The Decoherence Engine: Reframing Biological Complexity as Quantum Information P

Ulla Mattfolk

I like this thought of a decoherence engine. it sounds almost like it uses the quantum as an energy source and 'decompose' it? That is something new.

I have also thought of using entropy as such sourcee, so life would be expert on making quantum output coherent? But How?

Congrats to a good essay.
Ulla.

DandelionPheasant

Thank you, Ulla — that’s a perceptive question. The Decoherence Engine doesn’t “decompose” the quantum as an energy source, but rather treats decoherence as a structured information-to-function conversion process. Quantum superpositions contain vast configurational possibilities, but the cell cannot “use” them directly; instead, the environment (the thermal, chemical, and electromagnetic bath) continually measures the system, collapsing local degrees of freedom into classically actionable configurations.

In this sense, decoherence becomes a directional entropy exchange — not energy extraction from the quantum, but energy through it. The cellular milieu shapes the flow of entropy such that random decoherence events bias toward conformations with lower functional uncertainty. This is similar to principles explored in quantum thermodynamics and reservoir engineering, where noise can be harnessed to drive systems toward ordered steady states.

So yes — life may indeed “make quantum output coherent,” not by resisting entropy, but by choreographing it into productive, self-stabilizing cascades.

Ulla Mattfolk

DandelionPheasant say, we have a system containing very efficient enzymes (proteins) as a ringformation (torus) and they are in that bath. the efficiency they show is exactly the flow from quantum to classicality?
In biology we also have many cascades or 'orchestrating' scenarios.

This is similar to principles explored in quantum thermodynamics and reservoir engineering, where noise can be harnessed to drive systems toward ordered steady states. -can you give some exx.?
Ulla.

DandelionPheasant

@Ulla Mattfolk, yes, a toroidal enzyme ring immersed in a fluctuating bath could indeed act as a quantum-to-classical transducer, where catalytic efficiency reflects how well the system channels environmental noise into functionally coherent states.
In quantum thermodynamics, this is analogous to dissipative structure formation — systems like photosynthetic reaction centers (e.g., the Fenna-Matthews-Olson complex, Engel et al., Nature, 2007) maintain quantum coherence long enough to enhance exciton transfer before decoherence stabilizes the reaction path.
Another case is reservoir engineering in superconducting qubits or trapped ions (e.g., Poyatos, Cirac & Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1996), where controlled noise or coupling to a tailored environment drives the system into non-trivial steady states — even pure entangled ones.
By analogy, enzyme cascades and allosteric networks may operate as biochemical reservoirs that sculpt decoherence — the “bath” is not a destroyer but a sculptor. Evolution may have optimized these feedback loops so that decoherence pathways themselves become the computation.
In short: life’s efficiency might not be despite decoherence, but because of how it exploits it.

marcovici alexandru

reread more takein-outs

the idea of sudden jump/ collapse (reduction)
is it reflect able in geometry ? take for example drawing a line 📐 out of chaos of the body movements , there goes out something simple and understandable lets say it "discrete"/ sharp ( other example the Heaviside step or the dirac delta)

Bio-Quantum Algorithmic Complexity, and thermodynamic costs:

cell with all its quantumness still takes hours to days to do things
are there thermodynamic branches that spans long time periods and large scale objects or this are called paralel universes superposition inteferences

decoherence or cellular moment by moment welding to environment might accidently get welded to things more remoted or large ? 🐈️

-for algorithmic complexity the idea of the shortest fastest -why not slowest longest or other qualities that might be better suited to characterize changing things

side comment
the emerging of adjectives is a language thing , how humans evolved this particular way of being receptive to what they observe

noise keyword
the noise ain't random, could a cell be cut and "this not random noise" teleportated / to see if this noise maintain the functioning of the remaining part, if it cannot be understood at least to be transported , or rephrased , how do you know the noise is not random

DandelionPheasant

@marcovici alexandru
Well put — yes, geometry can indeed reflect the logic of collapse. The “sudden jump” you mention may be seen as the geometric projection of continuous quantum amplitudes into discrete manifolds of observables — a kind of symmetry-breaking inscription in spacetime. When a hand steadies to draw a line, countless micro-chaotic degrees of freedom are integrated into a single coherent trajectory — much like a decohered pointer state.

In bio-quantum terms, these “jumps” are rarely instantaneous in clock time but occur as entropic convergence events distributed over longer thermodynamic trajectories — a slow collapse, if you will. Large-scale biological processes could thus be viewed as temporal decoherence manifolds, where distant correlations don’t form “parallel universes” per se, but long-range, weakly entangled thermodynamic branches that retain faint phase memory.

And yes — the noise isn’t random. Biological noise is structured, carrying hidden correlations that sustain function. If you could “teleport” that structured noise, you’d likely transfer part of the cell’s informational coherence, not its energy — a quantum biological signature, not a signal.

ShockwaveRider

If the wave-function does not collapse, it means logic and humor must express particle-wave duality in a singularity. Note, dualism is self-contradictory, Relativity is self-contradictory, while quantum mechanics are equally accurate and precise whether you assume they're random or fated. My own work indicates, you must transform your mathematics into words, or you will get nowhere.

DandelionPheasant

Hello @ShockwaveRider,
That’s an intriguing synthesis — and you’re right that the language we use shapes the physics we can describe. If collapse is replaced by continuous entanglement, then our models must carry both logic and paradox — much like humor does. The particle–wave duality becomes not a contradiction but a context switch, a linguistic projection of complementary information channels.

Mathematics gives us precision, but it compresses meaning; words restore dimensionality. In quantum information terms, language adds semantic redundancy — a kind of error-correction that keeps interpretation coherent. So yes, transforming equations into words isn’t anti-scientific; it’s an essential translation layer between quantum formalism and human comprehension — the dialogue where the observer re-enters the equation.

ShockwaveRider

Moderation note: Off-topic political rant removed.

Benz

DandelionPheasant The Decoherence Engine (MD) thesis is a critical step forward, and we strongly agree with its core premise: Biological computation is highly efficient collapse guided by structured noise, not a random search.
The DSRR framework shares foundational synergy with the MD model, and I believe DSRR thesis can offer several solutions and refinements for the experimental and theoretical development of the MD framework:
Points of Fundamental Agreement

Collapse as Computation: We agree that the speed and selectivity of the decoherence process itself is the computational mechanism (e.g., protein folding). This rejects the traditional view of decoherence as mere information loss.
The Structured Medium: We concur that the environment (phonons, structured water) acts as an active, structured filter—the computational hardware—that makes controlled collapse possible.
Economic Principle: Both models operate on an economic principle: MD uses entropy to buy functional certainty. DSRR applies this same principle to perception, asserting that reality is rendered with an economy (the Lost Frames, IF) to conserve informational resources.
DSRR Solutions for the MD Framework
Since DSRR views consciousness as the Meta-Engine managing this local system, we offer the following suggestions based on the νz parameter, which may strengthen the MD's QBP (Quantum Biological Probe) methodology:
Optimization of the QBP Trigger (Faster Collapse)
The MD's QBP test focuses on measuring changes during substrate binding. If νz (Conscious Sampling Frequency) dictates render speed, then modulating the subject's νz during the experiment could optimize the collapse rate:
• Proposal: Introduce a simultaneous high-cognitive load task (measured via MEG/EEG) to the observing scientist or the system interacting with the enzyme.
• Hypothesis: An externally induced high νz state will increase the urgency for functional certainty in the local informational field, leading to a faster, more definitive decoherence in the QBP/NV center measurement than can be explained by the substrate binding kinetics alone. This essentially uses consciousness to 'turbocharge' the MD.
Refinement of the BQAC Metric
The Bio-Quantum Algorithmic Complexity (BQAC) metric is excellent, but DSRR suggests incorporating a term for the Subjective Cost of Focus:
• Proposal: Add a νz factor to the BQAC equation. BQAC = f(…νz …). This term would reflect the informational energy required from the conscious observer to sustain the functional collapse.
• Implication: A system might have high functional complexity, but if the local consciousness can achieve that functional collapse with a low, relaxed νz, the BQAC suggests a highly evolved and efficient coupling between the consciousness and the biological decoherence engine.
DSRR views the MD as the physical implementation layer for the conscious rendering process. Exploring this causal link through controlled modulation of νz offers a direct path to empirically validating the hierarchical relationship between organism-level consciousness and cellular-level computation.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17533873

DandelionPheasant

Hello Benz
I find the introduction of νz intriguing as a metaphorical bridge between cognitive dynamics and physical collapse rates. While I remain cautious about positing a direct coupling between neural oscillations and molecular decoherence (given the many orders of magnitude separating their characteristic timescales), your suggestion highlights a deeper question: Can informational load modulate local entropy flows?

This is testable in principle through controlled observer–system interaction experiments — perhaps not as “conscious collapse,” but as informational cross-correlation between human state variables (EEG) and decoherence signatures in QBP probes.

In revising BQAC, I could see νz recast as a measure of systemic informational pressure — quantifying how efficiently a biological or cognitive agent channels uncertainty into function.

The DSRR–MD synergy underscores an exciting frontier: mapping the hierarchical continuity between computation, thermodynamics, and awareness.

Benz

DandelionPheasant
I particularly appreciate your insight into framing νz as systemic informational pressure—that refines the BQAC metric perfectly.
I agree wholeheartedly with your caution regarding the direct coupling between neural oscillations and molecular decoherence, given the massive timescale discrepancy. This caution is precisely where the DSRR thesis must provide its most critical contribution:
The Timescale Bridge: Information vs. Energy
I recognize that the νz signal (which sits in the slow Beta/Gamma range, milliseconds) is not meant to transfer energy to the femtosecond decoherence event. Instead, DSRR posits that νz is an informational parameter that modulates the local probabilistic landscape.
• The Analogy: Think of νz not as a hammer hitting the molecule, but as the software update that instantly changes the molecule's decision rule (its collapse propensity) during the next available time window.
• The Mechanism: The slow EEG signal (νz) doesn't cause the decoherence speed; it dictates the informational necessity for the collapse to stabilize faster than predicted by local thermodynamics alone. The speed of the collapse itself is carried out by the inherent, fast quantum electron/phonon dynamics.
Testing the "Informational Cross-Correlation"
Your proposal to test this via informational cross-correlation between human state variables (EEG) and QBP decoherence signatures is exactly the empirical framework DSRR requires. This reframing allows us to move past the materialist-dualist impasse and directly probe the hierarchical continuity you mention.
We are, in essence, trying to see if the observer's demand for functional certainty (the high νz state) can serve as a non-local boundary condition that forces the local collapse to occur along the most efficient, predicted pathway.
This synergy truly underscores the exciting frontier of mapping computation, thermodynamics, and awareness.
Best, B.

DandelionPheasant

Benz

Your clarification elegantly resolves the scale issue and reframing νz as an informational boundary parameter rather than an energetic influence is a crucial advance.

I find the analogy compelling: the slow νz signal as a “software update” modifying local collapse propensity rather than the collapse mechanics. In information-theoretic terms, this could correspond to a change in prior probability distributions - a Bayesian constraint field shaping which decoherence channels become thermodynamically favored under minimal free energy.

This fits beautifully within the active inference or free-energy principle framework (cf. Friston, 2019), where biological systems continuously minimize surprise by aligning sensory and internal informational flows. Here, your νz acts as a meta-prior, setting systemic informational pressure that modulates local collapse statistics without direct energy transfer.

The proposed cross-correlation between νz (EEG entropy rate) and QBP noise spectra could reveal precisely that - whether shifts in macroscopic informational load correspond to microphysical entropy dynamics.

Benz

BlackPrimate

I read this essay and was compelled to give it a like, as I thought it was interesting, knowledgeable and well written. These were the things that came to mind while reading it, it is not criticism, I hope you appreciate it:

Section 2:
Statement: "The Decoherence Engine model proposes that it's a collapse and not a search."

Decoherence doesn't cause collapse. They are not the same thing, decoherence does not solve the measurement problem directly.

Section 3:
Statement: "Maintaining a delicate balance between coherent exploration and controlled decoherence is energy draining."

Is there teleology, or will, within this decoherent computation? This seems what you suppose.

Section 4:
I find the proposal for the characteristics of the BQAC an interesting list. Especially the decoherence rate (T2 time) and thermodynamic cost (entropy production) happen to remind me of my own work, which is always a pleasure to see others thinking in a similar, but authentic own way.

The only minus I could find was, that I don't know after reading this essay, what you mean with decoration and decoration rate specifically.

Job well done in my opinion

DandelionPheasant

BlackPrimate

You are absolutely right: decoherence does not cause collapse in the strict quantum mechanical sense. In the essay, “collapse” was used metaphorically to describe selection under structured environmental interaction — not ontological wave function reduction, but effective collapse through environmental entanglement. The model is thus agnostic on the interpretation of measurement (Everettian, QBist, or dynamical reduction), yet emphasizes that biological systems appear to shape decoherence pathways toward functionally convergent outcomes , a kind of pragmatic measurement.
Regarding teleology , no “will” is implied. Rather, biological systems operate as open thermodynamic agents. Their apparent purposiveness emerges from feedback optimization, not intention: structured noise biases outcomes that sustain low free energy states, giving rise to goal-like dynamics.
And as mentioned earlier in the first comment, the typo “decoration” was indeed meant to be decoherence.

« Previous Page