Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1410.3961

Descriptive and Foundational Aspects of Quantum Cognition

Reinhard Blutner, Peter beim Graben

Published Oct 15, 2014• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Quantum mechanics emerged as the result of a successful resolution of stringent empirical and profound conceptual conflicts within the development of atomic physics at the beginning of the last century. At first glance, it seems to be bizarre and even ridiculous to apply ideas of quantum physics in order to improve current psychological and linguistic or semantic ideas. However, a closer look shows that there are some parallels in the development of quantum physics and advanced theories of cognitive science. In psychology, geometric models of meaning have a long tradition. However, they suffer from many shortcomings which are illustrated by discussing several puzzles of bounded rationality. In the first part of this article, we argue that the present account of quantum cognition - taking quantum probabilities rather than classical probabilities - can give a more systematic description of these puzzles than the alternate and rather eclectic treatments in the traditional framework of bounded rationality. Unfortunately, the quantum probabilistic treatment does not always and does not automatically provide a deeper understanding and a true explanation of these puzzles. In the second part of this article, we explain the foundational issue from the perspective of Piron, Foulis, Randall, and others, and we apply it to the foundation of quantum cognition. In this connection, we show that quantum probabilities are of (virtual) conceptual necessity if grounded in an abstract algebraic framework of orthomodular lattices. This framework is motivated by assuming partial Boolean algebras (describing particular perspectives) that are combined into a uniform system while considering certain capacity restrictions. It is at this point that one important aspect of the whole idea of bounded rationality directly enters the theoretical scenery of quantum cognition: resource limitation.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1410.3961

Related papers

Quantum cognition and bounded rationality

Reinhard Blutner, Peter beim Graben

We consider several puzzles of bounded rationality. These include the Allais- and Ellsberg paradox, the disjunction effect, and related puzzles. We argue that the present account of quantum cognition—taking quantum probabilities rather than classical probabilities—can give a more systematic description of these puzzles than the alternate treatments in the traditional frameworks of bounded rationality. Unfortunately, the quantum probabilistic treatment does not always provide a deeper understanding and a true explanation of these puzzles. One reason is that quantum approaches introduce additional parameters which possibly can be fitted to empirical data but which do not necessarily explain them. Hence, the phenomenological research has to be augmented by responding to deeper foundational issues. In this article, we make the general distinction between foundational and phenomenological research programs, explaining the foundational issue of quantum cognition from the perspective of operational realism. This framework is motivated by assuming partial Boolean algebras (describing particular perspectives). They are combined into a uniform system (i.e. orthomodular lattice) via a mechanism preventing the simultaneous realization of perspectives. Gleason’s theorem then automatically leads to a distinction between probabilities that are defined by pure states and probabilities arising from the statistical mixture of pure states. This formal distinction relates to the conceptual distinction between risk and ignorance. Another outcome identifies quantum aspects in dynamic macro-systems using the framework of symbolic dynamics. Finally, we discuss several ideas that are useful for justifying complementarity in cognitive systems.

Synthese•Oct 20, 2015•46 citations

Quantum logics in cognition: A proposal

José Alejandro Fernández Cuesta, Michele Piazzai, Umberto Rivieccio

Abstract Quantum logics are non-classical logics defined from the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. While they are conventionally used to model inferential processes in physics, their scope of application is potentially much broader. We argue that quantum logics can serve as a framework to model human cognition, as their semantics seem able to capture not only how people make inferences about quantum mechanics, but also how they reason in general. We begin by defining quantum logics from an algebraic perspective in a classical first-order setting. Next, we present findings from cognitive science that suggest these logics are apt to characterize human reasoning. We then consider how such a connection between quantum logics and cognition contributes to longstanding philosophical debates about the epistemological status of logic and the problem of adoption. Finally, we discuss how cognitive applications of quantum logics could advance our understanding of human psychology and even quantum foundations.

Synthese•Jun 27, 2025•5 citations

Exploring Quantum Cognition

Sagar Kumar, Monika Sharma, Kumkum Bhati +1 more

Quantum cognition, a growing topic at the interface of quantum physics and cognitive research, provides a new viewpoint on the intricacies of human thought processes. In contrast to classic Boolean algebraic models, which have long dominated cognitive psychology, quantum cognition proposes a new framework influenced by quantum mechanics' algebraic structure. This deviation derives from the understanding that natural notions, based on prototypes, are more closely related to convex sets than to the rigid rules of Boolean algebra. Drawing on the fundamental work of luminaries such as John von Neumann, quantum cognition reveals a unique probability theory based on ortho-algebras, challenging traditional probabilistic reasoning based on Boolean algebras. This change opens up solutions to complex challenges in rationality, logical thinking, and probabilistic reasoning, ushering in a new era of cognitive modelling. Several arguments in the literature support the importance of quantum cognition in explaining cognitive phenomena.

Advances in logistics, operations, and management science book series•Jun 30, 2024•0 citations

Quantum Cognition

Emmanuel M. Pothos, Jerome R. Busemeyer

Uncertainty is an intrinsic part of life; most events, affairs, and questions are uncertain. A key problem in behavioral sciences is how the mind copes with uncertain information. Quantum probability theory offers a set of principles for inference, which align well with intuition about psychological processes in certain cases: cases when it appears that inference is contextual, the mental state changes as a result of previous judgments, or there is interference between different possibilities. We motivate the use of quantum theory in cognition and its key characteristics. For each of these characteristics, we review relevant quantum cognitive models and empirical support. The scope of quantum cognitive models encompasses fallacies in decision-making (such as the conjunction fallacy or the disjunction effect), question order effects, conceptual combination, evidence accumulation, perception, over-/underdistribution effects in memory, and more. Quantum models often formalize psychological ideas previously expressed in heuristic terms, allow unified explanations of previously disparate findings, and have led to several surprising, novel predictions. We also cast a critical eye on quantum models and consider some of their shortcomings and issues regarding their further development.

Annual Review of Psychology•Sep 21, 2021•202 citations

Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling?

Emmanuel M. Pothos, Jerome R. Busemeyer

Classical (Bayesian) probability (CP) theory has led to an influential research tradition for modeling cognitive processes. Cognitive scientists have been trained to work with CP principles for so long that it is hard even to imagine alternative ways to formalize probabilities. However, in physics, quantum probability (QP) theory has been the dominant probabilistic approach for nearly 100 years. Could QP theory provide us with any advantages in cognitive modeling as well? Note first that both CP and QP theory share the fundamental assumption that it is possible to model cognition on the basis of formal, probabilistic principles. But why consider a QP approach? The answers are that (1) there are many well-established empirical findings (e.g., from the influential Tversky, Kahneman research tradition) that are hard to reconcile with CP principles; and (2) these same findings have natural and straightforward explanations with quantum principles. In QP theory, probabilistic assessment is often strongly context- and order-dependent, individual states can be superposition states (that are impossible to associate with specific values), and composite systems can be entangled (they cannot be decomposed into their subsystems). All these characteristics appear perplexing from a classical perspective. However, our thesis is that they provide a more accurate and powerful account of certain cognitive processes. We first introduce QP theory and illustrate its application with psychological examples. We then review empirical findings that motivate the use of quantum theory in cognitive theory, but also discuss ways in which QP and CP theories converge. Finally, we consider the implications of a QP theory approach to cognition for human rationality.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences•May 14, 2013•447 citations

Quantum Mechanics Meets Cognitive Science: Explanatory vs Descriptive Approaches

Reinhard Blutner

We reflect on several aspects of the general claim that a quantum-like approach to Cognitive Science is advantageous over classical approaches. The classical approaches refer to the symbolic approaches including models using a classical (Kolmogorov) probability calculus. The general claim seems to be right from a descriptive viewpoint but not necessarily from an explanatory viewpoint. The explanatory perspective needs a more careful analysis since adding some additional arbitrary parameters (such as phase shift parameters in quantum probabilities) does not automatically increase the explanatory value of the approach; rather, it seems to decrease it. We argue further that there is another class of traditional models - the class of geometric models of cognition. These models have a much longer tradition than the symbolic models. Interestingly, quantum mechanics does not contradict the geometric models. Hence, real progress at the meeting between quantum mechanics and cognitive science could be made by unifying these geometric models with ideas from quantum theory.

NeuroQuantology•Sep 16, 2010•3 citations
Quantum mechanics emerged as the result of a successful resolution of stringent empirical and profound conceptual conflicts within the development of atomic physics at the beginning of the last century. At first glance, it seems to be bizarre and even ridiculous to apply ideas of quantum physics in order to improve current psychological and linguistic or semantic ideas. However, a closer look shows that there are some parallels in the development of quantum physics and advanced theories of cognitive science. In psychology, geometric models of meaning have a long tradition. However, they suffer from many shortcomings which are illustrated by discussing several puzzles of bounded rationality. In the first part of this article, we argue that the present account of quantum cognition - taking quantum probabilities rather than classical probabilities - can give a more systematic description of these puzzles than the alternate and rather eclectic treatments in the traditional framework of bounded rationality. Unfortunately, the quantum probabilistic treatment does not always and does not automatically provide a deeper understanding and a true explanation of these puzzles. In the second part of this article, we explain the foundational issue from the perspective of Piron, Foulis, Randall, and others, and we apply it to the foundation of quantum cognition. In this connection, we show that quantum probabilities are of (virtual) conceptual necessity if grounded in an abstract algebraic framework of orthomodular lattices. This framework is motivated by assuming partial Boolean algebras (describing particular perspectives) that are combined into a uniform system while considering certain capacity restrictions. It is at this point that one important aspect of the whole idea of bounded rationality directly enters the theoretical scenery of quantum cognition: resource limitation.
We consider several puzzles of bounded rationality. These include the Allais- and Ellsberg paradox, the disjunction effect, and related puzzles. We argue that the present account of quantum cognition—taking quantum probabilities rather than classical probabilities—can give a more systematic description of these puzzles than the alternate treatments in the traditional frameworks of bounded rationality. Unfortunately, the quantum probabilistic treatment does not always provide a deeper understanding and a true explanation of these puzzles. One reason is that quantum approaches introduce additional parameters which possibly can be fitted to empirical data but which do not necessarily explain them. Hence, the phenomenological research has to be augmented by responding to deeper foundational issues. In this article, we make the general distinction between foundational and phenomenological research programs, explaining the foundational issue of quantum cognition from the perspective of operational realism. This framework is motivated by assuming partial Boolean algebras (describing particular perspectives). They are combined into a uniform system (i.e. orthomodular lattice) via a mechanism preventing the simultaneous realization of perspectives. Gleason’s theorem then automatically leads to a distinction between probabilities that are defined by pure states and probabilities arising from the statistical mixture of pure states. This formal distinction relates to the conceptual distinction between risk and ignorance. Another outcome identifies quantum aspects in dynamic macro-systems using the framework of symbolic dynamics. Finally, we discuss several ideas that are useful for justifying complementarity in cognitive systems.
Abstract Quantum logics are non-classical logics defined from the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. While they are conventionally used to model inferential processes in physics, their scope of application is potentially much broader. We argue that quantum logics can serve as a framework to model human cognition, as their semantics seem able to capture not only how people make inferences about quantum mechanics, but also how they reason in general. We begin by defining quantum logics from an algebraic perspective in a classical first-order setting. Next, we present findings from cognitive science that suggest these logics are apt to characterize human reasoning. We then consider how such a connection between quantum logics and cognition contributes to longstanding philosophical debates about the epistemological status of logic and the problem of adoption. Finally, we discuss how cognitive applications of quantum logics could advance our understanding of human psychology and even quantum foundations.
Quantum cognition, a growing topic at the interface of quantum physics and cognitive research, provides a new viewpoint on the intricacies of human thought processes. In contrast to classic Boolean algebraic models, which have long dominated cognitive psychology, quantum cognition proposes a new framework influenced by quantum mechanics' algebraic structure. This deviation derives from the understanding that natural notions, based on prototypes, are more closely related to convex sets than to the rigid rules of Boolean algebra. Drawing on the fundamental work of luminaries such as John von Neumann, quantum cognition reveals a unique probability theory based on ortho-algebras, challenging traditional probabilistic reasoning based on Boolean algebras. This change opens up solutions to complex challenges in rationality, logical thinking, and probabilistic reasoning, ushering in a new era of cognitive modelling. Several arguments in the literature support the importance of quantum cognition in explaining cognitive phenomena.
Uncertainty is an intrinsic part of life; most events, affairs, and questions are uncertain. A key problem in behavioral sciences is how the mind copes with uncertain information. Quantum probability theory offers a set of principles for inference, which align well with intuition about psychological processes in certain cases: cases when it appears that inference is contextual, the mental state changes as a result of previous judgments, or there is interference between different possibilities. We motivate the use of quantum theory in cognition and its key characteristics. For each of these characteristics, we review relevant quantum cognitive models and empirical support. The scope of quantum cognitive models encompasses fallacies in decision-making (such as the conjunction fallacy or the disjunction effect), question order effects, conceptual combination, evidence accumulation, perception, over-/underdistribution effects in memory, and more. Quantum models often formalize psychological ideas previously expressed in heuristic terms, allow unified explanations of previously disparate findings, and have led to several surprising, novel predictions. We also cast a critical eye on quantum models and consider some of their shortcomings and issues regarding their further development.
Classical (Bayesian) probability (CP) theory has led to an influential research tradition for modeling cognitive processes. Cognitive scientists have been trained to work with CP principles for so long that it is hard even to imagine alternative ways to formalize probabilities. However, in physics, quantum probability (QP) theory has been the dominant probabilistic approach for nearly 100 years. Could QP theory provide us with any advantages in cognitive modeling as well? Note first that both CP and QP theory share the fundamental assumption that it is possible to model cognition on the basis of formal, probabilistic principles. But why consider a QP approach? The answers are that (1) there are many well-established empirical findings (e.g., from the influential Tversky, Kahneman research tradition) that are hard to reconcile with CP principles; and (2) these same findings have natural and straightforward explanations with quantum principles. In QP theory, probabilistic assessment is often strongly context- and order-dependent, individual states can be superposition states (that are impossible to associate with specific values), and composite systems can be entangled (they cannot be decomposed into their subsystems). All these characteristics appear perplexing from a classical perspective. However, our thesis is that they provide a more accurate and powerful account of certain cognitive processes. We first introduce QP theory and illustrate its application with psychological examples. We then review empirical findings that motivate the use of quantum theory in cognitive theory, but also discuss ways in which QP and CP theories converge. Finally, we consider the implications of a QP theory approach to cognition for human rationality.
We reflect on several aspects of the general claim that a quantum-like approach to Cognitive Science is advantageous over classical approaches. The classical approaches refer to the symbolic approaches including models using a classical (Kolmogorov) probability calculus. The general claim seems to be right from a descriptive viewpoint but not necessarily from an explanatory viewpoint. The explanatory perspective needs a more careful analysis since adding some additional arbitrary parameters (such as phase shift parameters in quantum probabilities) does not automatically increase the explanatory value of the approach; rather, it seems to decrease it. We argue further that there is another class of traditional models - the class of geometric models of cognition. These models have a much longer tradition than the symbolic models. Interestingly, quantum mechanics does not contradict the geometric models. Hence, real progress at the meeting between quantum mechanics and cognitive science could be made by unifying these geometric models with ideas from quantum theory.