Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-76mfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-15T09:15:20.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Limitations of the Dirac formalism as a descriptive framework for cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2013

Artem Kaznatcheev  and
Thomas R. Shultz
Artem Kaznatcheev
Affiliation:
School of Computer Science, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 1B1, Canada. artem.kaznatchee@mail.mcgill.ca http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~akazna/ Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 1B1, Canada. thomas.shultz@mcgill.ca http://www.tomshultz.net/
Thomas R. Shultz
Affiliation:
School of Computer Science, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 1B1, Canada. artem.kaznatchee@mail.mcgill.ca http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~akazna/ Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 1B1, Canada. thomas.shultz@mcgill.ca http://www.tomshultz.net/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We highlight methodological and theoretical limitations of the authors' Dirac formalism and suggest the von Neumann open systems approach as a resolution. The open systems framework is a generalization of classical probability and we hope it will allow cognitive scientists to extend quantum probability from perception, categorization, memory, decision making, and similarity judgments to phenomena in learning and development.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 292 - 293
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aerts, D. & Sozzo, S. (2011b) Quantum structure in cognition: Why and how concepts are entangled. In: Proceedings of the Quantum Interaction Conference, pp. 118–29. Springer.Google Scholar
Bruza, P., Kitto, K., Nelson, D. & McEvoyc, C. (2009) Is there something quantum-like about the human mental lexicon? Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53:362–77.Google Scholar
Chefles, A. (2000) Quantum state discrimination. Contemporary Physics 41(6):401–24.Google Scholar
Franco, R. (2009) The conjunction fallacy and interference effects. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53:415–22.Google Scholar
Griffiths, T. L., Kemp, C. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008) Bayesian models of cognition. In: Cambridge handbook of computational cognitive modeling, ed. Sun, R., pp. 59–100. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaznatcheev, A. (submitted) Unifying quantum and Markov models of decision making.Google Scholar
Litt, A., Eliasmith, C., Kroon, F. W., Weinstein, S. & Thagard, P. (2006) Is the brain a quantum computer? Cognitive Science 30:593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. (2000) Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shultz, T. R. (2007) The Bayesian revolution approaches psychological development. Developmental Science 10:357–64.Google Scholar