3 views

Uploaded by Gurwinder Singh

- Enchiladas the Borges Way!
- Wineland Lecture
- Gun Death Statistics and the Method of Least Squares and the Forgotten Property of a Straight line
- Avishkar Flex 007.pptx
- 01 - Dima Bogdan, Lucian PASCA
- 0206091
- Quantum Computers
- Ch2.b
- 19.2.Morton
- Photon Induced Non-Local Effects of General Anaesthetics on the Brain
- Simply Arduino
- From Coulomb to Yukawa Through Planck
- Outline
- English Book Review
- gianetto_preprint[1]
- On Graph Approaches to Contextuality
- cd.docx
- Robosure Business Information
- fence essay rough draft 3
- God, Logic, and Quantum Information

You are on page 1of 7

Karl Gustafson

Department of Mathematics, University of Colorado

Boulder, Colorado 80309–0395

gustafs@euclid.colorado.edu

tions are normally developed in analogy with digital com-

In earlier work, this author has explained the robustness of puting paradigms but with qubits replacing bits. By use of

nonlinear multilayer machine learning algorithms in terms of qubits one can in theory often show that an exponential time

an intrinsic chaos of the logistic map. Moreover we have

digital algorithm becomes polynomial time on a quantum

connected that dynamics to a spectral concentration which

occurs in bounded-to-free quantum transitions. From these, computer. But in practice, that is, in the very few quan-

one may formulate a fundamental irreversibility common to tum computing hardwares that have actually been built to

both machine and quantum learning. Second, in recent work date, it is very difficult to maintain a quantum memory state

this author has treated both the Bell and Zeno paradoxes of for more than a very short time. This problem of decoher-

quantum measurement theory. Deep unresolved issues are ence is very much related to longstanding issues in quan-

exposed and analyzed. A fundamental new theorem on quan- tum measurement theory. Turning to human versus (clas-

tum mechanical reversibility is presented. From such view- sical, e.g., digital) machine learning, Section 4 reviews our

point, one may see more deeply the issue of decoherence in earlier work which compared certain A.I. learning schemes

any quantum computing architecture. Third, in our examina- with actual human learning experiences on the same data

tions of human learning, we compared actual human decision

set. Then Section 5 compares our method of generalization,

processes against those of several A.I. learning schemes. We

were struck by the repeated tendency of humans to go to great which we called backprediction, to recent studies of learning

lengths to avoid a choice that includes a contradiction. That based upon Boolean concepts and Boolean complexity. Es-

will be contrasted with quantum learning, which permits, at sentially, we will claim that there are a number of additional

least probabilistically, contradictory conclusions. factors that importantly affect the learning behavior of hu-

mans. Finally Sections 6 and 7 consider, in somewhat spec-

ulative fashion, some contrasts and comparisons of human

Introduction and Overview and quantum learning. One of these is our finding in our hu-

man learning studies that humans will go to great lengths to

This paper is comprised of 8 sections, the first being this one. avoid a choice that involves a contradiction. Quantum me-

The organization, as implied by the paper’s title, is to look chanics on the other hand has no such limitation, the most

at certain interconnections of quantum, machine, and human famous example being Schrödinger’s cat which is both dead

learning, taken two at a time. Sections 2 and 3 begin with and alive. We also consider briefly the issues of human and

certain interconnections of quantum and machine learning. quantum consciousness.

Sections 4 and 5 look at certain interconnections of human

and machine learning. Sections 6 and 7 consider potential It is apparent that none of the investigations which we de-

interconnections of human and quantum learning. Section scribe in this paper are finished. Indeed, as corollary we

8 is a short summary. The References are selective and re- may say that we have here just scratched the surface of these

flect only this authors investigations and thoughts, also a few various two-way and three-way interconnections. The pa-

directly related papers in order to give some perspective. per may thus be viewed as exploratory. Hopefully, further

investigations, study, and thought will follow.

A brief overview is as follows. Section 2 presents a con-

nection this author found some years ago between the ma-

chine learning algorithms such as Backpropagation or other Interconnection of Machine

nonlinear multilayer perception architectures, and certain and Quantum Learning

quantum transitions. The link is the discrete logistic map

of dynamical systems theory. Section 3 looks at some is- In earlier work (Gustafson 1990, Gustafson 1997a,b,

sues the author has considered for a long time, in quan- Gustafson 1998a,b,c, Gustafson and Sartoris 1998,

tum measurement theory, as they may relate to the grand Gustafson 2002b) this author has connected the conver-

gence properties of nonlinear multilayer machine learning

Copyright

c 2007, American Association for Artificial Intelli- algorithms to the dynamics of the logistic map of dynamical

gence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. systems theory. In particular, it was shown how an intrinsic

ergodic chaos, which occurs when learning gain becomes The imaginary part of the transform is in the role of source

large enough, can explain the robustness of these algorithms in the transform domain. Notice that the gain parameter

in practice. The basic connection can be established from β enters into the real part of the transform of the spectral

the three maps: the sigmoid map derivative f 0 (λ) and accounts for the slope of the develop-

ing singularity of the hyperbolic cosecant there. The gain

f 0 (x) = βf (x)(1 − f (x)); β also acts as a width parameter in the probability density

the weight update map f 0 (λ) very much like a Breit-Wigner partial cross section

line width. Thus the sigmoid gain β may be interpretted as

∆w`j = ηf 0 (net)(t` − o` )oj ; a quantum transition probability for spontaneous emission.

See (Gustafson 1997a,b) for more details.

and the discrete logistic map

We may paraphrase the situation as follows. Think of

xn+1 = µxn (1 − xn ). f (λ) as a probability distribution function that grows from 0

to 1 as λ increases from −∞ to +∞. Its derivative f 0 (λ) re-

In the cited papers, the further ramifications of these connec- sembles a normal probability density function. If β exceeds

tions were fully explained. Also a number of critical misun- 4, f 0 (0) exceeds 1, and f (λ) can no longer be an authentic

derstandings in the established literature were identified. probability distribution until the physical situation adjusts

Moreover, a connection to quantum transitions was estab- itself. I called this situation a potential loss of probability

lished. One may consider a steepening spectral family preference. It definitely happens in neural networks where

hE(λ)φ, φi β is an accumulating network gain. If it happens in quantum

mechanics, I view that as a nonrecoverable loss of informa-

over a segment of continuous (i.e., scattering) spectrum of tion. To overdramatize the intriguing nature of this notion,

a quantum Hamiltonian. These occur in quantum mechan- let me restate the previous sentence. The information, if not

ics as a spectral concentration corresponding to a pole in a lost, has gone elsewhere. Where? To another atomic sys-

scattering cross section. Such may occur due to a bound- tem? Radiated out to dark energy? That is why I would

to-free transition caused by incoming photon events. If this like this idea further investigated. Perhaps one could show

steepening is too large, one violates what we have called analytically from the atomic Schrödinger partial differential

quantum probability preservation. It is an interesting and equations that such spectral concentrations always preserve

important physical experimental challenge to investigate this probability preference. That would be a useful theoretical

phenomenon. result for quantum mechanics. Or, as I postulated above, one

Let me explain what I mean by this last statement. To could carry out physical scattering experiments with low di-

be specific, to illustrate my theory of violation of probabil- mensional atomic systems. Either of these tasks would be

ity preference in quantum mechanics, I modelled (Gustafson challenging.

1997a,b) the spectral concentration in a scattering event by Juxtaposing these machine learning and quantum tran-

means of a hypothetical spectral family sition theories as we have outlined them here permits one

to argue a fundamental, irreversible, loss of information in

f (λ) = hE(λ)φ, φi = (1 + e−λ )−1 . each, whenever the ergodic regimes appear. An interpreta-

Up to scale factors, this has Fourier transform tion is, to achieve robustness in machine learning, you must

give up a simple pure-state answer and be willing to roam

fˆ(λ) = −icscht + δ(0). about widely in weight space. Similarly in quantum scatter-

ing events, during the time interval during which the pho-

where δ denotes the Dirac delta function. Putting in gain β toeffect is active, you must accept a temporary uncertainty

and threshold θ we have now generally a spectral family or even loss of probability in order to achieve the spectral

f (λ) = (1 + e−β(λ−θ) )−1 . transition.

The technical aspects of what I have discussed in this sec-

This transforms up to scale factors to tion, although vital to their meaning and importance, is not

2 the main point to be made within the context of this present

δ(s) π 2π s

fˆ(λ) = e−i2πθ − ie−i2πθ csch . paper. The general point to come away with here is that if

2 β β we are interested in combining the theories of A.I. and quan-

Clearly the effect of the threshold θ = E0 in the energy tum mechanics, we must be prepared to address some very

continuum of the atom is just a phase change, which is sec- serious issues in quantum mechanics.

ondary for our purposes. The important parameter is the

sigmoid gain β. Taking E0 = 0 for simiplicity, we are in- Interconnection of Quantum

terested in the derivative f 0 (λ), which will tell us the slope Measurement and Quantum Computing

of the spectral family hE(λ)φ, φi. Using the key sigmoid

property f 0 (λ) = βf (λ)(1 − f (λ)) mentioned above, we Recently (Gustafson 1999, Gustafson 2000, Gustafson

find up to scale factors the Fourier transform 2001, Gustafson 2002a, Gustafson 2003a,b,c, Gustafson

2 2 2004, Gustafson 2005, Gustafson 2006a,b, Gustafson

0

2π 2π 2007a,b) this author has given new interpretations and new

f (λ) = −

g s csch s + i2πsδ(s). results for the Bell and Zeno paradoxes of quantum measure-

β β

ment theory. These longstanding and fundamental problems talists is the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality

in quantum theory have recently emerged as key issues in

<

the quest to build quantum computers. |E(a, b) + E(a, c) + E(d, b) − E(d, c)| = 2.

It is not my intention here to go deeply into the many

interesting facets of quantum computing. Rather, I want We apologize here for not giving all details that lie behind

to stress that actual quantum computing, if the hardware these inequalities. The literature is large and growing and

ever materializes, will give rise to investigations of quan- opinions still divided. However, very important physical

tum learning, much like those that occurred about twenty questions such as locality, realism, hidden variables, the na-

years ago in the neural network and machine learning com- ture of probability in quantum physics, are at issue.

munities, which then became new components of the larger This author was able to place all of these Bell inequali-

A.I. community. The more traditional A.I. philosophy of ex- ties within his noncommuticative operator trigonometry. It

pert systems, perhaps trained by human experts, expanded is seen that Bell’s original inequality, although true, has a

in scope with the advent of large memory high speed digi- number of theoretical defects. We believe to better under-

tal computers. A typical and good discussion of such is the stand the physical issues it is better to extend these inequal-

book (Weiss and Kulikowsky, 1991), where the new learning ities to what we have called inequality equalities, or per-

systems are contrasted with expert systems. Should we ever haps better terms, new quantum spin identities. For exam-

really get large memory high speed quantum computers, a ple, Wigner’s inequality becomes, using our noncommuta-

new era of learning systems would follow. New thinking and tive operator trigonometry, the new identity

new logics would probably be necessary. And more specif-

sin2 21 θ12 + sin2 12 θ23 − sin2 12 θ13

ically, and this is my point as concerns what follows below,

we will need to better understand the theory and practice of

= 2 cos 12 θ13 cos 12 θ13 − cos 12 θ12 cos 12 θ23 .

quantum measurement. The issues there go to the deepest

unresolved riddles of quantum theory.

The Clauser–Horne–Shimony–Holt inequality becomes

A good treatment of quantum computing and quantum in-

formation theory is the book (Nielsen and Chuang, 2000). | cos θab + cos θac + cos θbd − cos θdc |

Many of the critical issues related to my discussion below

may be found in the recent Solvay Congress volume (Anto- = 2| cos(θbc /2) cos θa,b+c + sin(θbc /2) cos θd,b−c |.

niou, Sadovnichy, and Walther, 2003). For my own part, I

have thought about some of the issues below for over thirty The 2 represent the largest value the right hand side may at-

years. Quantum mechanics can be maddening. Einstein tain from the view of classical probabilities, whereas the sec-

once said he worked 200 times as hard on quantum me- ond factor represents what √ we may call the quantum excess.

chanics as on relativity theory and he still did not under- It can be no more than 2. The point is that the trigono-

stand it. And let me add an opinion of my own: bona fide metric entities on the right side all carry quantum physical

quantum computing will involve much more than just a se- probabilistic meaning. It is, in this author’s opinion, an im-

quence of low-dimensional unitary matrices arranged in a portant physical experimental challenge to improve the Bell-

quantum computing architecture. Those are idealizations, type physical experiments, e.g., of Aspect’s group and all the

useful and beautiful indeed, which already assume that the later efforts, to measure the right side entities to better under-

hard hardware problems of decoherence and irreversibility, stand Bell inequality quantum violations. Quantum comput-

have been taken care of. Some hope to do this in software, ing architectures often rely on the use of prepared Bell-states

e.g. by the use of quantum error correcting methods. At a in order to represent mixed superpositions.

more fundamental level, we must better understand the role The so-called quantum Zeno paradox goes back to von

of probability in quantum mechanics. Two major contexts Neumann’s original formulation of quantum mechanics in a

there are Bell theory and Zeno theory. Roughly speaking, Hilbert space. From the point of view of quantum comput-

through Bell theory we may be able to (quantum) communi- ing, it has re-emerged in attempts to control decoherence.

cate faster than the speed of light, and through Zeno theory, We may describe the Zeno effect here as the repeated puls-

we may be able to control (quantum) decoherence in com- ing of a quantum system in order to delay or eliminate de-

puting systems. cay. Von Neumann originally saw it as a way to steer one

Bell’s famous inequality state into another. Or one can describe the Zeno effect as “a

<

watched pot never boils”.

|P (a, b)| − P (a, c)| = 1 + P (b, c) In some of the early theoretical studies of the Zeno effect,

this author investigated operator limits such as

for quantum spin measurement configurations, was intended

to answer longstanding issues between, and here we over- s- lim (EeitH/n E)n .

simplify the discussion and the actors, the Bohr and Einstein n→∞

schools. Wigner improved the formulation with his inequal- The interesting case, in this author’s opinion, is when the

ity projection E, which represents for example the counter or

1 1 1 1 > 1

sin2 θ23 + sin2 θ12 = sin2 θ31 . other measuring apparatus, is not in the spectral calculus of

2 2 2 2 2 the Hamiltonian H. In that case, many unanswered ques-

The version of Bell inequality most favored by experimen- tions remain about such limits, and therefore, about the

quantum measurement situations they would describe. Usu- But the main point is that the unitary evolution cannot afford

ally, these delicate but important mathematical considera- to lose even one probability from D(H), not even for a sec-

tions are just glossed over in the recent large quantum Zeno ond. It cannot even lose one of them to another part of the

literature. Hilbert space. In our opinion, this is the ultimate irreversibil-

For examples of such ‘glossing over’ of fundamental ity theorem. One need not ‘go out of the Hilbert space’ or

quantum wave function domain issues, we refer the reader commit any of the other formulations of irreversibility. We

to the papers (Gustafson 2003b, 2005, 2007a,b) and specifi- wish to apply this new thinking to issues of preparation of

cally to the authors and papers discussed therein. These au- state for quantum computing, which we believe, is a critical

thors are really excellent mathematical physicists but, shall issue.

we say, the needed mathematical considerations are diffi-

cult to obtain, and the corresponding correct physical rea- Interconnection of Machine

soning, not yet clear. Briefly, the possibility of retaining a and Human Learning

unitary, hence reversible, evolution on certain subspaces of

Some years ago (Bernasconi and Gustafson 1992,

the quantum mechanical state space, during and after the act

Bernasconi and Gustafson 1994, Bernasconi and Gustafson

of measurement, is one issue. For simplicity, suppose the

1998) we carried out a number of investigations comparing

measurement is represented by a selfadjoint projection op-

the learning and generalization behavior of humans with that

erator: P = P ∗ = P 2 . Then this author knew (in 1974) that

of machine learning algorithms. The cited papers contain

one must have the domain D(HP ) still densely defined in

a lot of information so here I will just summarize, asking

the Hilbert space. Such key necessity is often just not con-

the reader to go to those papers to fill in the details and the

sidered. Or one assumes P and H commute, which in my

various rationales and justifications for our conclusions.

opinion is just an expedient. Another gambit is to abandon

Our main experiment used an interesting classification

the Schrödinger physical picture and go to the Heisenberg

problem of (Quinlan 1984) which we then used to compare

density matrices. In so doing one loses the specific wave

the classifications favored by: 1. Decision tree algorithms

function quantum dynamics. Other gambits include ‘dy-

(such as ID3, CART); 2. Neural network algorithms (such

namically decoupling’ which amounts to just working with

as Perceptrons, Backpropagation); 3. A descriptor-based al-

an ‘interaction Hamiltonian’ about which one really knows

gorithm (the Pao-Hu classification procedure); 4. Humans

specifically very little.

(we obtained multiple samples, in USA and Europe). When

Actual physical measurement in quantum mechanics is a

humans were given the classification task, they were given

delicate thing which is often handled practically in rather

it without warning, were told it was a ‘Quick Modelling’

gross ways. The classical geiger-counter is a well-known

exercise, and they were given only 5 to 10 minutes to com-

example. In the best current laboratories which I have vis-

plete the task. So if you look at the table below, please do it

ited, one for example generates a photon and sends it across,

quickly! Go ahead and fill in your answers!

say, a 2 meter distance. An event is said to be recorded if an

(massive, by comparison) avalanch diode is triggered. The The ‘Quick Modelling’ Classification Problem

point is that we still do not know exactly what a photon, or

even an electron, really is. Some physicists may argue with Object Height Hair Eyes Classification

me but I have discussed these issues with some of the best 1 (s) short (b) blond (bl) blue +

and what usually comes out in the end is that they adopt a 2 (t) tall (b) blond (br) brown -

mental picture of particle, wave, wave-product, cloud, I have 3 (t) tall (r) red (bl) blue +

even been told ‘furry ball’, in order to visualize their exper- 4 (s) short (d) dark (bl) blue -

iment. 5 (t) tall (d) dark (bl) blue -

Thus to my mind, we do not yet understand well enough, 6 (t) tall (b) blond (bl) blue +

either mathematically or physically, the quantum entities 7 (t) tall (d) dark (br) brown -

about which we would like to build up a theory of Q.I., i.e., 8 (s) short (b) blond (br) brown -

quantitive intelligence. Until we do, perhaps quantum com- Classify:

puting in A.I. applications will just mostly be regarded as an 9 (s) short (d) dark (br) brown ...

A.I. tool. 10 (s) short (r) red (bl) blue ...

11 (s) short (r) red (br) brown ...

Recently this author has found the following fundamen-

12 (t) tall (r) red (br) brown ...

tal improvement in the Born probabilistic interpretation of

quantum mechanics. Suppose you have a quantum evolution

ψt = Ut ψo where ψo is the initial wave packet which you A word about the 4 classification schemes under scrutiny.

have prepared. Here Ut is the unitary family Ut = exp(iHt) Quinlan originally (1984) used the above problem to illus-

where H is the Hamiltonian governing the dynamics. Such trate the ID3 algorithm. This algorithm uses an information-

dynamics propagates any, and all, ψ0 which are in the do- theoretic criteria to construct a ‘minimal’ classification rule

main D(H) of the Hamiltonian H, into the future. The new from the given learning set C, the given examples 1 through

theorem is that Ut must always take D(H) one-to-one onto 8. Briefly (see our papers), one chooses either Height, Hair,

D(H), at all times. Recall that (not well known) D(H) is a or Eyes as the root (the top) of the decision tree. So one must

rather sparse subspace of the whole Hilbert space, for exam- choose between three decision trees. With root Hair, the de-

ple, it is only of Baire category one within the Hilbert space. cision tree immediately classifies 4 of the 8 objects. Eyes

as root only classifies 3 of the 8 objects at the first level. lyzes Feldman’s findings and agrees to some extent, but only

Height as root requires you to go to the second level before within the restricted domain of boolean concepts.

you can classify. The ID3 algorithm operates more quan- We would tend to agree with Chater. Moreover, to make

titatively and actually calculates the information gains you the point perhaps too strongly, we would argue that the

may achieve from each possible root choice. Information is Boolean concepts are not being learned, but are more close

measured by the usual p ln p entropy formula. Hair as root to a test of memorizing. We know from all our human test-

gains 0.454 bits, Eyes gains 0.347 bits, Height gains only ing that, in addition to the complexity of a pattern, there are

0.003 bits. So you choose the Hair root decision tree. Then many additional factors that affect the learning behavior of

you use that to assign classifications to the set C 0 of objects humans. See our papers for further discussion of these fac-

9 through 12 to be classified. tors.

We originally encountered this problem partially by acci- Testing human concept learning with only boolean con-

dent. Several of us quickly classified C 0 , independently but cepts does have the advantage of having at hand meaningful

identically, differently than did Quinlan’s ID3. Thereafter complexity measures. Chater raises the issue of how com-

we classified C 0 by several neural net algorithms trained on plexity should be measured in wider learning contexts. We

C. We also decided to compare the Pao-Hu descriptor-based believe, along with Chater, boolean concepts are not very

scheme, see the book (Pao, 1989). Thereafter we, almost in natural to human learning. If you read the human ‘reason-

the fashion of a hobby, obtained further human test sam- ings’ we list in our papers, you will find much support for

ples. The main finding was that humans, neural networks, our claim. Even the ‘simplest model’ our testees chose was

and Pao-Hu consistently favored the decision tree with root often not boolean inspired.

Eyes. Pao-Hu was of less interest to us (but we will resurrect The Pao-Hu descriptor-based clasification scheme we

it in the next section), so the interesting corollary finding was tested, was quite close to Feldman’s boolean context. It syn-

that machine learning (neural nets, in this case) and human thesizes a classification according to pattern conjunctions on

learning converged better than A.I. symbolic learning. a logical truth-set basis. We found its complexity quite un-

Without further ado, let me list some other significant appealing from a human point of view.

findings about human learning. Humans: After one deals with the problem of best classification phi-

• Seek No-Contradiction Rule. ◦ Do subset selection to losophy, the more important question of how to then general-

obtain this. ize arises. This is the real essence of human learning: to use

• Classify using Context. ◦ Even imagine context to do what you have learned to approach new or wider situations.

this. This led us to our concept of Backprediction as a measure

• Correlate, don’t average. ◦ Choose ‘simplest’ model. of validity of generalization. To be specific given several

I will discuss the no-contradiction rule further in Section 6. classifications of the set C 0 of objects 9 through 12, which

Pao-Hu will be brought into the next Section 5. Issues of is the ‘most meaningful’? ID3’s entropy based method and

context will be brought into Section 7. Humans, chose the ‘as simple as possible’ criterion. Neural

nets and Human’s chose the ‘best backprediction ability’.

Interconnection of Human

and A.I. Generalization Interconnection of Human and

Human concept learning has been long studied in the A.I. Quantum Learning

and educational communities. How humans extract rules Our examinations (Bernasconi and Gustafson 1992,

from given examples or patterns is central to understanding Bernasconi and Gustafson 1994, Bernasconi and Gustafson

human learning. Therefore, as we became more and more 1998) of human learning versus certain A.I. learning

interested in our human samples in the experiment described schemes revealed, among other interesting findings, that hu-

above. we decided to ask them to quickly write, if they cared mans will go to extreme lengths to avoid a decision that in-

to, at the bottom of their classification of the set C 0 , how they volves a contradiction. We also found that humans try very

arrived at their classification. The answers were very inter- hard to establish a context, even an imagined one, before

esting and led us to the findings I listed above. Secondly, making a choice or decision. We would like to interconnect,

we wondered about the validity of those classifications of or if you prefer, profitably contrast, those human reasoning

C 0 , since there is no unique correct ‘answer’. From these characteristics, with potential quantum learning, which for

considerations, we arrived at our Backprediction criterion of example permits coexistence of contradictory conclusions,

validity of generalizations. In this section I wish to comment and which may need to build context.

on our findings as compared to recent articles by (Feldman, We know of no current projects to compare human learn-

2000) and (Chater, 2000). ing to quantum learning, although perhaps they exist in con-

In particular, (Feldman, 2000) addresses human concept text unfamiliar to us. Quantum learning would seem to need

learning by carrying out human tests of the learning of to be probabalistic based. How will that mimic in any way

Boolean concepts. His main conclusion is that subjective Human learning? Or quantum learning, along the lines of

conceptual difficulty is well predicted by Boolean complex- our noncommutative operator trigonometry, may be geomet-

ity. He argues that ‘human conceptual difficulty reflects in- rically based. Or one might use fidelity, see e.g. (Nielsen

trinsic mathematical complexity after all, rather than some and Chuang, 2000), which combines probability, geometry,

idiosyncratic and uniquely human bias’. (Chater, 2000) ana- and information content. But these more resemble approxi-

mation, hence could be compared to human approximations, human bistable perception of ambiguous visual stimuli. One

rather than to human learnings. of the well-known examples of the latter in psychology is

It would be an interesting proposal then to ask, how may the Necker cube, whose forwardness and backwardness de-

we approach a new research field in which we try to make pend upon the perspective of the viewer. A cognitive quan-

quantum computing, or quantum information theory more tum Zeno effect is formulated whch theoretically permits

generally, resemble human learning? At the outset, we superpositions of pure perception states. Quantum games

would claim they are opposed. Human learning, with great which permit quantum (mixed) strategies which defeat clas-

fervor according to our studies, avoids contradictory conclu- sical game strategies have been recently studied, see (Du,

sions. Quantum mechanics, counterintuitively, often favors 2002). As much of classical game theory has been shown to

contradictory conclusions. Yet it seems that quantum su- underly human behavior in economics, sociology, and other

perpositions could enable human-like fuzzy reasonings. We human affairs, such developments could guide us toward a

also found in our human studies, a great need to place a ques- theory of quantum consciousness.

tion in a context, and if preferable, a familiar context, i.e.,

one based on earlier experiences, or intuition gained from Literature and Summary

general experience. Can we build intuition into quantum

reasoning? We refer the reader to our papers for related bibliography.

The combined citations there number in the hundreds and

we cannot attempt any comprehensive survey here. Of

Interconnection of Human and course the general quantum measurement, quantum com-

Quantum Consciousness puting, quantum foundations, machine learning, neural net-

As we become more speculative as we near the end of this work, artificial intelligence, Bell theory, Zeno theory litera-

paper, we may raise the issue of human learning as part of tures are each large and in some cases enormous and grow-

a more general human consciousness. Consciousness stud- ing. However, we did find in our machine versus human

ies are notoriously controversial, so as we have entered this learning investigations a much smaller literature: see our

room, we may as well adjoin to it a room of possible quan- papers for a discussion of this point. Also it may be said

tum consciousness. Having done so, we are overcome with that almost no investigators have been capable and interested

a desire to flee these rooms, these ghost rooms so vaguely enough to delve as deeply as we into the mathematical issues

defined. As we do so, let us try to mention a few thoughts in the Zeno measurement paradoxes. No other investigators

that just might have future value. have found or pursued the embedding of the Bell theory into

our noncommutative trigonometry, for the simple reason that

First we must try to define the four concepts: human

very few mathematicians or physicists know and understand

learning, human consciousness, quantum learning, quantum

the latter. Notwithstanding that comment, our investigations

consciousness. The first is well studied, the second is stud-

into the Bell and Zeno problems have been well received

ied but controversial, the last two so little studied that we

at several conferences by some experts in those domains.

refrain from stating definitions in the absence of enough em-

Although there is great interest in reversibility within the

pirical truth. (Rose, 1992) has written a book that attempts

quantum computing community, our own approach comes

a thorough study of memory, more specifically, the molecu-

from more than thirty years of looking at irreversibility from

lar chemistry that becomes human memory through human

the mathematical and statistical mechanical points of view.

learning experiences. Kandel later won a Nobel prize for es-

We have discussed the physical quantum mechanical exper-

tablishing that you must ask a neuron a question five times

iments referred to above with some of the best experimen-

before it will open up its willingness to adapt. So this is

talists in the world.

one of the mechanisms of human ‘consciousness’ that one

might try to emulate on a quantum computer. Our studies In this paper we have juxtaposed, taken two at a time, cer-

show the human need to establish a context before learning tain interconnections or potential interconnections between

can take place. Let us consider this need for context a kind quantum, machine, and human learning. Of course one may

of ‘consciousness’. What will quantum context be? What then take these all three together for further thought, discus-

will quantum ‘consciousness’ be? We hope it resembles na- sion, and perhaps fruitful further investigation.

ture more than logic. (Walker, 2000) has written a book that

attempts a study of the physics of consciousness. He takes Acknowledgements

the position that all the puzzles of quantum mechanics, all I would like to thank my colleague Jakob Bernasconi for

of its nonintuitiveness, is indeed reality, and a reality that pointing out the Feldman and Chater articles to me. I

we must accept and discover the true meanings thereof. He have profited from numerous discussions with Harald At-

argues that the human mind is a quantum mind whose fluctu- manspacher, Han Primas, Emilios Bouratinos, Ioannis An-

ations are the basis of human consciousness. They are suffi- toniou, concerning the foundations of quantum mechanics

ciently robust that they can recognize low probability states and consciousness.

that would be suppressed by an automatic man-made quan-

tum computer. If that is so, then we should insist that quan-

tum (computer) ‘consciousness’ also possess this property. References

(Atmanspacher, Filk, Römer, 2004) construct a generalized Antoniou, I., Sadovnichy, V., and Walther, H. 2003. The

quantum theoretical framework to model the dynamics of Physics of Communication. Singapore:World Scientific.

Atmanspacher, H., Filk, T., and Römer, H. 2004. Quantum Gustafson, K. 2003b. The Quantum Zeno Paradox and

Zeno Features of Bistable Perception. Biological Cybernet- the Counter Problem. In Foundations of Probability and

ics 90:33–40. Physics-2 (Khrennikov, A., ed.), 225–236. Sweden:Växjo

Bernasconi, J., and Gustafson, K. 1992. Human and Ma- University Press.

chine ‘Quick Modelling’. Advances in Neural Information Gustafson, K. 2003c. Bell’s Inequalities. In The Physics of

Processing Systems 4:1151–1158. Communication (Antoniou, I., Sadovnichy, V., and Walther,

Bernasconi, J., and Gustafson, K. 1994. Inductive Inference H., eds.), 534–554. Singapore:World-Scientific.

and Neural Nets. Network: Comput. Neural Syst. 5:203– Gustafson, K. 2004. Microscopic Irreversibility. Discrete

228. Dynamics in Nature and Society 8:155–168.

Bernasconi, J., and Gustafson, K. 1998. Contextual Quick- Gustafson, K. 2005. Bell and Zeno. International J. of The-

Learning and Generalization by Humans and Machines. oretical Physics 44:1931–1940.

Network: Comput. Neural Syst. 9:85–106. Gustafson, K. 2006a. Noncommutative Trigonometry. Op-

Chater, N. 2000. The Logic of Human Learning. Nature erator Theory: Advances and Applications 167:127–155.

407:572–573. Gustafson, K. 2006b. The Trigonometry of Matrix Statistics.

Du, J., Li, H., Xu, X., Shi, M., Wu, J., Zhou, X., and Han, International Statistical Review 74:187–202.

R. 2002. Experimental Realization of Quantum Games and Gustafson, K. 2007a. Reversibility and Regularity. Interna-

Quantum Strategies. Phys. Rev. Letters 88:137902. tional J. of Theoretical Physics. Forthcoming.

Feldman, J. 2000. Minimization of Boolean Complexity in Gustafson, K. 2007b. Noncommutative Trigonometry

Human Concept Learning. Nature 407:630–633. and Quantum Mechanics. Advances in Deterministic and

Stochastic Analysis. Forthcoming.

Gustafson, K. 1990. Reversibility in Neural Processing Sys-

Gustafson, K., and Sartoris, G. 1998. Assigning Initial

tems. In Statistical Mechanics of Neural Networks, (Gar-

Weights in Feedforward Neural Networks. In Proc. 8th

rido, L., ed.) Springer Lecture Notes in Physics. 368, 269–

IFAC Symposium on Large Scale Systems (Koussoulas, N.,

285. Berlin:Springer.

and Groumpos, P., eds.), 950–955. Patras:Pergamon Press.

Gustafson, K. 1997a. Operator Spectral States. Computers

Nielsen, M., and Chuang, I. 2000. Quantum Computation

Math. Applic. 34:467–508.

and Quantum Information. Cambridge:Cambridge Univer-

Gustafson, K. 1997b. Lectures on Computational Fluid Dy- sity Press.

namics, Mathematical Physics, and Linear Algebra. Singa- Pao, Y. 1989 Adaptive Pattern Recognition and Neural Net-

pore:World Scientific. works. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Gustafson, K. 1998a. Internal Sigmoid Dynamics in Feed- Quinlan, J. 1984. Learning Efficient Classification Pro-

forward Neural Networks. Connection Science 10:43–73. cedures and Their Application to Chess End Games. In

Gustafson, K. 1998b. Ergodic Learning Algorithms. In Un- Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach

conventional Models of Computation (Calude, C., Casti, J., (Michalski, R., Carbonell, J., Mitchell, T., eds.) 463–482.

and Dinneen, M., eds.), 228–242. Singapore:Springer. Berlin:Springer.

Gustafson, K. 1998c. Internal Dynamics of Backpropaga- Rose, S. 1992. The Making of Memory. New

tion Learning. In Proceedings Ninth Australian Conference York:Doubleday.

on Neural Networks (Downs, T, Frean, M., and Gallagher, Walker, E. 20000. The Physics of Consciousness. Cam-

M., eds.), 179–182. Brisbane:University of Queensland. bridge, MA:Perseus.

Gustafson, K. 1999. The Geometry of Quantum Proba- Weiss, S., and Kulikowski, C. 1991. Computer Systems That

bilities. In On Quanta, Mind, and Matter (Atmanspacher, Learn. San Mateo, CA:Morgan Kaufmann.

H., Anann, A., Mueller–Herold, U., eds.), 151–164. Dor-

drecht:Kluwer.

Gustafson, K. 2000. Quantum Trigonometry. Infinite Di-

mensional Analysis, Quantum Probability, and Related Top-

ics 3:33-52.

Gustafson, K. 2001. Probability, Geometry, and Irreversibil-

ity in Quantum Mechanics. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals

8:2849–2858.

Gustafson, K. 2002a. CP-Violation as Antieigenvector-

Breaking. Advances in Chemical Physics 122:239–258.

Gustafson, K. 2002b. Distinguishing Discretization and

Discrete Dynamics, With Application to Ecology, Machine

Learning, and Atomic Physics. In Structure and Dynamics

of Nonlinear Wave Phenomena (Tanaka, M., ed.), 100-111.

Kyoto:RIMS Kokyuroka 1271.

Gustafson, K. 2003a. Bell’s Inequality and the Accardi–

Gustafson Inequality. In Foundations of Probability and

Physics-2 (Khrennikov, A., ed.), 207–223. Sweden:Växjo

University Press.

- Enchiladas the Borges Way!Uploaded byfffffaster
- Wineland LectureUploaded byspanishram
- Gun Death Statistics and the Method of Least Squares and the Forgotten Property of a Straight lineUploaded byVJLaxmanan
- Avishkar Flex 007.pptxUploaded bySarvesh Janoti
- 01 - Dima Bogdan, Lucian PASCAUploaded bystudentul86
- 0206091Uploaded bySrinivas Sai
- Quantum ComputersUploaded byalkagaba
- Ch2.bUploaded byDaveShaw
- 19.2.MortonUploaded byBoubaker Jaziri
- Photon Induced Non-Local Effects of General Anaesthetics on the BrainUploaded byQuantumDream, Inc.
- Simply ArduinoUploaded byBoubaker Douis
- From Coulomb to Yukawa Through PlanckUploaded byJohn Bird
- OutlineUploaded byJames Allen
- English Book ReviewUploaded byKohl
- gianetto_preprint[1]Uploaded bytung001
- On Graph Approaches to ContextualityUploaded byBianca Moreno
- cd.docxUploaded byRuby Srivastava
- Robosure Business InformationUploaded bySaul Rosen
- fence essay rough draft 3Uploaded byapi-301768722
- God, Logic, and Quantum InformationUploaded byVasil Penchev
- Dark Outpost RPGUploaded bylawpsided
- ai_07Uploaded byml
- Lumi NanceUploaded byAbiola Williams Smith
- Artificial Intelligence for Audio control, safety in AutomobileUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Tupaj QuotesUploaded byLiz Paige
- UT Dallas Syllabus for acn6349.501 06s taught by Richard Golden (golden)Uploaded byUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- AI and Robotics IBA GEI April 2017Uploaded byHarsh Vora
- Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Soft Computing (AISC 2016)Uploaded byCS & IT
- When Are Robots Intelligent Autonomous Agents?Uploaded byapi-26040189
- ProspectusUploaded byRikudou Sennin

- Quantum Bayesianism Explained by Its Founder | Quanta MagazineUploaded byFisica Musica
- Hw4 SolutionsUploaded byAn Nahl
- David Bohm: a new interpretation of quantum mechanics (WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM)Uploaded byFausto Intilla
- cmip03c.pdfUploaded byluishipp
- ali ovgun cv feb 2017Uploaded byapi-345578962
- Minimax StrategyUploaded byOsaigbovo Timothy
- gametheory-110125221603-phpapp02Uploaded byFaisal Rahman
- ap statistics q4Uploaded byapi-292365857
- Eugen Merzbacher - Quantum mechanicsUploaded byMilan Milovanovic
- MIT10_626S14_Lec20Uploaded byNabilah Calista Balqis Aprillia
- PHY3QMO - Computational AssignmentUploaded byReally Sexy
- Nucl.Phys.B v.787Uploaded bybuddy72
- Levine SmumeUploaded bysandaru07malinga
- capitalism democracy.docxUploaded byFrances Faye K. Zamora
- FA3GuideUploaded bytobyopfer
- Classical Mechanics Lecture Notes David Tong DAMPT Cambridge UnivUploaded byaud_phil
- AST 104-PHY 106-The Universe Around Us - Dr. Babar Ahmed Qureshi.pdfUploaded byMinhal Malik
- rqm_pdf_15296Uploaded byjaburico
- Ran Huo- Decaying dark matter and the CMB and LSS power spectrumUploaded byGylkinn
- 038117yUploaded byAgung Prastowo
- Quantum Computing Lectures PreskillUploaded byCaleb Jordan
- Edward Witten Ponders the Nature of Reality .pdfUploaded byeldelmoño luci
- Spring2002.pdfUploaded bypusa123
- Chem 373- Lecture 20: Complex Atomic SpectraUploaded byNuansak3
- Chapter 4- Hypothesis TestingUploaded byRazman Bijan
- Consumption.pptUploaded bychandana1992629
- Statistical analysisUploaded byamit-badhan
- Supergravity InflationUploaded byDavid Brantley
- Chapter 6 QurelfldUploaded byJonatan Vignatti Muñoz
- Cartpole EomUploaded bysonytin