Thank you Gordana for your reply. But I'm not sure whether not you 
misunderstood my comments about a direct correspondence between information and 
physics in biology. So, I thought I should stress my point from a slightly 
different approach.

Khrennikov and colleagues, for instance, often refer to their observations as 
quantum-like. The reasons for doing so are because the quantum computational 
observations are inherently supported by biological phenomena and concepts in 
quantum statistical mechanics, but not necessarily a quantum mechanical 
physical manifestation. I have used the term quantum-like with with several of 
my own findings. Clearly ciliate decision making is a biological process and, 
therefore, a natural one. But quantum computation by ciliates, or any 
other life form, might not always be caused by a quantum physical 
manifestation. Indeed, quantum-level social strategy searches by ciliates are 
likely mediated by classical and not quantum diffusion in the 
reaction-diffusion of Ca2+ ions. Most people would present an a priori argument 
that for quantum computation to be realized by a biological system, such as 
ciliates, a physical manifestation of quantum mechanics, such as
 quantum diffusion, must also occur. This necessity just doesn't seem always to 
be the case.

These sorts of incongruities have started some debate in the quantum biology 
community. Some people simply believe that conceptual and statistically 
supported quantum computations by biological systems should not be 
considered quantum mechanical unless they are mediated by physical 
manifestations of quantum mechanics.

I will not respond for a few days to allow further debate from other FISers.

Best regards,

Kevin Clark
fis mailing list

Reply via email to