The Status of the Mission
Peter Marcer
55 rue Jean Jaures
83600, Frejus
Var, France
Chairman BCS Cybernetic Machine specialist Group
cybergroup@bcs.org.uk - http://www.bcs.org.uk/cybergroup.htm

The Cybernetic Machine specialist Group concerns itself with fundamental questions in Computing/Information Processing (C/IP), but more specifically with (i) the nature of information, and (ii) the information processing principles used in brains.

Premise and Mission Statement
In science, Nature sets the rules, but it must never be forgotten, that it is only because life has exploited these rules successfully for billions of years to our evolutionary advantage, that human brains are able to understand them. The mission, at the foundations of C/IP if one accepts the premise, is therefore to identify how these rules were exploited to achieve this end.

Part I

Some fundamental facts of the mission, so far:-
A. With the publication in 1985 of David Deutsch’s more general quantum theory of universal computation [1] within which the theory of digital computation was shown to be contained, it was realized that computation is fundamentally a quantum physical process. The mathematical theory of digital computation based on recursive functions, described in terms of, for example, the idealized Turing Machine published in 1935/6 by Alan Turing [2], shown by Deutsch to correspond with classical physics, was thus superseded. It follows that information must have:- (a) an essential physical embodiment, and (b) an explanation as to how it, as signal theory, is incorporated, maybe intrinsically, into quantum physics.

Information can thus be hypothesized to be a further fundamental natural phenomenon, which, like energy, is of general/universal application to the nature’s understanding.

B. But it is a natural phenomenon, that any physical wave field (quantum mechanical, electro-magnetic, acoustic, etc) incident on a physical object results in local changes to the amplitude and phase of the field, so as to spontaneously encode the whole 3 dimensional spatial image of the object, up to some degree of resolution. The three basic elements of any information processing procedure identified by Schmacher [3], are therefore in this case,
(i) a physical resource, ie any wave field
(ii) an information procedure, ie the spontaneous natural phenomenon of image capture just described, such that the wave field in question becomes “3D object image” bearing and
(iii) a required third element, the successful completion of an information processing task, which in this case, consists of the proof that (ii) actually happens. But this proof is a well known demonstrable fact [4], since any such object image can be recovered/decoded (so as, for example, in the case of visible illumination, to be viewable 3 dimensionally by the human eye) from its hologram. This is the physical wave interference pattern formed by suitably com -bining the object image bearing field (ie the illumination previously incident on the object) with a corresponding physical reference field usually of non object image bearing illum-ination, so that it records not just the object image, but object image bearing field itself [4].

3 dimensional object image encoding and decoding are just two of the basic procedures within the information pattern recognition science, to be called here holochory, better known in the case of electro-magnetic and acoustic fields, as holography and holophony, respectively.

C. Some of holochory’s other “required third elements” are, for example, that holograms can function:- (i) as transducers of 3 dimensional spatial images across suitable physical interfaces between one physical medium and another, or (ii) as a record or a filter in an associative holochoric memory and filter bank, into and from which object imagery can be both written and read. Furthermore, since the object images encoded in the holograms represent actual behaviour taking place in the real 3 dimensional spatial world, these constitute knowledge (of the actual world). And so, in the case of the human brain postulated here to work by holochory, such knowledge would constitute a record of its actual sensory experience, consisting of empty (non image bearing) internal sensory reference fields, on which the initial and all further sensory experience is imprinted so as to form holograms. It is to be emphasized that this record is not encoded via strings of bits or qubits [3], but as physical signals - the actual wave interference pattern or patterns, themselves.

Contrary to the accepted view in neuroscience and biology, therefore, one is lead in C/IP in the 3 dimensional spatial world to a quantum hypothesis, in view of (A) above, that the basis of biological vision or any of the biological senses must be fundamentally holochoric in nature. For to discard this entirely practical possibility, which makes optimum use of all the information - amplitude and phase - arriving in the sensory illumination at the sensory organs, would be to place any organism at an evolutionary disadvantage in its race for survival. For example, holochory allows the immediate full 3 dimensional spatial wave front reconstruction (up to some degree of resolution and from a state of no initial prior experiential knowledge) of the whole of the 3 dimensional object imagery arriving at a sensory apparatus, a real time requirement, often fundamental to survival of living systems in the 3 dimensional spatial world, in which we live.

A conclusion, which in relation to the possible fact of holochory in quantum physics, gains further credence from the following :-

D) that while practical quantum computers using qubits [3] are only foreseen to exist, quantum information processing systems using quantum holography are already in worldwide medical diagnostic use in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems [5,6,7]. In these systems, the diffraction (wave interference) patterns extracted by the magnetic resonant nuclear spin choreography to produce the desired medical images are easily shown to be holochoric in nature, ie to be quantum holograms as predicted by the theory of quantum holography, as identified by Schempp [8], which is described in terms of the 3 dimensional nilpotent Heisenberg Lie group. See also http://www.civm.duke.edu

E) that quantum holographic information processing of three dimensional spatial imagery presents in principle no unsolved quantum measurement°° problems since the conditions for its success are well understood in relation to MRI cited above, and offers similar quantum computational advantages, as are predicted for qubits as against bits. That is to say, that quantum coherence in relation to quantum holochoric filter banks and associative memories, enables quantum parallelism rather than its very significantly less computationally efficient classical counterpart [3]. (°°Technicalities, (a) Such measurements are, in this case, phase measurements, that constitute those of the second class of quantum observables ie the gauge invariant phases of the quantum state vector (ie of the whole holochoric system in this case) discovered in the 1980s by Berry and called the geometric phase [9,10] and (b) quantum decoherence, becomes the actual means to carry out the desired object image computation, rather than being the often cited actual obstacle to it. The problem is rather to control the image computation in such a way as is done in MRI for example by spin choreography to achieve the necessary object image resolution.)

F) that this concept of the quantum holochoric brain, first proposed on the basis of experimental findings by neurophysiologist Karl Pribram [11], has, for example, been further independently confirmed, by the theoretical work of Perus [12]. This work shows that if one restricts the complex quantities, which are able by the use of phase to encode 3 dimensional holographic information in the quantum mechanical formalism to their corresponding real quantities, so to exclude phase, that there is a one to one correspondence with the neural net formalism, where weighting functions currently provide the best established means C/IP has for modeling learning in the brain. Moreover this ability to encode 3 dimensional holographic information by phase in accordance with the precepts of quantum mechanics is the theoretical basis of a highly efficient holographic classical pattern recognition technology used by the ANDCorporation [13] see also http://www.andcorporation.com

G. This is to say, that quantum neural nets, as quantum holographic theory shows, record not only object images and their weighting functions such that the objects images become weighted in line with sensory experience [14], but are such that the objects themselves can each be given a unique name [15]. Each such name (written or read say by alphabet, encoded by the more usual kind of information, a string of bits or qubits) would then be such that its corresponding holochoric pattern is its assigned meaning, so allowing the name to be capable of being properly understood. Such well labeled quantum holographic information processing, where the individual holographic patterns define its semantics, constitutes computation [1], since in all computation, the computational objects require a unique labeling or naming schema (“canonically labeling” 15,1]) so as have a valid syntax.

It is therefore virtually certain that quantum mechanics itself can and should be regarded as constituting a semantic theory of holochoric pattern recognition, involving not one but two specific kinds of physical information resource, the hologram or generalized holochoric pattern as a signal, and implicitly the bit or qubit string which could label it. An example, that can therefore be hypothesized, is DNA where the alphabet identified by molecular biologists, known as the genetic code is well known. This then immediately raises the questions, as to the nature and the whereabouts in DNA of the corresponding generalized holochoric patterns for which the genetic code would supply the labeling. An answer [16] is that, these holochoric physical wave patterns internal to the DNA, have to be those essential to the 3 dimensional geometric construction of the embryo of it’s organism, in accordance with that embryo’s programmed development as laid down in the DNA control structure ie its genetic code. And experimental evidence that such physical holochoric information is located within DNA has already been partially validated [17]. Further the presence of these holochoric patterns, which assign actual geometrical meaning to the associated genetic code, indicates that the genetic code is much closer to human natural than to a digital computer language, since it, like natural language, has its own inherent semantics (see [18] for actual experimental evidence of this), and thus DNA can function not just as a code but as an actual holochoric ‘neuralnetwork/brain’, enabling it to run the simplest living cells, for example[19]. Thus subject to further extensive experimental validation, a working hypothesis – quantum holochory - for the Group’s mission is now essentially in place.

Part II, More Fundamental Questions

These are the subject of the next BCSCMsG International Symposium in Liege. See www.bcs.org.uk/cybergroup.htm and www.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/CASYS2003.htm

The capability by phase to encode and decode 3 dimensional spatial information in relation to quantum mechanical waves, supported by Berry’s discovery of quantum geometric phase[9], each showing that special relativistic 3+1 space-time constitutes a fundamental fully quantum mechanical description of the world, rather than being, as is usually supposed, just a premise of classical physics, suggests an even more remarkable possibility, that the universe, as all that exists – its dictionary definition - is itself the Quantum Hologram, as proposed by Mitchell [20]. For it can be hypothesized solely from information processing considerations, consistent with the requirement that to perform holochory requires the temporal and/or spatial coherence of physical wave fields, and is described in quantum holography in terms of the nilpotence of the 3 dimensional Heisenberg Lie Group- nilpotence meaning “can be derived from nothing or the empty set”- that these requirements may correspond to the actual boundary conditions needed for the bringing into being of the 3 dimensional spatial universe itself from the empty set.

An hypothesis confirmed, by the remarkable work of Rowlands and Cullerne (R&C)[21]. It shows, that not only is the condition of nilpotence consistent with the simultaneous bringing into being of relativistic 3+1 space-time and the known quantizations of the elementary particles of the Standard Model of Elementary Particle physics (ie that both proceed from the condition of the empty set), but that the known quantizations are precisely those, that, through this R&C medium of special relativistic 3+1 space-time and its elementary particle matter, will ensure that quantum mechanics is compatible with Einstein’s general relativity. This implies that “this R&C medium” acts as holochoric transducer between the two fields, such that the inertial and gravitational relativistic 3+1 dimensional space-time object images of this matter ie their masses respectively, are equivalent to one another, so that Mach’s equivalence principle holds. But such a model of the Universe as a holochoric transducer is a quantum hologram, with all the other C/IP capacities of object image bearing record, filter, reference wave etc, and so may act, as Mitchell argues, as Nature’s Mind [20,15, also see below].

This initial condition of the empty set to describe the exact moment of the creation of a quantum universe is consistent with the requirements of:-
(i) a cold start from the absolute zero of temperature, so guaranteeing the temporal and spatial quantum coherence postulated above, and
(ii) its subsequent irreversible evolution in accordance with the Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics when modeled as a Quantum Carnot Engine (QCE) in a critical constant temperature condition [22]. This QCE description says that, the universe (defined “as all that exists” as stated earlier) would behave as a single heat bath able to extract work via vanishing quantum coherence alone. Thus both the empty set and the subsequent R&C ensemble of elementary particles in 3+1 relativistic space-time, constitute, because of their quantum coherence, as is now recognized, entirely new states of matter, called by the QCE authors “phaseonia”, since such QCE action is defined by the actual phase of the quantum coherence. This says that quantum coherence in the holochoric universe fundamentally alters classical thermodynamics as defined by Carnot heat engine action, to give entirely new forms of operation never thermodynamically before known [22]. Quantum coherence can therefore be postulated to be a more fundamental physical resource (“dark energy”?) than energy and matter, since, as R&C show, these fundamental states, matter and energy, derive from it.

It then follows, as argued in Part I, that DNA, living organisms, and human brains, should also be postulated to be QCEs. For example, in the case of brains, this postulate is consistent with one of the earliest findings in experimental neuroscience, those of Ramon y Cajal. He showed that neurons function as essentially independent units, and so could in the case of the model of the brain as a QCE constitute such a phaseonium, where quantum coherence is the missing link, to the later quantum brain hypotheses of the experimental neurophysiologists, Karl Pribram, Sir John Eccles, and others, such as, Penrose and Hameroff.

This now definite possibility that we live in an entirely quantum mechanical Universe therefore raises the stakes considerably in C/IP and molecular biology. For the QCE model implies that the current status of knowledge in these disciplines, amounts to little more than half the scientific story, since this story lacks the phenomenon of the “phaseonium”! If this is indeed the case, and it is now accepted that traditional digital information processing corresponds to that embodied in classical physics, then all traditional digital computation that is currently regarded as providing accurate pictures of the natural world, will at best provide science with only partial answers that correspond with those of the classical Carnot engine (CCE) now subsumed within that of the QCE. And in the final resort, these digital answers will be just plain wrong, since such CCE models exclude the phenomena of the phaseonium. For example, human mind and consciousness need no longer be hypothesized as epiphenomena, as would follow from a CCE model if they are QCE phaseonium properties of each individual whole brain working quantum mechanically as proposed here [15]. And such a QCE model would explain why, for instance, in the region of the critical constant temperature condition of 38° C, each individual human nervous system experiences a single irreversible stream of 3 dimensional spatial conscious self awareness. This is to say that in the now quantum physical process of human brain/mind interaction [15] the brain may as a holochoric transducer also function non-classically under instruction from a quantum mind, so that speech and thought in the form of natural language becomes possible through canonical labeling ie by the naming schema via alphabet as explained in Part I.

Thus if the human brain does indeed use quantum information processing, as now seems more than likely, then the construction of an interface between it and the digital computer, can only ever be achieved in strictly limited domains, for now completely fundamental physical reasons. Could this be why therefore the use of digital computers often fails to deliver the goods, in many so domains of human endeavour, and why anticipatory computation discovered by Dubois, which extends recursive function theory to the incursive, and hyperincursive [see CHAOS webpages cited at the beginning of Part II] is so important? It is to say, that the traditional digital usage of a string of bits is plainly not enough to deliver those goods? And this is in fact well known in the field of human natural languages, where the use of alphabets evolved long before binary encoded digital computer languages. For in this context, such strings of symbols/letters, are semantically, firstly words, then sentences, paragraphs, chapters, etc, ie units held together by their meaning, ie are holograms! That is to say, as postulated here that natural languages basically encode geometric meaning based on 3 dimensional object imagery, as the known functioning of the two hemispheres of the human brain readily indicates. It also explains why human brains are not only able to decode but also to assign meaning, whereas in digital computers, meaning or a domain of meanings must always ultimately be assigned by some outside human agency. This implies that the digital machines can only ever be programmed to solve specific categories of problem, excluding in particular those fundamentally quantum mechanical in nature! And the concept that there can be any form of digital machine intelligence comparable and compatible to the ultimate potential of human intelligence, except in strictly limited domains, is also clearly brought into question. Finally it is to say, that living systems defined in terms of DNA or RNA did not simply arise by chance, but are, as is argued here, an inevitable consequence of the quantum physical rules and the boundary condition of the empty set that give rise to the Quantum Universe itself, as now proposed here.

1. Deutsch D. 1985 The Church-Turing principle, and the universal quantum computer, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A400, 97-117.
2. Turing A.M 1936 On Computable Numbers with reference to the Entscheidungdproblem, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2, no42, 230-265 and 544-546.
3. The edge of physics 2003 Scientific American, special edition, volume 13, no.1 (article Simple Rules for a Complex Quantum World by Nielson M.A.)
4. see entry holography, Encyclopedia Britannica, for example
5. Schempp W. 1998 Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mathematical Foundations and Applications, John Wiley, New York., see also http://wwwcivm.duke.edu
6. Binz E. and Schempp W. 2000 Creating Magnetic Resonance Images, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems, International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, 7, 223-232.
7. Binz E. and Schempp W. 2000 A unitary parallel filterbank approach to Magnetic Resonance Tomography, American Institute of Physics Proceedings 517, of the Third International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems, editor Dubois D. August 9-14, 1999 Liege Belgium 406-416.
8. Schempp W. 1992 Quantum Holography and Neurocomputer Architectures, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 2, 279-326.
9. Berry M.V. 1989 The Geometric Phase, Scientific American, December, 26-32.
10. Resta R.1997 The Geometric Phase, Europhysics News,28,19, also Manini 2001 http://www.sissa.it/~manini/berryphase.html Berry’s geometric phase: a review,03/05,1-9.
11. Pribram K.H. 1991 Brain and Perception: Holonomy and Structure in Figural Processing. Lawerence Eribaum Associates, New Jersey.
12. Perus M. 1996 Neuro-Quantum Parallelism in Brain-Mind and Computers, Informatica 20
,173-183
13. Sutherland J. 1999, Holographic/Quantum Neural Technology, Systems and Applications, ISCAS 313-334, http://www.andcorporation.com
14. Clement B.E.P. et al. 1999 The Brain as a Huygens’ Machine, Informatica 23, 389-398
15. Marcer P and Schempp W.1998, The Brain as a Conscious System, International Journal of General Systems, 27, 1/3, 231-248
16. Marcer P. and Schempp W. 1986 A Mathematically Specified Template for DNA and the Genetic Code, in terms of the physically realizable Processes of Quantum Holography, Proceeding of Greenwich (University) Symposium on Living Computers, editors Fedorec A. and Marcer P. 45-62.
17. Gariaev P. Birstein B. Iarochenko A. Leonova K.A. Marcer P. Kaempf U. Tertishy G. 2001 The DNA-wave Biocomputer Fourth International Conference Computing Anticipatory Systems, Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems,10, 290-310
18. Gariaev P. Birstein B. Iarochenko A. Leonova K.A. Marcer P. Kaempf U. Tertishy G. 2002 Fractal Structure in DNA Code and Human Language: Towards a Semiotic of Biogenetic Information, International Journal of Computing Anticpatory Systems , Volume 12, 255-273
19. Marcer P. and Schempp W. 1998 The Model of the Prokayote Cell as an Anticipatory System Working by Quantum Holography, International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, editor Dubois D. CHAOS, 2, 307-315.
20. Mitchell E. 2000 Natures Mind: the Quantum Hologram International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, editor Dubois D. CHAOS, volume 7, symposium 7, 295-312 http://www.nidsci.org/articles/naturesmind-qh.html
21. Rowlands P. and Cullerne J.P. 1999 A derivation of particle structures and the Dirac Equation from fundamental symmetries, Proceeding of the 20th annual meeting of the Alternative Natural Philosophy Association (ANPA), Wesley House, Cambridge, editor K.Bowden,155-191. contact is via anpa-discussions-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Rowlands P. and Cullerne J.P. 2001, Nilpotent Representations of the Dirac Algebra, Proceeding of the 22th annual meeting of the Alternative Natural Philosophy Association (ANPA), Wesley House, Cambridge, editor K.Bowden, 99-106. See also at xxx.lanl.gov
the Dirac algebra and its physical interpretation, with J. P. Cullerne arXiv:quant-ph/00010094
Applications of the nilpotent Dirac state vector, with J. P. Cullerne arXiv:quant-ph/0103036
A foundational approach to physics arXiv:physics/0106054
The Dirac algebra and grand unification with J. P. Cullerne arXiv:quant-ph/0106111
QED using the nilpotent formalism, with J. P. Cullerne arXiv:quant-ph/0109069
The group structure bases of a foundational approach to physics, with J. P.Cullerne and Brian D. Koberlein arXiv:physics/0110092
22. Scully M. O. et al 2003, Extracting Work fro a Single Heat Bath via Vanishing Quantum Coherence, Science, 299, 7th February, 862-864. 10.1126/science.1078955.