Quantum Interaction

Recent advances in the field of quantum cognition (Pothos and Busemeyer 2013; Wang et al. 2013) suggest a puzzling connection between fundamental physics and the mind. Many researchers see quantum ideas and formalisms merely as useful pragmatic tools, and do not look for deeper underlying explanations for why they work. However, others are tempted to seek for an intelligible explanation for why quantum ideas work to model cognition. This paper first draws attention to how the physicist David Bohm already in 1951 suggested that thought and quantum processes are analogous, adding that this could be explained if some neural processes underlying thought involved non-negligible quantum effects. The paper next points out that the idea that there is a connection between fundamental physics and the mind is not unique to quantum theory, but was there already when Newtonian physics was assumed to be fundamental physics, advocated most notably by Kant. Kant emphasized the unique intelligibility of a Newtonian notion of experience, and this historical background prompts us to ask in the final part of the paper whether we can really make sense of any quantum-like experience (whether experience of the empirical phenomena in the “external world” or the “inner world” of psychological phenomena). It is proposed that intelligibility is a relative notion and that, regardless of initial difficulties, quantum approaches to cognition and consciousness are likely to provide valuable new ways of understanding the mind.

[1]  Masanori Ohya,et al.  On Application of Gorini-Kossakowski-Sudarshan-Lindblad Equation in Cognitive Psychology , 2011, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn..

[2]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision , 2012 .

[3]  Yoshiharu Tanaka,et al.  Dynamics of Entropy in Quantum-like Model of Decision Making. , 2011 .

[4]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Ubiquitous Quantum Structure: From Psychology to Finance , 2010 .

[5]  Masanori Ohya,et al.  Non-Kolmogorovian Approach to the Context-Dependent Systems Breaking the Classical Probability Law , 2013 .

[6]  Emmanuel Haven,et al.  Quantum mechanics and violations of the sure-thing principle: The use of probability interference and other concepts , 2009 .

[7]  Joseph P. Zbilut,et al.  Some remarks on an experiment suggesting quantum-like behavior of cognitive entities and formulation of an abstract quantum mechanical formalism to describe cognitive entity and its dynamics , 2007 .

[8]  Yoshiharu Tanaka,et al.  Quantum-like generalization of the Bayesian updating scheme for objective and subjective mental uncertainties , 2012 .

[9]  Polina Khrennikova,et al.  A Quantum Framework for 'Sour Grapes' in Cognitive Dissonance , 2013, QI.

[10]  H. Atmanspacher,et al.  Order Effects in Sequential Measurements of Non-Commuting Psychological Observables , 2012, 1201.4685.

[11]  James T. Townsend,et al.  Quantum dynamics of human decision-making , 2006 .

[12]  Harald Atmanspacher,et al.  Contra Classical Causality Violating Temporal Bell Inequalities in Mental Systems , 2012 .

[13]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Quantum Entanglement and the Issue of Selective Influences in Psychology: An Overview , 2012, QI.

[14]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Quantum-like brain: "Interference of minds". , 2006, Bio Systems.

[15]  E. P. Yukalova,et al.  Quantum probabilities and entanglement for multimode quantum systems , 2014, 1404.3889.

[16]  R. Feynman,et al.  Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals , 1965 .

[17]  Nicolaas P. Landsman Decoherence and the quantum-to-classical transition , 2009 .

[18]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Mental States Follow Quantum Mechanics During Perception and Cognition of Ambiguous Figures , 2009, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn..

[19]  R. Aumann Backward induction and common knowledge of rationality , 1995 .

[20]  J. Neumann,et al.  The Logic of Quantum Mechanics , 1936 .

[21]  Andrei Khrennikov Quantum-like formalism for cognitive measurements. , 2003, Bio Systems.

[22]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  Quantum mechanics, interference, and the brain , 2009 .

[23]  W. Zurek Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical , 2001, quant-ph/0105127.

[24]  N. Bostrom Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy , 2002 .

[25]  Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky,et al.  Type indeterminacy - A Model of the KT(Khaneman Tversky)- Man , 2009 .

[26]  Jennifer Trueblood,et al.  A Quantum Probability Account of Order Effects in Inference , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[27]  Sandro Sozzo,et al.  Recovering Quantum Logic Within an Extended Classical Framework , 2011 .

[28]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Conditions for Quantum Interference in Cognitive Sciences , 2013, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[29]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A Quantum Model for the Ellsberg and Machina Paradoxes , 2012, QI.

[30]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  On Quantum-Like Probabilistic Structure of Mental Information , 2004, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn..

[31]  A. Khrennikov,et al.  Quantum Social Science , 2013 .

[32]  W. Greiner Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics I , 1993 .

[33]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Empirical Comparison of Markov and Quantum models of decision-making , 2009 .

[34]  I. Stamatescu,et al.  Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory , 1996 .

[35]  John Geanakoplos,et al.  Common Knowledge , 1992, TARK.

[36]  Polina Khrennikova Evolution of quantum-like modeling in decision making processes , 2012 .

[37]  Polly S Nichols,et al.  Agreeing to disagree. , 2005, General dentistry.

[38]  A. Khrennikov Information Dynamics in Cognitive, Psychological, Social, and Anomalous Phenomena , 2004 .

[39]  Emmanuel M. Pothos,et al.  decision theory A quantum probability explanation for violations of ' rational ' Supplementary data tml , 2009 .

[40]  Joseph P. Zbilut,et al.  A Preliminary Experimental Verification On the Possibility of Bell Inequality Violation in Mental States , 2008 .