What do you think about the new emergent field of quantum semiotics?

Got any links???

Vadim, my dude, I love it.

I wonder if it can be integrated with Quantum Darwinism:

Wikipedia:Quantum Darwinism is a theory claiming to explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum world as due to a process of Darwinian natural selection; where the many possible quantum states are selected against in favor of a stable pointer state. It was proposed in 2003 by Wojciech Zurek and a group of collaborators including Ollivier, Poulin, Paz and Blume-Kohout. The development of the theory is due to the integration of a number of Zurek’s research topics pursued over the course of twenty-five years including: pointer states, einselection and decoherence.

Reply to csalisbury

But do you love, love, love it?

I sense a triad. Enter a Piercian, for all I know a familiar under a pseudonym?

I woo it.

Reply to Wayfarer Thank you for Quantum Darwinism. Ja, I guess :)

Reply to csalisbury :)

Reply to m-theory thats our recent current work with professor Vladimir Arshinov and related texts still in russian only. When we`ll translate it, I send you). My fb https://www.facebook.com/vadim.chekletsov

Reply to mcdoodle Ja, Pierce is a key figure, fot sure)

Reply to Vadim Chekletsov
I don't understand Russian....
:’(

For anyone interested in this kind of thing, two really good examples are these....

First a non-Peircean semiotic approach that actually still maps very nicely to a Peircean one....

Vern S. Poythress - Semiotic analysis of the observer in relativity, quantum mechanics, and a possible theory of everything
http://frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/PoythressVernSemioticAnalysisOfTheObserver.pdf

And then a Peircean approach which is rather more technical, but worth quoting is.... http://cds.cern.ch/record/948191/files/0605099.pdf

In the field of Physics emphasis in the Peircean semiotic categories has been attempted in different ways. There are three modes of being, the three phenomenological categories of C. S. Pierce:

1. Firstness = the potential.
2. Secondness = the actual.
3. Thirdness = the general.

In Peirce's philosophy these categories are very broad concepts with applications in metaphysics, cosmology, psychology, and general semiotic. In Classical Mechanics only Secondness occurs: There is no spontaneity (Firstness) and no irreversible tendencies to seek equilibrium in various types of attractors (Thirdness), only specific states leading to specific trajectories through the state space.

In Thermodynamics both other categories enter the scene: Thirdness by the irreversible tendency of the systems to end in an equilibrium state, determined by the boundary conditions, where all features of the initial state have been wiped out by internal friction. Firstness is reflected in thermodynamics by the spontaneous random fluctuations around the mean behavior, conditioned by the temperature and the frictional forces.

The Firstness category is the most difficult to grasp, because when we try to exemplify it by specific examples and general types we are already introducing Secondness and Thirdness. However, Firstness has made a remarkable entry into Quantum Mechanics through the concept of the wave function as describing the state of a system. The properties of a system that are inherent in its wave function are only potential, not actual. An electron has no definite position or momentum; these properties only become actualized in the context of specific types of apparatus and acts of measurement.

So the general point is that physics is often treated as if it were an exercise in the observerless description of reality - just the facts, guv. And yet from Kant on, the epistemological problem of how we see past our own innate presumptions about reality has been clear to anyone in philosophy of science.

So semiotics is an epistemic framework for dealing with observers and their production of observables. And as the Prashant paper in particular emphasises, phemenological categories actually appear to cash out as ontic ones. So semiotics becomes more than just a way to describe reality with more completeness (the completeness of talking about observers in a modelling relation with the world). Now in Peircean trade-marked fashion, it actually becomes itself an ontic model of that world.

As Prashant argues, the Peircean claim that reality is an irreducibly triadic sign relationship is just not visible from the standard classical Newtonian perspective which reduces all physical being to secondness - particles in motion having their individual events.

But in the modern era, physics is coming to be centred on a thermodynamical systems perspective where you have the irreducible threeness of local fluctuations, actual energetic exchanges, and then the finality of global habits or inevitable tendencies.

And with quantum physics, this is completely tied back to the irreducibility of the observer problem as we know - another way of saying you have to have a three-cornered ontology where observers are habits that shape potentials into actual patterns of events. You just can't split the observer from that which is the observable, as has been the traditional dualistic assumption.

The Prashant paper makes a nice connection there in suggesting how the three parts of the sign relation - potentiality, actuality and generality - map to the essential levels of the quantum mathematical machinery of wavefunction, operator and eigenvalue.

So not sure if this is Vadim's area at all. The mention of an "AI convergence" is a little mysterious.

But Peircean semiotics as an ontological model of the Cosmos - always going against the reductionist mainstream in insisting on stuff like the fundamentality of indeterminism and the developmental nature of cosmological order - has always been prescient of the physics that actually emerged over the past 100 years.

This is actually related to a book I'm writing. In the last twenty years there has been a sudden explosion of quantum mechanics providing answers for macroscopic phenomena. For example, sociologists knew nothing about quantum mechanics, but certainly understood statistics. When they applied the mathematics for quantum mechanics to puzzling research that made no sense according to classical logic they found it explained them and invented the new field of Quantum Cognition.

While physicists have been commonly been insisting that quantum effects are limited to the subatomic, the theorists have been telling them for over half a century that they are wrong and now the evidence is coming to forefront. Likewise, over half the planet has been claiming since before the dawn of civilization that time is not simply linear and reality is not merely causal, but the job of scientists is to drag their feet and complain about anything that doesn't fit into their own profitable worldviews of denying they can't control reality.

My own view is that Semiotics is merely one of the newer attempts by academics to dip their toe in the water without actually committing themselves because they simply don't have a better alternative yet and need to start somewhere. What is required, I believe, is a systems logic that can make sense out of classical logic while allowing the law of identity to go down the nearest convenient rabbit hole or toilet of your preference that takes Semiotics beyond Wittgenstein and Stephen Pepper.