Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282.

Cosmology.com, 2014

Super-Intuition And
Correlations With The Future in
Quantum Consciousness
Michael B. Mensky
P.N. Lebedev Physics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Abstract
The role of quantum information is discussed in the framework of Quantum
Concept of Consciousness (QCC), based on the many- worlds interpretation of
quantum mechanics (Everett interpretation). Within QCC the phenomenon of super-
intuition is analyzed, which explains in particular the great scientific insights and
realizes a sort of the “mental time machine”. The recently expressed opinion that
emergence of super-intuition requires transferring quantum informa- tion, which is
banned by the impossibility of “quantum cloning”, is critically considered. It is
shown that in fact under QCC the emer- gence of the phenomenon of super-intuition
requires not transferring quantum information, but only correlating various
fragments of it. Actual examples of scientific insights that have been documented by
prominent scientists, suggest that the marker of the correlation in this case is a
strong positive emotion, which can be called cognitive euphoria.

Keywords: Everett’s interpretation, quantum information, super-intuition, decoherence,

quantum correlations, quantum consciousness, cognitive euphoria, principle of life

Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282 Cosmology.com, 2014

1 Introduction
Quantum mechanics has at its origin put a number of conceptual problems
(Bohr, 1949; Neumann, 1955; Wheeler and Zurek, 1983; Wigner, 1961; Bell,
1964), which are not resolved until now. These problems are known under the
term of measurement problem since are revealed in the consideration of the
measurement procedure within the formalism of quantum mechanics. Indeed,
this formalism leads to the paradoxical conclusion, that the states of the
measuring apparatus, which correspond to di↵erent measurement readouts,
although di↵er on a macroscopic scale, must coexist (from a formal point of
view—be in a superposition).
The most common so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum me-
chanics introduces the reduction postulate, according to which a superposi-
tion of macroscopically distinct states disappears, and only one component of
this superposition remains. However, the reduction postulate actually con-
tradicts the formalism of quantum mechanics and therefore it violates the
logic of the whole theory.
In the middle of 20th century, American physicist Hugh Everett proposed
a di↵erent interpretation of quantum mechanics (Everett III, 1957; DeWitt
and Graham, 1973; Deutsch, 1997; Mensky, 2000b; Grib, 2013) according
to which macroscopically distinguishable states really may coexist (as terms
of a superposition), which is a qualitative di↵erence between the quantum
concept of reality from the concept of reality in the classic theory. Quantum
reality is described in Everett interpretation as the coexistence of distinct
classical realities (Everett’s worlds), which from the classical point of view
are mutually exclusive. For this reason, the interpretation of Everett’s is
often called many-worlds interpretation.1
The present author has proposed Quantum Concept of Consciousness
(QCC), or Extended Everett Concept (Mensky, 2000b, 2005; Menskii, 2007;
Mensky, 2007, 2011), making use of Everett’s interpretation for a better un-
derstanding of consciousness and super-conscious (similar to the collective
unconscious of Carl Jung). According to QCC, besides the usual conscious
perception of reality, when only one classical reality (from those superposed
as components of the quantum reality) is available, under certain conditions
may occur super-consciousness, having access to the whole of quantum real-
ity, that is, to all coexisting classical realities. The most complete exposition
1
However, this term is in fact misleading, see Sect. 2.2.

264
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
of the concept, see in (Mensky, 2010), while the current discussion of the
various aspects of it — in (Mensky, 2013; Zeh, 2013; Panov, 2013; Namiot,
2013).
Access of the super-consciousness to all alternatives (alternative classi-
cal realities) allows super-intuition, or direct vision of the truth, the ability
which is inaccessible for consciousness without aid of super-consciousness. In
particular, super-intuition has access to the information which will be ac-
quired in the future, but which does not yet exist in the present (see below
in section 3).
In the paper (Panov, 2013) A.D. Panov points to a difficulty which the
hypothesis of super-intuition may face. In the verbal statement of the hy-
pothesis of super-consciousness, it has been stated that super-consciousness
has access to information from all alternatives, including those relating to the
future, and this information can be used in the present in a state of normal
consciousness. Such a formulation can be understood as an assertion about
the transfer of quantum information from one space-time region to another.
The difficulty may result from theorem about impossibility of quantum
cloning. This theorem prohibits in particular the transfer of quantum in-
formation from one space-time region to another without destroying the
quantum information in the region where this information exists prior to
the transfer. Thus, the phenomenon of super-intuition, as it seems, has to
destroy the information in the future. It is shown in the paper (Panov,
2013) that this difficulty can be overcome if we assume that any quantum
information is duplicated in the form of classical information.
In the present paper we will show that no additional assumptions are
required, since this type of difficulty actually does not exist for the hypoth-
esis of super-intuition in QCC. The reason is that the occurrence of super-
intuition requires not transfer of quantum information, but only the detection
of correlation between fragments of quantum information in various areas of
space-time.
Observation of real examples of super-intuition shows that the correlation
arising in this phenomenon, is accompanied by a strong positive emotional
tone, which can be called cognitive euphoria. Cognitive euphoria plays a
crucial role at key moments of scientific work, which relate to discovery qual-
itatively new approaches (paradigms) in the solution of scientific problems.

265
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
2 Realities in Everett’s Interpretation
Quantum Concept of Consciousness has been initially formulated in the ver-
bal form. However, it is evidently actual the task to expand, or adapt, the
mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics in order to include QCC.
Consider here the possible solution of this task (see also (Mensky, 2013)).

2.1 Measurements: Coexistence of macroscopically dis-

tinct states
Quantum theory of measurement deals with restricted systems. Apart from
the measured system | i, another system | i (the measuring device, meter,
or measuring environment) is considered. Interaction of both systems is
supposed to be arranged in a special way, so that, after a predetermined
time interval (measurement time), the state of the measuring device can be
used to judge about the state of the system being measured.
In the simplest case the meter distinguishes from each other the states
| i i, i = 1, 2, . . . of the measured system, which have special properties
with respect to the measurement (the basis formed by these states, is called
“pointer basis”). In terms of the total system including both measured sub-
system and its environment (meter), the initial state of the form | i i| 0 i
changes, after the measurement time, as follows:

U | i i| 0i = | i i| i i

Here | 0 i is a specially selected initial state of the device, U — evolution

operator of the complete system during the measurement time (this system
is assumed to be closed), and | i i — the state of the device, which indicates
that the measured system is found to be in the corresponding state | i i of
the pointer basis.
Due to linearity of the evolution operator U , for an arbitrary state of the
P
measured system | i = i ci | i i, its evolution during the measurement is
X X
U ci | i i| 0i = ci | i i| i i (1)
i i

This law generates known quantum paradoxes. The reason for this is that
the states | i i, i = 1, 2, . . ., of the (macroscopic) device, should be macro-
scopically distinguishable. Therefore, the total system is after measuring in a

266
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
superposition of macroscopically distinct states | i i = | i i| i i, i = 1, 2, . . ..
We can say that macroscopically distinguishable states should, in accordance
with this law, coexist. In the case of Schrödinger’s cat paradox (in which a
cat plays essentially the role of the measuring device) the final state of the
complete system includes a superposition of two states, one in which the cat
is alive and the other with the dead cat.
In other words, a quantum-mechanical analysis leads inevitably to the
conclusion that a state can (should) exist in which a cat is in the same
time alive and dead. In a general form, the linear character of the quantum-
mechanical evolution law guarantees that macroscopically distinct states may
and even should coexist (be components of superpositions).

2.2 Everett: Coexistence of distinct classical realities

In the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, it is as-
sumed that after the measurement, the state of the complete system is not
described by a superposition as in Eq. (1), but with probability pi = |ci |2
goes to one of the components of this superposition. This (in fact unjusti-
fied) transition is called reduction of the quantum state, or collapse of the
wave function. This assumption is easily accepted by our intuition and is
consistent with the results of all experiments. Therefore, the Copenhagen
interpretation can be accepted in probabilistic calculations (if probabilities
of various results of measurements should be predicted). However, as the
analysis in Sect. 2.1 shows, the assumption of state reduction is incompat-
ible with the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics (namely, the
linear nature of the evolution of quantum systems).
Therefore, reduction (and Copenhagen interpretation) cannot be accepted
if one has to know what happens in reality. The concepts of super-consciousness
and super-intuition appearing in the framework of Quantum Concept of Con-
sciousness (see Sect. 3 below) show that this statement is not abstract (philo-
sophical) but can be verified in the course of observing the work of conscious-
ness and super-conscious.
American physicist Hugh Everett was the first to suggest (Everett III,
1957) that the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics is more re-
liable guide than our intuition and assumed that the state of the form (1)
really arises in the measurement, i.e. a superposition of macroscopically dis-
tinct states inevitably emerges. This leads to the interpretation of quantum
mechanics, which is called the Everett interpretation.

267
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
 To our intuition, which is educated by experience of observing macro-
scopic (i.e. classical) systems, it is really hard to accept this assumption, so
it at least needs to be clarified. Renowned physicist Bryce DeWitt suggested
(DeWitt and Graham, 1973) wording that helps to take Everett’s interpre-
tation. According to this verbal formulation, there is a set of classical worlds
(Everett’s worlds) after the measurement, and only one (say, i-th) measure-
ment result (i.e. the state | i i| i i of the complete system) is realized in each
of the worlds.
It is then assumed that for each observer there is his “twin”, or “clone”,
in each of Everett’s worlds. With probability pi = |ci |2 the observer identifies
himself with the corresponding (i-th) of his twins. He sees, of course, only
one (i-th) measurement result, and while sharing information with any other
observer he deals with the i-th twin of this observer who sees the same (i-th)
measurement result. Thus, each observer sees a classical world around him,
and the observations of di↵erent observers are consistent.
The verbal description of the situation as coexisting many worlds has
some psychological benefits and is usually accepted by adepts of Everett
interpretation. Therefore, the latter received the name of many-worlds in-
terpretation. However, with this wording, one erroneous conclusion is often
made, and this seems permanently slowed adoption of Everett interpretation
by the scientific community. Let us explain this point.
When using the picture of many (Everett’s) worlds, one has to say that
the classical world, which has been observed before the measurement, is split
in the measurement into many worlds, one for each measurement result. For
those who are not sufficiently mastered the idea of Everett’s interpretation,
this gives rise to rejecting the conception, because the conversion of one world
into a number of worlds (usually into an infinite set of them) seems to be
obviously impossible. Everett interpretation seems then to be completely
unacceptable (they say, for example, that splitting of words results in energy
non-conservation in this interpretation, which, of course, completely wrong).
To avoid this difficulty, it is much better to talk about many classical
realities rather than about many classical worlds. The set of many classical
realities, in their totality, characterize a single quantum reality of the material
world, which is quantum in its nature (Mensky, 2000b). No splitting of the
world happens in the measurement. Just the state of our quantum world
takes the form of Eq. (1). This state describes quantum reality of the world
after the measurement, which is presented by a set of classical realities (which
are mutually incompatible from the classical point of view).

268
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
3 Quantum Concept of Consciousness and su-
per-intuition
Thus, according to Everett (Everett III, 1957; DeWitt and Graham, 1973),
the state of a quantum system is, in the general case, a sum of the state vec-
tors corresponding to macroscopically distinct states. This can be formulated
as a statement that quantum reality is presented by a superposition of the
state vectors corresponding to di↵erent classical realities (Mensky, 2000b).
Simplifying, such a superposition can be represented as the sum
X
| i=| 1i +| 2i + ... + | ii + ... = | i i, (2)
i

where the state vectors | i i, for di↵erent values of the index i, denote di↵er-
ent classical realities, whereas the vector | i describes the complete quantum
reality.
This formulation of the Everett’s interpretation of quantum mechanics
served as a basis for Quantum Concept of Consciousness (QCC) proposed
by the present author (Mensky, 2000b, 2005; Menskii, 2007; Mensky, 2007).2
It is assumed in QCC that di↵erent classical realities are perceived by con-
sciousness separately from each other, so that, perceiving one of the classical
realities, a human (and in fact any living creature) does not perceive the rest
of them (forming quantum reality in their totality). This creates the impres-
sion (which is actually an illusion) that it is only a single classical reality
that exists.
But in fact, the reality of our world is quantum, that is a set of alternative
classical realities coexist in the quantum reality of the world. Therefore, in
principle there can be some way for a person to gain access to “other” classical
realities. According to QCC, this access occurs if the out-of-personal super-
consciousness is activated. This may occur when the personal consciousness
is turned o↵, or even in parallel with it.
It is clear that the information which may be collected from the state
| i (which is available to super-consciousness) is immeasurably more com-
plete and more accurate than the information contained in the subjectively
perceived classical reality | i i (accessible to consciousness).
According to quantum mechanics, evolution of the state vector | i (pre-
senting the quantum reality) is linear. This evolution is described by a uni-
2
It can also be called Extended Everett Concept (EEC).

269
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
tary evolution operator or linear Schrödinger equation, and it is reversible.
This actually means that all time moments are on the same footing with
each other from the point of view of this state, i.e., from the viewpoint of
the quantum reality. If the state | i is given at some time moment, then
in principle it is known also at any other moment. Therefore, the “super-
information” is available for super-consciousness, which contains information
about all possible classical realities of the world, not only in the present, but
also in the past and in the future.
This, in particular, makes it possible for the super-consciousness such
function as super-intuition, or direct vision of the truth. We mean the truth
which is inaccessible to consciousness but exists in the quantum reality (in
general, not necessarily exists in the present, may be in the past or in the
future). A simple example of super-intuition is the scientific insight, when
a scientist suggests, what solution of the problem of interest is correct (or
what can be a way to solving this problem). The super-intuition, suggested
by the super-consciousness, is always correct, even if the usual methods could
logically lead to the correct solution only in the future.

4 Super-consciousness as pure existence

In Section 3, consciousness and super-consciousness were defined verbally.
Consciousness is such a perception of the quantum world, that di↵erent clas-
sical realities of the quantum world (classical projections of this world) are
separated from each other. Super-consciousness is the access to all (or at
least many) classical realities forming the quantum reality. Let us see what
quantum-mechanical formulas can be associated with these verbal definitions
(Mensky, 2013).

4.1 Separation of alternative classical realities as de-

coherence by an environment
By consciousness we understand the perception of the quantum world, in
which its various classical projections (alternatives) are separated, that is
the perception of one of them precludes the perception of others. What may
correspond to this situation in quantum formalism? It is quite obvious that
the separation of classical realities corresponds to decoherence, i.e. to the
transition of a pure state of a quantum system into a mixed state of this

270
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
system due to interaction of the system with its environment. Decoherence
leads to the description of the state of the system by a density matrix instead
of a state vector (Zeh, 1996) (see also (Mensky, 2000a)). This situation arises
particularly in a quantum measurement, i.e. when the state of one quantum
system (the measured system) is reflected in the state of another system (the
meter).
Structure of the state of the complete system, which arises in the mea-
surement, is described in Section 2.1. In the context of the situation that
we discuss now, the meter is the human brain, since the state of the outside
world is reflected in the state of the brain. Denote the state of the brain (or,
perhaps, some part of it) by | i. The system which is measured (perceived)
is all that is outside of the brain (or the mentioned part thereof), including
the rest of the body and the outside world. The state of this external system
will be denoted by | i. Then, according to Section 2.1, as a result of inter-
action between the two subsystems, the state of the complete system (of the
quantum world as a whole) takes the form 3
X X
| i= | ii = ci | i i| i i
i i

If one is interested only in the state of the measuring instrument (in our
case the brain), then one has to sum up over all the states of the measured
system (the outside world). To do this correctly, one has to go over from the
state vector | i to the corresponding density matrix | ih |, and then take
the partial trace of this matrix over the states | i i of the measured system
(see, for example, (Mensky, 2000a)). As a result, for the state of the meter
(the brain), one obtains the density matrix 4
X
⇢= |ci |2 | i ih i | (3)
i

This means that with probability pi = |ci |2 the brain is in the state | i i, and
this state of the brain means that the outside world is in the state | i i (with
the same value of the index i). Transition, in describing the meter (brain),
from the state vector | i to the density matrix ⇢ is called decoherence of the
meter under influence of its environment (the rest of the world).
3
Of course, we very much simplify the picture, but at the same time highlight the
essential aspects of it.
4
We assume that the states | i i are orthonormal.

271
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
 Thus, we come to the description, in which the alternative realities | i i =
ci | i i| i i are incompatible with each other. This is the correct description
of how the human consciousness works, that is how the state of his brain (or
some part of the brain) reflects the state of the outside world (including the
state of the rest of the body).5 Although with substantial simplifications, we
have just derived this description in the framework of the ordinary quantum
formalism.

4.2 Super-consciousness as pure existence

Super-consciousness is access to the quantum world without separating clas-
sical alternatives forming quantum reality of this world. This is an access
to all classical alternatives simultaneously. It can be described by Eq. (2).
This formula represents the state of the whole world, not just the brain which
perceives this world. Alternative classical images of the quantum world (clas-
sical projections of its state) are not separated. They do not exclude each
other. Vice versa, they coexist.
This formula suggests some aspects of the phenomenon of super-conscious-
ness, which are not fully reflected in the verbal formulation of QCC. The main
issues that are originated from Eq. (2) are following:6

1. Super-consciousness is not a measurement (observation of one restricted

system by another restricted system). Instead, super-consciousness is
the state itself, and the state of the whole world. We can say that
super-consciousness is nothing else than the very existence.

2. Super-consciousness is out-of-personal, unlike consciousness, which is

always personal. It is likely that the super-consciousness is just what
Carl Jung called the collective unconscious.

3. For a human in the state of super-consciousness there is no distinction

between internal and external. In this state, the notion “I” becomes
abstract and out-of personal, and this notion is identified with the
5
All these arguments refer to the perception of the quantum world by any living organ-
ism, although the words “consciousness” and “brain” should, in general case, be replaced
with more appropriate terms.
6
on this, see also (Mensky, 2013)

272
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
 notion “world”. This is explicitly proclaimed in describing the state
which an yogi achieves in the deep meditation.7

It is easy to understand that the state “I” = “the whole world” (including
the quantum features of the world) may also be naturally identified with the
concept of God, which occurs in di↵erent religions (or rather, with what is
common for all religions, what remains in any religion, if you omit the details
imposed historically for clarity of the concept and for bringing a wider range
of people to it). A man who falls into a deep meditation (who turned on
the super-consciousness) becomes equal to God. For him, available become
both super-intuition (direct vision of the truth) and even the management
of his subjective reality (that is, those alternative classical realities in which
he would find himself after returning to the state of ordinary consciousness).
Reflections on these issues may be found in the book (Mensky, 2010).

5 Quantum information and correlations

The notion of quantum information plays an important role in QCC. This
leads to a problem in connection with theorem on the impossibility of quan-
tum cloning, since the transfer of quantum information is impossible. How-
ever, substantial for QCC is not transfer, but only correlation between frag-
ments of quantum information, so that the problem actually does not exist.

5.1 The problem of quantum information transfer

Consider in detail the special case of super-intuition when insight arises from
the fact that the information which the conscious mind can only meet in
the future, becomes accessible to the super-consciousness and is used by
the consciousness in the present. This situation is described by the mathe-
matical operation called postcorrection (Mensky, 2007). The essence of the
phenomenon looks as if some information is transferred from the future into
the present. This phenomenon can be called life-originated time machine.
In connection with the assumption of this type of super-intuition, a prob-
lem, or an objection, arises (Panov, 2013). The matter is that in quantum
7
Buddhists believe that their school of thought is not a religion but science of con-
sciousness, and experimental science, although the experiments they conduct, deal not
with material devices, but with the processes in the mind.

273
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
mechanics there is a theorem of the impossibility of quantum cloning. Ac-
cording to this theorem, it is impossible to create such a device, which could
turn an arbitrary state | i of the given system into the state | i| i, i.e.,
could “clone” the state vector of the quantum system.
Theorem of the impossibility of quantum cloning is a consequence of the
linear character of the evolution of any quantum system. Suppose we have
created some system whose state is described by the vector | i = | i|Ai,
where the first factor presents a certain state of the subsystem which we
want to clone, and the second — an environment of this subsystem, including
equipment for cloning. The fact that thus described device clones the state
of the subsystem, means that for some time the entire system will change as
follows:
| i|Ai ! | i| i|A0 i
The arrow indicates here the action of the evolution operator for a specified
time.
Suppose that the system created by us operates correctly when the ini-
tial state of the subsystem has the form | 1 i or | 2 i. This means that the
following laws of evolution of these two states take place:

| 1 i|Ai !| 1 i| 1 i|A1 i, | 2 i|Ai !| 2 i| 2 i|A2 i

Then, taking into account that the law of evolution is linear, we obtain for
the initial state of the form | 1 i + | 2 i the following evolution law:
⇣ ⌘
| 1i +| 2i |Ai ! | 1 i| 1 i|A1 i +| 2 i| 2 i|A2 i

We see that even if |A1 i = |A2 i = |A00 i, the final state of the system is
⇣ ⌘
| 1 i| 1 i +| 2 i| 2 i |A00 i

whereas the cloning law requires that the following state should arise
⇣ ⌘⇣ ⌘ ⇣ ⌘
| 1 i+| 2 i | 1 i+| 2 i |A00 i = | 1 i| 1 i+| 2 i| 2 i+| 1 i| 2 i+| 2 i| 1 i |A00 i

So, even if the system clones any two states, it can not clone their sum.
In other words, it is impossible to create a system that produces a clone of
any state applied to the input. Quantum cloning of an arbitrary (unknown)
state is impossible.

274
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
 We now turn to the conclusions that follow from this fact for quantum
information.
Quantum information, in contrast to classical, is presented, in one way
or another, by a state vector of some real quantum system. Actual informa-
tion systems that convert quantum information, usually use qubits. Qubit
(quantum bit) is a system that can be in one of two states |0i and |1i as well
as in any linear combination of these states. This may be, for example, a
photon, where the |0i and |1i may be two of its polarizations.
However, an arbitrary state | i of an arbitrary quantum system also
presents some quantum information. The di↵erence from classical informa-
tion is that the presentation of quantum information means real existence of
a particular material system, the information carrier, whereas classical infor-
mation is a text that can be written in any medium, rewritten to any other
medium and multiplied in any number of copies.
If a state vector can not be cloned, it is impossible to duplicate quan-
tum information and then move any one of its copies, remaining the second
unchanged. It is true that, with the aid of the procedure called quantum
teleportation, quantum information can be transferred from one area to an-
other. But after such transfer, quantum information in the source area is
necessarily distorted, so that duplication (cloning) is not happening.
In context of QCC, this means that it is impossible to move arbitrary
quantum information neither from the future into the present, nor generally
from one classical alternative to the other. It would seem that it prohibits the
use of information that occurs in the future, for correction (postcorrection)
the present (Panov, 2013).
This, however, is not entirely true. Careful analysis shows that the super-
intuition requires not transfer from the future to the past quantum informa-
tion, but correlation between some quantum information in the future with
the quantum information in the present. Therefore, the key role in the phe-
nomenon of super-intuition is played not by quantum information as such,
but by correlation of two fragments of quantum information, one of which
is in the present, the second — in the future. This is not forbidden by the
theorem of impossibility of quantum cloning.

275
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
5.2 Correlation instead of the quantum information
transfer
Let us show that, when super-consciousness is working, not transfer of quan-
tum information takes place, but correlation of various pieces of quantum
information. Although this statement is common to various phenomena as-
sociated with the super-consciousness, it is convenient to demonstrate this
assertion on a specific example. Consider the phenomenon of scientific in-
sight that allows scientists to solve problems that require for its decision
principally new approaches, new paradigms.
To make it possible to find an e↵ective approach to solving difficult prob-
lems, in the brain of a scientist must be created a configuration that enables
him to solve this problem. Let us characterize most general components of
such a configuration and compare them to those in the brain of a scientist
who already knows solution to the problem (this may be another scientist or
even the same, but after a certain time when he at last found the solution of
this problem).
In the future, when this problem has to be solved, the brain of the scientist
will contain a configuration comprising four components:

• formulation of the given problem;

• assertion that the problem is solved;

• formulation S of its decision;

• method M , which led to its decision.

At present, in the brain of the scientist who is working on the problem, some
configuration also exists, but it has other components:

• formulation of the problem;

• assertion that the problem has not been solved;

• formulations of possible solutions (say, S1 , S2 , . . . );

• methods that may possibly lead to its solution (say, M1 , M2 , . . . ).

In both cases, these components characterize the quantum state of the brain,
i.e. corresponding quantum information.

276
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
 By the theorem of the impossibility of quantum cloning, the quantum in-
formation from the future configuration can not be transferred to the present.
However, super-consciousness, having access to all alternative classical real-
ities at all times, can establish a correlation between intellectual configura-
tions in the future and in the present. It turns out that this is enough (with
sufficiently qualified scientist) to lead him to conjecture about the right de-
cision or the right method, which leads to the solution of this problem.
The starting point that plays the role of a inquiry to super-consciousness,
is the formulation of the problem that is already known for the scientist in the
present. Having access to all the alternatives at all times, super-consciousness
commits following steps which represent the minimum first and then deeper
correlation between the quantum information in the present and in the future:

• super-consciousness is looking for all alternative configurations in which

this problem is formulated;

• selects among the found configurations those, in which this problem is

solved.

This procedure selects, in the future, some alternative, which contains the
quantum information, appropriately correlated with the information upon
which the inquiry is based. Generally speaking, thus stands out not only a
single alternative, but for simplicity we will only talk about one.
The fragment of the future quantum information which is found in this
way, simply by virtue of the standard scientific methodology, contains not
only formulation of the given problem, but also formulation S of its decision
and the method M which led to this decision. Super-consciousness is trying
to find correlation between such aspects of quantum information in the future
and in the present. This should be correlation between quantum information
1) in the future (solution S and method M , that led to the decision of the
problem) and 2) in the present (attempts at solving S1 , S2 , . . . and provisional
methods of solving the problem M1 , M2 , . . . ).
It is possible that no correlation is found. Then the super-consciousness
can not help to the scientist to find a solution. Perhaps the problem is
formulated incorrectly and has no solution in this formulation, or the super-
consciousness of this scientist is insufficiently e↵ective and can not get access
to the necessary alternative realities.
However, in some cases, super-consciousness discovers that solution S
coincides (is correlated) with one of those provisional solutions Sa , which

277
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
this scientist was already thinking over. Then, returning to a state of normal
consciousness, the scientist realizes that this coincidence (i.e., the correlation)
allows him to discard the remaining provisional solutions and to stop on the
decision Sa . Thus it turns out that he knows the solution, although can not
prove that it really is the right solution. He was struck by a brilliant hunch,
super-intuition has worked.
It is possible that the complete solution S can not be detected among
options S1 , S2 , . . . , but among those methods for solving M1 , M2 , . . . , which
scientist was considering, the method Mb is detected that coincides with that
method M , which in the future should lead to the correct decision. Then the
scientist, not knowing the solution to the problem, nevertheless knows how
to act to solve it. If his qualification is sufficient, he, after some (perhaps
considerable) time, will come to the correct solution. In this case, the key
role is also played by the super-intuition.

5.3 Cognitive euphoria

In Section 5.2, we made use of the expression “a correlation is discovered”
(correlation between solutions or between methods of solving problems). But
what does it mean? How super-consciousness “tells” the scientist (in a state
of normal consciousness) that a correlation is found? Testimonies of the great
scientists who have experienced the super-intuition, suggest that the role of
the hints, or markers of detected correlations, is played by specific positive
emotions.
In fact, in all cases, a brilliant hunch or super-intuition, is accompanied
first, by full confidence that the hunch is correct and second, by strong pos-
itive emotions. This type of experiences may be called cognitive euphoria
(CE).
As a way of marking correlations, the cognitive euphoria plays a crucial
role in the further work of the scientist on the problem. If the final formu-
lation of the problem solution is found (suggested by super-consciousness),
while it still is not proved on regular basis, cognitive euphoria helps to believe
in this solution and not wasting time on false choices. If not the formulation
of the solution but only the method which leads to it, is found, the cognitive
euphoria is necessary in order to find the determination to work, applying
this method, perhaps for a long time, and being confident in the correctness
of the chosen path.
The scheme of action of super-consciousness that has been described

278
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
above, allows to explain the non-trivial fact that the super-intuition comes
only to those who were previously working on the problem seriously, using
conventional rational methods, i.e. using ordinary consciousness. Without
such preliminary study, the scientist would have at his disposal neither a set
of possible solutions S1 , S2 , . . . , nor possible methods M1 , M2 , . . . of solving
the problem.
If it were possible to move quantum information from the future to the
present, such preliminary study of the problem would not be necessary. In-
genious conjecture could have been born without any e↵ort, it would be
available even for slacker. But since the transfer of quantum information is
not possible, and only correlation of fragments of quantum information is
possible, preliminary attempts to solve the problem by rational methods is re-
quired. Super-consciousness can help only to those who own, using ordinary
consciousness and rational methods, is working hard to search for the truth.

6 Concluding remarks
Above we have discussed how the phenomenon of scientific insights (a special
case of super-intuition) can be explained in terms of Quantum Concept of
Consciousness (QCC), or Extended Everett Concept. It is important that
QCC can not be reduced to accounting quantum e↵ects in the brain, as it is
suggested in the work of Penrose and Hamero↵ (Hamero↵ and Penrose, 2014).
According to QCC, brain (or special structures in the brain) plays the role of
an interface between the body as a material system, and quantum reality as
an expression of the specific conditions of existence in our world. According
to QCC, quantum reality explains the relationship between consciousness
and super-conscious, one manifestation of which is the phenomenon of super-
intuition. From the point of view of the quantum formalism, an essential role
in this explanation is played by the notion of quantum information.
At first glance, super-intuition is connected with transferring information
from the future into the present. However, it is not so. We have shown that
emergence of super-intuition does not require transferring of quantum infor-
mation, that would have been impossible without destroying the quantum
information there, where it is extracted. What is really needed is to estab-
lish a correlation between the fragments of quantum information in di↵erent
alternatives, and in particular at di↵erent times.
However, establishing correlation between present and future means the

279
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
access from the present to the information in the future. Transfer of quantum
information does not occur, but the classical information emerges, which says
that 1) in some alternative in the future the problem in question receives its
solution, and 2) some approach to that solution, which is known already
in the present, coincides with the approach that eventually will solve the
problem. Thus obtained classical information can be used in the state of
normal consciousness. This information provides an important clue to solve
the problem by rational methods, but does not replace this rational work.
We considered in detail the example of scientific insight. But in fact, the
conclusion is common to all types of the phenomenon, which can be called
super-knowledge. In particular, this phenomenon easily explains jumps in
the evolution of living beings which lead to new qualities, and generally the
miracle of extreme efficiency of the evolution (Mensky, 2010; Namiot, 2014).
Let us finally mention that a deep analogy exists between super-intuition
and principle of life as the latter has been defined in the framework of QCC.
This principle has been formulated in (Mensky, 2010) in terms of Everett
scenarios (chains of the alternatives, one alternative for each time moment).
According to this principle, life is the set of the Everett scenarios which are
favorable for living (the scenarios, that are the best to ensure survival). This
is a global definition of life. However, the same may be defined locally, i.e.
in the definite time moment. Let us take some moment, call it “the present”
and try to formulate the principle of life as it looks in the present. This is
done by the operation of postcorrection (Mensky, 2007) since this operation
cuts o↵ (in the present) those alternatives that generate unfavorable scenarios
(not providing surviving in the future in the best possible way).
What happens in the phenomenon of scientific insight, is quite analogous.
A scientific insight does not mean getting the solution of the problem (the
new paradigm) from the future. New ideas are born in the present. But the
correlation with the future allows to cut o↵ those alternatives which gener-
ate the scenarios, which do not lead to the correct solution. The remaining
alternatives will generate the scenarios leading to the correct solution.

Acknowledgement
The idea that specific features of quantum information play important role
in Quantum Concept of Consciousness (known also as Extended Everett
Concept), arose during discussions with L.V. Keldysh, whom I am truly
thankful for this.

280
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
References
Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1:195–
200. Reprinted in Bell (1987).

Bell, J. S. (1987). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bohr, N. (1949). Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in

atomic physics. In Schlipp, P. A., editor, Albert Einstein: Philosopher–
Scientist, pages 200–241, Evanston. Open Court Publishing. Reprinted in
Wheeler and Zurek (1983).

Deutsch, D. (1997). The Fabric of Reality. The Penguin Press.

DeWitt, B. S. and Graham, N., editors (1973). The Many-Worlds Interpre-

tation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press.

Everett III, H. (1957). ‘Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics.

Rev. Mod. Phys., 29:454–462. Reprinted in Wheeler and Zurek (1983).

Grib, A. (2013). On the problem of the interpretation of quantum physics.

Physics-Uspekhi, 56:1230–1244.

Hamero↵, S. and Penrose, R. (2014). Consciousness in the universe: A review

of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Physics of Life Reviews, 11:39–78.

Menskii, M. B. (2007). Quantum measurements, the phenomenon of life, and

time arrow: three great problems of physics (in Ginzburg?s terminology)
and their interrelation. Physics-Uspekhi, 50:397–407.

Mensky, M. B. (2000a). Quantum Measurements and Decoherence. Models

and Phenomenology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston and
London. Russian translation: Moscow, Fizmatlit, 2001.

Mensky, M. B. (2000b). Quantum mechanics: New experiments, new applica-

tions and new formulations of old questions. Physics-Uspekhi, 43:585–600.

Mensky, M. B. (2005). Concept of consciousness in the context of quantum

mechanics. Physics-Uspekhi, 48:389–409.

281
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282
Mensky, M. B. (2007). Postcorrection and mathematical model of life in
Extended Everett’s concept. NeuroQuantology, 5:363–376.

Mensky, M. B. (2010). Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics: Life in

Parallel Worlds (Miracles of Consciousness from Quantum Mechanics).
World Scientific.

Mensky, M. B. (2011). Logic of quantum mechanics and

phenomenon of consciousness. J. of Cosmology, 14.
http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness131.html. Published also
in: “Quantum Physics of Consciousness”, Cosmology Science Publishers
(2011).

Mensky, M. B. (2013). Everett interpretation and quantum consciousness.

NeuroQuantology, 11:85–96.

Namiot, V. (2013). Reasoning on many-worlds interpretation. NeuroQuan-

tology, 11:106–109.

Namiot, V. A. (2014). Many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory and

fundamental problems of biophysics. Biophysics, 59:162–166.

Neumann, J. v. (1955). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.

Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Panov, A. (2013). Quanta, computations, and extended Everett concept.

NeuroQuantology, 11:116–122.

Wheeler, J. A. and Zurek, W. H., editors (1983). Quantum Theory and

Measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Wigner, E. P. (1961). Remarks on the mind-body question. In Good,

L. G., editor, The Scientist Speculates, pages 284–302, London. Heine-
mann. Reprinted in Wheeler and Zurek (1983).

Zeh, H.-D. (1996). The program of decoherence: Ideas and concepts. In

Giulini, D., et al., Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in
quantum theory, Springer, Berlin etc. arXiv: quant-ph/9506020.

Zeh, H.-D. (2013). Role of the observer in the Everett interpretation. Neu-
roQuantology, 11:97–105.

282
Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 263-282