The quantum-like description of the dynamics of party governance in the US political system

This paper is devoted to the application of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics to social (political) science. By using the quantum dynamical equations we model the process of decision making in US elections. The crucial point we attempt to make is that the voter's mental state can be represented as a superposition of two possible choices for either republicans or democrats. However, reality dictates a more complicated situation: typically a voter participates in two elections, i.e. the congress and the presidential elections. In both elections he/she has to decide between two choices. This very feature of the US election system requires that the mental state is represented by a 2-qubit state corresponding to the superposition of 4 different choices (e.g. for republicans in the congress; for the president as a democrat). The main issue of this paper is to describe the dynamics of the voters' mental states taking in account the mental and socio- political environment. What is truly novel in this paper is that instead of using Schr\"odinger's equation to describe the dynamics in an absence of interactions, we here apply the quantum master equation. This equation describes quantum decoherence, i.e., resolution from superposition to a definite choice.

[1]  John Woods,et al.  A Quantum Logic of Down Below , 2006 .

[2]  Taksu Cheon,et al.  Classical and quantum contents of solvable game theory on Hilbert space , 2006 .

[3]  Pierfrancesco La Mura.  Projective expected utility: a subjective formulation , 2008, TARK '09.

[4]  E. Haven.  Itô’s Lemma with Quantum Calculus (q-Calculus): Some Implications , 2011 .

[5]  Emmanuel Haven.  Pilot-Wave Theory and Financial Option Pricing , 2005 .

[6]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Modelling uncertainty and inductive inference: A survey of recent non-additive probability systems , 1988 .

[7]  M. Allais.  Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque : critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine , 1953 .

[8]  Peter Bruza,et al.  Quantum Logic of Semantic Space: An Exploratory Investigation of Context Effects in Practical Reasoning , 2005, We Will Show Them!.

[9]  Croson,et al.  The Disjunction Effect and Reason-Based Choice in Games. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

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

[11]  A. Zeilinger,et al.  Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics , 1989 .

[12]  S. Feldman,et al.  A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences , 1992 .

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

[14]  Masanori Ohya,et al.  Quantum-Like Model for Decision Making Process in Two Players Game , 2011 .

[15]  Alfréd Rényi,et al.  Foundations of Probability , 1971 .

[16]  Patrick Maher.  Bayesian probability , 2009, Synthese.

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

[18]  Kirsty Kitto,et al.  Is there something quantum-like about the human mental lexicon? , 2009 .

[19]  Emmanuel Haven,et al.  The importance of probability interference in social science: rationale and experiment , 2007, 0709.2802.

[20]  David M. Kreps.  Notes On The Theory Of Choice , 1988 .

[21]  John McCarthy,et al.  Notes on Formalizing Context , 1993, IJCAI.

[22]  E. Haven.  The Variation of Financial Arbitrage via the Use of an Information Wave Function , 2008 .

[23]  L. Zadeh.  Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility , 1999 .

[24]  O. Choustova.  Toward quantum-like modeling of financial processes , 2007 .

[25]  A. Tversky,et al.  The Disjunction Effect in Choice under Uncertainty , 1992 .

[26]  J. Bell,et al.  Speakable and Unspeakable in Quatum Mechanics , 1988 .

[27]  A. Tversky,et al.  Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. , 1994 .

[28]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[29]  M. Bishop.  What is this thing called Science , 1996 .

[30]  Taksu Cheon,et al.  Interference and inequality in quantum decision theory , 2010, 1008.2628.

[31]  Bruno de Finetti,et al.  Probability, induction and statistics , 1972 .

[32]  Laurianne Sitbon,et al.  Quantum-like non-separability of concept combinations, emergent associates and abduction , 2012, Log. J. IGPL.

[33]  Emmanuel Haven,et al.  Private Information and the ‘Information Function’: A Survey of Possible Uses , 2008 .

[34]  Riccardo Franco,et al.  The conjunction fallacy and interference effects , 2007, 0708.3948.

[35]  R. Ingarden,et al.  Information Dynamics and Open Systems: Classical and Quantum Approach , 1997 .

[36]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  A quantum probability explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision theory , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[37]  A. Tversky,et al.  Options traders exhibit subadditive decision weights , 1996 .

[38]  P. Suppes.  The Measurement of Belief , 1974 .

[39]  Charles E. Smith,et al.  Pseudo-classical Nonseparability and Mass Politics in Two-Party Systems , 2011, QI.

[40]  A. Tversky,et al.  Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: advances in support theory. , 1997 .

[41]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.