Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-rxg44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T07:45:24.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

At home in the quantum world

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2013

Harald Atmanspacher
Harald Atmanspacher*
Affiliation:
Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology, D-79098 Freiburg, Germany; Collegium Helveticum, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland. atmanspacher@collegium.ethz.ch http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/cv/cv_ha.htm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One among many misleading quotations about the alleged mysteries of quantum theory is from Feynman (1965): “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” Today we know that quantum theory describes many aspects of our world in a fully intelligible fashion. Pothos & Busemeyer (P&B) propose ways in which this may include psychology and cognitive science.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 276 - 277
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. & Aerts, S. (1995) Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Foundations of Science 1:85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atmanspacher, H. & beim Graben, P. (2007) Contextual emergence of mental states from neurodynamics. Chaos and Complexity Letters 2:151–68.Google Scholar
Atmanspacher, H. & Filk, T. (2010) A proposed test of temporal nonlocality in bistable perception. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 54:314–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atmanspacher, H. & Römer, H. (2012) Order effects in sequential measurements of non-commuting psychological observables. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 56:274–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atmanspacher, H., Römer, H. & Walach, H. (2002) Weak quantum theory: Complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Foundations of Physics 32:379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
beim Graben, P., Filk, T. & Atmanspacher, H. (2013) Epistemic entanglement due to non-generating partitions of classical dynamical systems. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 52:723–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruza, P., Kitto, K., Ramm, B. & Sitbon, L. (2012) A probabilistic framework for analyzing the compositionality of conceptual combinations. Under review.Google Scholar
Busemeyer, J. R. & Bruza, P. D. (2012) Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R. P. (1965) The character of physical law. Random House, p. 129.Google Scholar
Gudder, S. P. (1988) Quantum probability. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (1970) The roots of complementarity. Daedalus 99:1015–55.Google Scholar
Khrennikov, A. Y. (1999) Classical and quantum mechanics on information spaces with applications to cognitive, psychological, social and anomalous phenomena. Foundations of Physics 29:1065–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primas, H. (2007) Non-Boolean descriptions of mind-matter systems. Mind and Matter 5:7–44.Google Scholar
Redei, M. & Summers, S. J. (2007) Quantum probability theory. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38:390–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar