DOI: 10.14704/nq.2015.13.1.803

Veiled Nonlocality and Quantum Darwinism

Subhash Kak


Quantum mechanics and neuroscience come together in the problem of observation. Quantum mechanics is a nonlocal theory but the expectations of our cognitive systems are local. The principle of veiled nonlocality appears to direct not only logic and design of experiments but also the manner in which experimental data is analyzed. The principle preserves the naïve classical view of the universe that is consistent with locally realistic models; it also sees underlying similitude between biological and physical processes. One idea belonging to the set of similitudes is that of quantum Darwinism according to which stable states proliferate in an interaction between quantum systems in analogy with the survival of the fittest of biological evolution. This idea is investigated.


Quantum Darwinism; nonlocality

Full Text:

Full Text PDF


Bell JS. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics 1964; 1 (3): 195–200.

Bell JS. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988.

Bernstein E and Vazirani, U. Quantum complexity theory. SIAM J Compt 1997; 26:1411-1473.

Bohm D. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge, London, 1980.

Bohm D. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. Routledge, London, 1984.

Brunner N. et al. Bell nonlocality. 2013. arXiv:1303.2849.

Carter B. Classical anthropic Everett model: indeterminacy in a preordained multiverse. In Consciousness and the Universe: Quantum Physics, Evolution, Brain and Mind, ed. R. Penrose, S. Hameroff, S. Kak (Cosmology Science Publishers, Cambridge, Mass.) pp.1077-1086, 2011.

Christensen BG. et al. Detection-loophole-free test of quantum nonlocality, and applications. 2013. arXiv:1306.5772

D’Espagnat B. Veiled Reality. Westview Press, 2003.

Deutsch D. Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 1985; 400: 97-117.

Eccles JC. Evolution of the Brain. Routledge, London, 1991.

Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N. Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 1935; 47: 777-780.

Feynman RP. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985.

Fields C. Quantum Darwinism requires an extra-theoretical assumption of encoding redundancy. Int J Theor Phys 2010; 49: 2523-2527.

Joos E and Zeh H.D. The emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment. Z Phys B 1985; 59: 223.

Kak S. Quantum information and entropy. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 2007; 46: 860-876.

Kak S. Biological memories and agents as quantum collectives. NeuroQuantology 2013a; 11: 391-398.

Kak S. Probability constraints and the classical/quantum divide. NeuroQuantology 2013b; 11: 600-606.

Kak S. From the no-signaling theorem to veiled non-locality. NeuroQuantology 2014a; 12: 12-20.

Kak S. Measurement complexity and oracle quantum computing. NeuroQuantology 2014b; 12: 374-381.

Kak S, Chopra D and Kafatos D. Perceived reality, quantum mechanics, and consciousness. Cosmology 2014c; 18: 231-245.

Kastner RE. ‘Einselection’ of pointer observables: the new H-theorem? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 2015.

Laland K. et al. Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Nature 2014; 514: 161-164.

Libet B, Gleason CA, Wright EW, Pearl DK. Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential) - The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary a ct. Brain 1983; 106: 623–642.

Misra B and Sudarshan ECG. The Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory. Journal of Mathematical Physics 1977; 18: 758–763.

Penrose R. The Road to Reality. Vintage, New York, 2007.

Popper K and Eccles JC. The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism. Routledge, London, 1984.

Santos E. The failure to perform a loophole-free test of Bell’s Inequality supports local realism. Foundations of Physics 2004; 34: 1643-1673.

Santos E. On a new Bell test with photons seemingly violating quantum predictions. 2013. arXiv:1307.1540

Stapp HP. Mindful Universe. Springer, Berlin, 2007.

Tegmark M. The interpretation of quantum mechanics: many worlds or many words? Fortsch Phys 1998; 46: 855-862.

‘t Hooft G. Entangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory. 2009. arXiv:0908.3408

Vervoort L. Bell’s theorem: Two neglected solutions. Foundations of Physics 2013; 43:769–791.

Volz J. et al., Observation of entanglement of a single photon with a trapped atom. Phys Rev Lett 2006; 96: 030404.

Von Neumann, J. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1932/1955.

Wigner EP. Symmetries and Reflections, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1967.

Zanardi P. Virtual quantum subsystems. Phys Rev Lett 2001; 87: 077901

Zeh HD. On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory. Found Phys 1970; 1: 69-76.

Zeh HD. Quantum discreteness is an illusion. Found Phys 2010; 40: 1476-1493.

Zeh HD. The role of the observer in the Everett interpretation. NeuroQuantology 2013; 13: 97-105.

Zurek WH. Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Rev Mod Phys 2003; 75: 715-775.

Zurek WH. Quantum Darwinism. Nature Physics 2009; 5: 181-188.

Supporting Agencies

This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation and by a grant from the Federico and Elvia Faggin Foundation.

| NeuroScience + QuantumPhysics> NeuroQuantology :: Copyright 2001-2019