Epistemic Status: Highly speculative but internally consistent. This post aims to invite rigorous critique rather than agreement.
Note: The use of “quantum” here is not metaphorical or mystical. The model employs formal tools from quantum information theory (density matrices, relative entropy, decoherence) as computational analogies for decision and interaction processes.
---
This post summarizes the core ideas from the full “Quantum Interpersonal Dynamics Manifesto.”
The complete formal presentation, including mathematical derivations and references, is available as a PDF at the bottom.
I am posting this here to invite rigorous discussion and stress-testing.
Your sharpest criticism is the most valuable form of collaboration.
---
1. The Problem: One Protocol, Two Masks
For too long, we've lived with two seemingly separate mysteries:
In physics, the measurement problem: the non-physical jump from a superposition of possibilities to a single, definite reality.
In psychology, the interaction black box: the endless, often futile guessing game of “what is he really thinking?”
I propose these are not two problems at all, but two projections of the same underlying phenomenon:
the dynamics of a high-dimensional information entity being forced through a low-dimensional communication channel.
The Copenhagen interpretation’s “shut up and calculate” is an intellectual surrender — much like giving up on ever truly understanding another mind.
It’s time for this to end.
---
2. The Meta-Protocol: Evolutionary Adaptation
Underlying all system evolution — physical, cognitive, or social — is a single recursive loop:
Generate → Measure → Select.
The ultimate, non-negotiable criterion for Selection is the optimization of Return on Energy Investment (ROEI).
“Truth,” in any domain, is simply the most stable, energy-optimal information model under current constraints.
The driver of this process is Energetic Minimalism — the universe’s implicit, ultimate judge.
---
3. The Engine: Information Projection
This is the formal bridge.
I am not using quantum mechanics as a metaphor — I am proposing a literal, mathematical unity.
Consider a system $\rho_S$ (a particle, a person) interacting with its environment $\rho_E$.
After the inevitable process of decoherence, the system doesn’t just randomly pick a state.
It resolves into the most energetically efficient configuration allowed by the interaction.
The final state is given by the Information Projection:
$$
\rho_S'' = \mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{M}}(\rho_S') = \arg\min_{\sigma_i \in \mathcal{C}} D(\rho_S' \| \sigma_i)
$$
Where:
$\mathcal{C}$ is the set of classically compatible states (defined by the interaction).
$D(\rho | \sigma)$ is the quantum relative entropy — the informational and energetic cost of distinguishing $\rho$ from $\sigma$.
In plain language:
A system effectively “collapses” into the state that minimizes the energetic cost of maintaining coherence given its interaction history.
In physics, this appears as wavefunction collapse — the system settles into the most stable, least “surprising” classical state.
In cognition, it manifests as decision-making and belief formation — the mind commits to the interpretation requiring the least psychological and computational energy.
In society, it appears as relationship or norm stabilization — social structures converge toward configurations minimizing collective transaction costs.
This model does not replace von Neumann’s projection or Zurek’s decoherence;
it completes them by addressing why collapse terminates where it does.
---
4. Key Concepts & Testable Predictions
A good theory must stick its neck out.
Energy: Not just physical, but a generalized resource — computational, attentional, psychological. ROEI serves as the universal currency.
PPA (Perception–Projection Alignment): A measure of congruence between an agent’s internal state and external expression.
Testable Prediction:
Low PPA states (e.g. cognitive dissonance, deception, miscommunication) are metabolically costly.
They should correlate with measurable increases in energy dissipation, stress, and system instability — observable, for example, via fMRI BOLD signals, galvanic skin response, or EEG coherence loss during misalignment.
---
5. Call for Collaboration & Critique
This is a scaffold, not a finished cathedral. I am looking for:
1. Formal Destruction:
Where is the math sloppy, inconsistent, or wrong?
Does the information projection model truly hold up under known results in quantum information theory?
2. Empirical Connections:
Which experiments in cognitive science, sociology, or biology could this model explain—or contradict?
Where are its most glaring vulnerabilities to data?
3. Collaborators:
Anyone interested in formal modeling, simulation frameworks, or experimental design around these principles is warmly invited.
Especially those familiar with quantum information theory, cognitive modeling, or AI value alignment.
---
📘 Full Manifesto & Source
Full PDF:
https://github.com/Human-Systems-Theory/Quantum-Interpersonal-Dynamics/blob/main/Quantum_Interpersonal_Dynamics_Manifesto%20%281%29.pdf
LaTeX Source & Repository:
https://github.com/Human-Systems-Theory/Quantum-Interpersonal-Dynamics