April came two weeks earlier this year

Since you post it under BSM forum, I think it's therefore legitimate to ask what is the standard model of the theory of humor?

 

There is also "dark humour", a mysterious, powerful force that we barely understand.

 

As seriously as we take all other research in "quantum consciousness".

 

Being a bit dim, I could never understand virtual jokes, although I do know that they must be fundamental objects for advanced AI. to happen.

 

The joke is that the paper actually has nothing to do with physics. It's all just a linear algebra model of cognition. The paper could have been written without the word 'quantum' appearing once.

 

Psychologists have recently started to look into these quantum models. The point is that quantum probabilities are a generalization of classical probabilities that allow for the occurency of contextuality. In fact, contextuality is precisely the difference between quantum probabilities and classical probabilites. Psychology makes heavy use of statistics and hence it is natural that probability theories that allow for more general statistical features (such as i.e. entanglement) would eventually be applied outside of physics as well. I think this kind of research is exactly what needs to be done. Quantum mechanics is still kind of mysterious and if we can find examples of quantum statistics in other fields like psychology or maybe economics, we might also learn something about physics as well.

 

I mean this in a very precise mathematical sense. Classical probability theory is mathematically equivalent to quantum theory with only commuting observables. However, if you allow for non-commutativity, your theory will automatically be contextual (unless possibly ##\mathrm{dim}(\mathcal H)=2##). All quantum mechanical phenomena are consequences of this non-commutativity and hence contextuality.

 

Here are some more related sources:
http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/9855

 

Not to mention "complex Dilbert space".

Dilbert spaces arise naturally and frequently in humour, typically as infinite(± 2)-dimensional ill-functioning office spaces.​

 

Interesting lecture.
I just don't understand the difference between "with and only with" and "only with"! Can somebody clarify?