sign in sign up
<<
Home , Consciousness, Quantum mind, Rupert Sheldrake, Synchronicity, Synchronicity (book)

Carl G. Jung’s and Entanglement: Schrödinger’s Cat ’Wanders’ Between Chromosomes Igor Limar

To cite this version:

Igor Limar. Carl G. Jung’s Synchronicity and : Schrödinger’s Cat ’Wan- ders’ Between Chromosomes. NeuroQuantology, NeuroQuantology, 2011, 9 (2), pp.313-321. ￿hprints- 00637383v2￿

HAL Id: hprints-00637383 https://hal-hprints.archives-ouvertes.fr/hprints-00637383v2 Submitted on 22 Jun 2012 (v2), last revised 19 Jul 2012 (v3)

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Limar IV., C.G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement 1

ó

C.G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement: Schrodinger’s Cat ‘Wanders’ Between Chromosomes

Igor V. Limar

Abstract One of the most prospective directions of study of C.G. Jung’s synchronicity is reviewed considering the latest achievements of modern . The is focused mainly on the quantum entanglement and related phenomena – quantum and . It is shown that the quantum non-locality capable of solving the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox represents one of the most adequate physical mechanisms in terms of conformity with the Jung’s synchronicity hypothesis. An attempt is made on psychophysiological substantiation of synchronicity within the context of molecular . An original is proposed, stating that biological molecules involved in cell division during mitosis and meiosis, particularly DNA may be considered material carriers of . This assumption may be formulated on the basis of phenomenology of Jung’s analytical .

Key Words: consciousness, synchronicity, quantum entanglement, nucleic acids, mitosis, meiosis

The article had been published in the journal 'NeuroQuantology' - (2011) Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 312-321

Link: http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/376

Problem formulation and the , both normal and affected by related studies1 pathology. Determining the of the phenomenon of synchronicity may become To be sure, the concept of important for psychotherapeutic practice, synchronicity represents an integral part of particularly for difficult clinical cases which . believed, today cannot be subjected to psychological that synchronicity is closely related to correction using methods of classical numerous manifestations of of . At the same , we know that exotic nature of ”manifestations of Corresponding author: Igor V. Limar synchronicity‘ caused to certain extent Address: Institute of Innovative and Postgraduate Education (IIPE). skeptical by a number of Department of computer science and informational technologies, researchers. Considering criticism of Jung‘s Dvoryanskaya str., 2, Odessa, 65026, Ukraine Phone: +38 048 725 3687 theory of synchronicity by his opponents, it Fax: - should be, nevertheless, admitted that in e-mail: [email protected] doing his research the founder of analytical

Limar IV., C.G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement 2 psychology was guided, in particular, by decade (Walach 1999; Walach and Römer principles of contemporary theoretical 2000; Duch 2002; Milgrom 2002; Primas physics. For instance, it is well known that 2003; Stillfried and Walach 2006; Teodorani Jung has developed the concept of 2006). The latest papers in this sphere of synchronicity in close collaboration with study contain quite detailed research . Thus, the Swiss psychologist (Lucado et al. 2007; Carminati and Martin has always made sure that the data gathered 2008; Martin et al. 2009; Martin et al. from his clinical conforms to 2010). the principles of natural science. At the same time, it should be noted Still, specific mechanisms which, that attempts to explain the synchronicity probably, lay at the core of synchronicity phenomenon by considering other physical phenomena became a of discussion mechanisms not directly related to quantum only in the early 1980s thanks to the non-locality (Zabriskie 1995) are quite in experimental studies of certain scarce. of quantum physics. In one of the It should also be mentioned that relatively early papers devoted to this some authors look at the quantum (Keutzer 1982), the synchronicity entanglement phenomenon in regard to phenomenon was juxtaposed with the other aspects of Jung‘s theory without ”morphic resonance‘ hypothesis suggested by linking this phenomenon directly to the . In turn, the Sheldrake‘s synchronicity phenomenon (Blutner and theory is interpreted in the above study in Hochnadel 2010; Conte et al. 2010). the context of quantum non-locality, a Nevertheless, even though the consequence of solution of the so-called probable role of quantum non-locality in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. In his realization of synchronicity phenomena is later papers (Keutzer 1984a, b), this author clearly emphasized in the above papers, the clearly associates quantum non-locality with question of what physiological Jung‘s synchronicity. Afterwards, other might be responsible for the of researchers (Mansfield and Spiegelman quantum entanglement between different 1989) have reviewed non-local quantum bodies has not been considered so correlations, the Schrodinger‘s cat paradox, far. The only exceptions in this respect are, and experiments verifying Bell‘s inequalities perhaps, the studies by Michael Hyland, who in relation to the synchronicity phenomenon. also that the synchronicity The same researchers also reviewed the phenomenon is caused by quantum principle of superposition within the context entanglement (Hyland 2004a). The criterion of attempts to explain the synchronicity enabling to consider that the mentioned phenomenon (Mansfield and Spiegelman corresponding physiological mechanism has 1991). Furthermore, Mansfield, reviewing been suggested is a description of necessary Jung‘s theory, has analyzed, among other and sufficient conditions for occurrence of aspects, the role of Bell‘s inequalities per se quantum entanglement between biological in respect to the problems of analytical molecules of different people. Broadly psychology (Mansfield 1991). A similar paper speaking, these molecules may not be (Germine 1991) also dealing with the interconnected by quantum entanglement synchronicity phenomenon, the concept of prior to mutual interaction. As quantum quantum non-locality, and the Einstein- entanglement between biological molecules Podolsky-Rosen and Schrodinger‘s cat of different people may not exist per se, in paradoxes, is devoted to determination of the the absence of once occurred special physical nature of consciousness. Study of relation interaction, it is only this criterion that can between quantum non-locality and Jung‘s be valid. We cannot generally assume that synchronicity, and the concerning available quantum entanglement between Bell‘s inequalities continued in later papers molecules of different people is taken for (Mansfield and Spiegelman 1996). granted. In one of his papers (Hyland Publications discussing, in one way or 2004b), Hyland made an assumption that another, the synchronicity phenomenon in quantum entanglement may exist both relation to the quantum entanglement between cells of the same and phenomenon have appeared during the past between different subjects. Apparently, this

Limar IV., C.G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement 3 author came very close to the solution of this result, correlations appear between physical problem in his another paper (Hyland properties of these objects. 2003a), where he not only assumes existence The quantum entanglement of quantum entanglement at DNA level phenomenon is also viewed at in relation to within the same body, but also describes such notions as quantum coherence and possible role of quantum entanglement in quantum superposition. The principle of meiosis processes. It is quite possible that all superposition in quantum physics will be that needs to be done is just one little step discussed further in connection with the further œ to expand this author‘s Schrodinger‘s cat paradox. of existence of quantum entanglement at Nevertheless, this branch of DNA level within the same body and its role theoretical physics began experiencing rapid in to the hypothesis of development only during the past few existence of quantum entanglement between decades. It can be explained, first of all, by of different bodies. As far as meiosis emerging possibilities for experimental processes are concerned, Hyland regards the verification of violation of the so-called Bell‘s role of quantum entanglement exclusively as inequalities. It is also important to note that regulating the cell division. The that quantum entanglement, as follows from meiosis may represent a mechanism definition and the nature of this ensuring quantum entanglement between phenomenon, represents the most different bodies was left out by this author. ”functional‘ (comparing to other physical In the meantime, solution of the problem of mechanisms) instrument as far as attempts existence of non-local quantum correlations to interpret Jung‘s synchronicity are between different bodies, in particular, concerned. Yet, it still remains unclear how synchronicity phenomena, could be right exactly the quantum entanglement may exist there. The answer to this question will be at the level of material carrier of proposed in this paper below. consciousness, i.e. , and how the quantum entanglement may ensure non- Study goal and hypothesis local correlations between different subjects Synchronicity phenomena have been which make synchronicity possible. Solution studied for quite a while, and not just by of this problem is the goal of the study this Jung but (a much lesser-known fact) by paper is devoted for. , the founder of Let‘s assume that correlation of . His several papers mental processes in different people not corroborate this fact (Freud 1922, 1953, exchanging any among 1966). Naturally, the famous Austrian themselves, i.e. synchronicity, is caused by psychiatrist used somewhat different non-local quantum correlations (quantum terminology, but in the essence, he studied entanglement) between certain parts of these phenomena of the same nature. A telling people‘s brain (Persinger et al. 2008). At this fact: in the same period, scientific point, it needs to be noted that we can‘t talk community gained of the about existence of quantum entanglement as nature of quantum phenomena which later such between macroscopic objects. The were associated with the synchronicity ”quantum entanglement‘ term is applicable phenomenon. We are talking about the so- exclusively to the objects of microworld, called Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, particularly at submolecular level: molecular study of which helped postulate existence of orbitals (electron shells) of molecules, quantum non-locality and quantum chromophore parts, etc. Therefore, it is, for entanglement, closely related to non-local example, correct to say ”quantum quantum correlations. entanglement between neuron structures at As we know, the quantum submolecular level‘ instead of ”quantum entanglement means a quantum-mechanical entanglement between nerve cells‘, or make phenomenon in which of two the following formulation: ”quantum or more objects should be described in entanglement between electron shells of interrelation with each other, even if neuron molecules of different people‘ instead objects are spaced apart. As a of saying ”quantum entanglement between different people‘. Also, as of today, direct

Limar IV., C.G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement 4 of effects involving quantum quantum entanglement between any entanglement at the level of macroscopic biological structures of their bodies. Also, objects is highly questionable. Nevertheless, synchronicity phenomena (correlation of it should be noted in this respect that by this mental processes in different subjects) may, time, certain attempts were made at generally speaking, be observed even if these experimental observation of these people have never communicated with each phenomena as part of the quantum other. Therefore, it seems prudent to put superposition studies (Gevaux 2010; forth a hypothesis, whereby quantum O‘Connell et al. 2010). And finally, it is entanglement occurs, and is subsequently important to emphasize that quantum maintained, at the level of genetic material. entanglement cannot directly represent a In addition to other studies of mechanism of communicating information quantum coherence and quantum per se. Quantum entanglement may serve entanglement in biological molecules, only as an instrument of ensuring correlation possibility of these phenomena existing in of certain physical quantities. In this case, nucleic acids, particularly in DNA, was also correlation may be implemented at intensively studied in recent years (Ogryzko indefinitely large distances without 1997; McFadden and Al-Khalili 1999; limitation on speed imposed by the special Bieberich 2000; Schempp 2003; Sirakoulis . et al. 2004; Tulub and Stefanov 2007; Currently, existence of quantum Ogryzko 2008; Cooper 2009a, b). Analysis of coherence and quantum entanglement in development trends in this area of study biological molecules is intensively studied allows to assume that this direction is very and is considered proved at experimental promising (Curtis and Hurtak 2004; level (Gilmore and McKenzie 2005; Plenio Ananthaswamy 2010). It has been, for and Huelga 2008; Thorwart et al. 2009; example, suggested that quantum effects Hossein-Nejad and Scholes 2010; Sarovar et may be responsible for morphogenesis al. 2010). Many researchers believe that processes (Hyland 2003b), and represent, in quite specific problems in living a way, a link between genotype and may be solved using quantum entanglement phenotype (Rosen 1996). Therefore, it is (Cai et al. 2010). However, when studying possible that DNAs of different cells within the synchronicity phenomenon it is the same may be connected by important to find out how quantum quantum entanglement as a result of division entanglement between biological structures of cell during mitosis. On the other hand, it of different organisms may occur. In this is also fair to assume that quantum respect, let‘s assume that quantum entanglement between DNAs of different entanglement between biological molecules cells may occur during meiosis, when may occur as a result of ”coherent resonance gametes are forming. This situation may take transfer‘ (Jang et al. 2008; Olaya- place, for example, during homologous Castro et al. 2008; Collini and Scholes 2009; genetic recombination œ crossing-over. It Nazir 2009; Kekovic et al. 2010; Nalbach et means that quantum entanglement may exist al. 2010; Scholes 2010). Some authors between cell structures of different describe possibility of quantum organisms as well. There is, however, one entanglement occurring during electrostatic important circumstance worth noting: (Coulomb) interaction (Mishima et al. theoretically, quantum entanglement 2004). Consequently, one may also assume between DNAs of brain cells may occur that quantum entanglement between parts of exclusively during embryogenesis. The biological molecules occurs as a result of the is as follows: as we know, nerve above interaction. Another physical cells mitotic division only during mechanism by of which quantum prenatal period. During postnatal period, entanglement can arise is the Fermi neurons do not divide. Small percentage of resonance (Xi-Wen and Chuan-Ming 2009; neural stem cells may be disregarded. As of Peng and Hou 2010; Hou et al. 2010). today, several papers have been already However, it is obvious that mere presence of devoted to the matters concerning quantum different people close to each other hardly entanglement at the level of central nervous offers a sufficient condition for occurrence of system cells (Pereira 2007; Pereira and

Limar IV., C.G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement 5

Furlan 2009; Pereira and Furlan 2010). At large number of subjects, because during the same time, it should be noted that meiosis, genetic materials may be quantum entanglement may exist not only transferred to descendants only. A between nuclear DNAs of different cells. Any hypothesis may come to rescue, whereby all cellular structures interacting both before humans originated from the same center in and during mitosis and meiosis processes, Africa approximately 80-200 thousand years and afterwards, after cells have divided, ago œ ”recent single-origin hypothesis‘ ending up in different cells, may potentially (Batzer et al. 1994; Armour et al. 1996; Liu et represent elements which cause existence of al. 2006; Pritchard et al. 1996). Not quantum entanglement between molecules extending, surely, the assumption of of different cells (Hameroff 2004; Tulub existence of quantum entanglement onto the 2004). It is hardly possible to describe scale of genome of all people, one may, existence of quantum entanglement between nevertheless, assume that certain population biological molecules of different organisms groups bear in their genetic material DNA without taking into account mitosis and parts inherited from prehistoric men, which meiosis processes. It is so because in order are common to these groups (Goldstein et al. that quantum entanglement does occur 1995; Jorde et al. 1995; Nei and Takezaki between the objects of the microworld, such 1996; Hey 1997). Therefore, existence of objects should have interacted. Generally quantum entanglement between DNA speaking, in case no interaction took place, molecules of relatively large groups of people the objects of the microworld will not be cannot be ruled out. related with quantum entanglement. Some Considering the aforementioned particular cases of quantum entanglement hypothesis, we can assume that ”material among fermions make an exception to this carriers of consciousness‘ include, in rule (Zhou 2000; Vedral 2003; Oh and Kim particular, molecular orbitals (electron 2004; Clark et al. 2005; Vertesi 2007; Jie shells) of molecules, biologically active and -Qun 2008; Habibian et al. 2010). during meiosis and mitosis. This conclusion However, for these rare instances it is is helped by phenomenology of analytical characteristic to adhere to a series of specific psychology, namely the synchronicity conditions. At this stage of science phenomenon. development it is premature to suggest that An assumption that the molecules such conditions exist as applied to neurones participating in meiosis can play a role of of several different people. Furthermore, tangible media of consciousness, apart of the another important question requires our other biological molecules, by no means attention. It concerns not the quantum contradicts our formed presentation that the entanglement occurrence mechanism, but human is ”localized‘ in the brain. An the problem of its long-term preservation. absence of such contradiction is conditional We are talking about the so-called on the circumstance that the molecules decoherence, a process which involves displaying biological activity during meiosis destruction of quantum coherence under are viewed merely as an ”intermediate‘ link impact of electromagnetic fields and other when quantum entanglement is formed factors. Decoherence involves between brain cell molecules of various transformation of states characterized by people. The molecules participating in a cell quantum superposition (the so-called ”pure‘ division during meiosis may appear as states) into states where quantum ”intermediaries‘ while the quantum phenomena cannot be observed (”mixed‘ entanglement is formed between certain states). Nevertheless, recently this problem brain cell molecules of a with the has also been tackled at with increasing same molecules of the brain cells belonging success (Shabani and Lidar, 2005; Manfredi to another person. In its turn, biological and Hervieux 2006; Grace at al., 2007), molecules used during mitosis can be similar particularly in terms of understanding the ”intermediaries‘ in the course of quantum processes occurring in DNA (Ogryzko, 2008; entanglement formation. However, the Cooper, 2009a, b). And finally, we still have molecules used during mitosis can ensure a to find out how quantum entanglement may formation of quantum entanglement not occur between cellular structures of quite between molecules of various people but

Limar IV., C.G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement 6 between the cell molecules of one human alia, to technical devices developed within organism. Specifically, it can occur between the framework of artificial the brain cell molecules and the molecules studies. Therefore, it appears highly doubtful which are active when forming gametes of that the brain of a newborn, able to transfer one and the same person. As it has already electric pulses only, is an adequate medium been noted, quantum entanglement between of consciousness and can provide for a the molecules of brain neurons of an development of the personality possessing organism may, theoretically, arise during intelligence. It seems so that the brain embryogenesis exclusively. Quantum molecules of an individual are to be linked, entanglement between the brain cell via a genetic material and by means of molecules and the molecules of other cells quantum entanglement, with genetic within one and the same organism may also material (and molecules at the level of the arise exclusively in the process of prenatal central nervous system) of a great number of development. Among other things, it also other people. refers to quantum entanglement arising Characteristically enough, a famous between the brain cell molecules and the cell British biologist Rupert Sheldrake has come molecules of other organs wherein meiosis up with a similar hypothesis at his time, takes place within the frame of one assuming that correlation of mental organism. Still, quantum entanglement processes in different people is caused by between the cell molecules of the organs DNA. At the same time, Sheldrake did not wherein meiosis within the frame of one specify what physical mechanism precisely organism takes place may occur not only may be responsible for this correlation. And during embryogenesis but also in the only some other authors have reviewed the postnatal period. Sheldrake‘s theory in light of quantum non- Again, an assumption that genetic locality (Keutzer 1982; Resconi and material can be a tangible medium of Nikravesh 2008). Also, key provisions of consciousness has been contemplated so far analytical psychology were viewed at in by a number of researchers (Dennis 2010; connection with ‘s theory of Tariq et al 2010) and is not viewed now as holomovement and Karl Pribram‘s something remarkable. Recently there also holographic brain theory (Zinkin 1987). appear papers (Vaas 1999; Molyneux Besides Jung, the assumption that mental 2010) which allow of a rather skeptical processes somehow correlate with certain attitude to a stereotyped notion that the processes occurring beyond nature of a human psyche is conditioned by was put forth at the time by John Eccles, electric transfer of signal in the brain. laureate of the 1963 in In this context it should be pointed Physiology (Popper and Eccles 1977) jointly out that to quantum effects when with Wilder Penfield (Penfield 1978). trying to explain the nature of consciousness The hypothesis outlined in this article and, specifically, orientation to quantum may be viewed at a different angle. As we entanglement phenomenon (including at the know, phenomena which quantum genetic material level) seems more than mechanics deals with in no way fit the justified. To corroborate this thesis let us perception of surrounding world which we consider modern information technologies. carry in everyday life. This is also true about Complexity of contemporary the principle of superposition in quantum supercomputers and computer networks, a theory, a phenomenon when, for example, an number of electronic links therein and the of microworld may be ”located‘ in volume of transferred information may be several points of Hilbert currently comparable with certain similar ”simultaneously‘ (Garraway and Knight 1994; indices applicable to describe human brain Haroche et al. 1997; Deléglise et al. 2008). properties. However, as yet nobody saw Back in his time, one of the founders of (generally, it is hard to imagine that anybody Erwin Schrödinger showed could have observed such a thing) any that as a result of this principle, one can technical device possessing consciousness model a situation when a living creature, for which operating principle was based upon a example a cat, may be both ”alive‘ and ”dead‘ transfer of electronic signals. It refers, inter at the same time. However strange this

Limar IV., C.G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement 7 experiment might seem to us, at this Progress in various areas of modern time practical experiments aimed at natural science allows to that Carl realization of quantum superposition at Jung‘s concept of synchronicity will, after all, macroscopic level are already underway receive scientific explanation. Surely, one (Gevaux 2010; O‘Connell et al. 2010). One of shouldn‘t get carried away on a of the consequences of existence of quantum euphoria, ecstatically accepting ”trendy‘ entanglement between chromosomes of applications of the quantum entanglement brain neurons in different people may be the phenomenon. Scientific practice implies fact that consciousness is not ”localized‘ in experimental confirmation of hypotheses, brain of an individual but, in the essence, not ruling out their disproof as well. In ”simultaneously‘ ”belongs‘ to a group of author‘s opinion, the hypothesis outlined in people. This point of view is rather closer to this article implies verification of currently Arnold Mindell‘s transpersonal available data to explain the nature of interpretation (Mindell 2000, 2004) than, in synchronicity phenomenon. fact, to the theory of unconscious.

Conclusions and prospects of this study

References Cooper WG. Evidence for transcriptase quantum processing implies entanglement and decoherence of Ananthaswamy A. Quantum entanglement holds together superposition proton states. Biosystems 2009a; 97: life’s blueprint. 2010; 207: 9-9. 73-89. Armour JA, Anttinen T, May CA, Vega EE, Sajantila A, Kidd Cooper WG. Necessity of quantum coherence to account JR, Kidd KK, Bertranpetit J, Pääbo S and Jeffreys AJ. for the spectrum of time-dependent mutations Minisatellite diversity supports a recent African origin exhibited by bacteriophage T4. Biochemical Genetics for modern humans. Nature Genetics 1996; 13: 154- 2009b; 47: 892-910. 160. Curtis BD and Hurtak JJ. Consciousness and quantum Batzer MA, Stoneking M, Alegria-Hartman M, Bazan H, : uncovering the foundation Kass, DH, Shaikh TH, Novick GE, Ioannou PA, Scheer for a of light. Journal of Alternative and WD and Herrera RJ. African origin of human-specific Complementary Medicine 2004; 10: 27-39. polymorphic Alu insertions. Proceedings of the Deléglise S, Dotsenko I, Sayrin C, Bernu J, Brune M, National Academy of 1994; 91: 12288- Raimond J and Haroche S. Reconstruction of non- 12292. classical cavity states with snapshots of their Bieberich E. Probing quantum coherence in a biological decoherence. Nature 2008; 455: 510-514. system by means of DNA amplification. Biosystems Dennis KL. Quantum Consciousness: Reconciling Science 2000; 57: 109-124. and Toward Our Evolutionary Future(s). Blutner R and Hochnadel E. Two for C.G. Jung’s World Futures 2010; 66: 511-524. theory of personality. Cognitive Systems Research Duch W. Synchronicity, , and matter. The 2010; 11: 243-259. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 2002; Cai J, Guerreschi GG and Briegel HJ. Quantum control and 21: 153-168. entanglement in a chemical compass. Physical Review Freud S. and . International Journal of Letters 2010; 104: 220502. Psycho-Analysis 1922; 3: 283-305. Carminati GG and Martin F. and the Freud S. ‘Psychoanalysis and telepathy’. In Psychoanalysis psyche. Physics of and Nuclei 2008; 39: 560- and the , Edited by George Devereux. New 577. York: International Universities Press, Inc., 56-68, Clark SR, Alves CM and Jaksch D. Efficient generation of 1953. graph states for quantum computation. New Journal Freud S. Lecture 30: ‘Dreams and occultism’ In of Physics 2005; 7:124. Psychoanalysis and the Occult, Edited by George Collini E and Scholes GD. Coherent intrachain energy Devereux. New York: Norton, 91-109, 1966. migration in a conjugated polymer at room Garraway BM and Knight PL. of quantum temperature. Science 2009; 323: 369-373. superpositions in open environments: Quantum Conte E, Todarello O, Laterza V, Khrennikov AY, trajectories, jumps, and localization in phase space. Mendolicchio L and Federici A. A preliminary Physical Review A 1994; 50: 2548-2563. experimental verification of violation of Bell Germine M. Consciousness and synchronicity. Medical inequality in a quantum model of Jung theory of Hypotheses 1991; 36: 277-283. personality formulated with Clifford algebra. Journal Gevaux D. Quantum resonators: At the limit, at last. of Consciousness Exploration & Research 2010; 1: Nature Physics 2010; 6: 243-243. 831-849.

Limar IV., C.G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement 8

Gilmore J and McKenzie RH. boson models for Kekovic G, Rakovic D, Tošic B, Davidovic D and Cosic I. of electronic excitations of Quantum foundations of resonant recognition model. biomolecules and quantum dots in a solvent. Journal Acta Physica Polonica A 2010; 117: 756-759. of Physics: Condensed Matter 2005; 17: 1735. Keutzer CS. Archetypes, synchronicity and the theory of Goldstein DB, Linares AR, Cavalli-Sforza LL and Feldman formative causation. Journal of Analytical Psychology MW. Genetic absolute dating based on microsatellites 1982; 27: 255-262. and the origin of modern humans. Proceedings of the Keutzer CS. Synchronicity in . Journal of National Academy of Sciences 1995; 92: 6723-6727. Analytical Psychology 1984a; 29: 373-381. Grace M, Brif C, Rabitz H, Walmsley IA, Kosut RL and Lidar Keutzer CS. The power of : From quantum DA. Optimal control of quantum gates and mechanics to synchronicity. Journal of Humanistic suppression of decoherence in a system of interacting Psychology 1984b; 24: 80-94. two-level particles. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Liu H, Prugnolle F, Manica A and Balloux F. A Molecular and Optical Physics 2007; 40: S103. geographically explicit genetic model of worldwide Habibian H, Clark JW, Behbood N and Hingerl K. human-settlement history. The American Journal of Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger and W entanglement Human Genetics 2006; 79: 230-237. witnesses for the noninteracting Fermi gas. Physical Lucado W, Römer H and Walach H. Synchronistic Review A 2010; 81:032302. phenomena as entanglement correlations in Hameroff SR. A new theory of the origin of cancer: generalized quantum theory. Journal of quantum coherent entanglement, centrioles, mitosis, Consciousness Studies 2007; 14: 50–74. and differentiation. Biosystems 2004; 77: 119-136. Manfredi G and Hervieux PA. Loschmidt echo in a system Haroche S, Brune M. and Raimond JM. Experiments with of interacting electrons. Physical Review Letters 2006; single atoms in a cabity: entanglement, Schrödinger's 97: 190404. cats and decoherence. Philosophical Transactions of Mansfield V and Spiegelman JM. Quantum mechanics and the Royal Society of London A 1997; 355: 2367-2380. Jungian psychology: building a bridge. Journal of Hey J. Mitochondrial and nuclear genes present conflicting Analytical Psychology 1989; 34: 3-31. portraits of human origins. Molecular Biology and Mansfield V and Spiegelman JM. The opposites in Evolution 1997; 14: 166-172. quantum physics and Jungian psychology: Part I: Hossein-Nejad H and Scholes GD. Energy transfer, theoretical foundations. Journal of Analytical entanglement and decoherence in a molecular dimer Psychology 1991; 36: 267-288. interacting with a phonon bath. New Journal of Mansfield V. The opposites in quantum physics and Physics 2010; 12: 065045. Jungian psychology: Part II: applications. Journal of Hou X, Wan M and Ma Z. Entropy, energy and negativity in Analytical Psychology 1991; 36: 289-306. Fermi-resonance coupled states of substituted Mansfield V and Spiegelman JM. On the physics and methanes. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and psychology of the transference as an interactive field. Theoretical 2010; 43:205301. Journal of Analytical Psychology 1996; 41: 179-202. Hyland ME. Extended network generalized entanglement Martin F, Carminati F and Carminati GG. Synchronicity, theory: Therapeutic mechanisms, empirical and the psyche. Journal of predictions, and investigations. Journal of Alternative 2009; 3: 580-589. and Complementary Medicine 2003a; 9: 919-936. Martin F, Carminati F and Carminati GG. Quantum Hyland ME. A brief guide to extended network information, oscillations and the psyche. Physics of entanglement theory as a theory of healing and its Particles and Nuclei 2010; 41: 425-451. empirical predictions. Research in Complementary McFadden J and Al-Khalili J. A quantum mechanical model and Classical Natural Medicine 2003b; 10: 201-206. of adaptive mutation. Biosystems 1999; 50: 203-211. Hyland ME. Emergent, entanglement, and being. Milgrom LR. Patient-practitioner-remedy (PPR) Journal of Holistic Healthcare 2004a; 1: 24-29. entanglement. Part 1: a qualitative, non-local Hyland ME. Does a form of ‘entanglement’ between metaphor for homeopathy based on quantum theory. people explain healing? An examination of Homeopathy 2002; 91: 239-248. hypotheses and . Complementary Mindell A. : the Edge Between Physics and Therapies in Medicine 2004b; 12: 198-208. Psychology. Portland, OR: Lao Tse Press, 2000. Jang S, Cheng Y, Reichman DR and Eaves JD. Theory of Mindell A. The Quantum Mind and Healing: How to Listen coherent resonance energy transfer. Journal of and Respond to Your Body’s Symptoms. Chemical Physics 2008; 129: 101104. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads, 2004. Jie R and Shi-Qun Z. Attack-Induced Entanglement of Mishima K, Hayashi M and Lin SH. Entanglement in Noninteracting Fermi Gas. Communications in scattering processes. Physics Letters A 2004; 333: Theoretical Physics 2008; 49:1439. 371-377. Jorde LB, Bamshad MJ, Watkins WS, Zenger R, Fraley AE, Molyneux B. Why the neural correlates of consciousness Krakowiak PA, Carpenter KD, Soodyall H, Jenkins T cannot be found. Journal of Consciousness Studies and Rogers AR. Origins and affinities of modern 2010; 17: 168-188. humans: a comparison of mitochondrial and nuclear Nalbach P, Eckel J and Thorwart M. Quantum coherent genetic data. The American Journal of Human biomolecular energy transfer with spatially correlated Genetics 1995; 57: 523-538. fluctuations. New Journal of Physics 2010; 12: 065043.

Limar IV., C.G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement 9

Nazir A. Correlation-dependent coherent to incoherent harvesting complexes. Nature Physics 2010; 6: 462 – transitions in resonant energy transfer dynamics. 467. Physical Review Letters 2009; 103: 146404. Schempp W. Replication and transcription processes in the Nei M and Takezaki N. The root of the phylogenetic tree molecular biology of gene expressions: control of human populations. Molecular Biology and of the DNA quantum holographic Evolution 1996; 13: 170-177. information channel in nanobiotechnology. O’Connell AD, Hofheinz M, Ansmann M, Bialczak RC, Biosystems 2003; 68: 119-145. Lenander M, Lucero E, Neeley M, Sank D, Wang H, Shabani A and Lidar DA. Theory of initialization-free Weides M, Wenner J, Martinis JM and Cleland AN. decoherence-free subspaces and subsystems. Quantum and single-phonon control of a Physical Review A 2005; 72: 042303. mechanical resonator. Nature 2010; 464: 697-703. Scholes GD. Quantum-coherent electronic energy transfer: Ogryzko VV. A quantum-theoretical approach to the Did nature think of it first?. Physical Chemistry Letters phenomenon of directed mutations in . 2010; 1: 2-8. Biosystems 1997; 43: 83-95. Sirakoulis GC, Karafyllidis I, Sandaltzopoulos R, Tsalides P Ogryzko VV. Erwin Schroedinger, and and Thanailakis A. An algorithm for the study of DNA epigenetic stability. Biology Direct 2008; 3: 15. sequence evolution based on the genetic code. Oh S and Kim J. Entanglement of electron spins of BioSystems 2004; 77: 11–23. noninteracting electron gases. Physical Review A Stillfried N and Walach H. The whole and its parts: Are 2004; 69:054305. complementarity and non-locality intrinsic to closed Olaya-Castro A, Lee CF, Olsen FF and Johnson NF. systems?. International Journal of Computing Efficiency of energy transfer in a light-harvesting Anticipatory Systems 2006; 17: 137-146. system under quantum coherence. Physical Review B Tariq S, Kazim R and Tauqir I. Could the human mind be a 2008; 78: 085115. product of mental genes: a nonbiological component Penfield W. The Mystery of the Mind. Princeton: Princeton of brain genes ? NeuroQuantology 2010; 8: 359-377. University Press, 1978. Teodorani M. Synchronicity - The Link Between Physics Peng D and Hou X. Fidelity and Mutual Entropy in Mixed and Psyche, from Pauli and Jung to Chopra. Cesena, States for Fermi-resonance Coupling Vibrations of 2006. CS2. Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics 2010; Thorwart M, Eckel J, Reina JH, Nalbach P and Weiss S. 23:393. Enhanced quantum entanglement in the non- Pereira AJ. Astrocyte-trapped calcium ions: the hypothesis Markovian dynamics of biomolecular excitons. of a quantum-like conscious protectorate. Quantum Chemical Physics Letters 2009; 478: 234-237. Biosystems 2007; 1: 80-92. Tulub AA. Coherent triplet and singlet states in Pereira AJ and Furlan FA. On the role of synchrony for dynamics. Future Generation Computer Systems neuron–astrocyte interactions and perceptual 2004; 20: 773–780. conscious processing. Journal of Biological Physics Tulub AA and Stefanov VE. Triplet–singlet spin 2009; 35: 465-480. communication between DNA nucleotides serves the Pereira AJ and Furlan FA. Astrocytes and human : basis for . Chemical Physics Modeling information integration and modulation of Letters 2007; 436: 258–262. neuronal activity. Progress in Neurobiology 2010; 92: Vaas R. Why neural correlates of consciousness are fine, 405-420. but not enough. Anthropology & Philosophy 1999; 3: Persinger MA, Tsang EW, Booth JN and Koren SA. 121-141. Enhanced power within a predicted narrow band of Vedral V. Entanglement in the second quantization theta activity during stimulation of another by formalism. Central European Journal of Physics 2003; circumcerebral weak magnetic fields after weekly 1:289-306. spatial proximity. NeuroQuantology 2008; 6: 7-21. Vertesi T. Genuine tripartite entanglement in the Plenio MB and Huelga SF. Dephasing-assisted transport: noninteracting Fermi gas. Physical Review A 2007; quantum networks and biomolecules. New Journal of 75:042330. Physics 2008; 10: 113019. Walach H. of : A nonlocal interpretation of Popper KR and Eccles JC. The and Its Brain. Berlin, homeopathy. Journal of Scientific Exploration 1999; Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer 13: 291-315. International, 1977. Walach H. and Römer H. Complementarity is a useful Primas H. Time–entanglement between mind and matter. concept for consciousness studies. A Reminder. Mind and Matter 2003; 1: 81-119. Neuroendocrinology Letters 2000; 21: 221-232. Pritchard JK, Feldman MW, Risch N, Kidd KK and Tishkoff Xi-Wen H and Chuan-Ming C. Dynamical entanglement for SA. Genetic data and the African origin of humans. Fermi coupled stretching and bending modes. Science 1996; 274: 1548-1549. Chinese Physics B 2009; 18:2719. Resconi G and Nikravesh M. Morphic computing. Applied Zabriskie B. Jung and Pauli. A subtle asymmetry. Journal of Soft Computing 2008; 8: 1164–1177. Analytical Psychology 1995; 40: 531-553. Rosen R. Biology and the problem. Zhou T. An evolution from quantum entanglement to Computers & Chemistry 1996; 20: 95-100. classical disentanglement and its consequences in Sarovar M, Ishizaki A, Fleming GR and Whaley KB. statistical mechanics. Solid State Communications Quantum entanglement in photosynthetic light- 2000; 115:185-189.

Limar IV., C.G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement 10

Zinkin L. The Hologram as a model for analytical psychology. Journal of Analytical Psychology 1987; 32: 1-21.