On Applicability of Quantum Formalism to Model Decision Making: Can Cognitive Signaling Be Compatible with Quantum Theory?

Abstract

This note is devoted to the problem of signaling (marginal inconsistency) in the Bell-type experiments with physical and cognitive systems. It seems that in quantum physics, this problem is still not taken seriously. Only recently have experimenters started to check the signaling hypothesis for their data. For cognitive systems, signaling was statistically significant in all experiments (typically for decision making) performed up to today. Here, one cannot simply ignore this problem. Since signaling contradicts the quantum theory of measurement for compatible observables, its statistical significance in experiments with humans can be considered as an objection for quantum-like modeling—applications of quantum theory to cognition, decision making, psychology, economics and finance, social and political science. In this paper, we point to two possible sources of signaling generation that are consistent with quantum measurement theory. Thus, the signaling objection for quantum-like modeling is not catastrophic. One of these sources is the direct physical signaling about selection of experimental settings, questions or tasks in quantum-like studies. Another possible source is a state modification dependent on experimental settings. The latter was a rather common source of signaling in quantum physics. Since the physical size of the brain is very small comparing with the light velocity, it seems to be impossible to prevent the direct physical signaling (with electromagnetic waves) between the brain’s areas processing two questions a and b. However, if, for these questions, not the electromagnetic waves, but electrochemical communication plays the crucial role, the experimenter may hope to make signaling weaker by answering the questions faster. The problem of question-dependent mental state modification seems to be solvable via smarter experimental design. This paper can be useful both for physicists interested in quantum foundations and for researchers working in quantum-like studies, e.g., applying the quantum theory to model decision making or psychological effects. This paper is solely about quantum theory. Thus, we do not consider general contextual probabilistic models.

Human Cognition Surpasses the Nonlocality Tsirelson Bound: Is Mind Outside of Spacetime?

“…As we explore below, how violations of Bell / CHSH or even super correlation results have been observed in cognitive experiments. We also note that some authors (Khrennikov, 2022) have observed that if the observables in a particular theory cannot be represented by Hermitian operators, there might not be any T bound constraint.…”

Mapping the Quantum Frontier in Decision-making: A Comprehensive Review on the Implications of QDT for Strategy and Governance

“…The literature posits that QDT serves as a comprehensive tool for understanding human decision-making, particularly within contexts complicated by irrationality and psychological factors. Unlike classical models that often marginalize the role of emotions and cognitive biases, QDT is inherently equipped to incorporate these variables into its framework (Khrennikov, 2022;Vaid & Chaudhary, 2022). The theory accommodates the complexity of human behavior, including incongruities and idiosyncrasies exhibited by individuals when making decisions (Song et al, 2022;Dervishaj & Cakerri, 2022).…”

“…The theory accommodates the complexity of human behavior, including incongruities and idiosyncrasies exhibited by individuals when making decisions (Song et al, 2022;Dervishaj & Cakerri, 2022). Furthermore, the quantum framework adopts a less deterministic approach, allowing for a wider range of potential outcomes and the possibility of change, which mirrors the true and often unpredictable nature of human decision-making (Khrennikov, 2022;Song et al, 2022). QDT presents a realistic model for assessing human behavior in decision-making contexts, offering a robust alternative to classical theories that may fall short in capturing the entirety of human complexity (Vaid & Chaudhary, 2022;Dervishaj & Cakerri, 2022).…”