MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220911678 · doi:10.14704/nq.2022.20.3.nq22059

The Quantum Hologram Theory of Consciousness as a Framework for Altered States of Consciousness Research

2022· article· en· W4220911678 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroQuantology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsciousnessHolographyElectromagnetic theories of consciousnessCognitive scienceField (mathematics)QuantumState (computer science)PsychologyFunction (biology)Quantum field theoryEpistemologyTheoretical physicsPhysicsComputer sciencePhilosophyQuantum mechanicsMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We can learn more about how our reality is made and what non-ordinary states of consciousness are by studying the Quantum Hologram Theory of Physics and Consciousness (QHTC). The QHTC says that consciousness is not local and that altered states of consciousness can help us understand how our minds work in more than one way. That's what Schrödinger thought. He thought that the quantum mechanical wave function was a field of consciousness. QHTC is based on holographic theories for human consciousness. These theories say that the brain works like a hologram and that it processes images into interference patterns that are then turned into virtual images, just like a laser hologram. These quantum waves can store a lot of information, which our brains use to make our three-dimensional world. This article says that this last theory should be the main framework for research on altered states of consciousness, and it talks about how to get data for analysis and how to get into an altered state for possible experiments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it