PlatinumWildcat
The State Space:
Let the brain's complete quantum-informational state be |Ψ_brain⟩ in Hilbert space ℋ. This state includes sensory data, memory traces, and predictive models.
You're seriously proposing to model the entire macroscopic 1.4 kg warm, wet lump of grey meat that is the brain, as a single phase coherent quantum state |\Psi_{\text{brain}}\rangle? Even though decoherence in cortical tissue is on microscopic femto–picosecond timescales and nm–μm length scales? This alone, for me, makes your Qualia Operator (Q̂) physically meaningless.
The Operator Definition:
Q̂: ℋ → 𝒬
where 𝒬 is the phenomenal space (the space of possible experiences).
So your "qualia operator" isn't a quantum operator mapping ℋ → ℋ? Instead Q̂ maps ℋ to an undefined 𝒬 "phenomenal space" such that when acting on your macroscopic brain state it gives {q_i} as "experiential intensities"?
How do you go from a physical Hilbert space to an unquantifiable nonphysical "phenomenal experiential space" and then tie that to qualia as “intensities” of experience, the latter I take it being tied to subjective reports? What are the units of your qualia outputs? Do q_i just range from 'weak' to 'strong'?
All you're doing here is cobbling quantum notation onto an undefined psychological model! Giving “qualia” a “phenomenal space” to operate in doesn’t make this physics. AFAIU QM, observables are operators on the same physical Hilbert space whereas your Q̂: ℋ → 𝒬 isn’t a quantum operator at all, but more an ad‑hoc psychological function into a made‑up, nonphysical “phenomenal space". None of this makes physical sense!
What I called "structuring classical noise" is precisely:
Q̂ structures the stochastic neural activity by imposing geometric constraints derived from the Bridge Formula. The "noise" becomes the raw material that Q̂ organizes into coherent perception.
So a nonphysical "qualia operator" somehow survives microscopic decoherence in neuronal tissue (on fs–ps timescales) to act on “classical noise” via a nonphysical “phenomenal space”, by nonphysically imposing “geometric constraints” on neuronal activity that would in the real empirical world be modelled by classical stochastic dynamics?
Your underlying metaphysics appears to be a form of interactionist dualism where 'mind' is a nonphysical cause on matter. Now this would be a rather novel proposal, if somewhat contentious, but only if you could show where and how the nonphysical inputs act on the physical dynamics. As it stands, treating the entire brain as a single coherent quantum state is physically untenable, so you'd have to shrink your |\Psi_{\text{brain}}\rangle down to where microscopic quantum coherences in biological tissue decohere on those fs–ps timescales and nm–μm length scales. Without that, your “qualia operator” isn’t an interactionist phenomenal–physical theory. And even with it, you’d likely lose most scientifically minded readers.
If you're genuinely interested in the full mathematical development, I'd be happy to discuss it further after the contest concludes.
No thanks. Maybe if you dropped the global quantum brain state and modelled classical neural states with a measurable map to subject reports of “intensity" ... but then that would be a different essay in a non-quantum competition and I wouldn't really be all that interested, solely due to my quantum foundational focus of course!
