Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 197–207 | Cite as

Biological utilization of quantum nonlocality

  • Brian D. Josephson
  • Fotini Pallikari-Viras
Part V. Invited Papers Dedicated To John Stewart Bell

Abstract

The perception of reality by biosystems is based on different, and in certain respects more effective, principles than those utilized by the more formal procedures of science. As a result, what appears as random pattern to the scientific method can be meaningful pattern to a living organism. The existence of this complementary perception of reality makes possible in principle effective use by organisms of the direct interconnections between spatially separated objects shown to exist in the work of J. S. Bell.

Keywords

Living Organism Scientific Method Random Pattern Formal Procedure Separate Object 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. S. Bell, “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,”Physics,1, 195–200 (1964).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. S. Bell, “Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments,”Proceedings of the Symposium on Frontier Problems in High Energy Physics (Pisa, 1976), pp. 33–45.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. S. Bell,Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. S. Bell, “The theory of local beables,”Epist. Lett., March 1976.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. J. Bussey, “Super-luminal” communication in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments,”Phys. Lett. A 90, 9–12 (1982).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. D. Mermin, “Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory,”Phys. Today 38(4), 38–47 (1985).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. L. Edge, R. L. Morris, J. Palmer, and J. H. Rush,Foundations of Parapsychology (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1986).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. I. Radin and R. D. Nelson, “Evidence for consciousness-related anoalies in random physical systems,”Found. Phys. 19, 1499–1514 (1989).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Bohm, B. J. Hiley, and P. N. Kaloyerou, “An ontological basis for the quantum theory,”Phys. Rep. 144, 322–375 (1987).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?”Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, “Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938–941 (1972).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. H. Walker, “Consciousness and Quantum Theory,” inPsychic Exploration, J. White, ed. (Putnam's, New York, 1974), pp. 544–568.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. S. Bell, “On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics,”Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447–452 (1966).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. Bohr,Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (Wiley New York, 1958).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. J. Leggett, “Reflections on the quantum measurement paradox,” inQuantum Implications, B. J. Hiley and F. D. Peat, eds. (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1987), pp. 85–104.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Conrad, D. Home, and B. D. Josephson, “Beyond quantum theory: A realist psychobiological interpretation of the quantum theory,” inMicrophysical Reality and Quantum Formalism, Vol. I, A. van der Merwe, F. Selleri, and G. Tarozzi, eds. (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1988), pp. 285–293.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. D. Josephson, “Limits to the universality of quantum mechanics,”Found. Phys. 18, 1195–1204 (1988).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. J. Bohm,Unfolding Meaning (Ark, London and New York, 1987).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Pylkkänen, ed.,The Search for Meaning (Crucible, Wellingborough, Northants, United Kingdom, 1989).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. N. Villars, “Microphysical objects as centres of perception,”Psychoenergetics 5, 1 (1983).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. J. Bohm, “A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter,”J. Am. Soc. Psych. Res. 80, 113–135 (1986).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. E. Lovelock, Commentary on the Gaia hypothesis,Nature (London) 344, 100–102 (1990).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. LeShan,Clairvoyant Reality (Turnstone, Wellingborough, Northants, United Kingdom, 1982).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    L. LeShan,The Science of the Paranormal (Aquarian, Wellingborough, Northants, United Kingdom, 1987).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. E. Stapp, “Mind, matter and quantum mechanics,”Found. Phys. 12, 363–399 (1982).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian D. Josephson
    • 1
  • Fotini Pallikari-Viras
    • 1
  1. 1.Cavendish LaboratoryCambridgeUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations