http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01061/full

My interest in QM is metonymic: while it is ‘somehow’ apparently related to nature, nature is not merely QM, and our understandings are incredibly crude at present. I am unconcerned with the relatively nonsensical comparison of the ‘brain’ (actually the entire body) with ‘a QM computer’. In fact, I work to free people from the idea that organisms and machines ‘are similar’ — they are not, except from exceptionally utilitarian and incredibly narrow perspectives, and here, only by purposeful definition.

What »does interest me about electromagnetism, light, time, atomic activity and QM is something rather peculiar. Paradigms from these knowledge domains have analogs or expressions in nature. This turns out to be far more astonishing, and … directly, personally, accessible… to those few who are able to ‘learn to read science from nature, rather than see nature from science’.

The concept that biorelational unions often exhibit macro-scale analogs of phenomena presently understood ‘only from QP/M’ is a fascinating one, and is the source of my primary interest in those topics. As for technologies? There are no human technologies that are even vaguely interesting compared to even the simplest biological organism… or object.

Additionally, the idea of ‘temporal entanglement’ will, in the future, turn out to be far more important than that of particle entanglement, and our own minds are intimately related to something similar to this idea… but vastly stranger.