The paper starts with a brief review of the literature about uncertainty in geological, geophysical and petrophysical data. In particular, we present the viewpoints of experts in geophysics on the application of Bayesian inference and subjective probability. Then we present arguments that the use of classical probability theory (CP) does not match completely the structure of geophysical data. We emphasize that such data are characterized by contextuality and non-Kolmogorovness (the impossibility to use the CP model), incompleteness as well as incompatibility of some geophysical measurements. These characteristics of geophysical data are similar to the characteristics of quantum physical data. Notwithstanding all this, contextuality can be seen as a major deviation of quantum theory from classical physics. In particular, the contextual probability viewpoint is the essence of the Växjö interpretation of quantum mechanics. We propose to use quantum probability (QP) for decision-making during the characterization, modelling, exploring and management of theintelligent hydrocarbon reservoir. Quantum Bayesianism (QBism), one of the recently developed information interpretations of quantum theory, can be used as the interpretational basis for such QP decision-making in geology, geophysics and petroleum projects design and management. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Second quantum revolution: foundational questions’.
The paper starts with a brief review of the literature about uncertainty in geological, geophysical and petrophysical data. In particular, we present the viewpoints of experts in geophysics on the application of Bayesian inference and subjective probability. Then we present arguments that the use of classical probability theory (CP) does not match completely the structure of geophysical data. We emphasize that such data are characterized by contextuality and non-Kolmogorovness (the impossibility to use the CP model), incompleteness as well as incompatibility of some geophysical measurements. These characteristics of geophysical data are similar to the characteristics of quantum physical data. Notwithstanding all this, contextuality can be seen as a major deviation of quantum theory from classical physics. In particular, the contextual probability viewpoint is the essence of the Växjö interpretation of quantum mechanics. We propose to use quantum probability (QP) for decision-making during the characterization, modelling, exploring and management of theintelligent hydrocarbon reservoir. Quantum Bayesianism (QBism), one of the recently developed information interpretations of quantum theory, can be used as the interpretational basis for such QP decision-making in geology, geophysics and petroleum projects design and management. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Second quantum revolution: foundational questions’.
As was recently shown by the authors, quantum probability theory can be used for the modelling of the process of decision-making (e.g. probabilistic risk analysis) for macroscopic geophysical structures such as hydrocarbon reservoirs. This approach can be considered as a geophysical realization of Hilbert's programme on axiomatization of statistical models in physics (the famous sixth Hilbert problem). In this conceptual paper , we continue development of this approach to decision-making under uncertainty which is generated by complexity, variability, heterogeneity, anisotropy, as well as the restrictions to accessibility of subsurface structures. The belief state of a geological expert about the potential of exploring a hydrocarbon reservoir is continuously updated by outputs of measurements, and selection of mathematical models and scales of numerical simulation. These outputs can be treated as signals from the information environment E . The dynamics of the belief state can be modelled with the aid of the theory of open quantum systems: a quantum state (representing uncertainty in beliefs) is dynamically modified through coupling with E ; stabilization to a steady state determines a decision strategy. In this paper, the process of decision-making about hydrocarbon reservoirs (e.g. ‘explore or not?'; ‘open new well or not?’; ‘contaminated by water or not?’; ‘double or triple porosity medium?’) is modelled by using the Gorini–Kossakowski–Sudarshan–Lindblad equation. In our model, this equation describes the evolution of experts' predictions about a geophysical structure. We proceed with the information approach to quantum theory and the subjective interpretation of quantum probabilities (due to quantum Bayesianism). This article is part of the theme issue ‘Hilbert's sixth problem’.
We discuss the subjective probability interpretation of the quantum-like approach to decision making and more generally to cognition. Our aim is to adopt the subjective probability interpretation of quantum mechanics, quantum Bayesianism (QBism), to serve quantum-like modelling and applications of quantum probability outside of physics. We analyse the classical and quantum probabilistic schemes of probability update, learning and decision-making and emphasize the role of Jeffrey conditioning and its quantum generalizations. Classically, this type of conditioning and corresponding probability update is based on the formula of total probability-one the basic laws of classical probability theory.
Purpose: Decision-making under uncertainty remains a foundational challenge in cognitive science and artificial intelligence. Classical Bayesian Probability Models (CBM) often fail to explain paradoxical cognitive behaviors such as order effects, ambiguity aversion, and context-dependent reasoning. This study seeks to compare Quantum Probability Theory (QPT) and Classical Bayesian Models in their ability to capture the dynamics of human decision-making. It aims to determine which framework more accurately reflects the cognitive mechanisms underlying reasoning under uncertainty. Methodology: A qualitative, exploratory research design was adopted, involving in-depth semi-structured interviews with 16 experts across psychology, philosophy, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience. Participants were purposively selected for their theoretical and empirical expertise in probabilistic reasoning. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, guided by the Dual-Process Theory and Busemeyer’s Quantum Cognition framework. The analysis emphasized participants’ perspectives on theoretical assumptions, cognitive plausibility, and predictive utility between QPT and CBM paradigms. Findings: Thematic findings reveal that Quantum Probability Theory offers superior explanatory power in contexts involving cognitive ambiguity, contextual dependence, and non-commutativity of mental operations. Participants consistently reported that QPT better models real-world reasoning tasks where classical logic collapses, capturing the fluid and context-sensitive nature of human judgment. Conversely, while CBM remains effective in structured, low-uncertainty scenarios, it fails to accommodate superposition and interference effects inherent in human cognition. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice, and Policy (Recommendations): The study contributes theoretically by demonstrating how quantum probabilistic models expand existing theories of bounded rationality and probabilistic reasoning in cognitive science. Practically, it encourages interdisciplinary collaboration between cognitive scientists, AI researchers, and philosophers to refine decision models that mirror human intuition more closely. Policy-wise, the findings support the integration of quantum-inspired approaches in the design of intelligent decision-support systems and cognitive architectures. The study recommends continued empirical validation of QPT within applied domains—such as behavioral economics, machine learning, and cognitive modeling—to strengthen its predictive and explanatory robustness.
This chapter is devoted to quantum Bayesianism (QBism), the subjective probability interpretation of QM. Creation of such an interpretation is an important step towards unification of applications of the mathematical formalism of QM to physical and to cognitive and sociopolitical systems. QBism can serve to couple the general theory of decision making based on subjective probability with quantum formalism. On the other hand, our quantum-like modeling of sociopolitical processes does not depend on interpretations of QM. Therefore, the reader need not read this chapter, which has a merely foundational value.
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.
FINDING: Human decision-making under uncertainty and conflict is best modeled by quantum probability theory, not classical Bayesian logic. | MATH: Quantum probability amplitudes replace classical probabilities; decision basis states are vectors in Hilbert space; interference terms (e.g., ⟨ψ∣A∣ψ⟩2=∑i∣⟨i∣ψ⟩∣2∣⟨A∣i⟩∣2) account for context-dependent violations of the law of total probability. | CONNECTION: No explicit geometric ratios (0.382, 0.618, 0.786, 1.618, 2.618) or base-60 or crystallographic symmetries reported. The Hilbert space structure is linear, not inherently harmonic. | DEPTH: 6 — Foundational shift in probability theory for cognition, but no direct link to geometric harmony or universal constants. The mathematical essence is the replacement of Kolmogorov axioms with quantum probability, which introduces complex phases and interference. No specific equations or constants beyond the standard quant Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com