Metaphor as entanglement

Metaphor as entanglement

Vasil Penchev • Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: Institute for the Study of Societies and Knowledge: Dept. of Logical Systems and Models vasildinev@gmail.com • Filosofidagarna i Uppsala • 25-27 August, Uppsala, Sweden • English Park Campus, The University of Uppsala

Entanglement comes from quantum information • The concept of entanglement is coined by the theory of quantum information to designate that special correlation of two or more quantum entities  The nature of that correlation is purely probabilistic • The probability of an event to occur changes the probability of some other one anywhere to occur  A purely probabilistic “ghost action at any distance” (in Einstein’s words) seems to take place according to the mathematical formalism underlying quantum mechanics

Entanglement by mathematics • Furthermore, it means an exactly defined mathematical structure grounded on Hilbert spaces and underlying all phenomena of entanglement studied by quantum mechanics  Then, entanglement is defined as a kind of a direct interaction of two or more Hilbert spaces and correspondingly of two or more any elements (such as wave functions) of each of those Hilbert space • If one determines ‘local interaction’ as needing only a single Hilbert space to be defined, entanglement is nonlocal

The entanglement model of metaphor • That same mathematical structure can be utilized for a mathematical model of metaphor as a special kind of correlation between the meanings and senses of two or more words  Indeed, metaphor means that the meaning of a certain word influences the meanings of others • However, that influence unlike any unambiguous proposition depends crucially on one’s interpretation and accordingly, differs essentially from an interpreter to another

The philosophical core of that model • The ontological core of the model can be described so:  One can consider physical motion and metaphor (as “linguistic motion”) as underlain by the same mathematical structure • Then, they would be isomorphic to each other as far as share that structure  One may reveal the same philosophical idea penetrated deeply in the origin of European science: • The physical entities in nature are God’s Word in the final analysis

Metaphor needs interpretation • Metaphor restricts the meaning of a term by the meaning of another term in a probabilistic, loose way calling for interpretation  On the contrary, any unambiguous proposition determines its terms exactly • That proposition does not need any interpretation for it should mean the same meaning for any interpretation or interpreter  Metaphor can be seen as a generalization of proposition where the exact meaning is generalized to a fussy meaning therefore needing some interpreter to be determined additionally

Describing interaction…

• A general model of any interaction underlies both metaphor and physical motion • Indeed, any interaction should unify the jump-like transition between two absolutely different entities with the continuity between them needed for the concept of interaction  Quantum mechanics was forced to resolve the some problem mathematically for it should find some way to unify the smooth motion of classical physics with the discrete motion forced by the fundamental Planck constant …

The mathematical isomorphism of metaphor and entanglement • The introduction of that underlying mathematical structure allows of establishing the unambiguous correspondence between metaphor and entanglement in an absolutely exact, mathematical way  That structure describes in fact the shared underlying entity of any interaction whether physical or linguistic • Furthermore, metaphor is one appearance of that common essence of interaction, and motion is another appearance of the same

Measurement and interpretation • Measurement in quantum mechanics corresponds to interpretation in language  Any measurement of the same entity in quantum mechanics gives different result in principle • Analogically, any interpretation of the same metaphor in language gives different meanings in principle.  What is conserved in both cases is the probability distribution whether of the measured results or of the interpreted meanings

The probability of any interpretation • This determines some interpretations of a given metaphor as more probable, but no one can be excluded in principle ď ą The probability of any interpretation depends on both metaphor and previous experience of the interpreter • So, the same metaphor can possesses absolutely different meanings for two or more interpreters belonging to different simultaneous cultures or different historical ages

The interaction of meanings • The term utilized as a metaphor restricts the area of meaning of its object to a small true subset of it, but in an ambiguous way  Thus metaphor influences the interpretation of its object in a probabilistic way • That influence has the same mathematical structure as entanglement

The influenced meaning • That set can ground the essential features, properties or relations of the object of the metaphor pioneering the scientific or even formal definition of the term serving as the object of the metaphor at issue  One can represent a well-ordered series of more and more exact metaphors to the same object • Then scientific notion would be the “limit”, to which that series converges

Metaphor and notion • Thus, some metaphor founds any scientific notion therefore “erasing” the grounding metaphor and the rest interpretations except one of them  Only a single interpretation of the metaphor at issue remains valid …

• The process of transforming a metaphor into a notion consists in a definition, the elements of which make impossible any other interpretation excluding the most probable among them first of all

Decoherence and definition • The corresponding phenomena in quantum information is the process of de-coherence: ď ą Any quantum entity loses its fussiness for the influences of its environment • It transforms into a single and absolutely determined result of measurement, though chosen randomly

After decoherence …

• The interacted object is cut off from its environment just as a rigorously defined notion is cut off from its context to designate one and the same in any context The essence in both cases is to be removed all links to the whole, to which that entity belongs • That whole is the physical reality in the former case, and language in the latter case

The opposed process of coherence • The opposed process can be observed both by the theory of metaphor and that of quantum information: ď ą Any quantum entity before measurement represents a coherent whole of all possible states, though the states differ from each other by their probability to occur • Analogically, any metaphor before interpretation represents a coherent whole of all possible uses of it, though the uses differ from each other by the probability to be utilized

Fussiness • A notion begins to lose its clear outlines coined in everyday speech and media, accumulating new and new interpretations and uses  That process is opposite to the way of its appearance • The notion appears losing more and more its fussiness of a word  It transforming itself again in a word of the everyday language acquires more and more fussiness …

The universe dissolves any entity • A quantum entity analogically starts to lose the measured values of the quantities as if dissolving in the common and inseparable whole of the universe  The borders and differences of any entity whether physical or linguistic merge in a single whole, that of the universe • One can think of the universe as linguistic universum, the universality of which consists in a single metaphor, for example that of God …

Fussiness and dissolving • The suggested mathematical structure describes equally well both processes representing its interpretations ď ą That structure, the separable complex Hilbert space, unifies all probability distributions and thus, describes any fussiness or dissolving as a certain probability distribution • That probability distribution can be referred equally well to both coherent superposition of all possible states of a quantum entity or to all possible meanings of a metaphor

CONCLUSIONS

The universal viewpoint • The outlined approach allows for a common philosophical viewpoint to the physical world, language and some mathematical structures  Mathematics, linguistics, and physics can be described in the same way • Language, nature, and mathematics turn out to be the same from that viewpoint  The transitions between them are continuous, furthermore

The corresponding understanding of the universe • The universe should be understood as a joint physical, linguistic and mathematical universum ď ą Its wholeness implies the unification of those three fundamental domains of human cognition • Language, physics, and mathematics are not more than three different ways originating from the human finiteness to be described that wholeness

Metaphor and motion • Physical motion and metaphor are one and the same rather than only similar in a sense  Accordingly, a physical body is similar to a word • Physical interactions and linguistic interactions are the same  The essence underlying both consists in the concept of interaction generally …

Thank you for your kind attention!

I am waiting for your comments or questions!