The Conjunction Fallacy in Quantum Decision Theory

Katya Tentori, Vincenzo Crupi

Riccardo Franco

Diederik Aerts, Jonito Aerts Arguëlles, Lester Beltran +4 more

James M. Yearsley, Jennifer S. Trueblood

Taksu Cheon, Taiki Takahashi

A quantum-like description of human decision process is developed, and a heuristic argument supporting the theory as sound phenomenology is given. It is shown to be capable of quantitatively explaining the conjunction fallacy in the same footing as the violation of sure-thing principle.

Andrew Stewart Caldin

FINDING: Quantum decision theory models cognitive biases (conjunction fallacy) via quantum interference terms, but no empirical golden-ratio data is present in the provided sources. | MATH: Quantum interference term in decision: \( P(A \cap B) = P(A)P(B) + \delta \), where \(\delta\) is the interference term (analogous to \(2\sqrt{P_A P_B}\cos\theta\) in two-slit probability). Conjunction fallacy occurs when \(\delta < 0\) (negative interference). No explicit constants or ratios extracted from the listed abstracts/videos. | CONNECTION: None directly evidenced. The interference term \(\cos\theta\) can in principle take any value; no geometric ratio (0.382, 0.618, etc.) is reported in the provided material. | DEPTH: 3 — The mathematical framework (quantum probability amplitudes) is structurally analogous to wave interference, but the sources do not provide quantitative constants or empirical golden-ratio links. The arXiv paper (hep-th/9707234) is about variational QFT, not decision theor Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com