This week, I participated in the “Quantum Social Science Bootcamp”, a webinar that introduced and discussed how different topics and fields can be redefined as we move from assumptions associated with Newtonian mechanics to those associated with Quantum mechanics. The presentations ranged from QM to metaphysics, Buddhism, international relations, cognition, game theory, law and decision-making theory and more.
The presentations also ranged from “quantum realist” to “quantum like” approaches. This is a key distinction where a quantum realist approach means that you claim that psychological and social phenomena are, in essence, macroscopic quantum phenomena. One such example is Alexander Wendt’s book Quantum Mind and Social Science, where he argues that we are walking wave functions and that social life is a manifestation of quantum coherence. Other proponents of linking quantum effects with consciousness are Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. A common and obvious argument against this is that quantum phenomena can only be observed on a small quantum level scale and that the brain is too wet, warm and noisy to sustain quantum coherence.
The “quantum like” approaches imply taking insights, models and tools from quantum mechanics and applying them in e.g. decision theory or behavioural economy to give better explanations of quantitative results than established classical theories that can be traced to Newtonian assumptions.
I understand this distinction as being between an ontological and an epistemological application of QM and I am not yet convinced that the ontological application is valid. Despite Wendt’s and others’ arguments, for me, there is still a big step to explain consciousness from mechanisms valid at the quantum level.
However, I see the epistemological connection as natural and a good example of how a breakthrough and paradigm shift in one field have ripple effects in other fields. Or when similar shifts occur in several fields due to some other underlying cause. One such example is the insight that you in the quantum world cannot measure a particle without at the same time changing its state, thus questioning the classical assumption of the neutral (3rd person) observer and properties being inherent in the object. One interpretation of this is that the measurement equipment becomes part of the system that is measured (Niels Bohr’s interpretation). This is reflected in psychology, where a measurement, such as an interview or survey, will affect and change the state of the responder. This is exemplified by the Clinton–Gore poll questions, where some respondents were asked whether they think Clinton is trustworthy and then the same for Gore. In contrast, some other respondents were asked to assess Gore first and then Clinton. The results between the two orders were very different; asking about Clinton first and then Gore giving 50 % and 60 %, respectively, whereas asking about Gore first and then Clinton giving 68 % and 57 %, respectively.
The notion of superposition, i.e. a particle can be at several positions at the same time until we make the measurement, can also be applied in human information processing and decision-making. It should also be noted that the relationship between QM and other research fields is not unilateral. Some tools and concepts were also imported from psychology to QM.
One reflection I make is that I see a similar shift in other fields. This winter, I attended a conference on complexity leadership. Here, many argued that they represented a new paradigm in leadership theory that was finally gaining traction, as it challenges individual and leader-follower-based approaches. This reflects a corresponding shift from a reductionistic and Newtonian mindset to a complex and relational one. And yes, there is a field of leadership study that’s denoted Quantum leadership (not discussed at this webinar).
If we take the relation between quantum and social phenomena as epistemological, then I think a fruitful path forward is looking at our mindsets and meaning-making, which we study in adult development psychology. In my work, I argue that these shifts are reflected in a corresponding shift in our meaning-making, from formal logical thinking (according to Piaget) and a third-person perspective to more complex modes of thinking, e.g. dialectical thinking, and higher-order perspective taking (forthcoming). And this argument is relevant also for the ontological connection between QM and social science.
This adult development perspective does not assume that there is a rational or correct way to view and engage in the world, as opposed to delusional and irrational ways. Rather, we make meaning in different ways with varying degrees of complexity, which have consequences for our models of reality and our ways of acting. A question I am pursuing now is how reality, e.g. in terms of time and space, is perceived from the different perspectives and ways of making meaning.
A final illustration is the Ouroboros that one of the more influential quantum physicists John Wheeler made to illustrate how we are always participating in the universe that we try to study. For instance, how we change a particle’s state as we measure it. Wheeler’s somewhat alchemical image comes from Atmanspacher and Rickles’ Dual-aspect monism and the deep structure of meaning (2022) but was also shown at the webinar by Amanda Gefter, who gave a fascinating story of the relation between Wheeler and his protégé Peter Putnam.
Below is a figure I made four years ago illustrating a 4th person perspective, so I suspect some archetypal qualities to be present in the motif.
