Quantum Theory of International Relations: Approaches and Possible Gains

• Authors: Jakub Tesař
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper considers the possible application of quantum theory in political studies, especially in international relations. We introduce our classification based on three logical ways of how to connect areas so remote: through the relation of identity, analogy and metaphor which reflects three basic epistemic positions. Next, we review existing work against this classification before moving on to consider some of the uses and potential gains offered by quantum mind hypothesis, quantum models of reasoning and decisionmaking, and quantum metaphor.

Keywords

EN

quantum theory; international relations; quantum game theory; cognitive psychology; Cartesian science

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Human Affairs
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 25
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 486-502

Dates

published

2015-10-01

online

2015-10-06

Contributors

author

Jakub Tesař

• Institute of Political Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague, U Kříže 8, 158 00 Praha 5 Czech Republic

References

• Aerts, D., & Aerts, S. (1994). Application of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Foundations of Science, 1, 85-97.
• Akrivoulis, D. E. (2002). The quantum politics metaphor in international relations: Revising American Newtonianism. University of Kent at Canterbury. PhD thesis.
• Arfi, B. (2005). Resolving the trust predicament: A quantum game-theoretic approach. Theory and Decision, 59(2), 127-174. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-005-8632-4[Crossref]
• Atmanspacher, H. (1999). Cartesian cut, Heisenberg cut, and the concept of complexity. In W. Hofkirchner (Ed.), The Quest for a unified theory of information: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Foundations of Information Science (pp. 125-147). Amsterdam: Psychology Press.
• Atmanspacher, H. (2011). Quantum approaches to consciousness. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2011). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/qt-consciousness/
• Atmanspacher, H., Römer, H., & Walach, H. (2002). Weak quantum theory: Complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Foundations of Physics, 32(3), 379-406. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014809312397[Crossref]
• Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801-831. http://doi.org/10.1086/345321[Crossref]
• Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press.
• Becker, T. L. (Ed.). (1991). Quantum politics: Applying quantum theory to political phenomena. New York: Praeger.
• Becker, T. L., & Slaton, C. D. (2000). The future of teledemocracy: Visions and theories, action experiments, global practices. Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers.
• Bohm, D. (2005). Wholeness and the implicate order. London and New York: Routledge. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203995150[Crossref]
• Born, M. (1949). Natural philosophy of cause and chance. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Retrieved from http://archive.org/details/naturalphilosoph032159mbp Burtt, E. A. (2003). The metaphysical foundations of modern science. Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications.
• Busemeyer, J. R., & Bruza, P. D. (2014). Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200-219.
• Cohen, I. B. (1994). Newton and the social sciences, with special reference to economics, or, the case of the missing paradigm. In P. Mirowski (Ed.), Natural images in economic thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511572128.003[Crossref]
• Dator, J. A. (1983). Quantum politics and political design. In R. Homann (Ed.), Changing lifestyles as indicators of new and cultural values. Zurich: G. Duttweiler.
• Davies, P. C. W. (2004). Does quantum mechanics play a non-trivial role in life? Biosystems, 78(1-3), 69-79. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2004.07.001 [Crossref]
• diZerega, G. (1991). Integrating quantum theory with post-modern political thought and action: The priority of relationships over objects. In T. L. Becker (Ed.), Quantum politics: Applying quantum theory to political phenomena (pp. 65-97). New York: Praeger.
• Doyle, R. O. (n.d.). Adequate determinism. [on-line]. Retrieved from http://www.informationphilosopher. com/freedom/adequate_determinism.html
• Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1967). The evolution of physics (18th Printing edition). New York: Touchstone.
• Eisert, J., Wilkens, M., & Lewenstein, M. (1999). Quantum games and quantum strategies. Physical Review Letters, 83(15), 3077-3080. http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3077[Crossref]
• Ekstrom, S. R. (2004). The mind beyond our immediate awareness: Freudian, Jungian, and cognitive models of the unconscious. The Journal of Analytical Psychology, 49(5), 657-682. http://doi. org/10.1111/j.0021-8774.2004.00494.x [Crossref]
• Esfeld, M. (2001). Holism in philosophy of mind and philosophy of physics. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (2014). Consciousness in the universe: A review of the “Orch OR” theory. Physics of Life Reviews, 11(1), 39-78. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002[Crossref]
• Heilman, J. G. (1991). Present at the creation: A quantum perspective on the methodology of political research. In T. L. Becker (Ed.), Quantum politics: Applying quantum theory to political phenomena (pp. 201-218). New York: Praeger.
• Heisenberg, W. (1971). Physics and beyond. London: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.
• Hodgson, D. (2002). Quantum physics, consciousness, and free will. In R. Kane (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of free will (pp. 85-110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Home, D. (1997). Conceptual foundations of quantum physics: An overview from modern perspectives. New York: Plenum Press.
• Hulswit, M. (2002). From cause to causation: A Peircean perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• James, P. A. (1991). A quantum reconceptualization of political stability: The role of entropy in modeling system evolution. In T. L. Becker (Ed.), Quantum politics: Applying quantum theory to political phenomena (pp. 127-147). New York: Praeger.
• Kazemi, A. A. (n.d.). Scholar E-Journal: Quantum Politics: New Methodological Perspective. Retrieved from http://scholarforum.blogspot.cz/2011/02/quantum-politics-new-methodological.html
• Khrennikov, A. Yu. (1999). Classical and quantum mechanics on information spaces with applications to cognitive, psychological, social, and anomalous phenomena. Foundations of Physics, 29(7), 1065-1098. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018885632116[Crossref]
• Khrennikov, A. Yu., & Haven, E. (2009). Quantum mechanics and violations of the sure-thing principle: The use of probability interference and other concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 378-388. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2009.01.007[Crossref]
• Kurki, M. (2008). Causation in international relations: Reclaiming causal analysis. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Laloë, F. (2012). Do we really understand quantum mechanics? New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Litt, A., Eliasmith, C., Kroon, F. W., Weinstein, S., & Thagard, P. (2006). Is the brain a quantum computer? Cognitive Science, 30(3), 593-603. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_59[Crossref]
• Munro, W. B. (1928). Physics and politics--An old analogy revised. The American Political Science Review, 22(1), 1. http://doi.org/10.2307/1945056[Crossref]
• Norris, C. (2000). Quantum theory and the flight from realism: Philosophical responses to quantum mechanics. London/New York: Routledge.
• Overman, E. S. (1991). Policy physics. In T. L. Becker (Ed.), Quantum politics: Applying quantum theory to political phenomena (pp. 151-167). New York: Praeger.
• Piotrowski, E. W., & Sładkowski, J. (2003). An invitation to quantum game theory. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 42(5), 1089-1099. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025443111388[Crossref]
• 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, rspb.2009.0121. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0121[Crossref]
• Ruetsche, L. (2011). Interpreting quantum theories. Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University Press.
• Rummel, R. J. (1991). Political perception, latent functions, and social fields: A quantum theory approach to politics. In T. L. Becker (Ed.), Quantum politics: Applying quantum theory to political phenomena (pp. 101-125). New York: Praeger.
• Satinover, J. (2002). The quantum brain: The search for freedom and the next generation of man. New York: Wiley.
• Tegmark, M. (2000). Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Phys. Rev. E, 61(4), 4194-4206. http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194[Crossref]
• The Ohio State University. (n.d.). Alexander Wendt homepage. [on-line]. Retrieved from https://polisci. osu.edu/faculty/wendt
• Tribe, L. H. (1991). The curvature of constitutional space: What lawyers can learn from modern physics. In T. L. Becker (Ed.), Quantum politics: Applying quantum theory to political phenomena (pp. 169-199). New York: Praeger.
• Turner, J. H., Beeghley, L., & Powers, C. H. (2007). The emergence of sociological theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
• Tyc, T. (2006). Základy kvantové mechaniky [Basic quantum mechanics]. [on-line], Brno. Retrieved from http://www.physics.muni.cz/~tomtyc/kvantovka.pdf
• Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wendt, A. (2004). Social theory as Cartesian science: An auto-critique from a quantum perspective. Retrieved from http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/WendtAutoCritique.pdf
• Yukalov, V. I., & Sornette, D. (2011). Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory and Decision, 70(3), 283-328.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/humaff-2015-0039