[blurbleblurble]

I don't know about the free will argument, but this research doesn't really have anything to do with, for example, the possibility of stable entanglement between Posner molecules.

Beyond that, applications of quantum information theory and other quantum tools now extend beyond physics: there's no requirement that something be based on a physically quantum system for it to be useful modeled by quantum tools.

All in all, there are lot of ways to use quantum/quantum-like/post-quantum models now, both within physics and outside of it. Quantum stuff just isn't as monolithic as many orthodox physicists would suggest.

[Vecr]

You can't use it outside of physics, because the combination of digital computers and human brains this hypothetical stuff runs on is in physics. GR (general relativity) + objective collapse (re. quantum physics) does not give you enough for the high-temperature speedups you want.

[blurbleblurble]

I spoke of "physics" first and foremost as a scientific paradigm. It's a time-honored variety of applied mathematics.

The map is not the territory, regardless of how accurately its models describe reality. The standard model is great, don't get me wrong, but it's still a map, one of many.

"Physical" models are no longer the only context where quantum tools are relevant or useful. Look into Jerome Busemeyer if you want to learn more.

[wslh]

Very interesting, thank you for the scientist reference. Looking at Wikipedia I found that "...the identification of quantum structures in cognitive phenomena does not presuppose the existence of microscopic quantum processes in the human brain.". This highlights your comment.

[Vecr]

> The map is not the territory.

Yes, that's why I spoke of GR + objective collapse. GR + objective collapse is not the territory, most people including Penrose will tell you that. What some of his readers apparently don't get is that he supports GR + objective collapse only to the extent that there's "only one true objective world" (because he likes that for aesthetic reasons), and then immediately turns around and rejects it because there's no space for free will.

[throwaway81523]

Wonder if it says anything against the idea that the whole universe has to be considered as a gigantic entangled quantum state, and that even gravity might arise from that entanglement?

[niemandhier]

If it is not physics, shouldn’t we give it a different name that liberates it from all the physical imagery?

Something like “c* algebra based models”. “Quantum” carries to much baggage by now, things like “quantum healing” are just scams.