Diederik Aerts and Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi - The quantum conceptual turn

thank you thank you for the presentation and hello everybody so the title of our presentation is indeed the conceptual turn to be understood as the possibility of a turning point in the way we can start to understand quantum mechanics which over the years has maintained the reputation of being the most obscure theory and the reason why this turning point is a conceptual turning point well this is something we will try to explain in the time available for the presentation so let us just start with some quotes feynman famously said that nobody understands quantum mechanics in

a similar vein bohr said that if we are not shocked by quantum mechanics then we cannot possibly have understood it and more recently sean carol observed that surprisingly the majority of physics physicist seems to be okay with not understanding the most important theory they have we have well we could argue that if we go deep enough then every physical theory actually presents at some point a challenge in terms of understanding its most fundamental aspects think of newton's families hypothesis non-fingo i think no hypothesis in relation to the mystery of gravity of that spooky action at

the distance which einstein solved by eliminating the very problem of the gravitational force back twist of fate he was then confronted with another unexplainable action at a distance the one apparently associated with the phenomenon of quantum entanglement that being said when we speak of understanding a theory one needs to distinguish certainly two aspects the first one is its technical understanding and we all know and understand what this means so i don't need to explain that the second aspect is the interpretation of the theory according to team modley and an interpretation is really what transforms a

formalism into a full-fledged physical theory now what is an interpretation well in essence it is the specification of both an ontology and the metaphysics christian derand also recently emphasized that the theory without an ontology and the metaphysics what he calls the conceptual component of a theory is not even deemed to be called a physical theory now very briefly an ontology is a specification of the inventory of the entities that exist out there and metaphysics more generally as a specification of what the entities out there are i mean by this what their nature is finally is

also important to mention of course epistemology which is about how we know how we gather information about the fact that something exists and possesses a given nature now there are certain number of notions that are kind of unavoidable if one wants to describe reality from a scientific point of view now without entering into details here we just recall them there is the notion of entity which is the aspect of reality we want to study to which we can attribute properties and states then there is a notion of state of course which is what an entity

is in a given moment including also uh its availability in the in what it can becomes in a subsequent moment then the notion of property which is a state of predictions usually associated with an experimental question and experimental test and finally well as the important notion of context describing the outside reality of an entity not just in a special sense responsible of producing its changes of state okay so with this minimum baggage of notions certainly compatible with both the vision of operationalism and realism let us now consider some of the key quantum theaters but i'll

briefly explain why i will try to briefly explain why they remain so mysterious so of course quantum superposition quantum measurement quantum entanglement quantum uncertainty and quantum indistinguishability so what is let us start with quantum superposition a superposition state is known to describe a potential mode of being well the notion of potentiality was already introduced by aristotle to conceptualize the different processes of change so why is that a problem where is the mystery well the mystery of superposition lies in the fact that this potential mode of being can also be expressed in relation to mutually exclusive

special properties but then what does it mean to be in a non-spartial state but is in a state of unactualized partial properties okay so what about quantum measurement the mystery of quantum measurement is certainly not that it describes a situation where the actual breaks the symmetry of the potential because the ideal symmetry breaking is well known and actually uncontroversial think of bifurcation theory take a pencil the example of a pencil placed vertically on its tip on a table when its contact contact area decreases the environmental fluctuation will break the rotational symmetry and the specific orientation

will be actualized which was only potential prior to the pencils collapse and if we repeat the experiment other directions of course will be actualized so the pre-collapse state can be described as a genuine superposition state but right then a quantum measurement is not just viewed as a process similar to a pencil collapsing on the table again the problem is that the majority of physicists are still today very attached to the idea of speciality and kind of think that non-speciality rhymes with no reality in a sense so we could say jokingly they think that only pencils

lying flat on the table truly exist okay consider now quantum entanglement dieberic was the first to show with a celebrated example of the vessels of water but macroscopic system can easily violate bells inequality when they are connected in some way and correlations are created out of this connection why then entanglement is not just viewed as a connective element of reality similar to the tube connecting the two vessels of water i think that the the spatial prejudice is probably once more the main obstacle here because what would be then the nature of such connective element of

reality that can remain perfectly undetectable in the space between the two entities and there is also the additional problem of understanding why quantum entities tend to spontaneously entangle whenever they are allowed to interact coming now to heisenberg uncertainty prison principle what is its mystery well certainly not the fact that it's not possible to jointly carry out a certain measurement indeed in his dissertation many years ago already introduced the famous example of the wooden entity that can both float on water and burn well which however are properties associated with incompatible tests so how can one test

them jointly well constantine peron showed that it is sufficient to randomly select one of the two tests and simply execute it this is what he called a product test so experimental incompatibility is not really the issue quantum uncertainty goes deeper than that once more it tells us that a quantum entity is something very different from a corpus call from a particle something non-spatial and by the way a good quantum interpretation needs of course to also explain why a vector state cannot be jointly picked in position and in momentum space and it should also explain the

existence of a reverse uncertainty relation because they also exist saying that one cannot either have states that are jointly unsharp in position and momentum space to to too much unsharp okay last but not least the mystery of quantum indistinguishability the impossibility of differentiating identical quantum entities how can identical quantum entities be truly indistinguishable and still remain individuals as it happens for instance in a bose einstein condensate okay having explained some of the key elements of the main quantum mysteries let us now introduce the new ontology and the new metaphysics of so-called conceptuality interpretation which we

think can possibly address these mysteries and transform quantum mechanics in a more intelligible theory it is not really a top-down interpretation only derived from first principle but more like a bottom up interpretation resulting from i would say an attentive observation of the behavior of the different physical entities then followed by a question which questioned well the questions of the following what nature would be able of producing such a behavior and the interpretation really emerged after a very long investigative path which started almost i would say half a century ago with quantum axiomatics and you know

with many passages then culminating in the more recent years with quantum cognition and then from quantum cognition the last step of the conceptuality interpretation now just quantum condition is a growing domain of research which was initiated by the ederic and people like krenikov and atman sparker and so on which really obtained impressive result in the modeling of all sorts of human cognitive situation using the mathematical formulas of quantum theory and treating the conceptual and cognitive entities as if they were genuine quantum entities now this unexpected discovery but quantum mechanics work extremely well for constructing a

theory of human concepts and their combination and of their interaction with human minds this brought the ederic two formulates some years ago a very bold hypothesis for sure which was initially shaped in the form of a question which is the following one if quantum mechanics as a formalism models human concepts so well perhaps this indicates the quantum entity themselves would be conceptual entities and from that question then emerge in fact the conceptuality interpretation with its i would say surprising ontology and metaphysics and the interpretation posits that the microphysical entities are conceptual in natural and the

entities made of ordinary matter are cognitive in natural and also that the mind language duality of the human cultural domain mirrors the fermion boson duality of the physical domain in the sense that bosons and fermions are entities belonging would be entities belonging to a more ancient cultural domain where bosoms are the natural building blocks of languages and fermions are the natural building blocks of the cognitive structures and as a consequence our universe would be fundamentally pan-cognitivistic in the sense that everything in it participates in cognition with the human cognition being just a very recent episode

of it expressed at a very specific organizational level okay let us address now the mystery i previously contemplated by adopting the conceptuality interpretation it's metaphysics so what's about quantum superposition well we said i said its core mystery is non-speciality well now this mystery immediately disappears because a conceptual entity is certainly not a special entity in the human realm think of the italian language there is no mystery in observing that it is not a known special entity the meaning it conveys however can certainly leave traces on different typologies of special temporal supports like printed documents or

electronic documents now when one thinks of superposition one certainly also thinks of interference effects so if the conceptuality interpretation is correct we expect to also find interference effect in the human cultural domain consider for this uh the 1988 study by hampton where participants were subjected to 24 examples different example of fruits and vegetables and which are the one you can see here in the picture and participants were then asked to choose one example in the collection but they consider to be a good example of fruit so they would pick apple raisin edelberry and so on

participants were also asked to choose one example in the collection that they consider to be a good example of vegetables and here again they would choose broccoli yum and so on ultimately participants were also asked to choose one example in the collection that they consider it to be a good example of now the combination fruit or vegetable now in this different situation the relative frequencies with which the different examples were selected uh this were calculated and the core and corresponded to the experimental probabilities to choose those specific examples and without entering here in the details

one can then observe that the obtained probabilities are really impossible to understand based on pure classical reasonings however they can be modelized using the born rule and the superposition principle more precisely one can consider fruit vegetable and the combination fruit or vegetable as three different states of a conceptual entity say the conceptual entity food and the combination fruit or vegetable is then described as a superposition state of the only fruit and only vegetable state now if we do so we are in a situation which is equivalent to that of a double-slit experiment and when only

the example for fruits are considerate this corresponds to the case where only the first slit the the through its lit is open and as i said the outcome probably these probabilities can be then described via the born rule and represented on a two-dimensional screen of example and as we can see here the distribution when only one's lead is open is really corpuscle like and we can of course do the the same for the situation where only the example for vegetable are considered and here again what one obtained is a corpuscular like distribution finally and more

interestingly we have the third situation where both slits the fruit slit and the vegetables lit are both open and this and this is described by a suitable normalized superposition of the previous two wave functions and here a complex interference pattern is revealed on the exemplars screen which is by the way here reminiscent of those obtained in the phenomenon of birefringence so we really have in the connective domain interference effect okay the next mystery on the list is quantum measurement which i observed already is like a weighted symmetry breaking process and this is perfectly compatible with

the idea that this process is to be interpreted as an interrogative process and therefore should be explained by referring to what typically happens during a cognitive process of this kind here of course we need to distinguish the experimenter's interrogative process from the interrogative process of the measuring apparatus itself the question addressed to the apparatus and the answer it provides say by leaving a trace on a screen cannot be formulated of course in our human language we cannot really understand the photon screen communication but we can understand that a communication is taking place why we can

well this is the central hypothesis really behind the conceptuality interpretation but the quantum formalis is really a formalist that we humans have precisely developed in order to model without knowing it meaning entities and this is the reason why you turn out to be so successful also in modeling human cognitive processes in other words quantumness and conceptuality would really be two terms pointing to our reality of the same nature of the same cognitive nature so the apparatus is really viewed as a mind entity forced to answer a question and one can certainly distinguish in its response

to logical steps in the first stage the meaning of the situation is brought as close as possible in contact to the meaning of the different possible answer and this builds a sort of maximal unstable state of mental equilibrium attention formed by the different competing meaning connection with the different answers and in the second stage the smallest fluctuation in the evaluation process will break the equilibrium in favor of one of the competing connection producing a generally unpredictable outcome now why is this relevant to explain what goes on behind the scenes of a quantum measurement well because

quantum probabilities can precisely be explained in terms of fluctuations between the measurement apparatus and the measured entities called hidden measurements interaction and that in the extended block representation of quantum mechanics very specific geometric structures appear describing these potentiality regions at the origin of the fluctuation and of the collapses so one can really explain a quantum measurement as the two-stage process i just described and even derived from this the born real okay next step what about quantum entanglement well here again the conceptual interpretation offers i think an extremely simple answer to elucidate as mystery the connective

element at its origin would be the very substance of meaning indeed if it is true that quantum entities are conceptual entities then it is also to be expected that they can share some meaning but they can connect through meaning and that a cognitive entity interacting with them will be sensitive to the presence of his meaning connection when confronted with an interrogative context and this also explains why quantum entanglement is the default state because when two conceptual entities are brought together in the same cognitive situation if they do share some meaning then a meaning connection will

automatically be present of course but just to give an example let us consider a recent cognitive psychology experiment that was conducted and analyzed in our group participants were asked to select pairs of special directions that they considered to be the best examples of two different wind directions this was done by giving the participants specific examples of pairs of wind direction from which they had to pick those that they considered to be the best representative of the two different wind directions state and to analyze the result as is done in typical bell test experiment four different

joint measurements were carried out using different combination of the eight cardinal and ordinary directions of a compass rose and the statistic of the obtained result was able to violate the clauser horn shimon in halt versions of bell's inequality with the same order of magnitude as in typical experiment with micro entities so the two win direction when in the conceptual state of being different are really to be viewed as entangled entities but there is more it is not so well known but in experiments the marginal laws also known as no signaling condition are also often violated

now the standard quantum formalism with its prescription of describing joint measurement by means of a unique tensor product decomposition requires the marginal laws to be always obeyed so the tendency is to believe that this violation are just due to experimental errors on the other hand the conceptuality interpretation predicts the possibility of this violation hence they may turn out not to be experimental errors actually but the result of cognitive like mechanism involved in the creation of the correlation in other words they may turn out to be a confirmation maybe even a striking confirmation of the validity

of the conceptuality interpretation and let me here also point out that the violation of the marginal laws does not imply that superluminal communication can be automatically achieved this is unnecessary but certainly not a sufficient condition of course for this to happen okay we now come to the mystery of quantum uncertainty or if you will quantum complementarity why the micro entities cannot be in states where positional momentum are jointly maximally sharp or similarly cannot be in state where they are jointly maximally unsharp because as i said before also reverse uncertainty relations exist the answer between the

conceptuality interpretation is absolutely straightforward if it is true that the micro entities are conceptual in natural then they cannot be in states that are jointly maximally abstract and maximally concrete there is a trade-off between concreteness and abstractness and maximally concrete state describes the situation of maximal localization in space whereas maximally abstract state describes a situation of maximal despacialization so heisenberg's principle is really built in the conceptuality into interpretation and there's really a consequence of a very conceptual nature of quantum entities now speaking of abstract versus concrete let me say that in the conceptuality interpretation the

more abstract concepts are considered to be those that are expressible by one single word they are like cognitions and concreteness increases when the number of conceptual combinations also increase this means that the most concrete concepts are or should be those described by very large aggregates of meaning connected the single word like concepts which is what in our human domain human cultural domain we would indicate as stories now a little warning here when approaching the conceptuality interpretation it is very easy to promote an undue confusion between the human cognitive domain and the physical world per se

also participating in condition but in a different domain of our reality look for instance at this image there are two stories here that come into contact but need not to be mixed up there is the story the human tells about the dog alfie and then there is alfie's body which is also a story but not the story the human is telling alfie's body is the story of all the conceptual atomic and molecular entities forming its structure and this is a story that a human mind is certainly unable to understand being too distant in terms of

meaning from our human culture okay last but not least quantum indistinguishability how quantum entities are able to be genuinely indistinguishable and nevertheless still be individuals now if this appears as an impossibility for special temporal objects it is instead entirely expected to be the case for concepts indeed when a message does not convey any element of distinction between two conceptual entities then for the receivers of the message they are genuinely indistinguishable take 11 animal concepts put them in the state specified by the combination 11 animals clearly all the animal concepts in the state 11 animals are

genuinely indistinguishable and the fact the numeral concept 11 guarantees here that we are in the presence of a collection of entities now the fact that 11 animals is a concept another special temporal entity is clearly crucial for it being able to carry the quantum theater of being many and at the same time being indistinguishable so quantum indistinguishability becomes perfectly evident in the conceptuality interpretation that being said we also know that in the physical domain in distinguishability has profound consequences on the statistical behavior of collection of identical entities it gives rise to non-classical statistics like the

bosai statistic and the thermodyrac statistic instead of a maxwell boltzmann so a prediction of the conceptuality interpretation is that one should also find no classical statistical behaviors within the human conceptual domain and indeed following some preliminary results this prediction has found recently full confirmation in an analysis of the structure of human language what was recently done by diabetic with lester beltran take take here the example of the winnie the pooh story entitled in which piglet meets the hephalump we can treat the story as a confined gas of cognitons in analogy with a gas of bosons

well the cognitons what we mean by cognitives here is the one word concept so the repeated words in the story correspond to cognitions in a same state hence belonging to the same to the same energy level the most repeated word will populate the ground state of the gas and the less repeated ones will be associated with the most energetic excited states and once this is done one can put to the test the whole thing one can test the maxwell boltzmann distribution and the bose einstein distribution to see which one of the two provides a better

fit of the data and the result is that the maxwell boltzmann distribution offers a very poor fit of the data whereas the bose einstein distribution offers a remarkable fit of the data this has now been checked on a number of texts of different lengths of course and this confirmation are by the way even more significant if one considers that they offer what is probably the first fundamental explanation of the origin of deep slow the fact that in a corpus of natural language the most frequent word occurs approximately twice as often as the second most frequent

word three times as often as the third more frequent word and so on in ultimate analysis this behavior would be the result of the fact that human concepts similarly to bosonic physical entities behave as indistinguishable entities that can be in a same state as bosons can do and as evidenced by the fact that identical words in a story can be exchanged without affecting at all its meaning and if the same is true for the physical domain according to the conceptuality interpretation it would be because quantum entities would be essentially conceptual in nature all right so

this is really what i wanted to present within the nearly 30 minutes available so now maybe time for questions and answers hopefully thank you thank you very much [Applause] good okay shall i share the questions and answers is that okay go ahead yes okay so so here we have ottavio with the first question thank you very much mr villanova this is a really interesting provocative talk and let me ask you just something that um i would like to hear more about right so i think you make uh a very interesting case for the conceptual interpretation

uh but it seems to me that it will be crucial a crucial feature of the interpretation maybe that has already been done somewhere um to explain why is it that quantum particles do not seem to be conceptual right to interact uh with material objects uh they produce uh effects that can be detected and those are not features that conceptual features have um so i think that the conceptual explanation need to explain why is that things don't seem to be the way that the interpretations tell us that they are yeah let's hear a little more about

that part yeah so this is a fundamental question of course and of course it has been addressed to some extent within the conceptuality interpretation and essentially the question is do we have can we understand a limit where things become less and less conceptual and more and more like objects within the conceptual realm so so it's like studying a sort of classical limit within the conceptual interpretation now i mentioned in in the talk that we consider that a concept which has reached a maximal level of concreteness is a concept which is more like a story and

now we there is a way to analyze stories and see that stories somehow start to behave more like objects than like concepts like let me give you a very important example when you take for instance two concepts and you say concepts a and concept b then the the the conjunction of two concepts a and b is still a concept and the disjunction a or b is still a concept uh for instance fruit and vegetable steer a concept fruit or vegetable is still still a concept now if you go in this domain of stories which are

very complex conceptual entities now you can easily imagine that let's say a story a and story b is more easily to understand as a story so it's really a story which has two parts one story than the other so you can even imagine two books which are brought together and you can have first the initial story and then the other one but now think of a story a or story b now in the case of this junction we don't really think anymore a story a or story b as a story so we we start to

see that in the ambit of story which are very complex complex aggregates of meaning we don't have any more of this closure with respect to conjunction and disjunctions as we normally have this does not mean that astoria or story b is not really a concept this is still a concept but is it a kind of concept you will not find very easily in in the connective domain or human cognitive domain so with the idea is that something similar happens when you have macroscopic entity of course they are not easy easily put in superposition states and

you will not find them easily in states that are manifestly quantum so of course because not all the full features of quantum co of conceptual of the conceptual domain will be kind of available so i don't know if this starts to a little bit try to answer your question i don't know if the just briefly now i can see where you're going uh one question would be uh there is a sense in which stories are are also conceptual so the fact that as you move to the from the more conceptual to the closer more material

context in terms of stories we still have just the same problem back again yeah but you could say also that you still have this problem within quantum mechanics when you have a macroscopic system and you say if i describe it it with quantum mechanics i still have to understand why this system is behaving classically so i would say the the the in the conceptuality interpretation we have a mirror of the same problem we would have also if you start using quantum mechanics also to describe ordinary entities so it's a little bit so in the same

way you can so you could say for instance the physical domain you can say okay but the broad the the wavelength is so small so you don't see these effects and so you can again you can say within two stories you know there is no overlapping meaning sufficient to allow this to story to be put to become an emerging new narrative in a certain cultural domain so i think you can see some parallels there of course so again everything would be in essence conceptual but there is a limit where this concept start behaving in a

non-typical way and this would be our classical world yeah thank you very much you can also see that a similar thing happens we looked on the web for example for things like dead or alive there's a lot of that little phrase that our life you see or coffee or tea because that's so there are inside the fact that it becomes with conjunctions it becomes more classical you could say inside there remain like little islands of superposition where the disjunction is more important you understand and and so there's a similarity with atoms and and and so

on and so on with how we see the universe in space thank you thank you okay we have a question by rooney i'm not sure you raised your hand and then it disappeared let don't ask if there's time okay okay sure okay so so let's uh we have tom and then we have desio but tom was can you see can you see me can you hear me because i can't see myself okay excellent um so thank you for this very thought-provoking um presentation i was wondering um i have to admit that i don't know very

much about this i'm certainly going to read more of your work um i was wondering if you're familiar with karen barrett's interpretation of a gentle realism because i find that there's a lot of compatibility between them and if you know about it i would like to hear what you think say the name again karen barad a gentle realism uh yeah no like this i i i i'm not able to say anything clever i don't know the eric if you know about that what is the name it's karen barad and her theory is called a gentle

realism a gentle realism okay i don't know i don't know it would be interesting then to have a look and they seem to be very compatible in many ways so yeah i guess there are of course many approaches which are very compatible with our approach of course but sometimes the accent maybe is not exactly in the same place or or maybe they're just different perspective but still very compatible so i i kind of expect to find views but that's very similar i would say what i i mean in my case of course when i discovered

this interpretation which is due to the erika i've been working on it more recently but it's really his process and i i was amazed by how the interpretation came about really from the below i mean it was really about first of all doing something completely different modeling human concept and then it just at a certain moment you know like a high experience well well but this really i explained a lot about the physical world and so it was not kind of you know let's start by a fanpc hypothesis that everything is mind-like and by the

way it's very important also to understand that in the brussels approach we have a different way of modeling the cognitive entities than the rest of the quantum cognition community we really model the conceptual entities as if they are quantum entities so it is the concept which is in a given state and then the minds play the role of the measuring apparatus usually people do the other way around they they use quantum mechanics to describe states of beliefs of the people and so they can of course were also work with this but the approach we take

is in our view more fundamental precisely because you know the conceptual entities are understood as you know real entities belonging to a certain conceptual domain yeah okay so now we have uh this here yes uh thank you christian thank you maximiliano for your very nice talk very interesting one with diederik of course it's provocative and my question is similar to that one what have you made because this is just the question i would like to ask you about but you have answered it quite uh finally i suppose let me continue with that just with a

question do you have an algebra of constants so to say a logic of a concept because the negation of a concept is not necessarily a concept how do you deal with the negation of concepts in order to speak about conjunction and the junction and so on i don't know dear derek you are the uh the more algebraic guy than me it's an interesting question indeed and actually it is indeed very much related to the question of octavio already yeah in a certain way even even with all concepts that we use we already give a predominance

to to the conjunction you see and that is that causes the problem with the negation uh in in concept theory psychologists who study this they they they they say that if you make the negation of concepts for example not not table it's not table that's nothing you cannot so it's not it is not centered it's not centered anymore and the idea that concepts are centered stable for example is because of course in the making of our human language we have been influenced by objects around us all the time right so so the human language is

actually already classically influenced right and that is what we find but in in the normal concepts we use but but wait uh that that is perhaps something that was very very deep insight at a certain moment when we were working in one competition what computer scientists do is different when computer scientists try to catch what they call semantic spaces they don't do that in that way and it's purely because they were guided by mathematics you see they wanted to find meaning people who work on information retrieval for example very technical people and this happened in

the 90s in the 90s and so what they did is they say okay let's take texts and we we put the words in the text on one side and then we put paragraphs on the other side or pages for example and then we go we just con stupidly we're going to to to count how much a certain word appears in a certain paragraph and we give a number on it and there's a whole approach like that that was developed in the 90s by computer scientists one of the most famous of it is latin semantic analysis

they use the word latin what we would call physics we would call potential you see they call it latin and the amazing thing is that in the technique they they saw words from one side paragraphs from one side oh that's a matrix oh that's a matrix so let's use linear algebra let's diagonalize the matrix let's make it diagonal because they were confronted then in the 90s still with computers that were not powerful enough you see because you were you would have enormously big matrices of course so let's make a diagonal matrix and then throw away

the little eigenvalues if you do that and you go back to the original matrix all the zeros become because well i should have said that before if you if you one word with would there would be many zeros in this original matrix because one word will not appear in many paragraphs but if you go if you do this technique then you go back then all the zeros disappeared like a mystery mathematical mystery and actually what they found like that was potential presence of words in paragraphs for example there would be bird and a paragraph of

a bird doesn't appear where wing appear for example would have a number not different from zero for bird also and so in a certain way when we started to detect that that was an insight also in 2004 together with mark zuckerberg i worked on that we saw my goodness what they are doing is very quantum these computer scientists it's really really quantum like but now to come back to your origin questionnaire if you look to human language in the way computer scientists look to it they have another another another way to to go from abstract

to concrete and that's what masumiana was selling already we do that also abstract is just all words concrete is the words that appear in pieces of text in paragraphs and pages you see in our human language we we think table is concrete and the table that i can touch with my finger is the most concrete you see yeah and table table is more abstract i mean sting is the most abstract one but that is because our human language is very much influenced by classical objects around us but the nature of human language is not like

that so we are confronted with with our human language being a mixture of classical influences but a deep structure which is quantum and the computer scientists found this structure yeah in the latin semantic analysis and they call it semantic spaces you see and they're purely found to structure because they wanted to to to to do information google works like that every information achievable machine works with later tremendous analysts analysis of the basic that's where it starts yeah that's right okay thank you