Value Is a (Quantum) State

Abstract

This work describes the fundamental features of value that have roots in modern physics. Contrary to the traditional view, we believe that value does not have a proper existence, neither as a physical substance nor as a subjective utility in rewards. Value is rather a probabilistic ‘state’, existing by the ‘superposition’ of its expectation and information states. Expectation drives towards the disclosure of information in value state, at which moment it collapses into consciousness. Although empirical experiments are missing, value and quantum states are essentially governed by the same common mechanisms.

Keywords

Value state quantum state expectation information measurement consciousness

Introduction

The meaning of value is unclear in considerable research and, mainly for practical reasons, neglected or switched into different notions. After nearly a century of quiescence, value inquires to come into light despite the persisting confusion in every scientific field. Robinson (1962) concisely expressed the issue: ‘Like all metaphysical concepts, when you try to pin [value] down it turns out to be just a word’. It resumes well the discomfort that motivates us to rethink the nature of value, by clarifying the statement in the title.

Waves of expectation run for the disclosure of information in value state, in which case they collapse into unique ‘solutions’ in consciousness. Organic and inorganic systems are driven towards information—the prior by a feeling of consciousness and free will, the second mechanically by physical laws. Organic functions in value state appear whenever agents look for solutions, evaluate alternative stimuli from various sources, then take decisions and respond. Artificial value state exists as well by the laws of physics inherently governing unconscious matter, deprived of feelings and volitional decision/response. In line with these aspects, Mahajan (2017) recently suggests a value definition in a conscious manner of thinking.

State of expectation is transitory and drives evolution by its expression under the govern of value state. Organic morphology and DNA functions, joined to cognitive abilities, were using rudimentary state of expectation even at the beginning of evolution, suggesting that the exclusive state of information, as assumed by Gitt (1997), is impossible. Organisms inherit information from which they develop expectation and reach non-algorithmic qualia like feelings of pain and a sense of self-existence. Advanced cognition built inheritable models of information processing and evaluation. Perception and measure of value state are still approximate based on perceivable observables, although quantum physics can lead to unique solutions.

Initial functions of value state measure were driven by the impulsive attainment of basic rewards necessary for survival, like catching prey for immediate needs, involving an observable cost of motility. Preservation of homeostasis by organisms is followed by a desire to improve their way of life (Di Paolo, 2003). Reference to paid prices as past observables improved the measure and, consequently, consolidated rational actions (eating potatoes instead of meat). At a later stage in evolution, the sense of food preservation for future benefits improved measures and means of exchange, like bartering potatoes for meat.

Even though empirical proofs for expectation and information interactions in value state are missing, with their possible connection to consciousness, there are logical bases and observables, notably from economics, biology and physics. Considering an economic context, Özdilek (2016) presents in detail how the expectation state of value collapses into its observables of price, cost and income (PCI). Similar mechanisms of value state, collapsing into different observables are found in biology, specifically within the main areas of genetics, neuroscience and predictive coding. We will briefly recite some of the mechanisms as each one requires a careful analysis and technical description and is too voluminous for proper discussion. We will rather focus here on value state through its key mechanisms common in modern physics. Since these mechanisms lead to consciousness, we also try to explore some basic ideas and connections to value state.

Quantum State

Physics has progressively evolved to understand the properties of matter that determine how we live, behave and think. For instance, Coulomb’s laws describe the interaction of (electrical) forces, depending on their proximity, orientation and charges. Newton’s first law of inertia tells that the sum of (gravitational) forces in all directions annihilate; otherwise, there should be motion (second law). For Clausius (1870), the position and momentum evolve deterministically, with thermodynamic energy remaining conservative. Boltzmann (1877) presented the effect of energy in a probabilistic view of entropy, with heated molecules behaving by kinetic energy, revealing information on their states. The formal description on the relation between information and entropy starts with Maxwell (1872). According to the uncertainty principle (Heisenberg, 1927), it is possible to know the position and the momentum of a particle, but not both at the same time. The entropy concept is also investigated in information (Shannon, 1948) and quantum theories (von Neumann, 1932).

Using operators and transformations, mathematics elegantly presents quantum states in their fundamental condition, especially since Dirac (1939). In Dirac’s notation, contrary to a binary system with two base states of 0 and 1, the quantum system has base states (qubits) of $| 0 〉$ and $| 1 〉$ (with an infinite number of states between 0 and 1). If there are two configurations, the most general quantum state, denoted by a ‘psy’ vector $| ψ 〉$ , is the linear superposition of $| 0 〉$ and $| 1 〉$ states:

| ψ 〉 = α | 0 〉 + β | 1 〉

(1)

where $α$ and $β$ are complex numbers describing how much goes into each configuration, assuming that $α^{2}$ + $β^{2}$ = 1. As shown in Figure 1, measuring the value of a qubit provides either $| 0 〉$ or $| 1 〉$ , $α^{2}$ being the probability that a particle (a photon) is on the $x$ axis and $β^{2}$ the probability of finding it on the $y$ axis.

There is an inherent uncertainty in the act of measuring a quantum state which cannot be known until observed among all the possible states in superposition. Those can be added together and the result will be another valid state. Information about a state can be acquired in the process of measurement. There are different methods of defining/measuring the state of a quantum object, for instance, by observation (of superconductivity and superfluidity effects), and tunnelling phenomenon, but Schrödinger’s (1935) formula on the evolution of the wave is popular:

i ℏ \frac{\partial}{\partial t} ψ (\vec{r}, t) = \hat{H} ψ (\vec{r}, t)

(2)

Operators like the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ are used to measure energy contained in a quantum state by assuming $\hat{H} | ψ 〉 = E_{T} | ψ 〉$ , with $| ψ 〉$ being the quantum state vector (or eigenstates $λ$ ) of $\hat{H}$ , and E_T the total energy obtained from the sum of eigenvalues $λ$ . Energy of particles in quantum state is defined by $E = {| f (x) |}^{2}$ , with the density probability of finding them at position $\vec{r}$ and instant t using the square of the wave function, that is, ${| ψ (x, t) |}^{2} = 1$ . The right side of the expression below decomposes E_T into kinetic K_E and potential P_E energies.

i ℏ \frac{\partial}{\partial t} ψ (\vec{r}, t) = - \frac{ℏ^{2}}{2 m} Δ^{2} (\vec{r}, t) ψ + P_{E} (\vec{r}, t) ψ

(3)

Figure 1.

Source: The author.

As a solution to Schrödinger’s equation, Broglie’s (1924) wave function $ψ (\vec{r}, t)$ specifies the quantum state of a particle:

ψ (\vec{r}, t) = ψ_{0} (\vec{r}, t) e^{- i (ω t - k \vec{r} + φ)}

(4)

where $ψ$ stands for the amplitude of the wave, $ω$ the frequency, t the time, $φ$ the phase and k the vector of the wave. Ignoring the phase $φ$ and considering the Planck (1901) constant $\bar{h}$ that relates the energy E (in joules) of a photon and the frequency $ω$ , that is, $E = ℏ ω$ , Equation (4) can be developed as:

ψ (\vec{r}, t) = ψ_{0} (\vec{r}, t) e^{i k \vec{r}} [e^{- i \frac{E_{K}}{\bar{h}} t} + e^{- i \frac{E_{P}}{\bar{h}} t}]

(5)

This equation can also integrate a quantum Gaussian probability, assuming that the superposition of random states shows a Gaussian behaviour:

\begin{array}{l} ψ (\vec{r}, t) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 π}} e^{\frac{- x^{2}}{2}}} [ψ_{0} (\vec{r}, t) e^{i k \vec{r}} C o s - \frac{E_{K}}{\bar{h}} t] | 0 〉 + \\ \sqrt{1 - \frac{1}{2 π} e^{\frac{- x^{2}}{2}}} [ψ_{0} (\vec{r}, t) e^{i k \vec{r}} S i n - \frac{E_{P}}{\bar{h}} t] | 1 〉 \end{array}

(6)

Different quantum states have discrete differences in the variables describing their state. For instance, the spin of an electron has two, but not intermediate values. During its frequency propagation, this wave function carries both the envelope of the system and its total energy, assumed to evolve in time–space by liberating discrete kinetic and potential energies. The discreteness of energy in state evolution can be shown by solving Schrödinger’s and Fourier’s transformation set of equations, which are omitted there.

Value State

Knowledge on value results from classic theories elaborated by different schools of thought, mostly in economics (Landreth & Colander, 2002). Value is traditionnally assumed to have a proper existence, a type of reward in substances, commodities or concepts. Agent’s decisions are subjectively directed towards the attainment and the maximization of utility in those rewards (Jia et al., 2016). However, the primacy of attraction for physical rewards and consumption is about to change. Main concepts such as scarcity become subtly related to the flow of expectations and information that ultimately govern value state.

Value is also approached in the contexts of subsistence and comfort (especially following the industrialization), concepts consistent with supply–demand (like scarcity and utility) and observables (data) feeding Newtonian perceptual models. Classic physics shifting into quantum physics allowed the realization of the inconsistency of perception at the fundamental level of matter, more than a century ago. Growing knowledge and technology increased expectations towards information, inquiring new models and observables, taking into account (and imitating) the fundamental properties of matter. Technological inventions and new commodities are about to start, but socio-economic changes already show some directions towards the essence of value that we conceive as being quantum mechanical ‘state’ in nature.

Our historical analysis of important mathematical expressions in physics reveals a natural connection between quantum and value states. However, value’s usage in physics did not advance more than being a symbolic number describing, for instance, a quantity, speed or energy of matter. In spite of this oversight, value is the fundamental state that all sciences, including physics, try to understand and locate. Value is merely not a ‘cold’ symbol to describe a state but the elementary (and true) state itself at the finest scale, dynamically holding a degree of expectation and information.

At least, two important bases support our assumption of value being the elementary state of organic/inorganic matter. The first basis rests on the expectational and informational properties of value. Matter is driven towards the disclosure of (novel) information in any science, notably in physics, economics and biology. In considering biology, for instance, the response of a dopaminergic system depends on the unpredictability of expected rewards (Van de Cruys & Wagemans, 2011), explainable with three competing theories of liking, learning and wanting (Berridge, 2007). Growing evidence indicates that the dopaminergic system causes wanting for hedonic rewards, more than liking or learning (Wise, 2004). In fact, it is not the consumption (or ‘licking’) of the reward itself, but rather the process of knowing the reward that ultimately counts (Pecina, 2008). This important result supports the novelty-seeking adaptive behaviour in the information (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

The second important basis comes from the law of conservation of energy. The total energy E_T in an isolated system remains constant with the changing relation between the kinetic E_K and potential E_P energies. Using this relation, it is possible to consider kinetic energy E_K as informational real basis (expressed or disclosed) and potential energy E_P as expectational basis (still held in uncertainty). In this work, we postulate that the probabilistic quantum state $ψ$ is the genuine value state V (or platonic value in terms of Roger Penrose) that is a constant.

Starting with these bases, we can analyse in parallel several other common mechanisms in modern physics, in particular those related to uncertainty, superposition, quantumness and measurement. Uncertainty is an intrinsic property of value state, the probabilistic replacing the deterministic. The uncertainty principle is applied at the real/virtual scales of particles (and their interactions). Value state probabilistically exists in a wave-like behaviour of its expectation and information states. Value comes into existence in a mixed state, predisposed to inducing action by expectation but predestined to decay by the disclosure of matching information (the ‘solution’ in the property of matter). In that probabilistic state in transition, value does not have a proper existence.

Every state of expectation and information is in superposition to create a state of value. The superposition means here that any two (or more) value states can be added together (superposed) and the result will be another value state. Value state is at any time a mixture of both expectation and information (in different portions) for the experimenter; upon observation (or measurement), it is only either expectation X or information I:

| V 〉 = α | I 〉 + β | X 〉

(7)

Based on Equation (5), mathematical, observable and complex operators can be used to decompose the total value V_T and extract its eigenstates and eigenvectors, associated to values of expectation and information respectively. In the following specification, V_M represents the starting (enveloping) value in the system, to which is added the portion of disclosed information up to a final state in space–time where expectation becomes nil (in that case, $V_{T} = I; X = 0$ ).

V_{T} (\vec{r}, t) = V_{M} (\vec{r}, t) e^{i k \vec{r}} [e^{- i \frac{I}{\bar{h}} t} + e^{- i \frac{X}{\bar{h}} t}]

(8)

We claim as well that total value V_T, information I and expectation X behave in discrete manners. The gain of information in expectation state is discrete, likewise the liberation of discrete energy pockets of E_K . In the economic context, although value’s observable PCI are continuous, expectation and information states are in quanta. Disclosure of information in quanta (relative to an event) can be full or partial. If partial, the measured portion is useful as information because it might reduce more the portion of uncertainty in the probabilistic state of the same event, up to a certain threshold. This also means that the uncertainty portion of expectation state continues to attract until the full disclosure of information.

There is an inherent uncertainty in the act of measuring a value state. A value state cannot be known until it is observed among all the possible states in superposition. As soon as a measurement is made, one particular state, out of the range of possible value states, is obtained (Albert, 1992). Measurement discloses any subjective and objective behaviours of animate/inanimate matter by their expression. With the disclosure of information (measurement) in the state of value, expectation decreases up to a level at which it entirely collapses into a unique state (the ‘quantum solution’).

Collapsing State

Elementary behaviour of matter, described by mathematical expressions and properties of value state, involves the confusing concept of consciousness that looks spiritual in general or weird in physics (Pawlowski et al., 2009). Western philosophy, inclined to a materialistic view, considers that consciousness emerges from the neurophysiologic basis (Dennett, 1987). Biology evolved to orchestrate physical events and couple them with neuronal activity, resulting in conscious functions (Penrose & Hameroff, 1995). Eastern philosophy is more open to spiritual bases in which consciousness precedes life (Shanta, 2015). There are several models explaining consciousness, for instance, from a divine property in matter (Whitehead, 1938), mind (Sheppard & Hut, 1998), soul (Eccles, 1966), implicate order (Bohm, 2002) or probabilities in the evolution of quantum processes (Fisher, 2015).

The state of value is the link between perceptual measure and absolute solution in consciousness. Perception built from observables (information) is approximate; it is thus fundamentally different from consciousness that is without error. Perception is developed from the flow of information that our senses recognize, measure and interpret. Information is statistical data from the expressions of genetic and the regularities of epigenetic origins, which can be saved (and retrieved) in ‘memory traces’ (or engram), potentially located in dendrites and/or synapses (Tonegawa et al., 2015).

Studying consciousness encounters the mind–body’s ‘Hard problem’, related to the interaction of the immaterial and the material (Chalmers, 1995). Conscious experience similarly requires clarifying the neuronal ‘Binding problem’ of, for instance, how information on the form, colour, odour or context is specifically combined (Feldman, 2013). There are also related perspectives on whether a machine becomes conscious or not (Gamez, 2008).

We believe that studying value as a probabilistic state is the ‘gateway’ leading to approach consciousness. Value’s mechanisms of expectation and information are common to consciousness. Consciousness is non-computational with non-algorithmic properties of qualia like pain or emotion (Keith, 2012). The only moment when value state leads to a definite solution is when it reaches consciousness. The uniqueness of the solution rests on the fact that two simultaneous states, for the same event presented to senses of perception, are not simultaneous in consciousness.

We think that consciousness virtually holds fundamental solutions to which tend animate and inanimate matter, with the main difference that the prior feels and willingly explores it, because of biologically acquired special functions during evolution, and the second senselessly meets information by the fundamental laws of physics (without any biological drive or feeling). Individuals have the impression to own or develop consciousness mainly because of the free will that it allows by the exploration of its solutions via the infinite set of non-algorithmic computations. Value state is connected to these points of unique solutions (the ‘edges’), altogether forming a ‘field of consciousness’.

The manifestation of collapse is a key mechanism that brings physics, consciousness and value states together. Moments of experiencing events are from quantum state reductions, known as the collapse of the wave function (Shimony, 1993). This subtle experience can be illustrated through a simple example given by Xi (2006), in a different context. For instance, a child may wish to hear the same story many times even if the adult reader is bored. When the child is questioned about the purpose/meaning in a given fragment of action in the story, there is often a lack of comprehension. It is only after the child fully reaches the point of the story, that is, the moment of collapse.

Although present in every science, especially being well covered in physics, collapse theories are still incomplete (Jabs, 2016). The Copenhagen interpretation explains that every particle (quantum entity) remains in a wave-like quantum superposition until observed, at which moment it collapses into one of many possible states (Shimony, 1993). For Penrose (1996), conscious observation does not cause the quantum state reduction; rather, the collapse causes consciousness. Recognized as a mental event (von Neumann, 1932; Wigner, 1967), what is collapsing with measurement is actually a value state, leading to consciousness, in our understanding.

Collapse into consciousness happens on the elementary level of matter where interact real and virtual particles (Feynman, 1949). We believe that the theory conveniently addressing value as a state is the quantum field, assuming that all the states of value in connection to consciousness are taken into account. A series of perturbations excites the field of consciousness on its ‘edges’ of connection where virtual particles interact and allow responses with collapses; otherwise, they extend the field until the solution (or they stop if it is impossible).

The collapse of the value state in economics is unknown (and has a different meaning). Without uncertainty in economic events, there is no motivation as the risk is nil and value would not make any sense (Kirkup & Frenkel, 2010). For instance, if everyone knew the unique value of the shares on the stock market, as everything is set in advance, there would not be any opportunity to realize (or lose) profits. In practice, as there is always uncertainty, some agents might have a better approximation of value, for instance, by analysing value’s PCI observables and through their ability of contacts. The value state (and not PCI) of a particular event for these informed agents is consumed, but the information they possess (under the form of PCI) help them pursue more accurately other valuable events.

Mechanisms of collapse also exist in biology, particularly with genetic expression, neuroscience and predictive coding. It seems that the mechanisms of expectation and the disclosure of novelty in the information might be correlated with certain polymorphisms, engendered by the affinity (disposition in the sequences of DNA) and the size (number of repetitions in DNA sequences) of a protein, especially significant in the case of the DRD4 gene (Van Tol et al., 1992). In predictive coding, to preserve homeostasis, the brain estimates possible information before it gets the actual one incoming from various stimuli (Olshausen & Field, 1996). The dominant hypothesis in predictive coding theory suggests that the brain corresponds ascending information from stimuli to oppositely descending predictions from neurons (Friston, 2008). In case of incompatibility, that is, when there is an error of prediction, neurons are excited; otherwise, when everything is as predicted, there is suppression of the repeated information, adaptation and silencing of neurons (Todorovic & De Lange, 2012).

Conclusion

This conceptual work presents value to be a state, based on several assumptions in relation to the mechanisms of uncertainty, superposition and measurement in quantum physics. They also make sense when comparably analysed based on economic and biologic foundations. The collapse moment is the key empirical support of these mechanisms converging in value, quantum and conscious states. The collapse of a state with measurement is strange in every scientific field, which becomes coherent in the value perspective we presented.

Value state measure is crucial because it is needed for survival, comfort and progress. It allows the understanding of the impacts of information on the behaviour of agents, explaining it by determining parameters and predicting the future behaviour. Agents use information through their biological ability acquired during evolution, allowing them to build a perception with approximate evaluations. We visit value states based on sensorial information, with Newtonian computational abilities. Today, we understand more that they biologically rest on quantum evaluation (Hameroff, 1998). In the future, we believe that the unachieved capacity of using direct quantum evaluation will evolve to reach more consciousness.

In economics, value state is roughly approximated by using PCI observables as informational bases. In biology, a better approximation of value state is possible if the expressions of neuronal activities are based on the discrete quantity of dopamine in response to the event of stimuli under evaluation. Physics potentially allows the best approximation of value state using the flow and interaction of particles related to the same event. For instance, the photon number exhibits quantum uncertainty (Guerlin et al., 2007); its reduction to a single photon converges to a solution, we believe. All of these measures are still approximate; the only way to get a unique (and direct) solution is through the moment of consciousness, that is, with the entire collapse of the value state. Consciousness has an unlimited horizon of virtual solutions in the fundamental property of matter that organisms willingly connect with and non-algorithmically explore.

Value as a quantum state implies practical concerns about the business every day. As discussed, value’s discrete state is determined by the interaction of expectation and information states. It is important to acknowledge this in assessing the probabilistic portions of both states. Solutions at the finest scale of matter are used to lead towards the exploration of an infinite number of states, still charged in expectations. The collapse of a state is not its extinction; it is the disclosure of the unique solution to a given state of expectation. In this perspective, value creation is the exploration of an infinite field of consciousness for new ideas, solutions and states of being. Value creation expands probabilistically, with non-algorithmic computations, building emotions, feelings of free will, responsibility and happiness/unhappiness.

In considering our statement in the title, and the pessimistic remark of Robinson (1962) in the introduction, we presented that value is not just a word, neither a substance, nor a symbolic number. It is fundamentally a quantum state whose behaviour is governed by the superposed states of expectation and information. Discussions on quantum computers/devices, algorithms and information processing are nascent and therefore challenging even for the specialists in the field. Usual businesses still run on Newtonian approaches, with successful results of great management scales, combined to statistical data (observables). However, we feel today the limits of these observables, currently available tools and explicative/predictive approaches that increasingly deal with non-algorithmic states. We still cannot see, feel and pinpoint it empirically using perceptible Newtonian schemes, implying that value’s quantum state needs to be considered more seriously in every scientific domain, starting from now on.

Reaching a new city by car, for instance, might be advanced or delayed by a few minutes (assuming no surprises like heavy rain). The use of quantum physics in the future will certainly not be in the extra reduction of travelling time with better engines and its benefits for business. The science appreciably fulfilled such practical needs using perception from observables and Newtonian approaches; there is no need to delve more into the granular behaviour of value state and its connection to consciousness. The appreciation of value state in the scope of quantum physics enters into balance once the basic needs and the physical comfort they allow are adequately satisfied, for instance, with better appliances, means of communication or modes of travel. Then, the quantum state of value would tell us more about why people’s motivation/happiness auto-collapses, for instance, with merely repeated trips to new destinations or, simply, why time–space dissolves during a journey to the workplace by the subway (even without realizing/recalling who went in/out or sat by our side). These value states have to do (and allow to find responses) with the states of expectation and information in superposition.

Future research can investigate in detail the biological grounds of value state and the related collapse mechanisms, concentrating particularly on novelty-seeking behaviour. Elsewhere, we estimate that the impact of informational gain (and growth) on the mental health of individuals in the society would not be negligible. Finally, we briefly noticed that man improved evaluation systems of value state during evolution. Therefore, it would be interesting to explore the imitation and the application of various models in everyday business, genetically inherited, restructured and transferred to new generations under the pressure of natural selection.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ünsal Özdilek

References

Albert

D. Z.

(1992). Quantum mechanics and experience . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Berridge

(2007). The debate over dopamine’s role in reward: The case for incentive salience. Psychopharmacology , 191, 391–431.

Bohm

(2002). Wholeness and the implicate order . London, UK: Routledge Classics.

Boltzmann

(1877). On the relation between the second law of the mechanical theory of heat and the probability calculus with respect to the propositions about het-equivalence . Vienna: Conference of the Academy of Sciences.

Broglie

de L. A.

(1924). Tentative theory of light quanta. Philosophical Magazine , 47(278), 446–458.

Chalmers

D. J.

(1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies , 2(3), 200–219.

Clausius

R. J.

(1870). On a mechanical theorem applicable to heat. Philosophical Magazine , 40, 122–127.

Dennett

(1987). The intentional stance . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Di Paolo

E. A.

(2003). Spike-timing dependent plasticity for evolved robots. Adaptive Behavior , 10(3/4), 243–263.

10.

Dirac

P. A. M.

(1939). A new notation for quantum mechanics. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , 35(3), 416–418.

11.

Eccles

J. C. (Ed.)

. (1966). The brain and conscious experience . Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

12.

Feldman

(2013). The neural binding problem(s). Cognitive Neurodynamics , 7(1), 1–11.

13.

Feynman

R. P.

(1949). Space-time approach to quantum electrodynamics. Physical Review , 76, 1–53.

14.

Fisher

(2015). Quantum cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain. Annals of Physics , 362, 593–602.

15.

Friston

(2008). Hierarchical models in the brain. PLoS Computational Biology , 4(11), e1000211.

16.

Gamez

(2008). Progress in machine consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition , 17(3), 887–910.

17.

Gitt

(1997). In the beginning was information . Bielefeld, Germany: Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung.

18.

Guerlin

Bernu

Deléglise

Sayrin

Gleyzes

... Kuhr

(2007). Progressive field-state collapse and quantum non-demolition photon counting. Nature , 448(23), 889–894.

19.

Hameroff

(1998). Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose–Hameroff ‘Orch OR’ model of consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A , 356, 1869–1896.

20.

Heisenberg

(1927). The physical principles of the quantum theory . New York, NY: Dover Publications.

21.

Jabs

(2016). A conjecture concerning determinism, reduction, and measurement in quantum mechanics. Mathematical Foundations , 3(4), 279–292.

22.

Jia

Macare

Desrivières

Gonzalez

D. A.

Tao

... Ji

(2016). Neural basis of reward anticipation and its genetic determinants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 113(14), 3879–3884.

23.

Keith

(2012). Quining diet qualia. Consciousness and Cognition , 21(2), 667–676.

24.

Kirkup

Frenkel

R. B.

(2010). An introduction to uncertainty in measurement . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Landreth

Colander

D. C.

(2002). History of economic thought (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

26.

Mahajan

(2017). Value dominant logic. Journal of Creating Value , 1(1), 1–2.

27.

Maxwell

J. C.

(1872). Theory of heat . London: Longmans, Green & Co.

28.

Neumann

von J.

(1932). Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

29.

Olshausen

B. A.

Field

D. J.

(1996). Emergence of simple-cell receptive fields properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature , 381, 607–609.

30.

Özdilek

Ü.

(2016). Value expectation, expression and estimation. Journal of Creating Value , 2(2), 245–256.

31.

Pawlowski

Paterek

Kaszlikowski

Scarani

Winter

... Zukowski

(2009). Information causality as a physical principle. Nature , 461, 1101–1104.

32.

Pecina

(2008). Opioid reward ‘liking’ and ‘wanting’ in the nucleus accumbens. Physiological Behaviour , 94, 675–680.

33.

Penrose

(1996). Shadows of the mind: A search for the missing science of consciousness . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

34.

Penrose

Hameroff

S. R.

(1995). What gaps? Reply to Grush & Churchland. Journal of Consciousness Studies , 2, 99–112.

35.

Planck

(1901). On the law of distribution of energy in the normal spectrum. Annalen der Physik , 4, 553–562.

36.

Robinson

(1962). Economic philosophy . Chicago, IL: Aldine.

37.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist , 55, 68–78.

38.

Schrödinger

(1935). The present situation in quantum mechanics: A translation of Schrödinger's “cat paradox” paper (trans. in 1980 by Trimmer

J. D.

). Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society , 124, 323–338.

39.

Shannon

C. E.

(1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal , 27(3), 379–423.

40.

Shanta

B. N.

(2015). Life and consciousness: The Vedantic view. Communicative and Integrative Biology , 8(5), e1085138.

41.

Sheppard

R. N.

Hut

(1998). My experience, your experience, and the world we experience: Turning the hard problem upside down. In Hameroff

S. R.

Kaszniak

A. W.

Scott

A. C.

(Eds.), Toward a science of consciousness: The second tucson discussions and debates (pp. 143–149). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

42.

Shimony

(1993). Search for a naturalistic world view: Volume II, Natural science and metaphysics . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

43.

Todorovic

De Lange

F. P.

(2012). Repetition suppression and expectation suppression are dissociable in time in early auditory evoked fields. Neuroscience , 32(39), 13389–13395.

44.

Tonegawa

Pignatelli

Roy

D. S.

Ryan

T. J.

(2015). Memory engram storage and retrieval. Current Opinion in Neurobiology , 35, 101–109.

45.

Van de Cruys

Wagemans

(2011). Putting reward in art: A tentative prediction error account of visual art. i-Perception , 2(9), 1035–1062.

46.

Van Tol

H. M.

C. M.

Guan

H.-C.

Ohara

Bunzow

J. R.

Civelli

(1992). Multiple dopamine D4 receptor variants in the human population. Nature , 358, 149–152.

47.

Whitehead

(1938). Modes of thought . New York, NY: Macmillan.

48.

Wigner

E. P.

(1967). Remarks on the mind-body questions. In Wigner

E. P.

(Ed.), Symmetries and reflections, scientific essays (pp. 171–184). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

49.

Wise

R. A.

(2004). Dopamine, learning and motivation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 5(6), 483–494.

50.

(2006). The scientific research society. American Scientist , 94(3), 247–253.