HUMAN AFFAIRS 25, 486–502, 2015 DOI: 10.

1515/humaff-2015-0039

QUANTUM THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS:

JAKUB TESAŘ

Abstract: 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 decision-
making, and quantum metaphor.
Key words: quantum theory; international relations; quantum game theory; cognitive psychology;
Cartesian science.

Quantum theory (QT) developed at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries to explain some
weird physical phenomena2 and became one of the most successful theories in modern
history. Its validity has been confirmed by many experiments to an extraordinary level of
precision, and it has provided the basis for a new era in human history: the Information Age.
But why would a political scientist deal with a physical theory that explains the behavior of
tiny particles such as photons and electrons on a microscopic level? Because not only is it
the realm of natural science that has produced groundbreaking innovations. Quantum theory
poses a fundamental challenge to the classical notion of reality in general, as it radically
alters the grounds on which it is constructed (e.g. Norris, 2000).
There are two basic reasons for applying quantum theory to the field of international
relations (IR). First, modern science was based on the Cartesian idea of the world, which
is rationalistic, mechanistic, directly relates cause and results, and enables us to make
predictions (in principle at least). It assumes a world that exists independently of the

1
This article was written as part of specific academic research project no. 260111/2014 Political
Conflicts and Policy-making at the Beginning of the 21st Century at the Institute of Political Studies,
Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague.
2
Primarily black-body radiation and the photo effect.

486
© Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences
observer, a world that can be grasped by man to be observed and measured. This broad
worldview is also reflected in the positivistic tradition of IR theory (Akrivoulis, 2002). But
this clear deterministic notion has gradually failed as reality has been interpreted. The use of
the “new-better physics” which alters some of the classical assumptions could help to solve
some of the inadequacies of classical theories. Indeed, some recent research has achieved
notable results in this field (e.g. Pothos & Busemeyer, 2009, see below).
Second, the shortcomings of traditional perspectives in IR theory gave birth to several
interpretative approaches that reject classical determinism and objectivism. Nevertheless,
they have never challenged the core assumptions of the Cartesian worldview. The radical
shift to holism and idealism (in terms of Wendt’s four sociologies (Wendt, 1999)) has
not been accompanied by a proper shift in the underlying metaphysics. There is still “an
epistemic vacuum” (see Kazemi, n.d.), which quantum theory could help to fill. This would
mean that scientific universalism could be partly regained.
This article consists of two parts with two different aims. In the first section we consider
how QT has changed our traditional (Cartesian/Newtonian) worldview. In the second part
we review existing approaches to the application of QT in sociology and political science
and comparing the various ontological and epistemological positions they take. We discuss
quantum mind, quantum reasoning, and the quantum metaphor approach. Finally we use this
as the basis for setting out our ideas on the future direction of research in this field.

Positivistic foundations of modern science, sociology as social physics

The foundations of the modern scientific method were laid in the Age of Enlightenment, at
the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, especially in the works of Francis Bacon (inductive
method and empiricism), René Descartes (dualism, objectivism and rationalism), Isaac
Newton (mechanism and determinism) and David Hume (causality and positivism).
This relatively compact set of ideas3 can be called “Cartesian science” after one of the
cornerstones of this method—Cartesian dualism (cf. Wendt, 2004). However, it was
Newton’s universal gravitation that made this new approach significant and a model for
others. What are the basics of Cartesian science?
1. Dualism of mind and matter: There are two distinct substances in the world—thinking
substance (res cogitans) and extended substance (res extensa). Mind and matter follow
their own rules and differ entirely from one other.
2. Distinguishing between object and subject (objectivism): We observe objects of inquiry
without influencing them. They exist independently of the observer.
According to Atmanspacher, these are the regulative principles of contemporary science.
They are often referred to as the Cartesian cut and the Heisenberg cut (Atmanspacher, 1999,
pp. 127-130). But there are other characteristics stemming from these cuts.
3. We can gain knowledge of the outer world through observation and rational reasoning
(empiricism/rationalism, as opposed to the use of metaphysics).
4. The outer world consists of material objects (materialism).

3
There are fundamental differences in their work, but there is a common body that is now considered
to be the modern scientific method (Burtt, 2003).

487
5. These objects can be reduced to smaller ones and analyzed per partes (reductionism).
6. Material objects are governed by natural laws. If we know the exact state of the system,
we can predict its temporal development (determinism).
7. These laws obey three principles of causality (local mechanism): Causality itself
(occurrence of event B depends on the occurrence of event A), antecedence (the cause
must be prior or at least simultaneous with the effect) and contiguity (cause and effect
must be in direct or indirect spatial contact) (Born, 1949).
Moreover, due to mind trapped in a material body and the dualism, the basic unit for
social reasoning is the individual. All social phenomena must be reducible to facts about
individuals (individualism) (cf. Burtt, 2003; Busemeyer & Bruza, 2014; Wendt, 2004).
These features, notwithstanding differences between the theorists, became the basic
paradigm of modern science. Newton’s discovery of universal gravitation (and the laws
of motion) played a crucial role here, proving the power of the new approach in a field
traditionally home to great dispute among philosophers. Its influence on the emerging social
sciences can easily be seen. Auguste Comte, founder of modern sociology, used the term
social physics for the new science. It reflected his belief that it was possible to find similar
laws for society too. “In [his essay from 1822] Comte argued that it was necessary to create
a ‘positive science’ based on the model of other sciences. This science would ultimately rest
on empirical observations, but, like all science, it would formulate the laws governing the
organization and movement of society … sociologists must use their observations to uncover
the laws governing the social universe, in much the same way as Newton had formulated the
law of gravity” (Turner, Beeghley, & Powers, 2007, p. 40).
There were many others who tried to use Newton’s ideas to build a positivistic social
science. We could mention here Henry Carey’s theory of social gravitation or George
Berkeley’s law of moral attraction as rather bizarre cases (Cohen, 1994). But more serious
examples of the influence of Newtonian science have been known throughout modern history
despite not being immediately apparent. Dimitris Akrivoulis has persuasively shown how
the Newtonian metaphor had a vital impact in two distinct eras of American history: the
Founding Era and the early years of the Cold War. “Through the use of metaphors like the
billiard-ball or the balance-of-power ones, societies and politics are finally reduced to force-
fields where all interaction occurs and confrontations are resolved in terms of power, so that
stability becomes the outcome of the equalization of such powers.” (Akrivoulis, 2002 see
below).
In IR it is quite rare to find Newtonian theory being used directly; nevertheless, the
general aspects of Cartesian science have somewhat inconspicuously marked out the
boundaries for this field. The most important is probably the Humean notion of causation.
As Milja Kurki has shown in her Causation in International Relation (2008), mainstream
positivists (rationalists) and postpositivists (reflectivists) accept that Humean causality is the
dominant discourse in IR. In fact, it was the dominant Humean discourse that divided the
field into causal (explanation) and non-causal (understanding) approaches. Reflectivists have
rejected the use of causality as their starting point because of the difficulties it has dealing
with unobservable causes such as motivations or ideas, but they have never challenged the
Humean notion of causality itself (Kurki, 2008; cf. Hulswit, 2002). And the same is also true
for other aspects of Cartesian science, particularly the dualism of mind and matter. Even the

488
intrepretivists “... have never doubted the classical assumption that ultimately reality is purely
material, only that an analysis from such a point of view could capture what really matters in
social life” (Wendt, 2004, p. 6).
To sum up, Cartesian science forms the basis of positivistic approaches in IR theory.
The later postpositivistic approaches rejected some features of this notion but have never
challenged the underlying metaphysics itself. It was QT that reconstructed some of the
classical concepts and has enriched ontological and epistemological ideas in the 20th century
(T. L. Becker, 1991). But due to the departure from scientific universalism that began during
the Enlightenment, the quantum revolution has attracted little consideration in social science
(and international relations particularly).

Basic features of quantum theory

If we are to consider how quantum theory might be applied in the field of international
relations, we need first to understand what quantum theory is. This is quite a challenging
task: “For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot
possibly have understood it” (Heisenberg, 1971, p. 206). But while making practical use of it
requires knowledge of advanced mathematics, understanding its basic features is easier. What
are the groundbreaking innovations that stem from this theory?
A system that obeys the rules of quantum theory is called a quantum system. The possible
states of this system are represented by state vectors and a linear combination which forms
the state space of the system. There are clear rules indicating which states the system can be
found in (eigenstates) and what the values of observable variables (eigenvalues) are. One of
the crucial elements in quantum theory (which gave it its name) is the statement that some of
these values are not continuous but quantized.
But in which state can we find the system? And what is its temporal development?
According to the standard interpretation4, a quantum system is found in the superposition
of all possible states (e.g. the famous Schrödinger’s cat). The development of such a system
flows from the temporal development of its eigenstates (Schrödinger’s equation). If we
observe/measure the system, we obtain one of the eigenvalues of the variable measured.
However, it is only the probability of finding the system in a particular state that stems from
quantum theory. The process of measurement is crucial in quantum theory; according to
the standard interpretation, a collapse of state occurs (that means the system passes from
the superposition of states to a particular state with a well-defined value of an observable
variable). As a result, quantum theory is radically non-deterministic5, as only the probability
of the outputs of the measurements can be ascertained.
The innovative elements of quantum theory include:
• Principle of uncertainty: this limits the precision with which certain pairs of physical
properties of a system can be known simultaneously (complementary variables).

4
We will use the term quantum theory mainly for quantum mechanics and its standard, so-called
Kobenhaven interpretation, developed in the 1930s.
5
This is valid for mainstream interpretations, for other possibilities see below.

489
• Wave-particle duality: we are not able to describe the phenomena in the micro-world with
just one set of equations. Particles behave like classic particles and like waves. “It seems
as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times
we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory
pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but
together they do.” (Einstein & Infeld, 1967, pp. 262-263).
• Entanglement: a phenomenon that has no analogy in the classical world. Entangled
particles behave like one system although they can be in remote places. This feature of
quantum theory radically undermines the classical view of causality.
Quantum theory offers a radically new notion of the world with many features that
were unknown in the classic world. However, the ontological nature of the theory is quite
ambiguous. We have laws that have been experimentally well proven but have not answered
all our questions. There are several interpretations explaining the ontology of this theory,
but there is no empirical means of choosing between them. The standard view (already
mentioned above) is the Copenhagen interpretation developed in the 1930s (mainly) as
a result of collaboration between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. At present there are
over a dozen empirically equivalent interpretations (see Home, 1997; Laloë, 2012; Ruetsche,
2011 for philosophical reflection) and “even though the debate has clarified their implications
and swings of fashion have occurred, none has been ruled out. (This uncertainty poses
a second-order problem for social scientists, in turn, since some interpretations may have
many social implications, and others none)” (Wendt, 2004, pp. 16-17). One of the crucial
themes which distinguishes one interpretation from the others is the (non)deterministic
nature of the quantum world.

Quantum theory and Cartesian science

Quantum theory radically challenges our Cartesian world view in many respects. First and
crucially, there is a measurement problem. We do not possess knowledge of the exact nature
of this phenomenon, but we do know one thing for sure: something really special happens at
the moment of measurement. Due to the state collapse (or state reduction) occurring at that
moment (according to the standard interpretation), we cannot “see” the system itself (Tyc,
2006, pp. 54-56). It is impossible to observe the quantum system without influencing it so we
obtain only partial information about the original state. In the quantum world, we have only
indirect access to reality. This overcomes the Heisenberger cut, and therefore goes directly
against the classical conception of objectivist science.
Second, there are fundamental consequences resulting from the measurement problem
for the nature of the quantum system itself. Since we have no direct access to quantum world,
many models (interpretations) of it exist. The alternative models differ in crucial respects—
whether the vector states in superposition are real objects; whether collapse of state occurs;
and if so, whether it is a deterministic mechanism, etc. Although we cannot be sure of the
ontology, some features of the quantum phenomena stem from the theory (and we are pretty
sure about that because many experiments have been done and have confirmed this). We do
not know, for instance, whether wave function is real (what the quantum world is like) but we
can make use of it (we know how it works). We know we need to use the linear superposition

490
of states to describe the quantum world. Similarly, the classical picture of matter has
changed because of wave-particle dualism. Further, we have discovered the phenomenon
of entanglement. All these features put together quite a different picture of reality which
overcomes Cartesian reductionism and creates a more holistic world. Wave-particle dualism
can be seen in opposition to the possibility of a monothetic explanation.
The last but essential point is that Cartesian determinism faces great difficulties with the
quantum turn. Generally, a quantum system is found in a weird fuzzy state where all possible
states are represented. The concrete values of a particular state can be obtained only after
the state has collapsed. The quantum world is radically non-deterministic in this respect; all
you can know is the probability of particular outputs. This is closely related to Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle (or rather indeterminacy), initially considered to be an epistemological
problem but now recognized to be a real feature of quantum ontology. Several authors have
attempted to make a connection with the problem of free will because of this feature. (If we
were to obey deterministic laws, there would be no place for free will. This poses a crucial
problem for human responsibility and morale. Non-deterministically choosing between the
alternatives (as in the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics) would allow for an
autonomous decision-maker (see Hodgson, 2002).
To conclude the first part, we have shown that quantum theory can replace or at least
challenge many of the cornerstones of the classical notion of reality. Why is this knowledge
not used in other fields? The scale of theorizing is fundamental. Quantum phenomena seem
to occur only in the micro-world, typically in tiny particles like photons, electrons or atoms.
The biggest quantum entangled system ever created contained a mere several hundred
particles. According to the standard interpretation, updated in the 1980s, a greater number of
particles causes the decoherence of the system and quantum properties effectively disappear
(but the transition from the quantum to the classical world is still part of the measurement
problem). Mutual interactions “measure” the system so often that quantum effects simply
do not take shape. This is a way of saving determinism in macro-scale. While the behavior
of a single particle can be non-deterministic, by averaging over a sufficiently extensive set
of particles we gain “adequate determinism ... capable of sending men to the moon and back
with astonishing accuracy” (Doyle, n.d.).
In the next section, we will review the approaches which, despite these obstacles, attempt
to apply quantum theory in social science, particularly in international relations.

Quantum theory in social science, especially political science

We will consider several options regarding the use of QT in social science. We call any
system in which quantum effects (like superposition or entanglement) play a non-negligible
role a quantum system. Let us take a general system called system A. How might this system
work like a quantum system? There are three general options: First, system A works as
a quantum system because it actually is a quantum system. In other words, the physical
characteristics of the system are suitable for the presence of quantum effects. Second, system
A works as a quantum system because it is analogous to a quantum system. That means
general laws exist which are the driving principles for a quantum system and system A as
well (e.g. the generalized non-commutativity principle). Third, system A works as a quantum

491
system because it imitates a quantum system. The model that system A follows is a quantum
system.
These three possible types of relation: that of an identity, an analogy and of a metaphor
constitute the classification we use below. In looking at the application of quantum theory
in social science, we will consider quite distinct ensembles as system A: the human brain
and mind, reasoning, and society or the political sphere as a whole. We will deal with
the quantum mind/consciousness approach (in relations of identity), quantum reasoning
(the relation of analogy) and the quantum metaphor approach. Specific examples of the
application of “quantum politics” are provided throughout this overview.
Quantum theory has been used sporadically in political science and international
relations, and when it has been loose analogies have been the most common. Although the
need for a “quantum revolution in political science” was mentioned as far as back as in 1928
(Munro, 1928), this entreaty largely fell on deaf ears (see Barber, 1984; Dator, 1983 for
exceptions). The turning point was a book, Quantum Politics: Applying Quantum Theory to
Political Phenomenon, edited by Professor Theodore L. Becker (1991). Dimitiris Akrivoulis
showed, in the metaphor approach, that classical concepts of IR (e.g. balance of power) were
reflected in the Newtonian worldview and examined the possibility of developing a new
paradigm based on quantum mechanics (Akrivoulis, 2002). Today, Alexander Wendt is the
leading researcher in this field. His thoughts have been expounded in his replies to critics
of his Social theory of International Politics (Wendt, 2004) and he has recently finished
a book that “explores the implications for social science of the possibility that consciousness
is a macroscopic quantum mechanical phenomenon” (The Ohio State University, n.d.) to be
published in 2015 by Cambridge University Press.

Quantum mind approach

The use of QT in other fields is closely connected to the development of the theory itself.
Apart from the obvious overlaps in chemistry and biology, there is also the question of the
possible quantum essence of human mind and consciousness. We can consider Niels Bohr,
one of the founders of quantum theory, to be the forerunner of this approach.
The quantum mind approach is based on the quantum mind hypothesis which sees a direct
correspondence between the human mind and QT. This matches our first type of relationship,
that of identity. To put it simply, the proponents of this perspective regard human brain as
quantum system (quantum processes play a non-marginal role here) and the human mind as
the manifestation of this system.
Following Atmanspacher, we can classify the different branches of this thinking
according to the level at which the quantum effects would have a part to play. As far as the
quantum features of the brain are concerned, the most influential work is perhaps that of
physicist Robert Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff (see Hameroff & Penrose,
2014 for a review). They utilize the concept of quantum gravitation to explain quantum
decoherence on the level of ensembles of micro tubules. Their orchestrated objective
reduction (Arch-OR) theory has been widely studied and criticized since it goes beyond
the limits of current QT (there is no broadly accepted theory of quantum gravitation as yet)
and many researchers have questioned the very starting point of their theorizing: Penrose’s

492
interpretation of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. Several other theorists are looking for
quantum effects on the level of single neurons and their synapses, or neuronal assemblies
(Atmanspacher, 2011).
We can leave the question of hypothetical quantum mechanism in the brain to
biophysicists and neurologists and simply note that the mere eventuality of its existence has
raised two interesting questions for social science. First, if the human brain were to have
quantum features, could we possibly use them to explain human consciousness? Many see
the innovative principles of QT as a way of overcoming Cartesian dualism and they generally
link consciousness (human inner experience) to the measurement problem (see Davies,
2004; Satinover, 2002). But according to David Chalmers, author of the concept of the “hard
problem of consciousness”, this cannot solve the problem:

The attractiveness of quantum theories of consciousness may stem from a Law of Minimization
of Mystery: consciousness is mysterious and quantum mechanics is mysterious, so maybe the
two mysteries have a common source. Nevertheless, quantum theories of consciousness suffer
from the same difficulties as neural or computational theories. Quantum phenomena have
some remarkable functional properties, such as non-determinism and non-locality. It is natural
to speculate that these properties may play some role in the explanation of cognitive functions,
such as random choice and the integration of information, and this hypothesis cannot be ruled
out a priori. But when it comes to the explanation of experience, quantum processes are in the
same boat as any other. The question of why these processes should give rise to experience is
entirely unanswered (Chalmers, 1995).

Second, if the human brain were a quantum system, could we use the concept of
superposition and non-local mechanism to build a quantum model of society? Proponents
of this branch are concerned with the collective wave-function of members of society (cf.
shared ideas of constructivism) or the entanglement of “individual” quantum systems (human
brains) (Barad, 2003; Bohm, 2005; Ekstrom, 2004; cf. Esfeld, 2001).
Alexander Wendt is the most important thinker in “quantum IR theory”. In his seminal
work, Social Theory of International Politics, he strove to link social constructivism and
realistic tradition (Wendt, 1999). Subsequently, he began to consider what the quantum
features of international relations might be. His theoretical starting point is a radical holistic
idea about the world which goes beyond Cartesian dualism (Wendt, 2004). In his forthcoming
book, Quantum Mind and Social Science, he examines the possible consequences of the
hypothesis that the human mind is a quantum mechanics phenomenon.

Quantum reasoning approach

In the latter half of the 20th century, a second approach appeared that we will call the
quantum reasoning approach. This view represents the middle way in relation to QT: an
analogy of the quantum world based on the likeness of these systems. Those concerned
with this approach do not directly ponder the quantum nature of the human mind but use
quantum laws and concepts (e.g. quantum probability) for phenomena like memory, creation
of concepts, human reasoning and decision making. Their view is (generally speaking) based
on an assumption that the processing of information in complex systems which involves

493
contextual dependency and the probabilistic character of variables is analogous with quantum
systems, so we can use quantum laws to understand human reasoning.
The methodology used is the generalization of quantum concepts, notably non-
commutativity and non-Boolean logic (Atmanspacher, 2011). The reason they are concerned
with quantum formalism is that the nature of the social world is complex. Contextual
dependency challenges individualism and reductionism and introduces a holistic picture of
reality. Epistemologically, it takes up the tradition of positivism or pragmatism depending on
the author in question. The next three sections will look at the most influential strands of the
quantum reasoning approach.

Scientific pragmatism, the loose analogy of quantum theory

Achievements in quantum theory at the beginning of 20th century excited the interest of a po-
litical scientist in the innovative principles of the successful theory. The most straight for-
ward way of doing this was to produce a loose analogy of the systems. This is how we should
perceive Robert Munro’s presidential address to the American Political Science Association
in 1927 in which he appealed for the incorporation of thinking on quantum physics.
So long as the social order was simple, without the unending complexities that have been
infused into it during the past half-century, [the old principles] were not beyond the power of
rational minds to accept. … But we have now passed into an age when the vast laboratory of
world politics is conducting experiments of every kind with unmeasurable rapidity, and we
continue the attempt to explain our electro-dynamics in terms of mechanics – an attempt which
the physicist abandoned a generation ago! (Munro, 1928, p. 4).

This was intended to help to grasp the new complexity of the political world; something
that traditional political science had been incapable of.
A book published in 1991, Quantum politics, (T. L. Becker, 1991) is the direct heir of this
reasoning. The authors of the chapters share the common view that the institutions of liberal
democracy resulted from an analogy with the Newtonian world and sought for participatory
democracy to be built on the quantum worldview. “Two major implications of the world
revealed by quantum physics are the radical breakdown of the subject/object dichotomy
and the paradoxical character of individual entities” (diZerega, 1991, p. 70). Moreover,
they explicitly linked the principles of QT to several post-modern schools of thought like
feminism, ecological movements and non-Western philosophy.
While the first part of Quantum politics concerns the similarities between the physical and
political realms, other chapters offer more detailed ideas about the methodology of the “new
politics”. R. J. Rummel develops the social-field theory of perception, using latent functions
and potentials known from the Heisenberg interpretation of QT (Rummel, 1991). Peggy Ann
James ponders the role of the overall energy of the political system and reconsiders the concept
of political stability. She forms a dynamic model of the system based on the role of entropy.
Max Planck identified a major paradigmatic change in the transfer of allegiance from
a mechanical view of nature to that of energy. … While not usually conceived as parallel
to physics, political science has the potential to undergo the same sort of paradigmatic shift
(James, 1991, p. 127).

494
 She introduces a research method that measures the amount of uncertainty that an
individual event adds to the political system, increasing its entropy. Unfortunately, we are not
aware of any empirical research that has been conducted using this technique.
Laurence H. Tribe has used the new-physics principles with the most fruitful of results.
In his chapter “Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern
Physics”, Tribe (Tribe, 1991) utilizes two metaphors: curvature of space from general
relativity theory and the observer-dependency effect from quantum theory. He presents
a dynamic picture of constitutional space in which “interaction between background and
foreground” takes place, where the observer is never really separated from the system, and
decisions restructure the law itself. But he remains tentative about this,
the criterion of appraisal is whether the concepts we might draw from physics promote
illuminating questions and directions. I press forward in this endeavor because I believe that
reflection upon certain developments in physics can help us hold on to and refine some of our
deeper insights into the pervasive and profound role law plays in shaping our society and our
lives (Tribe, 1991, p. 169).

The last two chapters conclude with the general principles of the new naturalistic
approach: quantum politics (see Heilman, 1991; Overman, 1991).
This book and subsequent ones (e.g. T. L. Becker & Slaton, 2000 dealing with the
concept of teledemocracy) represent renewed interest in the use of quantum theory in
political science. The authors convincingly show the similarity between the political system
and the traditional Newtonian view and propose a shift to a post-modern quantum-based
politics. Nevertheless, this approach has been the target of significant criticism, mainly
regarding the weak link between the work and QT itself. Only some of the principles have
been picked out and applied with no consideration of their applicability to the specific
problem and how they might connect to other features. Therefore, in this respect, this branch
of quantum reasoning is close to the quantum metaphor approach.

Positivism and quantum cognition and decision

The second branch of quantum reasoning consists of work that tries to explain the phenomena
of human cognition, decision making, concept creation and learning by generalizing quantum
concepts. These authors combine an epistemic dualism with ontic monism when they
consider mental and material domains of reality as aspects, or manifestations, of one underlying
reality in which mind and matter are unseparated. In such a framework, the distinction between
mind and matter results from the application of a basic tool for achieving epistemic access
to, i.e., gather knowledge about, both the separated domains and the underlying reality.
… A remarkable feature of [this approach] is the possibility that the mental and material
manifestations may inherit mutual correlations due to the fact that they are jointly caused by
the psychophysically neutral level (Atmanspacher, 2011).

This dual-aspect approach sees a difference between mental and material spheres as
a result of human cognition process and overcomes Cartesian dualism. It also raises the
question of panpsychism (the idea that mentality is a common feature of objects) because
“in the limit of a universal symmetry breaking at the psychophysically neutral level, every

495
system has both a mental and a material aspect” (ibid.). Nevertheless, the notion of mentality
is of the greatest importance here.
The use of quantum concepts, especially non-commutativity and non-Boolean logic, has
led to several notable results in the last 25 years. It has helped explain the sure thing principle
and other “mistakes” in probabilistic reasoning; several works have expanded game theory to
include quantum models, e.g. a successful quantum strategy for the prisoner’s dilemma has
been found (see below). A complete summary of all the authors of this approach is beyond
the limits of this paper. We will now look at the most important perspectives in relation to
political science and international relations.
The theoretical basis for this type of reasoning is provided by Harald Atmanspacher et
al. in Weak Quantum Theory which introduces the general concepts of complementarity and
entanglement (Atmanspacher, Römer, & Walach, 2002). They omit some of the axioms of
standard QT and obtain a system which “is considered as a part of reality in a very general
sense, i.e., it can be the object of attention and investigation beyond the realm of ordinary
quantum theory, possibly even beyond the limitations set by the concept of material reality”
(ibid., 390). Moreover, they provide two examples showing how it can be applied to real
problems (cf. Aerts & Aerts, 1994; Khrennikov, 1999).
In their 2009 paper, Pothos and Busemeyer dealt with the violation of the ‘sure-thing
principle’. Let us look at the experimental arrangement which poses a crucial problem for
traditional decision making.
The sure thing principle (Savage 1954) is fundamental to classical decision theory: if you
prefer action A over B under state of the world X, and you also prefer A over B under the
complementary state ~X, then you should prefer A over B when the state is unknown. This
principle was tested by Tversky & Shafir (1992) in a simple two-stage gambling experiment:
participants were told that they had just played a gamble (even chance to win $200 or lose
$100), and then they were asked to choose whether to play the same gamble a second time. In
one condition, they knew they won the first play; in a second condition, they knew they lost
the first play; and in a third condition, they did not know the outcome. Surprisingly, the results
violated the sure thing principle: following a win/loss, the participants chose to play again on
69%/59%, respectively, of the trials; but when the outcome was unknown, they chose only to
play again on 36 percent of the trials. This preference reversal was observed at the individual
level of analysis with real money at stake (Pothos & Busemeyer, 2009, p. 1).

Pothos and Busemeyer explain the violation of standard rational decision theory using
a set of different preference orders over actions as a set of basis states in a quantum model.
The superposition of preference orders distinguishes it from the standard model (where the
order is considered to be singular and sufficiently stable). As a result interference occurs
and this may explain the inadequacies of classical theory. These results are demonstrated
in another famous game where interference could explain a higher level of cooperation: the
Prisoner’s Dilemma game.
Given the importance of conjunction and disjunction effects on the cognition processes,
this is the main theme of other papers as well (Khrennikov & Haven, 2009; Yukalov &
Sornette, 2011). A recent book, Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision, provides
a particularly detailed elaboration of these models. The authors use two generalized aspects
of QT, contextuality and entanglement, to build a general model of cognition and decision.

496
They also define quantum probability geometrically, using Hilbert space, instead of the
classical probability based on Kolmogorov axioms that use sets (Busemeyer & Bruza, 2014).
The same logic has also been applied to other practical problems of human cognition
and decision making, particularly the creation of concepts, semantics networks, bistable
perceptions, or order effects (e.g. in the process of learning, or in questionnaires) (for more
details see Atmanspacher, 2011).

Quantum game theory

Last, but not least, QT has had a considerable impact on game theory. Quantum formalism
means that possible new strategies can be found using the superposition of possible actions.
Eisert, Wilkens and Lewenstein described a general method for extending classical games
to the quantum domain (Eisert, Wilkens, & Lewenstein, 1999). Using the example of the
Prisoner’s Dilemma, they demonstrated how quantum strategies can change the nature of the
game:
It is interesting to see that [the new entangled quantum strategy] has the property to be Pareto
optimal, that is, by deviating from this pair of strategies it is not possible to increase the pay-
off of one player without lessening the pay-off of the other player. In the classical game only
mutual cooperation is Pareto optimal, but it is not an equilibrium solution. One could say that
by allowing for quantum strategies the players escape the dilemma (Eisert et al., 1999, p. 3).

Quantum game theory is currently above all a mathematical domain (see Piotrowski &
Sładkowski, 2003 for an outline). Nevertheless, several papers have applied this to social
science: Badredine Arfi uses the entanglement of players to explain the occurrence of trust in
the Prisoner’s Dilemma game. She goes beyond the limitations of an individualistic paradigm
and is concerned with collectively reconstructing environment which becomes strategically
entangled (Arfi, 2005).
To sum up, quantum cognition and decision studies probably represent the most
progressive school of thought in our review. The link to QT is quite straightforward and
transparent and the uses of quantum formalism have led to several theoretical conclusions
and empirical results as well. Moreover, its application in game theory and the possible
contextual dependency of decision making may provide for first-hand usage in the field of
international relations.

Quantum metaphor approach

Last but not least, we will consider the third logical possible use of QT: the relation of
metaphor. This interpretive approach is based on the assumption that reality is, to a certain
extent, (co)constituted by our concepts and ideas. If we think of system A using quantum
concepts, it will acquire the characteristics of a quantum system. As mentioned above,
several works link features of modern politics, namely political institutions, to the Newtonian
mechanical worldview (Becker, 1991; Munro, 1928; Wendt, 2004). The formation of some
kinds of quantum patterns would be the logical consequence in this perspective. (The
traditional Newtonian worldview has changed gradually with the emergence of the novel

497
ideas of quantum theory, so the same should hold true for reality itself.) Nevertheless, all
the papers and books mentioned in the previous section consider the quantum model merely
as a way of understanding political phenomena; they do not grant it (apart from a few
exceptions) the power of changing the reality itself. In their view, the power of the quantum
model lies on an epistemological level not an ontological one.
We are aware of only one piece of work which considers in any depth the potential of
quantum metaphor for the realm of international relations according to our third model
of metaphor. In his PhD thesis from 2002, Dimitrios Akrivoulis uses a method based on
Ricoeur’s hermeneutic and considers how IR would change following the “social absorption”
of QT. The reality of the world (and the nature of that world) stems from the prevailing
scientific paradigm which operates as the glasses through which we view the world. He uses
crucial cases in American history—the Founding Era and the early Cold War period—to
show that the classical concepts of IR (e.g. balance of power) were based on the Newtonian
notion of world. Next he examines the possibility of developing a new paradigm based on
quantum mechanics.
After explicating the spatiotemporal traits of the Newtonian imaginary that the quantum one
could possibly destabilize [we] suggested that what is at stake in our reimagining of political
spatiotemporality is how successfully we could meet two core interrelated challenges: a) our
persistence in delineating political spatiotemporality in Newtonian terms by locating political
authority, identity and action only within clear and definable demarcating lines, and b) our
tendency to ascribe a political content to all authority, identity and action only when thus
demarcated (Akrivoulis, 2002, p. 190).

But in his view, the principles of quantum theory itself are not as important as their
depictions, which they gain during the process of social absorption.
what is of importance is less what quantum theories make of space and time than how their
spatiotemporal insights are socially absorbed in their dissemination and popularisation.” The
quantum-model-affected world, he concludes, is “characterised by instantaneous change,
dynamic interactions, and multifaceted political identification occurring in a multiplicity of
constantly emerging, simultaneously coexisting and communicating, yet distinct, political
spatiotemporalities (ibid.).

Criticism of the quantum approach

As mentioned above, quantum theory has rarely been used in social science. Given the rela-
tive novelty of this approach, there is still a lack of discussion on the weaknesses and potential
benefits of such a theory/models. Physicist Max Tegmark has criticized the most advanced ap-
proach, that of quantum mind (Tegmark, 2000). He deduced the timescales of the (quantum)
decoherence processes and compared them with the dynamic timescales of the human brain.
On this basis, he rejected Penrose’s suggestion that the brain acts as a quantum computer
(quantum coherence cannot be sustained long enough to do any computational work). Litt et
al. (2006) used a similar approach together with other biological and psychological argu-
ments. Nevertheless their work has not been without opponents and they did not challenge the
quantum mind approach as a whole, just one option of the realization of quantum mind.

498
 There is a lack of wider testing of quantum cognition and decision models there are
no tests of quantum models on a broader spectrum of events under different experimental
settings. The first results from research explaining existing paradoxes are promising
(Busemeyer & Bruza, 2014), but we do not know if the quantum models will be useful
and coherent under other settings as well. The authors of this approach also differ in their
ontological positions which again may cause a problem with the coherence of such models.
The quantum metaphor approach offers a unique view of the possible application
of quantum theory in social science. But its weakness may be the very process of social
absorption of quantum theory. It is not clear how the ideas of quantum theory will translate
into human perception and the formation of concepts. What subsequently remains of
quantum theory and what can we know directly from the theory then?

Summary

This paper considered a possible connection between quantum theory and political science,
particularly international relations. We showed that Cartesian science has constituted the
basis for modern positivistic approaches and that the challenging principles that quantum
theory brings corresponds pretty well with post-positivistic methodologies. This analogy
of shifts in remote scientific fields provides good reason for theorizing the possible
connections.
There are three logical options regarding the nature of the relation between quantum
theory and international relations: the relations of identity, analogy and metaphor. These
reflect the basic epistemological position of scientific realism, positivism/pragmatism, and
interpretivism. We ascertained the state of the field particularly regarding the applications
in IR that have unfortunately been quite rare so far. So what is the most auspicious path to
follow?
The quantum mind approach offers the most direct link to QT, but there are significant
barriers. Existing attempts to consider the quantum nature of the human mind have attracted
fierce criticism. And even if we were able to find quantum features of the human brain, there
would still lie an almost insurmountable gap between our research agendas. To put it simply,
we need a good theory of quantum brain and man before we can start looking for a quantum
(international) society.
We are also quite skeptical as to whether it is possible to learn anything about
international society using the quantum metaphor approach. The main constrain is the
concept of social absorption of quantum theory. Given its complexity and inaccessibility, is
mass-absorption a real possibility? And if so, what would subsequently remain of the theory?
Could we possibly gain any relevant knowledge of the future world directly from quantum
theory itself?
For us, the quantum reasoning approach offers the most promising course of future
research. The complex nature, uncertainty and interconnectedness of the issues mean that
international relations is suited to taking up the advantages of using quantum principles
in a generalized form, particularly in quantum cognition and decision models and game
theories. Moreover, they probably offer the most straightforward route to empirical research
that can prove the relevancy of these models for the field of international relations.

499
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

500
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

501
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
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.

Institute of Political Studies,

502