Cited by 91Quantum Mechanics and ApplicationsCognitive Science and Education ResearchCognitive Computing and Networks

Quantum-like modeling of cognition

Open access
Khrennikov, Andrei·2015·Frontiers in Physics

Abstract

This paper begins with a historical review of the mutual influence of physics and psychology, from Freud's invention of psychic energy inspired by von Boltzmann' thermodynamics to the enrichment quantum physics gained from the side of psychology by the notion of complementarity (the invention of Niels Bohr who was inspired by William James), besides we consider the resonance of the correspondence between Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung in both physics and psychology. Then we turn to the problem of development of mathematical models for laws of thought starting with Boolean logic and progressing towards foundations of classical probability theory. Interestingly, the laws of classical logic and probability are routinely violated not only by quantum statistical phenomena but by cognitive phenomena as well. This is yet another common feature between quantum physics and psychology. In particular, cognitive data can exhibit a kind of the probabilistic interference effect. This similarity with quantum physics convinced a multi-disciplinary group of scientists (physicists, psychologists, economists, sociologists) to apply the mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics to modeling of cognition. We illustrate this activity by considering a few concrete phenomena: the order and disjunction effects, recognition of ambiguous figures, categorization-decision making. In Appendix 1 we briefly present essentials of theory of contextual probability and a method of representations of contextual probabilities by complex probability amplitudes (solution of the ``inverse Born's problem'') based on a quantum-like representation algorithm (QLRA).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fphy.2015.00077

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Order effects, conjunction and disjunction fallacies, and other context-dependent phenomena cannot be fully captured by classical probabilistic models but are naturally accommodated within quantum probability through interference and contextuality.

    “These include order effects, conjunction and disjunction fallacies, and other context-dependent phenomena that cannot be fully captured by classical probabilistic models but are naturally accommodated within quantum probability through interference and contextuality [45].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Ballentine LE. Quantum Mechanics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall (1989).
  2. Trueblood JS, Busemeyer, JR. A quantum probability model for order effects on inference. Cogn Sci. (2011) 35:1518-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1551- 6709.2011.01197.x · DOI
  3. Plotnitsky A. Epistemology and Probability: Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrdinger, and the Nature of Quantum-Theoretical Thinking, Springer Series Fundamental Theories in Physics. Berlin; New York, NY: Springer Scientific Publications (2009).
  4. Penrose R. The Emperor's New Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1989).
  5. Penrose R. Shadows of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1994).
  6. Ser. Math. Model. Växjö: Växjö University Press (2002). p. 99-116.
  7. Meier CA, (ed.). Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters, 1932-1958. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  8. Kant I. The Critique of Pure Reason. London: Penguin Classics (2008).
  9. Khrennikov A. Interpretations of Probability, 2nd Edn. Berlin: De Gruyter (2010).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khrennikov, A.
Affiliations
Linnaeus University (SE)
Corresponding author
Khrennikov, Andrei
Venue
Frontiers in Physics
Published
2015-09-22
Volume
3
ISSN
2296-424X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2198371489
Cited by
91
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cognitive Computing and Networks
Keywords
quantum cognition, laws of thought, Boolean logic, classical probability, order effects, disjunction effect, contextual probability, complementarity, Niels Bohr, William James, Wolfgang Pauli, Carl Jung

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review