Instances of non-commutativity are pervasive in human behavior. In this paper, we suggest that psychological properties such as attitudes, values, preferences and beliefs may be suitably described in terms of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics i.e., non-classical or quantum logic. We expose the foundations of non-classical measurement theory building on a simple notion of orthospace and ortholattice (logic). Two axioms are formulated and the characteristic state-property duality is derived. A last axiom concerned with the impact of measurement on the state takes us with a leap toward the Hilbert space model of Quantum Mechanics. An application to social sciences is then proposed. First we suggest an interpretation of the basic axioms and properties for human behavior. We next develop a decision theoretical example and indicate how non-classical measurement theory could be used to formulate a theory of actualized preferences.
Instances of non-commutativity are pervasive in human behavior. In this paper, we suggest that psychological properties such as attitudes, values, preferences and beliefs may be suitably described in terms of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics i.e., non-classical or quantum logic. We expose the foundations of non-classical measurement theory building on a simple notion of orthospace and ortholattice (logic). Two axioms are formulated and the characteristic state-property duality is derived. A last axiom concerned with the impact of measurement on the state takes us with a leap toward the Hilbert space model of Quantum Mechanics. An application to social sciences is then proposed. First we suggest an interpretation of the basic axioms and properties for human behavior. We next develop a decision theoretical example and indicate how non-classical measurement theory could be used to formulate a theory of actualized preferences.
Instances of non-commutativity are pervasive in human behavior. In this paper, we suggest that psychological properties such as attitudes, values, preferences and beliefs may be suitably described in terms of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. We expose the foundations of non-classical measurement theory building on a simple notion of orthospace and ortholattice (logic). Two axioms are formulated and the characteristic state-property duality is derived. A last axiom concerned with the impact of measurements on the state takes us with a leap toward the Hilbert space model of Quantum Mechanics. An application to behavioral sciences is proposed. First, we suggest an interpretation of the axioms and basic properties for human behavior. Then we explore an application to decision theory in an example of preference reversal. We conclude by formulating basic ingredients of a theory of actualized preferences based in non-classical measurement theory.
Quantum probability theory, originally developed in the context of quantum mechanics, has increasingly been applied to social sciences to explain decision-making, cognition, and collective behavior. Unlike classical probability models, which assume pre-existing and well-defined preferences, quantum models incorporate superposition, interference, and non-commutativity to capture the contextual dependence and measurement effects observed in human decisions. This paper systematically explores the theoretical foundations of quantum probability in social sciences, discusses model construction techniques, and reviews empirical findings supporting its application. By examining case studies in quantum cognition, quantum game theory, and quantum voting, we illustrate how quantum approaches provide alternative explanations for phenomena such as order effects, measurement-induced attitude shifts, and collective polarization. The paper also discusses the methodological challenges and limitations of quantum social science, emphasizing the need for rigorous experimental validation and interdisciplinary collaboration. Finally, we highlight the potential for integrating quantum probability models with emerging technologies such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence, opening new avenues for social science research and policy applications.
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.
From the viewpoint that the decision based on feeling has a structure similar to that of a quantum measurement process, we present an axiomatic system of probabilistic behaviors, by which we can liberate quantum mechanics from microscopic physics and attain a wide range of applicability of quantum mechanics-type theories, in particular lo human or biological systems. The key concept of this system is the feeling of the object system, which has no relation to the consciousness of an observer in the conventional measurement theory but corresponds directly to the wave function. The probabilistic and logical structures derived from the axioms are discussed. Several examples are taken from classical, quantum, and other models.
In order to solve the problem of which is the real logic of Quantum Mechanics (QM), we suggest to study the mutual relationships between the physical theory (as a whole, that is both its experimental part and its theoretical part), its mathematics and its logic. That results to be a more general problem than what is considered by traditional studies on Quantum Logic (QL). These studies focus attention on the problem of the relationship between the experimental part of the physical theory and only its mathematics, from which logic is then derived. The new approach, that we suggest, generalises the interpretation that one of us (A. D.) successfully tested on the foundations of classical physical theories. The foundations of a theory are interpreted in terms of two options on the kind of mathematics, either classical one or constructive one, and the kind of logic, either classical logic or intuitionistic logic. It is remarkable that each theory making use of intuitionistic logic – i. e. L. Carnot’s classical mechanics, S. Carnot’s thermodynamics, Lobacevskij’s non-Euclidean geometry is organised in order to solve an universal problem (expressed by a double negated sentence), rather than in an entirely deductive way; hence, a non-classical logic does not belong exclusively to QM. From an historical and foundational analysis about QM, we conclude that in QM it is the law of double negation and not modular law (introduced by Birkhoff and von Neumann without giving physical evidence to it) which fails, i. e. which represents the true difference between Classical Logic (CL) and QL. We have looked for previous works on QL supporting our suggestion; in the past Destouches-Fevrier (1948), Fine (1974), Bell-Hallett (1981), Gauthier (1983), Adelman-Corbett (1995) already defended this thesis on the relevance of double negation law for QL. Under this light, QL results to have the same logic of a classical theory organised in a problematic manner. Hence, QM has to be referred to intuitionistic logic, in the same way every theory which is developed around a fundamental problem, expressed by a double negated sentence, does. In particular, by following the founder of intuitionism, Brouwer, we reject the identification of intuitionistic logic with an entirely deductive system; rather, the logical system of QL, as a theory, is organised in such a way to put a crucial problem to be solved. In agreement with this kind of organisation, among the several QM formulations we choose Heisenberg’s formulation, which was ignored by previous authors on QL. This formulation is aimed to solve the problem of quantum measurement, that originates the uncertainty methodological principle. Moreover, it is remarkable that it makes use of an operational mathematics (discrete matrices only). We interpret its characteristic arguing about its principal problem through double negated sentences; it results to be a moving from arguments belonging to non-classical logic expressed by a double negated sentence to the recognition of a suitable mathematics for QM formulation. In sum, QL shows how it is possible to state the relationship between QM and mathematics. This point has been almost ignored by the most traditional approaches to QL, which rather drew it from an a priori mathematics of QM (commonly, Hilbert space). As a verification of our approach, we show that even both Lobachevskij’s geometry and S. Carnot’s thermodynamics argued in order to achieve mathematical formulas expressing the content of the basic double negated sentences of respective theory. In the same way the recent book on QM by T. F. Jordan formalised his matrix mechanics. 1. Logic in classical physics and in Quantum Mechanics An historical analysis of Quantum Mechanics (QM) shows that there were at the origin of the theory two distinct formulations: Matrix Mechanics (Heisenberg, 1925) and Wave Mechanics (Schroedinger, 1926). Although Dirac subsumed these two formulations in a comprehensive mathematical framework (Hilbert space), we think that the organisation of the principles is different in Matrix Mechanics from that in Wave Mechanics, and this difference implies different logics. So we think that in order to characterise the logic of QM it is necessary to distinguish between this two formulations. In Matrix Mechanics, Heisenberg’s basic idea was to explain atomic spectra not in terms of atomic orbits (as Old Quantum Theory tried to make), but only by means of the study of experimental data; i. e., frequencies and intensities of light both emitted and absorbed by matter. Through a
The purpose of this dissertation is to construct a radically new type of mathematics whose underlying logic differs from the ordinary classical logic used in standard mathematics, and which we feel may be more natural for applications in quantum mechanics. Specifically, we begin by constructing a first order quantum logic, the development of which closely parallels that of ordinary (classical) first order logic --- the essential differences are in the nature of the logical axioms, which, in our construction, are motivated by quantum theory. After showing that the axiomatic first order logic we develop is sound and complete (with respect to a particular class of models), this logic is then used as a foundation on which to build (axiomatic) mathematical systems --- and we refer to the resulting new mathematics as "quantum mathematics." As noted above, the hope is that this form of mathematics is more natural than classical mathematics for the description of quantum systems, and will enable us to address some foundational aspects of quantum theory which are still troublesome --- e.g. the measurement problem --- as well as possibly even inform our thinking about quantum gravity.\n\nAfter constructing the underlying logic, we investigate properties of several mathematical systems --- e.g. axiom systems for abstract algebras, group theory, linear algebra, etc. --- in the presence of this quantum logic. In the process, we demonstrate that the resulting quantum mathematical systems have some strange, but very interesting features, which indicates a richness in the structure of mathematics that is classically inaccessible. Moreover, some of these features do indeed suggest possible applications to foundational questions in quantum theory. \n\nWe continue our investigation of quantum mathematics by constructing an axiomatic quantum set theory, which we show satisfies certain desirable criteria. Ultimately, we hope that such a set theory will lead to a foundation for quantum mathematics in a sense which parallels the foundational role of classical set theory in classical mathematics. One immediate application of the quantum set theory we develop is to provide a foundation on which to construct quantum natural numbers, which are the quantum analog of the classical counting numbers. It turns out that in a special class of models, there exists a 1-1 correspondence between the quantum natural numbers and bounded observables in quantum theory whose eigenvalues are (ordinary) natural numbers. This 1-1 correspondence is remarkably satisfying, and not only gives us great confidence in our quantum set theory, but indicates the naturalness of such models for quantum theory itself. We go on to develop a Peano-like arithmetic for these new "numbers," as well as consider some of its consequences. Finally, we conclude by summarizing our results, and discussing directions for future work.