Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T11:47:02.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Quantum structure and human thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2013

Diederik Aerts
Affiliation:
Center Leo Apostel, Departments of Mathematics and Psychology, Brussels Free University, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. [email protected]://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/[email protected]://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/Broekaert/[email protected]://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/people/sozzo/
Jan Broekaert
Affiliation:
Center Leo Apostel, Departments of Mathematics and Psychology, Brussels Free University, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. [email protected]://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/[email protected]://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/Broekaert/[email protected]://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/people/sozzo/
Liane Gabora
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada. [email protected]://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/liane
Sandro Sozzo
Affiliation:
Center Leo Apostel, Departments of Mathematics and Psychology, Brussels Free University, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. [email protected]://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/[email protected]://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/Broekaert/[email protected]://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/people/sozzo/

Abstract

We support the authors' claims, except that we point out that also quantum structure different from quantum probability abundantly plays a role in human cognition. We put forward several elements to illustrate our point, mentioning entanglement, contextuality, interference, and emergence as effects, and states, observables, complex numbers, and Fock space as specific mathematical structures.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aerts, D. (1986) A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematical Physics 27:202–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aerts, D. (2007) General quantum modeling of combining concepts: A quantum field model in Fock space. Available at: http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/0705.1740.Google Scholar
Aerts, D. (2009) Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53:314–48.Google Scholar
Aerts, D. (2011) Quantum interference and superposition in cognition: Development of a theory for the disjunction of concepts. In: Worldviews, science and us: Bridging knowledge and its implications for our perspectives of the world, ed. Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., D'Hooghe, B. & Note, N., pp. 169211. World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aerts, D. & Aerts, S. (1995) Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Foundations of Science 1:8597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aerts, D., Aerts, S., Broekaert, J. & Gabora, L. (2000) The violation of Bell inequalities in the macroworld. Foundations of Physics 30(9):1387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aerts, D. & D'Hooghe, B. (2009) Classical logical versus quantum conceptual thought: Examples in economics, decision theory and concept theory. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5494:128–42.Google Scholar
Aerts, D., Durt, T., Grib, A., Van Bogaert, B. & Zapatrin, A. (1993) Quantum structures in macroscopical reality. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 32:489–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aerts, D. & Gabora, L. (2005a) A theory of concepts and their combinations I: The structure of the sets of contexts and properties. Kybernetes 34:167–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aerts, D. & Gabora, L. (2005b) A theory of concepts and their combinations II: A Hilbert space representation. Kybernetes 34:192221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aerts, D., Gabora, L. & Sozzo, S. (in press) Concepts and their dynamics: A quantum-theoretic modeling of human thought. Topics in Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Aerts, D. & Sozzo, S. (2011a) Quantum structure in cognition: Why and how concepts are entangled. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7052:116–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. (1964) On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics 1:195200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. & Rosen, N. (1935) Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 47:777–80.Google Scholar
Feynman, R. P. (1988) QED: The strange theory of light and matter. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabora, L. & Aerts, D. (2002) Contextualizing concepts using a mathematical generalization of the quantum formalism. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 14:327–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (1988a) Disjunction of natural concepts. Memory & Cognition 16:579–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampton, J. A. (1988b) Overextension of conjunctive concepts: Evidence for a unitary model for concept typicality and class inclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14:1232.Google Scholar
Osherson, D. & Smith, E. (1981) On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition 9:3558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed