of a postulate in
The question arises with the well absence of an exact understanding and
known problem of quantum measurement. explanation of the mechanism of wave
Suppose we have an instrument designed to function collapse has determined a long
debate about it, starting with von Neumann with the conceptual difficulties arising from
and considering other celebrated fathers of the very upsetting ontic foundations of the
quantum mechanics. As example von theory since they in fact prospect a very
Neumann and the same Wigner, just to unusual scheme of reality as previously
quote two of several and several authors, illustrated.
postulated that it is the advent of As a result, one thing is to accept
consciousness of the observer to determine quantum mechanics living with an attached
the collapse of wave function. By contrast, postulate. Another important thing should
other physicists observed that physics does be instead if we could arrive to give proof of
not need the magical properties of mind, and such postulate. It is evident that in this case
that we cannot pursue such way to explain all the old and new debate about quantum
how and if the collapse of wave function is wave function collapse should assume a new
induced. Their position is well clear: physics outline. According to the phrase that the
must not require the magical properties of study of mental objects with reproducible
mind to describe the independent observed properties is called mathematics, in this case
reality. Some authors questioned that wave a proof should give a new fundamental light
function reduction is realized during a about wave function reduction happening.
quantum measurement owing to the
interaction between the microscopic system The approach that I have performed
that is observed and the macroscopic system in the last few years has moved in this
represented from the device that performs direction. As repeatedly evidenced in the
the measurement. Other physicists even course of the present paper, from years I
denied and continue to deny the same have chosen to abandon the traditional
existence of wave function collapse. In scheme of quantum mechanics pursuing a
conclusion, the question of the wave function different planning. I have chosen to use the
collapse has remained a mystery for so called Clifford algebra. By using this
quantum mechanics. Obviously, the great algebra I have arrived to realize what in this
mental reservation of physicists runs about paper I have often called a rough bare bone
the basic fact that von Neumann introduced skeleton of quantum mechanics. A bare bone
a postulate on quantum measurement. We skeleton of quantum mechanics was an
repeat. He introduced an ad hoc postulate excellent indication that Jordan used years
from the outside to the theory just to give and years ago about a scheme of quantum
justification of the actual reading that we mechanics that he realized in matrix form
perform on an instrument about the (Jordan, 1985). Such my bare bone skeleton
obtained value during a measurement. of quantum mechanics, realized by Clifford
Science never authorizes theories that have algebra, contains all the basic foundations of
not self-consistence and experimental quantum mechanics and thus it represents a
confirmation of its predictions. The basic very good platform for analysis of quantum
fuzzy was that quantum mechanics always mechanics. This is the conceptual strategy
resulted confirmed at experimental level but that I have followed in my studies in my
it forced us to live together with such an ad years of activity. Methodologically I use such
hoc postulate. Here is the basic question strategy since I am convinced about the basic
about quantum mechanics that was seen statement that the study of mental objects
often as a non self-consistent theory with reproducible properties is called
requiring in fact the addition of an ad hoc mathematics. In order to approach some
postulate, attached from the outside to a initial notion on Clifford algebra the reader
theory, in order to explain the physical may give a rapid look to my papers or to the
situation that, during a measurement, we lot of publications existing on this subject,
establish a well defined value on the pointer and for the realization of such rough scheme
of the instrument but we ignore the manner of quantum mechanics the reader may as
in which the quantum system does such example examine the contents of my paper
transition reducing or collapsing its wave recently published on International Journal
function. It cannot escape to the of Theoretical Physics (Conte, 2000; 2010;
consideration of the reader that such missing Conte et al., 2006).
self-consistency was forced to live together
Now, what is the advance that I retain the one that will be or is being observed. In
to have realized by such studies? Just conclusion, when it happens the so called
recalling still the great importance of wave function reduction or collapse of wave
mathematics and its implications at function, we have a transition from the
cognitive level, I have given proof of two A( Si ) algebra to the N i algebra .
theorems in Clifford algebra. The first
theorem relates the existing Clifford algebra
Statement n. 2
that I have called A( Si ) that is the well
In this manner we give a mathematical
known Clifford algebra of spin Pauli matrix. description of the so called wave function
The reader with specialized competence in collapse, supported this time no more from
quantum mechanics knows that it is a postulate, that one introduced ad hoc by
sovereign in quantum mechanics. The von Neumann, but from two shown
second theorem relates another existing theorems. The interested reader may look in
Clifford algebra that I have called N i , and detail to my papers published on this subject.
that it is well known from the algebrists and He may verify that we apply such new
it is called the dihedral Clifford algebra. Both criteria of transition from A( Si ) to N i
such algebras are well known from the algebra to a number of cases of physical
scholars of Clifford algebra. The importance interest in quantum mechanics and we
that I reach by giving proof of such two regularly arrive each time to describe the
theorems is that I evidence that such two collapse as we always wished to obtain from
algebras are strongly linked and that the N i its starting for quantum mechanics.
algebra is obtained when we attribute a
precise numerical value to a basic element in Statement n. 3
the given A( Si ) algebra. Now, considering Still, there is another feature of particular
the thing under the physical profile, all we importance. Each time we obtain the results
know what means to attribute a numerical in perfect accord with the von Neumann
value to a given dynamic variable. postulate on quantum measurement.
Particularly in the language of quantum
mechanics this means that we perform a
Statement n. 4
quantum measurement of such variable and
In conclusion, I obtain that when it happens
we obtain a result reading it on the
the so called wave function reduction or
laboratory instrument that we are using.
collapse of wave function, we have a
Consequently we have a new statement.
transition from the A( Si ) algebra to the N i
algebra, and still we obtain that all the
Statement n. 1 results are in agreement with von Neumann
The new result is that I have found that the postulate. Therefore, we arrive to give a
A( Si ) algebra describes quantum systems
complete justification of such postulate. We
when quantum measurements are not give its reformulation no more as postulate
performed. In other terms, it describes the but this time supported from two well fixed
standard quantum mechanics. The N i theorems. I say that in this manner we pass
algebra instead describes quantum systems from the regime of a postulate to that one of
when we perform a quantum measurement. a proof owing to the two shown theorems.
The first algebra, the A( Si ) algebra, refers In some sense we pass from a physical
to the representation of a particular content given as postulate to a physical
situation in quantum mechanics where the content now given and demonstrated by the
observer has not been called to measure two existing theorems. In addition, it
and to decide as example on the state of a results that the two algebras, the A( Si ) and
given two-state system. So, it relates the the N i , are interlinked so that by these two
standard quantum mechanics. Through an theorems we give back to quantum
operation that mathematically is mechanics the self- consistence that always
represented by the N i algebra, the observer was questioned from its starting of this
finally decides to perform a quantum theory as missing.
measurement and to specify which state is
In fact, I remember here that von our experiments in laboratories where really
Neumann postulate was attached ad hoc to force the system to be measured to interact
the theory while instead now the coexistence with a measuring apparatus and finally read
of such two algebras eliminates any the result of the measurement. However, we
possibility of doubt about this feature of such have to introduce a further statement.
theory. In conclusion, my view is that we
have reached now a very strong, Statement n. 5
unquestionable, support to the thesis of the A measurement is not a physical interaction
existing wave function collapse since now we only. It is an operation that mathematically
have two basic theorems at its foundation. I is represented by the N i algebra. It is here
aim that the reader will take in particular
the profound reason because quantum
consideration a phrase that I am using in the
measurements and their mathematical
previous statements. I repeat here this
formulations are so important not only in
phrase that I just used: through an
physics but also in neuroscience and in
operation that mathematically is
psychology. A measurement is a physical
represented by the N i algebra, the human
interaction between two systems but, in
subject (the observer) finally decides to accord in some manner with Schneider
perform a quantum measurement and to (Schneider, 2005), we cannot avoid to add a
specify which state is the one that will be or basic other feature.
is being observed. The phrase here is
operation represented by the N i algebra. It
Statement n. 6
gives basic support to the thesis of wave A measurement is fundamentally an
function reduction. interaction between languages, perception,
Someone could correctly object, and cognition. In other terms, we cannot
however, that we are not explaining escape to fix one time for all that a
definitively the manner in which such measurement is a semantic acts, just using
collapse in actual fact happens in physical here Schneider words. We specify. This is an
terms. We are only acquiring knowledge on operation that mathematically is
the operation and on the manner in which it represented by the N i algebra. I state
is represented! Instead let us take a step on, precisely: a measurement is a cognitive act.
and examine the content of such results. I It does not exist a measurement without a
intend to explain better the meaning of the cognitive task. It is not important if we read
phrase that I use here: an operation that directly the result of the measurement on
mathematically is represented by the N i the instrument or if instead it is read
algebra. automatically, it is not important if the
In order to reach this objective we measuring apparatus is macroscopic or not,
must start from an observation. As we said it is fundamentally important to accept that
previously, several solutions were and any measurement is conceived at its source
continue to be proposed every day about the on the basis of a cognitive –semantic act.
problem of quantum measurement. Some of Any measuring instrument is realized at its
them attempted to modify strongly the source so to perform a semantic-cognitive
foundations of quantum mechanics. I act and without such basic condition we
remember here some examples, as hidden have not a measurement. A measuring
variables, non linear Schrödinger equation, device is a structure that is the object of our
many worlds interpretation, spontaneous perception and of our mental operations. I
localization, decoherence theory, and many think this is universally accepted. However,
other formulations that I do not attempt we cannot ignore that such operation of
either to quote here only for reasons of measurement cannot run if we have not
brevity. Many of the proposed formulations previously established the mathematical
hold on the basis to consider a quantum symbols, the semantic and semiotic
measurement as a quantum system- functions, in brief … the cognitive
measuring instrument interaction. This of performance, that enables us subsequently
course seems to be the actual status of the to express the results of the measurement.
matter since we are accustomed to perform
I repeat here again. It is a semantic will not have a so great difficulty to embrace
act and thus an operation that also such quantum notions. Of course, a
mathematically is represented by the N i datum is for us of fundamental importance
algebra. Here is the importance of the for our discussion.
results that we have obtained. I think that In brief, von Neumann constructed a
the arguments developed by Schneider in quantum matrix logic on the basis of
relation to this problem are of fundamental quantum mechanics. Any reader who is
interest. In conclusion, a measurement sympathizing with the ideas that I am
includes from its starting a semantic- exposing in this paper will be glad of such
semiotic –cognitive task and this is the result. As we may see, it returns in quantum
reason because quantum measurements are mechanics the general scheme that such
so important for the theme that we have here theory contains the logic and the logic
in discussion. pertains to human cognition. Also if highly
promising, also this result, however, cannot
Statement n. 7 be considered so central and determinant for
In brief, I arrive to conclude that quantum a number of reasons. In order to have
theory includes in itself not only the confirmation to the central thesis of our
description of the reality at the paper and with the uprightness that we are
microphysical level. We have ubiquitous demanding to our exposition, we must proof
quantum mechanics, as Khrennikov outlines another result. We have to show that the
in his book. It also envelops the cognitive result that was obtained from von Neumann
performance that is required to conceive may be inverted.
reality. And this is the reason because
quantum measurements are so important Statement n. 8
for neuroscience and psychology. May we In other terms, we must not show that
give a final and decisive proof of this last quantum matrix logic may be constructed
statement? Are we in the condition to on the basis of quantum mechanics but
support this thesis by a precise and rigorous exactly the inverted situation. We must
theorem so that it results unquestionable show that quantum mechanics may be
under the mathematical as well logic profile? constructed on the basis of logic. If we
The answer is positive. Not only we have the arrive to give proof that quantum
previous mentioned theorems but we have mechanics derives from logic, I think that
also a further proof that I will now expose. we have completed the circle of our
As usually, I start again posing the same reasoning: we have reached the highest
question that I outlined previously. Thus possible support of all the theses that we
once again, how is that a physical theory, have exposed until here. It will remain very
born to study the properties of atoms, little possibility to contrast our central
digress so profoundly from such frontier thesis that we think in a quantum
arriving to consider human cognitive probabilistic manner.
features? May we give a further probe of
this? May we in some manner legitimate Statement n. 9
further such advance and may we find a final In fact, this is the objective that I have
justification for this unexpected result? reached by my previous papers (Conte,
To this purpose let us start 2010a; 2010b; 2010c; 2010d). Stated that
considering another fundamental argument. quantum mechanics runs about two basic
In 1932 von Neumann showed a result that is foundations., the first being the irreducible
of crucial importance for us. He showed that indeterminism and the second being the
the projection operators and, in particular, quantum interference, starting with our
quantum density matrices can be interpreted usual basic Clifford elaboration, I have
as logical statements. Again I will not enter constructed a Clifford logic approach. Then,
here in the details of projection operators in following the scheme introduced in the first
quantum mechanics for brevity. However, paper on International Journal of
experts in quantum mechanics know exactly Theoretical Physics (Conte, 2010a) and thus
what they represent and the other readers using the two theorems relating respectively
the A( Si ) and the N i algebras, I have course I have to outline here with greatest
demonstrated that, according to such emphasis that the excellent logic Yuri Orlov,
Clifford algebraic scheme, the origins of the starting with 1977 and when he was in prison
most fundamental quantum phenomena as Camp 37-2 in Urals in USSR as dissident,
the indeterminism and the quantum started to study this problem. He introduced
interference, derive not from the traditional a so called Wave Calculus based upon Wave
physics itself but from the logic. logic. He did not use the Clifford algebra but
arrived to similar conclusions on the logical
In fact, the title of the paper is On the
origins of quantum mechanics (Orlov, 1978).
Logical Origins of Quantum Mechanics
I invite the reader to read all the papers of
Demonstrated By Using Clifford Algebra. I
this author. They are enlightening about our
think that any other comment is
question.
unnecessary. The results in both such
papers, the first just published on If we have logical origins of quantum
International Journal of Theoretical Physics mechanics as consequence we have a logical
and the second previously mentioned, give relativism in this theory. How is that we have
all the necessary support, the required not such logical relativism in classical
uprightness and the classical unequivocal physics? What is the reason because we have
mathematical warranty to accept the thesis instead such strong constraint in quantum
that quantum mechanics does not relate only mechanics? We give here an answer that of
matter per se but also cognition. Previously course is in accord with Orlov. The
we had experimental verifications and explanation is as it follows. This is an
quantum evidences. To such previous results important thesis that arises, and I invite the
I have had now the support of mathematical psychologists to think deeply about it.
theorems and uprightness mathematical
derivations relating quantum mechanics. So, Statement n. 10
the formulation no more seems to be There are stages of our reality in which it
suspended in air. It is not a table with a results impossible to unconditionally
missing leg. defining the truth. Logic, language and thus
We may still add an example to clear cognition enter with a so fundamental role
the substance of our last result. Suppose you in quantum mechanics because there are
fix a logical statement. If you give proof that levels of our reality in which the
such logical statement gives quantum fundamental features of cognition and thus
interference in the same manner as you of logic and language, and thus the
obtain quantum interference in quantum conceptual entities, acquire the same
mechanics when considering instead only importance as the features of what is being
matter objects, it remains one and only one described. At this level of reality we no more
conclusion: We have logical origins of may separate the features of matter per se
quantum mechanics, and the only from the features of the cognition, of the
admissible consequent conclusion is that logic and of the language that we use to
quantum mechanics relates conceptual describe it. Conceptual entities non more are
entities and that we think in a quantum separated from the object of cognitive
probabilistic manner. We have given here a performance.
rough representation of our results but we
hope it will be useful to scholars that are Statement n. 11
more specialized in psychology rather than As correctly Yuri Orlov outlined in his
in quantum physics. I do not add further several papers, the truths of logical
evidences here. In my opinion, it is now the statements about dynamic variables
exactitude of the full scientific nature that relating matter structure become dynamic
closes the circle of our dissertation. variables themselves in quantum
I may add only some final comments. mechanics, and thus the cognition becomes
A remark still arises by my formulation. I in itself an immanent feature that operates
have shown in my last papers, using the symbiotically with the matter
theorems introduced in the first paper, the phenomenology that traditional physics
logical origins of quantum mechanics. Of aims to represent.
I wish that Socrates is a man.

Statement n. 12 Then, Socrates is a man.
This is the profound reason because we
started such article affirming that quantum In this case the valuable information enables
mechanics is the first "physical theory" of to admit that Socrates is mortal. Socrates
cognition. It enables us to discover the first could be a lion or a cat or an elephant. The
and fundamental principle that interfaces difference is in the fact that our inclination to
mind and matter. think that Socrates is a man plays a decisive
role in reaching the final conclusion that
There are levels of reality in which we Socrates is a man. Now, the basic link with
no more may separate the features of matter the previously enunciated principle is that in
per se from the features of the cognition, of conclusion our subjective inclination and
the logic and of the language that we use to plausibility, introduced in the preliminary
describe it. This is the basic reason because section of this paper, pushes us to formulate
we think in a quantum probabilistic manner an hypothesis that of course may be also
and this is the reason because quantum correct, but on the other hand it is based on a
mechanics is so important in neuroscience sign that is our inclination, and this
and psychology. inclination does not relate in an absolute
Let me add still a final consideration. manner only the external world but also and
The statements that I have enunciated hold fundamentally ourselves. Our subjective
on the basic result that there are stages of wish explains what we think and not what it
our reality in which it results impossible to could be. A "physical theory" of cognition
unconditionally defining the truth. We have must take into account such our attitude as
previously discussed this features related to actually quantum mechanics does as
quantum mechanics. The assertion that demonstrated by our experiments.
there are stages of our reality in which it In this manner, by using the previous
results impossible to unconditionally theorems that we have demonstrated, we
defining the truth, may seem so hard and so have reached some final conclusions:
strong to be accepted but, as if by
coincidence, it is well clear to the 1) The logical origins of quantum
psychologists. In some cases we lose our mechanics. This is to say that, as
right to unconditionally defining the truth. known, quantum mechanics runs
We may attempt to explain it with an about two basic foundations: an
example. The reasoning in logic House is irreducible indeterminism and
that one that usually is identified as quantum interference. The origins of
abduction. such quantum fundamental
phenomena (irreducible
All men are mortal indeterminism and quantum
Socrates is mortal. interference) do not lie in physics
Then, Socrates is a man. itself but in the logic. Quantum
mechanics relates conceptual entities.
As it is easily observed, it is not said that We have here a profound link with
Socrates is a man. This is the hypothetical human cognition considering in
character of the abduction and of the particular the fundamental task that,
reasoning that aims to formulate plausible in accord with Schneider; we
explanations respect to a given phenomenon. considered that a quantum
A characteristic of this kind of reasoning is measurement must be considered
that premises may be of various kinds in the before of all a semantic act.
sense that they may incorporate symptoms
or signs of different origin. Signs may arise 2) As correctly Yuri Orlov outlined years
from our perceptive context or from ago, in quantum mechanics the
emotions or, still, from our inclinations and truths of logical statements about
rules. As example, wishful thinking arises dynamic variables relating matter
here. We have: structure become dynamic variables
themselves, and thus the cognition
All men are mortal becomes in itself an immanent
Socrates is mortal
features that operates symbiotically image that we used often in this paper and
with the matter phenomenology that that in recent years has been used frequently
traditional physics aims to represent. (Zak, 2000a; 2000b) by M. Zak. Let us do a
Conceptual entities non more are step on. In psychology we have the concept
separated from the object of of reflection. Reflection is conceived in
cognitive performance psychology as the human ability to assume
Physical entities are permanently the position of an object in relation to one’s
interfaced with conceptual entities in own thoughts. Reflection in psychology
quantum mechanics. Let me allow using language is self-awareness by the interaction
such expression: one entity couples as self- with the image of the self.
image of the other. This is the profound As a result, not only have we given a
reason because we started such article strong theoretical support by our results. We
affirming that quantum mechanics is the have found also a direct and evident
first "physical theory" of cognition. It enables correspondence with one of the basic notions
us to discover the first and fundamental of psychology. Is it not so impressive the
principle that interfaces mind and matter. profound link that we find between quantum
There are levels of reality in which we no mechanics, with the supporting theorems
more may separate the features of matter per that I have shown, and some foundations of
se from the features of the cognition, of the psychology?
logic and of the language that we use to Note that we have arrived to the
describe it. This is the basic reason because concept of reflection and of self-image that, I
we think in a quantum probabilistic manner repeat, is very fundamental in psychology,
of reasoning and this is the reason because and that very recently and repeatedly has
quantum mechanics is so important in been used by Zak. Let us introduce some
neuroscience and psychology. By assuming concepts that in our opinion Zak has
such two conclusions, have we reached the explained in an excellent manner.
final conclusion that we think in a quantum
probabilistic manner. The first notion that we have to recall
here is that one of random walk. The term
We have reached a strong theoretical random walk was first introduced by Karl
support by showing such theorems. Pearson in 1905. A random walk is a
Quantum evidences accumulated in years of mathematical model of a trajectory that
experimental research receive here a consists of taking successive random steps.
particular confirmation, based, I repeat, on a This kind of process may be studied mainly
strong theoretical support. Let us remains to in physics and in biology but also in ecology,
give still some further elucidations and economics, and computer science to quote
justifications. For example, Lines ago we said only some of the applications. It is a
that in quantum mechanics the truths of fundamental model for random processes in
logical statements about dynamic variables time. For example, the path traced by a
relating matter structure become dynamic molecule as it travels in a liquid or a gas can
variables themselves. Conceptual entities be represented as random walks. Random
non more are separated from the object of walks have their particular importance in the
cognitive performance. What should such sphere of the biological dynamics. The
statement mean? We consequently affirmed reason may be rather evident (Zak, 2000a;
that, as consequence of the previous 2000b) a biological system is an ensemble of
theoretical result, it follows that the cells linked by an informational network.
cognition becomes in itself an immanent The flow of information is continuously
features that operates symbiotically with the destroyed or delayed or be incomplete as all
matter phenomenology that traditional we well know. As consequence we have
physics aims to represent. Matter entities stochasticity, and it may be represented by a
and conceptual entities coexist in quantum controlled random walk. This is the reason
mechanics. because random walk is so important in
We have here some other convincing living dynamics. Now, the basic question
argument about such conclusion. outlined by Zak is that we have to distinguish
Psychologists well know the concept of self a random walk that has a physical origin,
from a random walk that instead has a I repeat: the (52) is written in the
biological origin. In other terms, we have physical space. The (54) is written in the
here a profound distinction between non probability space. The nature of such basic
living and living beings. A biological random distinction must result well clear
walk, as characterized in classical physics, conceptually. Still, let us follow Zak’s
must be non linear. In the general case we argument. We have two cases. The first is
have processes converging to a stable state, that μ = μ( x ) and thus p = p( x ) (56) owing
to states of lower complexity and higher to the (55).
entropy. The evolution of living systems is
This is the case in which the system
directed instead toward a higher level of
that we have in examination, interacts with
complexity if complexity is associated with a
the external world. This is the case in which
number of structural variations. Here the
the equation (54) converges to a stable
evolution never dies, it produces new
stochastic attractor as we have discussed
configurations. The evolution is directed
previously. We have not interest for such
against the second law of thermodynamics
situation. Consider instead the following
by giving origin to patterns outside the
Zak’s case:
equilibrium (Zak, 2000a; 2000b).
μ = μ( f ) and thus p = p( f ) (57)
Let us discuss some mathematics
briefly. Consider the model of random walk The equation (54) no more is linear, it
as it has been introduced by Zak in his becomes non linear and the equation (52) is
excellent papers. We write it in the following coupled to the equation (54) by the feedback
manner: that is given in the (57). We have here an
xt + τ = xt + h sgn( R( ±1) + μ) (52) internal loop. Using the Zak’s words, the
equation (52) simulates the "motor
Here h, τ are constants indicating the space dynamics", that is the actual motion in the
along the x and the time steps. R( ±1) is a physical space and the equation (54) is
random function taking the values from –1 associated this time with the mental
to +1 with equal probability and, finally, μ is dynamics (the conceptual entities)
what we may call a control parameter under describing the information flows in
the condition that probability space. We again are here in the
condition to recall the concept of reflection
μ ≤1/2. (53) in psychology. The equation (54) represents
Note that the equation (52) describes the probabilistic image of the dynamical
a motion in the physical space. This motion system that is given in (52). Matter and
is irregular so that we may introduce (and it conceptual entities turn again to be
is here the most fundamental concept for the interfaced. In this manner the probability
argument) a probability space to characterize space becomes the space of the mental
it. This equation is well known and it is dynamics that is realized by an inner loop
written in the following manner: and corresponding to the actual motion in
physical space as given by the random walk
ft + τ , x = pft , x − h + (1 − p) ft , x + h (54) described by the equation (52). The
where ft + τ , x = f (t + τ , x ) and f ( x ,t ) represents probability space and the actual physical
space are interlinked and such probability
the probability that the moving particle
space becomes the space of the mental
occupies the position x at the instant t while
dynamics, that is to say the space of the
p represents the transition probability and
human cognition that we have evoked in this
it is given by paper from its starting. In other sections we
1 have also shown the possibility of its
p= +μ (55)
2 spontaneous arising. In conclusion, in some
manner we re-find the primitive thesis of
In conclusion, we have three simple but
Margenau, of Eccles, of Walker, of the basic
fundamental equations, the (52, 54 and 55).
results that we have obtained by our
We may say that around such equations runs
theorems in quantum mechanics. The space
the problem that we have under
of our mental dynamics is a probability
consideration.
space. The concept of reflection and/or self-
image as given in psychology is illuminating probability that it will optimize the threshold
in this framework. We wish to take a step on value α1 following step by step a linear
and give still an example to illustrate such procedure of iteration. The ideal observer
results. I discuss here an experiment that I elaborates about the probability P1 ( x ) of the
introduced in 1981 (Conte, 1981a; 1981b). signal-noise plus signal particle and about
A human observer is placed before a the probability P2 ( x ) of the signal noise only.
measuring apparatus in order to detect a He can minimize the probability of error on
possible signal connected to the incoming of the basis of the inequalities
a particle. An experimenter decides in fact at
random to send or not to send the particle qP2 ( x ) − pP1 ( x )<> 0 (58)
and at selected times the observer is asked if being p the probability of the particle to be
the signal (connected with the particle) is sent from the experimenter ( q = 1 − p) . He
present or not. Since the experimenter can
also send a random noise, the observer has fixes the threshold value by the solution of
an intrinsic uncertainty and he can mistake the equation
the noise-signal for the particle signal or he qP2 ( x ) − pP1 ( x ) = 0 (59)
can fail to detect the particle when it has
and he affirms that the signal particle is
been actually sent by the experimenter since
present for
the random noise can interfere with the
signal-particle with optimum recording. qP2 ( x ) − pP1 ( x ) > 0 . (60)
We think in a quantum probabilistic The ideal observer reasons in a
manner. Let us examine as an ideal observer quantum probabilistic manner as well as the
may operate on the basis of his brain experimenter deciding to send his message.
functioning. He aims to minimize the All the mechanism of the experiment is
probability of error. After various attempts regulated by the abstract field or space of the
that we assimilate to a random walk, he probabilities. However, there is still an
arrives to fix a threshold value, that we call extraordinary feature that pertains only to
α1 , so that he answers yes if x > α1 in the our ability of cognitive performance. The
measuring apparatus and he says not for experimenter sending the signal knows that
x < α1 in the measuring apparatus. The ideal on the other hand he has an ideal observer
observer performs a random walk and by his that attempts to identify the presence of the
final criterion achieves his minimum particle. His aim is to induce the ideal
probability of error. observer in error. On the other hand the
ideal observer knows that the sending
Let us substitute now the ideal experimenter has the finality to induce him
human observer with an automaton. Also in error and his attempt is to avoid errors.
this device is able to perform optimally this There is a feedback loop between the two
detection. It fixes an arbitrary threshold cognitive –decision performances of the two
value α0 and it can probe yes if x1 > α0 , and human subjects. We have something that
not if x1 < α0 . If the answer is right, it can use resembles the non linear dynamics
the threshold value for the next reading and, previously outlined. In some sense the ideal
in the case of wrong answer, it can iterate the observer may influence the decision of the
threshold value α0 by ( ± ε ) . By the iterations experimenter to send or not the random
also the automaton performs a random walk noise in quantum mechanical terms we may
with well defined transition probabilities say that the ideal observer induces a retro-
P (αn + 1 = αn ± ε ) and P (αn + 1 = an ) . Note that we collapse of the wave function characterizing
the sending experimenter.
are reconstructing step by step the argument
that we have previously developed. We have given here a further and
clear example of what we have previously
In contrast with the ideal human
intended by the concept of reflection in
observer, the automaton has not
psychology as the human possibility to take
consciousness, he has not cognition about
position of an observer in relation to one’s
the matter, it does not know what the αn
own thoughts. Reflection here intended as
represent and it is only a matter of self-awareness via the interaction with the
image of the self. A mechanism that, using step on the right. Left and right states may
Zak’s results, has been indicated by motor- be represented by
mental dynamics and summarized in the ⎛1⎞ ⎛0⎞
(54), with connected the (57). L =⎜ ⎟ , R =⎜ ⎟ (64)
⎝0⎠ ⎝1⎠
Let us see now as a random walk may
be represented in quantum mechanical The unitary matrix U n given in (61) or the
terms. This is the last argument. Non Cliffordf algebraic element of A( Si ) given in
scholars in quantum mechanics will the (63), act on the states given in (64) in the
apologize me if I use for only this time following manner
directly quantum mechanics in this paper.
U n L = an L + cn R (65)
Consider the following matrix in accord to
various authors (Kempe, 2003) where, considering the (26) , an represents
2
⎛a bn ⎞ the probability for the particle to be on the

Un = ⎜ n ⎟ (61)
⎝ cn dn ⎠ 2
left at step n , and cn
where an , bn , cn , dn are complex numbers. the probability to be on the right. We have
n = 1,2,3,......... . We have infinite unitary also
matrices. We may consider they are infinite U n R = bn L + dn R (66)
random matrices. The unitarity of U n gives
2
the following conditions to be respected: where, bn represents the probability for the
particle to be on the left at step n , and
2
2
an + cn = 1 ,
2 dn the probability to be on the right.
2 2 In substance, we assume that, if the

bn + dn = 1 ;
particle starts being in L , its walk evolves
an cn∗ + bn dn∗ = 0 ; in time step, according to the (65). If instead
it starts being in R , its walk evolves in time
cn = −(an dn − bn cn )bn∗ ;
step according to the (66).
dn = (an dn − bn cn )an∗ (62)
The aim of our argument is that we
According to various authors (Kempe, intend to estimate the probability that the
2003), the time evolution of a quantum walk particle is at location k at a given time, and
is given by U n . Of course, the reader according to quantum mechanics it is given
remembers that we consider a bare bone by the square of the modulus of the quantum
skeleton of quantum mechanics represented state vector at k . In other terms we have to
by Clifford algebra. U n is an element of the calculate the probability amplitude and it
Clifford algebra given in A( Si ) . It results results to be given in the following manner
ψk (n + 1) = P ψk + 1 (n ) + Q ψk −1 (n ) . (67)
an + dn bn + cn i(b −c ) a −d
Un = ( ) +( )e1 + n n e2 +( n n )e3 (63) This completes the exposition of
2 2 2 2
quantum walk. Now, the interesting feature
The evolution of the quantum walk is for us is represented by the two given
given in the following way. Consider a expressions of P and Q, respectively. They
dichotomic variable, which is a variable that are given in the following manner
may assume only two values. As example or
+1 or –1. In the case of a particle moving as ⎛a b⎞ ⎛0 0⎞
P =⎜ ⎟, Q =⎜ ⎟ (68)
example along the x-axis, it is usually ⎝0 0⎠ ⎝c d⎠
assumed to introduce the variable Chirality
The salient feature for us is that
that has corresponding quantum states L , P and Q are still elements of the Clifford
R , in the sense that we assume that the A( Si ) algebra that we have considered in our
particle moves on the left, on the right. At results on IJTP and previously discussed also
each time step, if the particle has left in this paper. Precisely, we have that in the
chirality, it moves one step on the left, and, if Clifford algebra A( Si ) they may be written in
instead it has right chirality, it moves one one of the two following forms
1 + e3 e1 + e2 i again the correctness of the theoretical

P = a( ) + b( ) results that we exposed in International
2 2
Journal of Theoretical Physics and that
1 − e3 e1 − ie2
Q = d( ) + c( ) (69) support all the present paper. We have a
2 2 final observation. The exposed arguments
or runs about the two basic Clifford algebraic
elements that we have given respectively in
1 + e3 e1 + ie2
P = a( ) + b( ) the (69) and in the (70). Both are marked by
2 2 the following algebraic elements
1 − e3 e1 − e2 i 1 + e3 1 − e3
Q = d( ) + c( ) (70) and .
2 2 2 2
In the corresponding quantum
If it happens that to e3 it is attributed mechanical formulation, they are
the value +1 from (69), following the representative of what von Neumann in 1932
theorems shown in IJTP, we obtain that we interpreted as logical statements. They are
pass from the Clifford algebra A( Si ) to the now at the basis of the theorems that we
Clifford algebra N i ,+1 that correctly gives have obtained (Conte, 2010a) and of the
demonstration given in (Conte, 2010a;
P = a and Q = 0 as it is necessary in the (68). 2010b; 2010c; 2010d) on the logical origins
If instead it happens that to e3 it is of quantum mechanics. It returns what has
attributed the value -1 from (70), following been demonstrated previously by us.
the theorems shown in IJTP, we obtain that Quantum mechanics includes conceptual
we pass from the Clifford algebra A( Si ) to the entities as linked to measurable entities of
physical or biological interest envisaged in
Clifford algebra N i ,−1 that correctly gives the theory. I reaffirm so my conclusion that
P = 0 and Q = d (71) as correctly one we think in a quantum probabilistic
expects. manner.
In conclusion we have add such
elaboration of quantum walk just to confirm
References Conte E, Pierri GP, Federici A, Mendolicchio L, Zbilut

Aerts D, D'Hondt E, & Gabora L. Why the disjunction JP. A model of biological neuron with terminal
in quantum logic is not classical. Foundations of chaos and quantum like features. Chaos, Solitons
Physics 2000; 30(9): 1473-1480. and Fractals 2006; 30: 774-780, and references
Aerts D & Gabora L. A state-context-property model of therein
concepts and their combinations I: The structure of Conte E, Todarello O, Federici A, Vitiello F, Lopane M,
the sets of contexts and properties. Kybernetes Khrennikov AY, Zbilut JP. Some Remarks on an
2005; 34(1&2): 167-191. Experiment Suggesting Quantum Like Behaviour of
Aerts D & Gabora L. A state-context-property model of Cognitive Entities and Formulation of an Abstract
concepts and their combinations II: A Hilbert space Quantum Mechanical Formalism to Describe
representation. Kybernetes 2005; 34(1&2): 192- Cognitive Entity and Its Dynamics. Chaos, Solitons
221. (Special issue dedicated to Heinz Von and Fractals 2007; 31: 1076-1088.
Foerster.) [quant-ph/0402205] Conte E. Testing Quantum Consciousness
Aerts D, Broekaert J & Gabora L. A case for applying Neuroquantology 2008; 6 (2): 126-139.
an abstracted quantum formalism to cognition. Conte E, Khrennikov AY, Todarello O, Federici A,
New Ideas in Psychology 2011; 29 (1). Zbilut JP. A Preliminary Experimental Verification
Babich FR, Jacobson AL, Bubash S, Jacobson A. On the Possibility of Bell Inequality Violation in
Transfer of a response to naive rats by injection of Mental States. NeuroQuantology 2008; 6(3): 214-
ribonucleic acid extracted from trained rats. 221.
Science 1965; 149: 656–657 Conte E, Todarello O, Federici A, Zbilut JP. Mind
Beck F. Can quantum processes control synaptic States follow Quantum Mechanics during
emission? Int J Neural Syst 1996; 7(4): 343-353. Perception and Cognition of Ambiguous Figures: a
Beck F & Eccles JC. Quantum Processes in the Brain: A Final Experimental Confirmation. 2008;
scientific basis of consciousness. In N. Osaka (Ed.), arXiv:0802.1835
Neural Basis of Consciousness. Amsterdam, Conte E, Khrennikov AY, Todarello O, De Robertis R,
Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2003. Federici A and Zbilut JP. On the possibility that we
Blutner R, Hochnadel E. Two Qubits for CG. Jung’s think in a quantum mechanical manner: an
theory of personality. Cognitive Systems Research experimental verification of existing quantum
2010; 11: 243-259. interference effects in cognitive anomaly of
Bouda J, and Buzek V. Entanglement swapping conjunction fallacy. Chaos and Complexity Letters
between multi-qubit systems. J Phys A: Math Gen 2008; 4 (3): 217-239.
2001; 34: 4301- 4311. Conte E, Khrennikov AY, Todarello O, Federici A,
Braun D. Creation of entanglement by interaction with Zbilut JP. Mental States Follow Quantum
a common heat bath. Phys Rev Lett 2002; 89 (27): Mechanics during Perception and Cognition of
277901 Ambiguous Figures. Open Systems & Information
Bruza P, Busemeyer J & Gabora L. Introduction to the Dynamics 2009; 16 (1): 1–17; available on line
special issue on quantum cognition. Journal of PhilPapers.
Mathematical Psychology 2009; 53: 303-305. Conte E, Khrennikov AY, Todarello O, Federici A,
Conte E. On ψ retrocollapse in quantum mechanics. Zbilut JP. On the Existence of Quantum Wave
Lettere al Nuovo Cimento 1981; 31 (11): 380-382. Function and Quantum Interference Effects in
Conte E. A predictive model of ψ collapse-retrocollapse Mental States: An Experimental Confirmation
of quantum mechanics. Lettere al Nuovo Cimento during Perception and Cognition in Humans.
1981; 32 (9): 286-288. NeuroQuantology 2009; First issue 2009 –
Conte E. Exploration of the biological function by available online.
quantum mechanics using biquaternions. Conte E, Khrennikov AY, Todarello O, Federici A, Zbilut
Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on JP. On the Existence of Quantum Wave Function
Cybernetics, entitled Le concept d’organisation in and Quantum Interference Effects in Mental States.
Cybernetique, edited by the Association An Experimental Confirmation during Perception
International de Cybernetique. Namur-Belgique, and Cognition in Humans. Neuroquantology 2009; 7
August 22-27th, 1983; pages 16-24. (2): 204-212.
Conte E. Biquaternion quantum mechanics. Pitagora Conte E. A Reformulation of von Neumann’s
Editrice, Bologna,-Italy, 2000. Postulates on Quantum Measurement by Using
Conte E, Todarello O, Federici A, Vitiello F, Lopane M, Two Theorems in Clifford Algebra. International
Khrennikov AY. A Preliminar Evidence of Quantum Journal of Theoretical Physics 2010; DOI:
Like Behaviour in Measurements of Mental States, 10.1007/s10773-009-0239-z .
Quantum Theory, Reconsideration of Foundations. Conte E. On The Logical Origins of Quantum
Vaxjio Univ. Press 2003; 679-702. Mechanics Demonstrated By Using Clifford
Conte E, Vena A, Federici A, Giuliani R, Zbilut JP. A Algebra. Philpapers 2010;
brief note on a possible detection of physiological Conte E. On The Logical Origins of Quantum
singularities in respiratory dynamics by recurrence Mechanics. In press on Neuroquantology 2010.
quantification analysis. Chaos, Solitons and Conte E. On The Logical Origins of Quantum
Fractals 2004; 21 (4): 869-877 Mechanics: Quantum Interference examined by
Conte E, Federici A, Zbilut JP. On a simple case of Clifford Algebra. In press on Elettronic Journal of
possible non-deterministic chaotic behavior in Theoretical Physics 2010.
compartment theory of biological observables. Conte E, Todarello O, Laterza V, Khrennikov AY,
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 2004; 22: 277-284. Mendolicchio L, Federici A. A preliminary
experimental verification of violation of Bell
inequality in a quantum model of Jung theory of McIntyre ME. On thinking probabilistically. 2007;
personality formulated by Clifford algebra. Journal http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/mcintyre-
of Consciousness exploration and research 2010; 1 ( thinking-probabilistically.pdf
7 ): 785-887. Orlov JF. The wave logic of quantum mechanics. Int
Cox RT. The algebra of possible inference. Johns Journ Theor Phys 1978; 17 (8): 585-598, The Wave
Hopkins, Baltimora, MD, 1961. Logic of Consciousness: A Hypothesis. Int Journ
Crick F & Koch C. Consciousness and Neuroscience, Theor Phys 1982; 21 (1): 37-53, The logical origins
Cerebral Cortex 1998; 8: 97-107. of quantum mechanics. Annals of Physics 1994;
De Riedmatten H, et al. “Long-distance entanglement 234 (2): 245-259, Peculiarities of Quantum
swapping with photons from separated sources”, Mechanics: Origins and Meaning. 1996; 1-52
Phys Rev 2005; A71, 050302. arXiv:quant-ph/9607017v1.
Des Brandes R, Van Gent DL. Intercontinental Pitowsky I. Quantum Probability –Quantum Logic.
quantum liaisons between entangled electrons in Lecture Notes in Physics 1989; 321 Sprinter –
ion traps of thermoluminescent crystals. 2006; Verlag, New York.
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/RREPORTS/inter_qu Roland PE, Larsen B, Lassen NA & Skinhøj E.
antum.pdf Supplemental motor area and other cortical areas
Dugic M, Rakovic D. Quantum mechanical tunneling in in organizations of voluntary movements in man. J
associative neural networks. Eur Phys 2000; B13: Neurophysiol 1980; 43 (1): 118-136.
781-790. Schneider J. Quantum measurement act as a "speech
Eccles JC. A unitary hypothesis of mind-brain act". 2005; arXiv:quant-ph/0504199v1
interaction in the cerebral cortex. Proceedings of Vena A, Conte E, Perchiazzi G, Federici A, Giuliani R,
the Royal Society of London 1990; B240: 433-451. Zbilut JP. Detection of physiological singularities in
Gabora L & Aerts D. Contextualizing concepts using a respiratory dynamics analised by recurrence
mathematical generalization of the quantum quantification analysis. Chaos, Solitons and
formalism. Journal of Experimental and Fractals 2004; 22 (4): 857-866.
Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 2002; 14 (4): 327- Ventura D and Martinez T. An Artificial Neuron with
358. [quant-ph/0205161] Quantum Mechanical Properties. 1997;
Gabora L & Aerts D. A cross-disciplinary framework http://axon.cs.byu.edu/papers/ventura.icannga97.
for the description of contextually mediated pdf
change. Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics Walker EH. Quantum mechanical tunneling is synaptic
2007; 4 (15): 1-22. and ephatic transmission. Int J of Quantum
Gabora L & Aerts D. A model of the emergence and chemistry 1977; 11: 103-127.
evolution of integrated worldviews. Journal of Wolf FA. On the Quantum Physical Theory of
Mathematical Psychology 2009; 53: 434-451. Subjective Antedating. J Theor Biol 1989; 136: 13-
Hu H & Wu M. Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory 19.
2002; arXiv:quant-ph/0208068v5. Wu L-A, Lidar DA, and Schneider S. Long-range
Hu, H & Wu M. Spin as Primordial Self-referential entanglement generation via frequent
Process. NeuroQuantology 2004; 2 (1): 41-49. measurements. Physical Review 2004; A 70,
Jordan TF. Quantum Mechanics in simple matrix 032322.
form. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1985 Yaynes ET. Probabilità Thoery. The logic of science.
see as example: Kempe J. Quantum random walks: an Cambridge University Press 2003.
introductory overview. Contemporary Physics Zak M. Non-Lipschitzian dynamics for neural net
2003; 44 (4): 307 – 327 and references therein. modelling. Appl Math Phys 1989; 2 (1): 69-74.
This author has published a lot of papers on this Zak M. Dynamical simulations of probabilities. Chaos,
matter. We retain the best thing is to quote his last Solitons and Fractals 1997; 8 (5): 793-804.
book suggesting to the reader to consider in detail Zak M, Zbilut JP, Meyers RE. From instability to
this book and all the references that such author intelligence: complexity and predictability in non
gives of his papers. linear dynamics. Berlin New York Springer 1997.
Khrennikov AY. Ubiquitous Quantum Mechanics: from Zak M. Dynamics of intelligent systems. International
psychology to Finance. Springer 2009. Journal of Theoretical Physics 2000; 39; 8: 2107-
Lefebvre V. The law of self-reflexion: A Possible 2139.
Unified Explanation for the Three Different Zak M. Physical model of immune inspired computing.
Psychological Phenomena 2002; Information Science 2000; 129: 61-79.
http://cogprints.org/2927/ Zbilut JP, Meyers RE. A terminal dynamics model of
Liley AW. An investigation of spontaneous activity at the heart beat. Biological Cybernetics 1996; 75:
the neuromuscular junction of the rat. J Physiol 277-280.
1956; 132 (3): 650–666. Zbilut JP. Unstable singularities and randomness:
Margenau H. The Nature of Physical Reality. McGraw their importance in the complexity of physical and
Hill. 1950. social sciences. Elsevier 2004 and references
Margenau H. Physics - Principles and Applications. quoted in the book.
McGraw Hill. 1953. Zimatore G, Giuliani A, Parlapiano C, Grisanti G,
Mauford D. The Dawning of the age of stochasticity. Colosimo A. Revealing deterministic structures in
Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives. Amer click evoked otoacustic emissions. Journal of
Math Soc 2000. Applied Physiology 2000; 88: 1431-1437.

On The Possibility That We Think in A Quantum Probabilistic Manner

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

On The Possibility That We Think in A Quantum Probabilistic Manner

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

NeuroQuantology | December 2010 | Vol 8 | Issue 4 | Supplement Issue 1| Page S3‐47 S3

1. Introductory Remarks1 These are very valuable studies

The performed calculations give the A neuron takes n-inputs i j . A weight

tunneling results after calculations to be

energy surface (q-V) remains unchanged Entanglement Swapping

p = e − E / kT another and tend to surround blood vessels,

dependent potential tunneling containing In conclusion, the concept to relate

represents a terminal attractor which is In conclusion, we must be care in

Arbitrary time spontaneous spontaneous arising movement are involved.

(II) plausibilities are to be in field at the level of brain structure. As

of all evaluating information or ideas at the level of their intellectual profile,

and cyclic permutation of (1, 2, 3); < E02 E 30 > ,

< ( E02 + E20 )2 > −2 < ( E02 + E30 ) > −2

It is easily observed that we obtain eight balancing in normal as well in pathological

explain briefly the problem in a rough p( A = +1) = p( B = +1) p( A = +1 / B = +1)

at the level of mental states. In 68 subjects quantum interference as indicated by the

However, I expect some important criticism explained previously, if a system is really

ρ62 − ρ42 ρ82 − ρ32 ρ72 ρ4 ρ8 ψ = a1 ψ1 + a2 ψ2 . (47)

p( B = − / A = + ) = 1 − ( p( B = + ) + Rp( B = −)) encouraging results do not authorize in any

description of mind processes when years measure a dynamical variable, call it A,

I wish that Socrates is a man.

⎛a bn ⎞ the probability for the particle to be on the

2 2 In substance, we assume that, if the

1 + e3 e1 + e2 i again the correctness of the theoretical

References Conte E, Pierri GP, Federici A, Mendolicchio L, Zbilut

Potrebbero piacerti anche