There is another meeting place for quantum physics and psychology, both within and outside of cognitive modeling. In physics it is known as the issue of classical (probabilistic) determinism, and in psychology it is known as the issue of selective influences. The formalisms independently developed in the two areas for dealing with these issues turn out to be identical, opening ways for mutually beneficial interactions.
There is another meeting place for quantum physics and psychology, both within and outside of cognitive modeling. In physics it is known as the issue of classical (probabilistic) determinism, and in psychology it is known as the issue of selective influences. The formalisms independently developed in the two areas for dealing with these issues turn out to be identical, opening ways for mutually beneficial interactions.
This paper begins with a historical review of the mutual influence of physics and psychology, from Freud's invention of psychic energy inspired by von Boltzmann' thermodynamics to the enrichment quantum physics gained from the side of psychology by the notion of complementarity (the invention of Niels Bohr who was inspired by William James), besides we consider the resonance of the correspondence between Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung in both physics and psychology. Then we turn to the problem of development of mathematical models for laws of thought starting with Boolean logic and progressing towards foundations of classical probability theory. Interestingly, the laws of classical logic and probability are routinely violated not only by quantum statistical phenomena but by cognitive phenomena as well. This is yet another common feature between quantum physics and psychology. In particular, cognitive data can exhibit a kind of the probabilistic interference effect. This similarity with quantum physics convinced a multi-disciplinary group of scientists (physicists, psychologists, economists, sociologists) to apply the mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics to modeling of cognition. We illustrate this activity by considering a few concrete phenomena: the order and disjunction effects, recognition of ambiguous figures, categorization-decision making. In Appendix 1 we briefly present essentials of theory of contextual probability and a method of representations of contextual probabilities by complex probability amplitudes (solution of the ``inverse Born's problem'') based on a quantum-like representation algorithm (QLRA).
This book deals with applications of quantum mechanical techniques to areas outside of quantum mechanics, so-called quantum-like modeling. Research in this area has grown over the last 15 years. But even already more than 50 years ago, the interaction between Physics Nobelist Pauli and the psychologist Carl Jung in the 1950's on seeking to find analogous uses of the complementarity principle from quantum mechanics in psychology needs noting. This book does NOT want to advance that society is quantum mechanical! The macroscopic world is manifestly not quantum mechanical. But this rules not out that one can use concepts and the mathematical apparatus from quantum physics in a macroscopic environment. A mainstay ingredient of quantum mechanics, is 'quantum probability' and this tool has been proven to be useful in the mathematical modelling of decision making. In the most basic experiment of quantum physics, the double slit experiment, it is known (from the works of A. Khrennikov) that the law of total probability is violated. It is now well documented that several decision making paradoxes in psychology and economics (such as the Ellsberg paradox) do exhibit this violation of the law of total probability. When data is collected with experiments which test 'non-rational' decision making behaviour, one can observe that such data often exhibits a complex non-commutative structure, which may be even more complex than if one considers the structure allied to the basic two slit experiment. The community exploring quantum-like models has tried to address how quantum probability can help in better explaining those paradoxes. Research has now been published in very high standing journals on resolving some of the paradoxes with the mathematics of quantum physics. The aim of this book is to collect the contributions of world's leading experts in quantum like modeling in decision making, psychology, cognition, economics, and finance.
This article examines some experimental conditions that invite and possibly require recourse to quantum-mechanical-like mathematical models (QMLMs), models based on the key mathematical features of quantum mechanics, in scientific fields outside physics, such as biology, cognitive psychology, or economics. In particular, I consider whether the following two correlative features of quantum phenomena that were decisive for establishing the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics play similarly important roles in QMLMs elsewhere. The first is the individuality and discreteness of quantum phenomena, and the second is the irreducibly probabilistic nature of our predictions concerning them, coupled to the particular character of the probabilities involved, as different from the character of probabilities found in classical physics. I also argue that these features could be interpreted in terms of a particular form of epistemology that suspends and even precludes a causal and, in the first place, realist description of quantum objects and processes. This epistemology limits the descriptive capacity of quantum theory to the description, classical in nature, of the observed quantum phenomena manifested in measuring instruments. Quantum mechanics itself only provides descriptions, probabilistic in nature, concerning numerical data pertaining to such phenomena, without offering a physical description of quantum objects and processes. While QMLMs share their use of the quantum-mechanical or analogous mathematical formalism, they may differ by the roles, if any, the two features in question play in them and by different ways of interpreting the phenomena they considered and this formalism itself. This article will address those differences as well.
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.
Recently the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, especially methods of quantum probability theory, started to be widely used in a variety of applications outside of physics, e.g., cognition and psychology as well as economy and finances. To distinguish such models from genuine quantum physical models, they often called quantum-like (although often people simply speak about, e.g., "quantum cognition"). These novel applications generate a number of foundational questions. Nowadays we can speak about a new science - foundations of quantum-like modeling. At the first stage this science was mainly about comparison of classical and quantum models, mainly in the probabilistic setting. It was found that statistical data from cognitive psychology violate some basic constraints posed on data by classical probability theory (Kolmogorov, 1933); in particular, the constraints given by the formula of total probability and Bell's type inequalities. Recently another question attracted some attention. In spite of real success in applications, there are no reason to believe that the quantum probability would cover completely all problems of, e.g., cognition. May be more general probability models have to be explored. A similar problem attracted a lot of attention in foundations of quantum physics culminating in a series of experiments to check Sorkin's equality for the triple-slit experiment by Weihs' group. In this note we present a similar test in the cognitive experimental setting. Performance of this test would either give further confirmation of the adequacy of the quantum probability model to cognitive applications or rejection of the conventional quantum model. Thus this note opens the door for a series of exciting experimental tests for the quantum-like model of cognition.
Written by world experts in the foundations of quantum mechanics and its applications to social science, this book shows how elementary quantum mechanical principles can be applied to decision-making paradoxes in psychology and used in modelling information in finance and economics. The book starts with a thorough overview of some of the salient differences between classical, statistical and quantum mechanics. It presents arguments on why quantum mechanics can be applied outside of physics and defines quantum social science. The issue of the existence of quantum probabilistic effects in psychology, economics and finance is addressed and basic questions and answers are provided. Aimed at researchers in economics and psychology, as well as physics, basic mathematical preliminaries and elementary concepts from quantum mechanics are defined in a self-contained way.