4.1 Article

Statistical and subjective interpretations of probability in quantum-like models of cognition and decision making

Journal

JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 74, Issue -, Pages 82-91

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmp.2016.02.005

Keywords

Classical and quantum probability; Subjective and statistical probabilities; Interpretation; Decision making; Probability update; QBism; Vaxjo interpretation

Funding

  1. Faculty of Technology, Linnaeus University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The paper starts with an introduction to the basic mathematical model of classical probability (CP), i.e. the Kolmogorov (1933) measure-theoretic model. Its two basic interpretations are discussed: statistical and subjective. We then present the probabilistic structure of quantum mechanics (QM) and discuss the problem of interpretation of a quantum state and the corresponding probability given by Born's rule. Applications of quantum probability (QP) to modeling of cognition and decision making (DM) suffer from the same interpretational problems as QM. Here the situation is even more complicated than in physics. We analyze advantages and disadvantages of the use of subjective and statistical interpretations of QP. The subjective approach to QP was formalized in the framework of Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) as the result of efforts from C. Fuchs and his collaborators. The statistical approach to QP was presented in a variety of interpretations of QM, both in nonrealistic interpretations, e.g., the Copenhagen interpretation (with the latest version due to A. Plotnitsky), and in realistic interpretations (e.g., the recent Vaxjo interpretation). At present, we cannot make a definite choice in favor of any of the interpretations. Thus, quantum-like DM confronts the same interpretational problem as quantum physics does. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available