I have found the following paper interesting and have pasted the abstract below:
Int J Theor Phys (2010) 49: 2950–2970
Interpreting Quantum Particles as Conceptual Entities
We elaborate an interpretation of quantum physics founded on the hypothesis that
quantum particles are conceptual entities playing the role of communication vehicles between
material entities composed of ordinary matter which function as memory structures
for these quantum particles. We show in which way this new interpretation gives rise to a
natural explanation for the quantum effects of interference and entanglement by analyzing
how interference and entanglement emerge for the case of human concepts. We put forward
a scheme to derive a metric based on similarity as a predecessor for the structure of ‘space,
time, momentum, energy’ and ‘quantum particles interacting with ordinary matter’ underlying
standard quantum physics, within the new interpretation, and making use of aspects of
traditional quantum axiomatics. More specifically, we analyze how the effect of non-locality
arises as a consequence of the confrontation of such an emerging metric type of structure
and the remaining presence of the basic conceptual structure on the fundamental level, with
the potential of being revealed in specific situations.
The theory and maths of QM is difficult to fully grasp, especially by those outside theoretical physics. Yet there is a general view that maths can provide insights – and these are derived from human concepts. I like the following quote:
Indeed, throughout history, products of mathematical activity have been
appraised in esthetic terms. Mathematics has been regarded as a free activity of
the human intellect comparable to music or poetry. Mathematical proofs that
proceed from a minimum of independent assumptions, that are based on new
conceptual insights, or that are readily generalized to an entire family of problems
have been praised as ‘‘elegant.’’ And mathematical concepts and theorems that
establish connections between areas of thought that appear at first sight to be
unrelated have been characterized as ‘‘deep.’’ Such ideas suggest a holistic model of
explanation in mathematics centered on some concept of ‘‘unification.’’
On history and time, I cannot follow your reasoning. Genesis essentially records genealogy that enables a line of “begetting” from Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, David, and ultimately Christ. I have made comments on how we understand calendars and how these may have changed from antiquity.
I fail to understand how we can speak of the Creation of free will. Creation as a theological subject commences with creation from nothing, and the transcendence of God. Biblical narratives provide revealed knowledge pertinent to what it is to be human, and how humans have responded to the revelation of God.
Human freedom is an essential element of personhood and the human condition. Within a scientific context, we are faced with a mystery in that human concepts seem to be (I say this for humour) ‘entangled’ with the reality of scientific enquiry.