

Scholarly Appreciations of Prof. Gomatam's Work
“I was very interested in the talk by Dr. Ravi Gomatam . . . because he showed, by some nice arguments, that the proper way to think of quantum mechanics is in terms of relationships . . . . This is a new way of thinking, which is perhaps how we can get out of the confusions. It may be that this is how we should be doing science.” (Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate, 1999) 

§
“Your paper contains the germ of an important idea, namely that the ontology underlying the science needs or exploit quantum mechanics in a way that allows basic entities to be signs/symbols that are representations of meanings to be manipulated in the way that certain shapes are thought to be manipulated in the classical physics conception of reality.”
(Prof. Henry Stapp, PhD, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, USA)
§
“Gomatam has proposed a new approach according to which quantum theory ought to use the terms ‘statistics’ or ‘probability’ to refer only to the occurrence of observable events and altogether renounce the notion of probabilities when talking about quantum ontological states.”
(Prof. B.V. Sreekantan, “Current Science” (2010), Journal of Indian Academy of Sciences), Former Director, TIFR
§
“We agree with Gomatam (1999) who argues for a revision of our notion of macroscopic objects . . . Indeed, the key to progress . . . may lie in a willingness to abandon stalwart concepts of dynamism such as energy, momentum, force, and even causation at the fundamental level of modeling.”
(M.W. Stuckey (2000) Uniform Spaces in the Pregeometric Modeling of Quantum NonSeparability; A NATO funded paper)
§
“However, many applied optimization problems have not been considered yet. It is necessary to use optimization methods of quantum and biomolecular systems, because of the practical importance of the implementation of physical processes satisfying the required quality criteria. Most of the attention is focused on the following problems: . . . 2. Mathematical modeling of controlled physical and chemical processes in the brain; [to] consider the brain as a quantum macroscopic object (Gomatam, 1999).”
Panos M. Pardalos and Vitaliy A. Yatsekno (Eds.) Optimization and Control of Bilinear Systems: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications, p. 208, Springer, New York (2008)
§
“The implication of feature (a) should not go unnoticed: an affordance of a surface layout exists whether or not the other object in the relation exists, meaning that an affordance of a surface layout had aboutness or intentionality in Brentano’s classical sense (Gomatam, 1999). On this recognition, one might say that intentionality is the mark of the relational.”
“The stone's color is actualized in the stone's relation to a perceiver. Importantly, a stone enters into other relations, not involving perceivers, in which a property of the stone, one might argue, is both expressed and actualized (Gomatam, 1999).”
(Wolfgang Prinz, Action Science: Foundations of an Emerging Discipline, MIT Press 2013)
§
A theory of perception for all organisms encounters two quantum like issues. […] Issue 2 is the observation problem so labeled by Gomatam and implicit in deliberations of Bohr, Einstein, Bell and others: to identify a quantumcompatible nonclassical conception of everyday objects, one consonant with the principle of superposition. The ecological notion of affordance is an organismrelative perspective on macroscopic objects.
(Michael Turvey, QuantumLike Issues at Nature's Ecological Scale, Society for MindMatter Research, Vol 13, Issue 1, 2015)
§