Parallelism of quantum computations from prequantum classical statistical field theory (PCSFT)

This paper is devoted to such a fundamental problem of quantum computing as quantum parallelism. It is well known that quantum parallelism is the basis of the ability of quantum computer to perform in polynomial time computations performed by classical computers for exponential time. Therefore better understanding of quantum parallelism is important both for theoretical and applied research, cf. e.g. David Deutsch \cite{DD}. We present a realistic interpretation based on recently developed prequantum classical statistical field theory (PCSFT). In the PCSFT-approach to QM quantum states (mixed as well as pure) are labels of special ensembles of classical fields. Thus e.g. a single (!) ``electron in the pure state'' $\psi$ can be identified with a special `` electron random field,'' say $\Phi_\psi(\phi).$ Quantum computer operates with such random fields. By one computational step for e.g. a Boolean function $f(x_1,...,x_n)$ the initial random field $\Phi_{\psi_0}(\phi)$ is transformed into the final random field $\Phi_{\psi_f}(\phi)$ ``containing all values'' of $f.$ This is the objective of quantum computer's ability to operate quickly with huge amounts of information -- in fact, with classical random fields

Contextuality versus Incompatibility

Our aim is to compare the fundamental notions of quantum physics - contextuality vs. incompatibility. One has to distinguish two different notions of contextuality, {\it Bohr-contextuality} and {\it Bell-contextuality}. The latter is defined operationally via violation of noncontextuality (Bell type) inequalities. This sort of contextuality will be compared with incompatibility. It is easy to show that, for quantum observables, there is {\it no contextuality without incompatibility.} The natural question arises: What is contextuality without incompatibility? (What is "dry-residue"?) Generally this is the very complex question. We concentrated on contextuality for four quantum observables. We shown that in the CHSH-scenarios (for "natural quantum observables") {\it contextuality is reduced to incompatibility.} However, generally contextuality without incompatibility may have some physical content. We found a mathematical constraint extracting the contextuality component from incompatibility. However, the physical meaning of this constraint is not clear. In appendix 1, we briefly discuss another sort of contextuality based on the Bohr's complementarity principle which is treated as the {\it contextuality-incompatibility principle}. Bohr-contextuality plays the crucial role in quantum foundations. Incompatibility is, in fact, a consequence of Bohr-contextuality. Finally, we remark that outside of physics, e.g., in cognitive psychology and decision making Bell-contextuality cleaned of incompatibility can play the important role.Comment: discussion of 3-types of contextuality (introduction and appendix 1), discussion on Suppes-Zanotti and Boole inequalities vs. original Bell inequality for correlated observables (appendix 2

EPR-Bohm experiment, interference of probabilities, imprecision of time

We demonstrate that the EPR-Bohm probabilities can be easily obtained in the classical (but contextual) probabilistic framework by using the formula of interference of probabilities. From this point of view the EPR-Bell experiment is just an experiment on interference of probabilities. We analyse the time structure of contextuality in the EPR-Bohm experiment. The conclusion is that quantum mechanics does not contradict to a local realistic model in which probabilities are calculated as averages over conditionings/measurements for pairs of instances of time $t_1< t_2.$ If we restrict our consideration only to simultaneous measurements at the fixed instance of time $t$ we would get contradiction with Bell's theorem. One of implications of this fact might be the impossibility to define instances of {\it time with absolute precision} on the level of the contextual microscopic realistic model.Comment: We analyze time structure of conditioning in the EPR-Bohm experimen

pp-adic discrete dynamical systems and their applications in physics and cognitive sciences

This review is devoted to dynamical systems in fields of $p$-adic numbers: origin of $p$-adic dynamics in $p$-adic theoretical physics (string theory, quantum mechanics and field theory, spin glasses), continuous dynamical systems and discrete dynamical systems. The main attention is paid to discrete dynamical systems - iterations of maps in the field of $p$-adic numbers (or their algebraic extensions): conjugate maps, ergodicity, random dynamical systems, behaviour of cycles, holomorphic dynamics. dynamical systems in finite fields. We also discuss applications of $p$-adic discrete dynamical systems to cognitive sciences and psychology

External observer reflections on QBism

In this short review I present my personal reflections on QBism. I have no intrinsic sympathy neither to QBism nor to subjective interpretation of probability in general. However, I have been following development of QBism from its very beginning, observing its evolution and success, sometimes with big surprise. Therefore my reflections on QBism can be treated as "external observer" reflections. I hope that my view on this interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) has some degree of objectivity. It may be useful for researchers who are interested in quantum foundations, but do not belong to the QBism-community, because I tried to analyze essentials of QBism critically (i.e., not just emphasizing its advantages, as in a typical QBist publication). QBists, too, may be interested in comments of an external observer who monitored development of this approach to QM during the last 16 years. The second part of the paper is devoted to interpretations of probability, objective versus subjective, and views of Kolmogorov, von Mises, and de Finetti. Finally, de Finetti's approach to methodology of science is presented and compared with QBism.Comment: polishing text, better expression

Comment on Hess-Philipp anti-Bell and Gill-Weihs-Zeilinger-Zukowski anti-Hess-Philipp arguments

We present comparative analysis of Gill-Weihs-Zeilinger-Zukowski arguments directed against Hess-Philipp anti-Bell arguments. In general we support Hess-Philipp viewpoint to the sequence of measurements in the EPR-Bohm experiments as stochastic time-like process. On the other hand, we support Gill-Weihs-Zeilinger-Zukowski arguments against the use of time-like correlations as the factor blocking the derivation of Bell-type inequalities. We presented our own time-analysis of measurements in the EPR-Bohm experiments based on the frequency approach to probability. Our analysis gives strong arguments in favour of local realism. Moreover, our frequency analysis supports the original EPR-idea that quantum mechnaics is not complete

The Quantum-Like Brain Operating on Subcognitive and Cognitive Time Scales

We propose a {\it quantum-like} (QL) model of the functioning of the brain. It should be sharply distinguished from the reductionist {\it quantum} model. By the latter cognition is created by {\it physical quantum processes} in the brain. The crucial point of our modelling is that discovery of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics (QM) was in fact discovery of a very general formalism describing {\it consistent processing of incomplete information} about contexts (physical, mental, economic, social). The brain is an advanced device which developed the ability to create a QL representation of contexts. Therefore its functioning can also be described by the mathematical formalism of QM. The possibility of such a description has nothing to do with composing of the brain of quantum systems (photons, electrons, protons,...). Moreover, we shall propose a model in that the QL representation is based on conventional neurophysiological model of the functioning of the brain. The brain uses the QL rule (given by von Neumann trace formula) for calculation of {\it approximative averages} for mental functions, but the physical basis of mental functions is given by neural networks in the brain. The QL representation has a {\it temporal basis.} Any cognitive process is based on (at least) two time scales: subcognitive time scale (which is very fine) and cognitive time scale (which is essentially coarser)

Probabilistic pathway representation of cognitive information

We present for mental processes the program of mathematical mapping which has been successfully realized for physical processes. We emphasize that our project is not about mathematical simulation of brain's functioning as a complex physical system, i.e., mapping of physical and chemical processes in the brain on mathematical spaces. The project is about mapping of purely mental processes on mathematical spaces. We present various arguments -- philosophic, mathematical, information, and neurophysiological -- in favor of the $p$-adic model of mental space. $p$-adic spaces have structures of hierarchic trees and in our model such a tree hierarchy is considered as an image of neuronal hierarchy. Hierarchic neural pathways are considered as fundamental units of information processing. As neural pathways can go through whole body, the mental space is produced by the whole neural system. Finally, we develop Probabilistic Neural Pathway Model in that Mental States are represented by probability distributions on mental space

Randomness: quantum versus classical

Recent tremendous development of quantum information theory led to a number of quantum technological projects, e.g., quantum random generators. This development stimulates a new wave of interest in quantum foundations. One of the most intriguing problems of quantum foundations is elaboration of a consistent and commonly accepted interpretation of quantum state. Closely related problem is clarification of the notion of quantum randomness and its interrelation with classical randomness. In this short review we shall discuss basics of classical theory of randomness (which by itself is very complex and characterized by diversity of approaches) and compare it with irreducible quantum randomness. The second part of this review is devoted to the information interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) in the spirit of Zeilinger and Brukner (and QBism of Fuchs et al.) and physics in general (e.g., Wheeler's "it from bit") as well as digital philosophy of Chaitin (with historical coupling to ideas of Leibnitz). Finally, we continue discussion on interrelation of quantum and classical randomness and information interpretation of QM.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1410.577

Classical probabilistic realization of "Random Numbers Certified by Bell's Theorem"

We question the commonly accepted statement that random numbers certified by Bell's theorem carry some special sort of randomness, so to say, quantum randomness or intrinsic randomness. We show that such numbers can be easily generated by classical random generators