We argue that the formalism of quantum mechanics can be fruitfully applied to the modeling of phenomena and systems beyond the domain of physics—particularly in the social sciences and humanities. As is well known, this is indeed the case; Andrei Khrennikov’s quantum-like modeling (QLM) offers a prominent example. In this chapter, we propose a philosophical grounding for QLM within the framework of contextual realism (CR). When applied to quantum physics, this framework takes the form of contextual quantum realism (CQR). At the heart of CR lies the idea that ontology is sensitive to context, and that contextuality is inseparable from normativity. We offer a brief overview of CR and focus on its relevance to the foundations and potential of QLM.
We argue that the formalism of quantum mechanics can be fruitfully applied to the modeling of phenomena and systems beyond the domain of physics—particularly in the social sciences and humanities. As is well known, this is indeed the case; Andrei Khrennikov’s quantum-like modeling (QLM) offers a prominent example. In this chapter, we propose a philosophical grounding for QLM within the framework of contextual realism (CR). When applied to quantum physics, this framework takes the form of contextual quantum realism (CQR). At the heart of CR lies the idea that ontology is sensitive to context, and that contextuality is inseparable from normativity. We offer a brief overview of CR and focus on its relevance to the foundations and potential of QLM.
Recently, the dominant philosophical paradigm in Western social and political sciences has been criticized by a number of researchers and the necessity of transition to a new – quantum – transdisciplinary paradigm using ideas, concepts and formalism of quantum mechanics has been justified. The author argues that the need for such a transition is due to the fact that the dominant paradigm is based on outdated assumptions and premises of Modern philosophy, which really should be abandoned. It is quantum mechanics that contains the potential for a new philosophy. Classical mechanics had a significant impact on the development of philosophy, particularly on Kant’s critical philosophy, for which it served as the ideal of scientific knowledge. Today, a similar influence is exerted by quantum mechanics. Quantum ideas have also begun to be applied in the field of socio-political thought, particularly in the study of international relations, global politics, and global security. At the same time, the author argues that what many researchers take to be the “quantum paradigm” in the social and political sciences is in fact in many ways not so much an overcoming of the Modern paradigm as a postmodernist radicalization of it. In other words, the alternative they propose turns out to be a pseudo-quantum alternative. It is proposed the conceptual scheme of a contextual quantum realism as a genuine quantum alternative.
A realist interpretation of quantum mechanics is proposed - Contextual Quantum Realism (CQR) - according to which there exists a categorical distinction between the ideal (theory, observation instrument) and the real (quantum physical systems, properties), and, consequently, quantum ontology is context-sensitive. CQR is compared with QBism and Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM), both of which also claim to offer realist interpretations. However, both approaches conflate the ideal and the real, thereby introducing an anti-realist dimension. RQM is an objectivist (physicalist) interpretation that naturalizes epistemic concepts, whereas QBism is subjectivist (phenomenological). RQM and QBism share a common presupposition of (post-)Modern philosophy - namely, the reduction of reality to objectivity - which CQR explicitly rejects.
Is mind quantum-like? Is consciousness quantum physical? Does consciousness have a role to play in the emergence of the classical world from the underlying quantum universe? Or is this dichotomy between classical and quantum an illusion? How can world philosophies enrich our views on these matters and interact with the best scientific theories? These are some questions that motivated us to conceive the current book. We also felt an urgent need to discuss the central philosophical questions haunting the emerging frameworks of quantum cognition and quantum-like framework (QLF). We have observed that there are very good technical or mathematical works being done in the emerging fields of quantum cognition and QLF, but there is still a great need for exploring the underlying and open philosophical questions they demand. Quantum cognition developed as a frontier research programme in understanding various cognitive phenomena that are hard or impossible to describe based on classical cognitive science paradigm. Classical cognitive science draws philosophically and mathematically from classical physics and classical probability theory. For example, cognitive realism thinking is deeply motivated by the scientific realism of classical physics. However, as we explore, there are numerous empirical findings which demonstrate clearly that human mind and cognitive processes exhibit features that are more quantum-like. Central to these features are indeterminacy, context dependence, and complementarity of cognitive phenomena, for example, perception, information retrieval, and even qualia. Many good works in the previous decade have demonstrated the efficacy of quantum-like mathematical modelling in such cases. However, given that efficacy, we cannot simply conclude that mind is quantum. Rather there are features that go beyond what is allowed in standard quantum formalism.
The current chapter is a continuation of the previous chapter, since it explores more general principles which provides the basis of quantum-like reality proposal. We argue in this book that the contextuality principle, which is becoming revealed as a central principle of quantum mechanics and quantum information theory, is also a central principle for cognitive and social decision-making domains. Recently, multiple general logico-philosophical frameworks have been proposed to describe contextuality in general, and the current chapter is in the same direction.
We have referred to general organising principles of quantum mechanics (QM) in the previous chapter, which can be extended (as principles) to several other domains. Among such principles, contextuality-complementarity is perhaps most important in its applicability to different domains of reality. There is a consensus now ( Khrennikov, 2022 ) that these principles emerged through the original works of N. Bohr. Khrennikov (2025) has produced a seminal work in which contextuality becomes the basis of reformulation of QM, and even non-locality, which is argued to be a central feature in the orthodox QM interpretation (rather than the Copenhagen(ish) approaches), can also be reformulated in terms of local contextuality. We will hold a different approach to non-locality later in the chapter, which builds upon our earlier works ( Nadeau and Kafatos, 2001 ). We also mention here that some authors ( Plotnitsky, 2022 ) have attempted to formulate a ‘reality without realism’ view based on Bohr’s original insights. In this chapter, we provide a more detailed view of Copenhagen(ish) approaches to contextuality-complementarity. Since we think that a quantum-like framework (QLF) is also related to such approaches, contextuality-complementarity in QLF can also be formulated in the same line.
Since its inception, the intricate mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics has empowered physicists to describe and predict specific physical events known as quantum processes. However, this success in probabilistic predictions has been accompanied by a profound challenge in the ontological interpretation of the theory. This interpretative complexity stems from two key aspects. Firstly, quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory that, so far, is not derivable from any more basic scientific theory. Secondly, it delves into a realm of invisible phenomena that often contradicts our intuitive and commonsensical notions of matter and causality. Despite its notorious difficulties of interpretation, the most widely accepted set of views of quantum phenomena has been known as the Copenhagen interpretation since the beginning of quantum mechanics. According to these views, the correct ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics is incompatible with ontological realism in general and with philosophical materialism in particular. Anti-realist and anti-materialist interpretations of quantum matter have survived until today. This paper discusses these perspectives, arguing that materialistic interpretations of quantum mechanics are compatible with its mathematical formalism, while anti-realist and anti-materialist views are based on wrong philosophical assumptions. However, although physicalism provides a better explanation for quantum phenomena than idealism, its downward reductionism prevents it from accounting for more complex forms of matter, such as biological or sociocultural systems. Thus, the paper argues that neither physicalism nor idealism can explain the universe. I propose then a non-reductionistic form of materialism called inclusive materialism. The conclusion is that the acknowledgment of the qualitative irreducibility of ontological emergent levels above the purely physical one does not deny philosophical materialism but enriches it.