Quantum structure of negation and conjunction in human thought

We analyze in this paper the data collected in a set of experiments investigating how people combine natural concepts. We study the mutual influence of conceptual conjunction and negation by measuring the membership weights of a list of exemplars with respect to two concepts, e.g., Fruits and Vegetables, and their conjunction Fruits And Vegetables, but also their conjunction when one or both concepts are negated, namely, Fruits And Not Vegetables, Not Fruits And Vegetables, and Not Fruits And Not Vegetables. Our findings sharpen and advance existing analysis on conceptual combinations, revealing systematic deviations from classical (fuzzy set) logic and probability theory. And, more important, our results give further considerable evidence to the validity of our quantum-theoretic framework for the combination of two concepts. Indeed, the representation of conceptual negation naturally arises from the general assumptions of our two-sector Fock space model, and this representation faithfully agrees with the collected data. In addition, we find a new significant and a priori unexpected deviation from classicality, which can exactly be explained by assuming that human reasoning is the superposition of an “emergent reasoning” and a “logical reasoning,” and that these two processes are represented in a Fock space algebraic structure.

[1]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Ubiquitous Quantum Structure , 2010 .

[2]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Structure in Cognition: Why and How Concepts Are Entangled , 2011, QI.

[3]  Mark J. Machina,et al.  Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms , 2009 .

[4]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Particles as Conceptual Entities: A Possible Explanatory Framework for Quantum Theory , 2009, 1004.2530.

[5]  Marvin Minsky,et al.  A framework for representing knowledge , 1974 .

[6]  L. A. Zadeh,et al.  A note on prototype theory and fuzzy sets , 1982, Cognition.

[7]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Structure in Cognition and the Foundations of Human Reasoning , 2014, ArXiv.

[8]  R. Nosofsky Exemplars, prototypes, and similarity rules. , 1992 .

[9]  Sam Alxatib,et al.  On the Psychology of Truth-Gaps , 2009, ViC.

[10]  Jennifer S Trueblood,et al.  A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. , 2011, Psychological review.

[11]  Sandro Sozzo,et al.  A Quantum Probability Explanation in Fock Space for Borderline Contradictions , 2013, 1311.6050.

[12]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Fuzzy Sets , 1996, Inf. Control..

[13]  Daniel N. Osherson,et al.  On the psychology of vague predicates , 1999 .

[14]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Structure in Cognition , 2008, 0805.3850.

[15]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Applications of Quantum Statistics in Psychological Studies of Decision Processes , 1995 .

[16]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Quantum Models for Psychological Measurements: An Unsolved Problem , 2014, PloS one.

[17]  H. Kamp,et al.  Prototype theory and compositionality , 1995, Cognition.

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

[19]  J. Kleijnen,et al.  Context Effects , 2003 .

[20]  J. Hampton,et al.  Disjunction of natural concepts , 1988, Memory & cognition.

[21]  Dirk Aerts,et al.  A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics , 1986 .

[22]  C. J. van Rijsbergen,et al.  The geometry of information retrieval , 2004 .

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

[24]  David L. Shapiro,et al.  On the Psychology of , 1996 .

[25]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Entanglement in Concept Combinations , 2013, ArXiv.

[26]  Sandro Sozzo,et al.  Conjunction and Negation of Natural Concepts: A Quantum-theoretic Modeling , 2014, ArXiv.

[27]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Foundations of Quantum Physics: A General Realistic and Operational Approach , 2001, quant-ph/0105109.

[28]  D. Ellsberg Decision, probability, and utility: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms , 1961 .

[29]  Alice F. Healy,et al.  From learning theory to connectionist theory , 1992 .

[30]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  On typicality and vagueness , 1997, Cognition.

[31]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Concepts and Their Dynamics: A Quantum-Theoretic Modeling of Human Thought , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[32]  J. Fodor,et al.  Concepts: a potboiler , 1994, Cognition.

[33]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Quantum aspects of semantic analysis and symbolic artificial intelligence , 2003, quant-ph/0309022.

[34]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The Violation of Bell Inequalities in the Macroworld , 2000, quant-ph/0007044.

[35]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  The Current Status of Research on Concept Combination , 1995 .

[36]  Jerome R Busemeyer,et al.  Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[37]  I. Pitowsky Quantum Probability ― Quantum Logic , 1989 .

[38]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.

[39]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A Quantum Cognition Analysis of the Ellsberg Paradox , 2011, QI.

[40]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Representation in Memory. , 1983 .

[41]  R. Nosofsky Exemplar-Based Accounts of Relations Between Classification, Recognition, and Typicality , 1988 .

[42]  A. Messiah Quantum Mechanics , 1961 .

[43]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A theory of concepts and their combinations I: The structure of the sets of contexts and properties , 2005 .

[44]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  New fundamental evidence of non-classical structure in the combination of natural concepts , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

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

[46]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

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

[48]  Ellin Kofsky Scholnick New trends in conceptual representation : challenges to Piaget's theory? , 2013 .

[49]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Gradedness and conceptual combination , 1982, Cognition.

[50]  Richard M. Shiffrin,et al.  Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[51]  J. Hampton Overextension of Conjunctive Concepts: Evidence for a Unitary Model of Concept Typicality and Class Inclusion , 1988 .

[52]  Marvin Minsky,et al.  A framework for representing knowledge" in the psychology of computer vision , 1975 .

[53]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The Quantum Nature of Identity in Human Thought: Bose-Einstein Statistics for Conceptual Indistinguishability , 2014, ArXiv.

[54]  L. Komatsu Recent views of conceptual structure , 1992 .

[55]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Identifying Quantum Structures in the Ellsberg Paradox , 2013, International Journal of Theoretical Physics.

[56]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum structure and human thought. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[57]  Harald Atmanspacher,et al.  The Potential of Quantum Probability for Modeling Cognitive Processes , 2011, CogSci.

[58]  J. Hampton,et al.  Conceptual combination: Conjunction and negation of natural concepts , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[59]  J. Linnett,et al.  Quantum mechanics , 1975, Nature.

[60]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts , 1981, Cognition.