Advertisement

Foundations of Science

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 757–778 | Cite as

The Heart of an Image: Quantum Superposition and Entanglement in Visual Perception

  • Jonito Aerts Arguëlles
Article
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

We analyse the way in which the principle that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’ manifests itself with phenomena of visual perception. For this investigation we use insights and techniques coming from quantum cognition, and more specifically we are inspired by the correspondence of this principle with the phenomenon of the conjunction effect in human cognition. We identify entities of meaning within artefacts of visual perception and rely on how such entities are modelled for corpuses of texts such as the webpages of the World-Wide Web for our study of how they appear in phenomena of visual perception. We identify concretely the conjunction effect in visual artefacts and analyse its structure in the example of a photograph. We also analyse quantum entanglement between different aspects of meaning in artefacts of visual perception. We confirm its presence by showing that well elected experiments on images retrieved accordingly by Google Images give rise to probabilities and expectation values violating the Clauser Horne Shimony Holt version of Bell’s inequalities. We point out how this approach can lead to a mathematical description of the meaning content of a visual artefact such as a photograph.

Keywords

Quantum theory Quantum cognition Visual perception Conjunction effect Quantum entanglement Bell’s inequalities 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I want to thank Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi, Sandro Sozzo and Tomas Veloz for their continuous support and their valuable comments on the draft versions of this article.

References

  1. Aerts, D. (1998). The entity and modern physics: The creation-discovery view of reality. In E. Castellani (Ed.), Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics (pp. 223–257). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aerts, D. (2009a). Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 314–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aerts, D. (2009b). Quantum particles as conceptual entities: A possible explanatory framework for quantum theory. Foundations of Science, 14, 361–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aerts, D. (2010a). Interpreting quantum particles as conceptual entities. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 49, 2950–2970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aerts, D. (2010b). A potentiality and conceptuality interpretation of quantum physics. Philosophica, 83, 15–52.Google Scholar
  6. Aerts, D., Aerts, J. A., Beltran, L., Beltran, L., Distrito, I., Sassoli de Bianchi, M., Sozzo, S., & Veloz, T. (2017a). Towards a quantum World-Wide Web. Submitted to Theoretical Computer Science. Preprint at ArXiv:1703.06642 [cs.AI].
  7. Aerts, D., Aerts, J. A., Beltran, L., Distrito, I., Sassoli de Bianchi, M., Sozzo, S., et al. (2017b). Context and interference effects in the combinations of natural concepts. CONTEXT 2017: Modeling and Using Context. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10257, 677–690.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57837-8_54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aerts, D., Aerts, J. A., Beltran, L., Beltran, L., Sassoli de Bianchi, M., Sozzo, S., et al. (2017c). Testing quantum models of conjunction fallacy on the World-Wide Web. International Journal of Theoretical Physics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-017-3288-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aerts, D., Aerts, J. A., Beltran, L., Geriente, S., Sassoli de Bianchi, M., Sozzo, S., et al. (2017d). Spin and wind directions I: Identifying entanglement in nature and cognition. Foundations of Science.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-017-9528-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Aerts, D., Aerts, J. A., Beltran, L., Geriente, S., Sassoli de Bianchi, M., Sozzo, S., et al. (2017e). Spin and wind directions II: A Bell state quantum model. Foundations of Science.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-017-9530-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., & Gabora, L. (2011). A case for applying an abstracted quantum formalism to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 136–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Aerts, D., & Coecke, B. (1999). The creation-discovery-view: towards a possible explanation of quantum reality. In M. L. Dalla Chiara, R. Giuntini, & F. Laudisa (Eds.), Language, quantum, music: Selected contributed papers of the tenth international congress of logic, methodology and philosophy of science, Florence, August 1995. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Aerts, D., & Czachor, M. (2004). Quantum aspects of semantic analysis and symbolic artificial intelligence. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 37, L123–L132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Aerts, D., & Gabora, L. (2005a). A theory of concepts and their combinations I. The structure of the sets of contexts and properties. Kybernetes, 34, 192–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Aerts, D., & Gabora, L. (2005b). A theory of concepts and their combinations II. A Hilbert space representation. Kybernetes, 34, 167–191.Google Scholar
  16. Aerts, D., Gabora, L., & Sozzo, S. (2013). Concepts and their dynamics: A quantum-theoretic modeling of human thought. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5, 737–772.Google Scholar
  17. Aerts, D., & Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2015a). The unreasonable success of quantum probability I: Quantum measurements as uniform fluctuations. Journal Mathematical Psychology, 67, 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Aerts, D., & Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2015b). The unreasonable success of quantum probability II: Quantum measurements as universal measurements. Journal Mathematical Psychology, 67, 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Aerts, D., & Sozzo, S. (2011). Quantum structure in cognition: Why and how concepts are entangled. Quantum Interaction, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7052, 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Aerts, D., Sozzo, S., & Veloz, T. (2015a). Quantum structure in cognition and the foundations of human reasoning. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 54, 4557–4569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Aerts, D., Sozzo, S., & Veloz, T. (2015b). Quantum structure of negation and conjunction in human thought. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Aerts, D., Sozzo, S., & Veloz, T. (2015c). A new fundamental evidence of non-classical structure in the combination of natural concepts. Philosophical Trasactions of the Royal Society A, 374, 20150095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Aerts J. A. (2017a). Eigengrau. End Work Master Thesis. KASK, Ghent, Belgium.Google Scholar
  24. Aerts J. A. (2017b). Gestalten van Emergentie in Visuele Perceptie. Een Zoektocht in Kunst en Wetenschap. Master Thesis. KASK, Ghent, Belgium.Google Scholar
  25. Aspect, A., Grangier, P., & Roger, G. (1981). Experimental tests of realistic local theories via Bell’s theorem. Physical Review Letters, 47, 460–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Bell, J. S. (1987). Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Busemeyer, J., & Bruza, P. (2012). Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E. M., Franco, R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2011). A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychological Review, 118, 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Clauser, J. F., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., & Holt, R. A. (1969). Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Physical Review Letters, 23, 880–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Feynman, R. (1965). The character of physical law. New York: Modern Library. See Chapter 6, Probability and Uncertainty—The Quantum Mechanical View of Nature, p. 129.Google Scholar
  32. Gabora, L., & Kitto, K. (2016). Towards a quantum theory of humour. Frontiers in Physics, 4,  https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2016.00053.
  33. Hampton, J. A. (1988). Overextension of conjunctive concepts: Evidence for a unitary model for concept typicality and class inclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 12–32.Google Scholar
  34. Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A. (2013). Quantum social science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heisenberg, W. (1969). Der Teil und das Ganze: Gespräche im Umkreis der Atomphysik. Munchen: Piper Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
  36. Khrennikov, A. (2010). Ubiquitous quantum structure: From psychology to finances. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moro, R. (2009). On the nature of the conjunction fallacy. Synthese, 171, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 9, 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2009). A quantum probability explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 2171–2178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2011). Ephemeral properties and the illusion of microscopic particles. Foundations of Science, 16, 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sozzo, S. (2014). A quantum probability explanation in Fock space for borderline contradictions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 58, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sozzo, S. (2015). Conjunction and negation of natural concepts: A quantum-theoretic modeling. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 66, 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trueblood, J. S., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). A quantum probability account of order effects in inference. Cognitive Science, 35, 1518–1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgments of and by representativeness. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KASK and ConservatoryGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations