1 Introductory Remarks
A simple Communication Hypothesis is developed, explained and illustrated. It is
based on a quantum mechanical formulation of ensemble representable density
matrices qualifying the emergence of quantum- and thermal correlations, engrained in
long-range off-diagonal order, with precise thermal conditions satisfied at specific
temperatures. In analogy with condensed matter phenomena, like e.g. superconductivity, connectors occur between mechanical- and electromagnetic fluctuations. The
subsequent ensemble, the Correlated Dissipative Ensemble, CDE, subject to Poissonian statistics, provides stochastic communication channels for cellular recognition
including a proliferated knowledge of neuron correlates. Since this document is
entrenched in a modus operandi built on the scientific evaluation and the conclusion of
the process of Darwinian evolution, some general comments are enclosed below as an
introduction.
It is quite remarkable that exacting correlations between modern science and
present philosophical enquiry are still largely wanting due, not only to the presumed
lack of interaction between the disciplines, but also owing to the disordered state of
commensurate agreements between the various scientific subjects. A satisfactory
elucidation of the situation should indeed be accomplished by clearing up these
issues from the appropriate knowledge of the state-of-the-art of physics, chemistry
and biology. While important suggestions to this challenge have been propounded
by e.g. Tegmark [1], Deutsch [2], Primas [3] and others, the conundrum still
remains. The general goal concerns the ultimate nature of reality; say our mathematical universe [1], the consequences of the emergence of knowledge [2] or the
concrete need for a conceptual recasting of the logical and philosophical foundations of physics as a result of the high degree of incommensurate specializations
that persist in isolation ignoring most other areas of pursuits [3].
In particular Primas’ critique, well-formulated and certainly thought provoking,
gives a personal characteristic that is rooted in his long career as chemistry professor at ETH, starting with problem solving in physical- and theoretical chemistry
and ending up with issues in the cognitive sciences and the philosophy of mind [4].
He came to view the dual epistemic aspects of the mental and the material world to
be conceived as one underlying ontic
1 reality, named dual aspect monism. In reference [3] there is an interesting foreword by the philosopher Paul Feyerabend,
where he places Hans Primas as a representative of the structural approach with ‘a
comprehensive picture of the world and man’s place in it’.
The notorious anarchist is widely known for his declaration ‘anything goes’ and his
book ‘Against Method’ [6], where he proposed the thesis: ‘the events, procedures and
results that constitute the sciences have no common structure’. Although Feyerabend
1
The ontic conceptualization is part of Heidegger’s neologisms [5]. His Being (Dasein) has a
pre-ontological-ontic signification, however, not to be understood as a biological human being.
This distinction is probably the reason why Heidegger takes a poetic turn as he investigates the
Question Concerning Technology and finds it to be but ‘a means to an end’.
382
E. J. Brändas
A simple Communication Hypothesis is developed, explained and illustrated. It is
based on a quantum mechanical formulation of ensemble representable density
matrices qualifying the emergence of quantum- and thermal correlations, engrained in
long-range off-diagonal order, with precise thermal conditions satisfied at specific
temperatures. In analogy with condensed matter phenomena, like e.g. superconductivity, connectors occur between mechanical- and electromagnetic fluctuations. The
subsequent ensemble, the Correlated Dissipative Ensemble, CDE, subject to Poissonian statistics, provides stochastic communication channels for cellular recognition
including a proliferated knowledge of neuron correlates. Since this document is
entrenched in a modus operandi built on the scientific evaluation and the conclusion of
the process of Darwinian evolution, some general comments are enclosed below as an
introduction.
It is quite remarkable that exacting correlations between modern science and
present philosophical enquiry are still largely wanting due, not only to the presumed
lack of interaction between the disciplines, but also owing to the disordered state of
commensurate agreements between the various scientific subjects. A satisfactory
elucidation of the situation should indeed be accomplished by clearing up these
issues from the appropriate knowledge of the state-of-the-art of physics, chemistry
and biology. While important suggestions to this challenge have been propounded
by e.g. Tegmark [1], Deutsch [2], Primas [3] and others, the conundrum still
remains. The general goal concerns the ultimate nature of reality; say our mathematical universe [1], the consequences of the emergence of knowledge [2] or the
concrete need for a conceptual recasting of the logical and philosophical foundations of physics as a result of the high degree of incommensurate specializations
that persist in isolation ignoring most other areas of pursuits [3].
In particular Primas’ critique, well-formulated and certainly thought provoking,
gives a personal characteristic that is rooted in his long career as chemistry professor at ETH, starting with problem solving in physical- and theoretical chemistry
and ending up with issues in the cognitive sciences and the philosophy of mind [4].
He came to view the dual epistemic aspects of the mental and the material world to
be conceived as one underlying ontic
1 reality, named dual aspect monism. In reference [3] there is an interesting foreword by the philosopher Paul Feyerabend,
where he places Hans Primas as a representative of the structural approach with ‘a
comprehensive picture of the world and man’s place in it’.
The notorious anarchist is widely known for his declaration ‘anything goes’ and his
book ‘Against Method’ [6], where he proposed the thesis: ‘the events, procedures and
results that constitute the sciences have no common structure’. Although Feyerabend
1
The ontic conceptualization is part of Heidegger’s neologisms [5]. His Being (Dasein) has a
pre-ontological-ontic signification, however, not to be understood as a biological human being.
This distinction is probably the reason why Heidegger takes a poetic turn as he investigates the
Question Concerning Technology and finds it to be but ‘a means to an end’.
382
E. J. Brändas