Connectionists: Physics

[Johan Suykens]

Dear all,

Related to the quantum measurement problem, derivation of the Born rule,
and connections with neural networks, support vector machines, kernel
methods, learning theory, variational principles, convex optimization, 
and others, I would like to bring to the attention the following
recent results:

Johan A.K. Suykens,
Generating quantum-measurement probabilities from an optimality 
principle, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052134 (2013)
http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v87/i5/e052134
http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~sistawww/cgi-bin/newsearch.pl?Name=Suykens+J

Hopefully this might also contribute to connecting different
research fields.

Best regards,
Johan

----------------------

Prof. Dr.ir. Johan Suykens
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Departement Elektrotechniek - ESAT-STADIUS
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10
B-3001 Leuven (Heverlee)
Belgium
Tel: 32/16/32 18 02
Fax: 32/16/32 19 70
Email: Johan.Suykens at esat.kuleuven.be
http://www.esat.kuleuven.be/stadius/members/suykens.html



On 01/28/2014 04:03 PM, Kaare Mikkelsen wrote:
> Speaking as another physicist trying to bridge the gap between physics
> and neuroscience I must also say that how the most abstract ideas from
> quantum mechanics could meaningfully (read: scientifically) be applied
> to macroscopic neuroscience, given our present level of understanding of
> either field, is beyond me. To me, it is at the point where the
> connection is impossible to prove or disprove, but seems very unlikely.
> I do not see how valid scientific results can come in that direction,
> seeing as there is no theory, no reasonable path towards a theory, and
> absolutely no way of measuring anything.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kaare Mikkelsen, M. Sc.
> Institut for Fysik og Astronomi
> Ny Munkegade 120
> 8000
> Aarhus C
> Lok.: 1520-629
> Tlf.: 87 15 56 37
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On 28 January 2014 15:32, Richard Loosemore <rloosemore at susaro.com
> <mailto:rloosemore at susaro.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 1/27/14, 11:30 PM, Brian J Mingus wrote:
>
>         Consciousness is also such a bag of worms that we can't rule out
>         that qualia owes its totally non-obvious and a priori
>         unpredicted existence to concepts derived from quantum
>         mechanics, such as nested observers, or entanglement.
>
>         As far as I know, my litmus test for a model is the only way to
>         tell whether low-level quantum effects are required: if the
>         model, which has not been exposed to a corpus containing
>         consciousness philosophy, then goes on to independently recreate
>         consciousness philosophy, despite the fact that it is composed
>         of (for example) point neurons, then we can be sure that
>         low-level quantum mechanical details are not important.
>
>         Note, however, that such a model might still rely on nested
>         observers or entanglement. I'll let a quantum physicist chime in
>         on that - although I will note that according to news articles
>         I've read that we keep managing to entangle larger and larger
>         objects - up to the size of molecules at this time, IIRC.
>
>
>         Brian Mingus
>         http://grey.colorado.edu/__mingus <http://grey.colorado.edu/mingus>
>
>     Speaking as someone is both a physicist and a cognitive scientist,
>     AND someone who has written papers resolving that whole C-word
>     issue, I can tell you that the quantum story isn't nearly enough
>     clear in the minds of physicists, yet, so how it can be applied to
>     the C question is beyond me.  Frankly, it does NOT apply:  saying
>     anything about observers and entanglement does not at any point
>     touch the kind of statements that involve talk about qualia etc.
>     So let's let that sleeping dog lie.... (?).
>
>     As for using the methods/standards of physics over here in cog sci
>     ..... I think it best to listen to George Bernard Shaw on this one:
>       "Never do unto others as you would they do unto you:  their tastes
>     may not be the same."
>
>     Our tastes (requirements/constraints/__issues) are quite different,
>     so what happens elsewhere cannot be directly, slavishly imported.
>
>
>     Richard Loosemore
>
>     Wells College
>     Aurora NY
>     USA
>
>