QUANTUM SEMIOTICS: A SIGN LANGUAGE FOR QUANTUM MECHANICS

Prashant
Department dInformatique et de recherch operationnelle,
Universite de Montreal, Montreal. Canada.
{prashant}@iro.umontreal.ca
http://www-etud.iro.umontreal.ca/~prashant/

Abstract
Semiotics is the language of signs which has been used effectively in various disciplines
of human scientific endeavor. It gives a beautiful and rich structure of language to
express the basic tenets of any scientific discipline. In this article we attempt to develop
from first principles such an axiomatic structure of semiotics for Quantum Mechanics.
This would be a further enrichment to the already existing well understood mathematical
structure of Quantum Mechanics but may give new insights and understanding to the
theory and may help understand more lucidly the fundamentality of Nature which
Quantum Theory attempts to explain.
Keywords: Semiotics, non locality, non contextuality, Quantum Mechanics, axioms.
1. INTRODUCTION TO SEMIOTICS:
The field of Semiotics is a rich field of sign language study. It has fundamental
ramifications in many areas of science and technology because of its being a general sign
language. Language has always played a vital role in the communication of scientific
facts from laboratories to the scientific community. In fact language is the most vital link
between the propagation of scientific fact to gain legitimacy in the scientific world. A
fact which cant be communicated but is true to a researcher may not subject itself to
scientific definition because of the reason that it cant be reproduced or communicated to
others. Semiotics is being practiced from time immemorial by living organisms including
human beings to express feelings, knowledge, and wisdom in daily life. Many famous
1

proponents of the stature of Leibniz, Pierce and others have tried to formalize this field
and have given their own philosophies about it.
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.
2. SEMIOTICS IN QUANTUM MECHANICS
The quantum formalism, although well- established and confirmed, still seems
counter-intuitive in many ways. How do we develop our mental images of reality and an
epistemological framework such that the whole thing will seem intuitively clear and
2

sensible? The mechanical part of Quantum Theory, i.e. equations of motion and the
construction of operators for observables, seems quite uncontroversial; there is no need
for different "schools" disputing, e.g. the proper form of the Schrdinger- or Heisenbergequations, because this part of the theory is so well integrated with the canonical methods
of classical mechanics. However, Quantum Semantics, the way to define the meaning of
Quantum-symbols in terms of ordinary language and classical concepts is still a matter of
dispute between different schools of interpretation, and recent experiments, e.g. Aspect'
s
(1982) [1] and those of the Innsbruck-group (1998) [2], that have validated the non-local,
or "entanglement" properties of quantum states seem to have accentuated, rather than
settled, the semantical problems. According to Niels Bohr (1935) and the "Copenhagen
interpretation" [3]:
"There can be no question of any unambiguous interpretation of the symbols of quantum
mechanics other than that embodied in the well-known rules which allow to predict the
results to be obtained by a given experimental arrangement described in a totally
classical way."
This statement of Quantum Semantics leads into a vicious circle for a theory of
measurements: How can we know that a given piece of measurement equipment
"described in a totally classical way" will behave according to the "well-known rules"? A
quantum mechanical account of the action of the apparatus is out of the question because
the meaning of the quantum symbols is undefined, unless the classical description alone
provides a sufficient guarantee for its proper functioning. The Copenhagen interpretation
is thus unable to tackle the measurement problem, except for some vague hints to the
Correspondence Principle and an anti-realistic conviction that the reduction or collapse of
the wave function is a purely conceptual tool with no physical background.
In a delightful little book entitled Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction, the
author, John Polkinghorne, contrasts his philosophy of quantum mechanics with that of
Heisenbergs as follows:

<Heisenberg>
In experiments about atomic events we have to do with things that are facts, with
phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But the atoms or
elementary particles are not as real; they form a world of potentialities rather than of
things or facts.
<Polkinghorne>
An electron does not all the time possess a definite position or a definite momentum, but
rather it possesses the potentialities for exhibiting one or the other of these if a
measurement turns the potentiality into an actuality. I would disagree with Heisenberg
in thinking that this fact makes an electron not as real as a table or a chair. The
electron simply enjoys a different kind of reality, appropriate to its nature. If we are to
know things as they are, we must be prepared to know them as they actually are, on their
own terms, so to speak.
Here we apply to the above problem the principle of Peircean semiotics that all
phenomena exhibit three basic elements Firstness (quality, potentiality), Secondness
(reaction, actuality, fact), and Thirdness (law, habit, representation, etc.). The result
shown below not only accommodates both Heisenberg and Polkinghorne but also adds
something new, thirdness:
<A semiotics-based approach>
Electrons and atoms (or any quantum objects referred to by Herbert as quons) have
three irreducible aspects: Quons as they really are (Firstness); quons as measured
(Secondness); and quons as represented in signs or theorized (Thirdness)
We can depict the content of this statement as shown in Figure 1.

__

__

Firstness

Potentiality

(Wave function, )

|
Quons =

/\

|
\

/____\

Secondness

Thirdness

Measurement

Quantum Theory

(Operator,

Eigen values, )

|__

|
|
|
__|

Figure 1. A semiotics-based metaphysics of quantum theory.

The essence of Figure 1 is that quons are real entities whose complete description
requires elucidating their three irreducible ontological aspects of Firstness, Secondness,
and Thirdness as shown. The parentheses contain the relevant mathematical concepts.
The large bracket symbolizes the irreducibility. Quons are real (i.e., they are as they are
regardless of what we think of them), because all of the three vertices are real.
If the above analysis is right, it may be concluded that discussions on the metaphysics of
quantum theory can benefit enormously from utilizing the semiotic framework
enunciated by C. S. Peirce (1839-1914) over a century ago.

3. A BRIEF REVIEW OF PEIRCEAN SEMIOTICS:

The definition of a sign, according to Peirce, ought to be free from reference to human
consciousness, or language, although this may seem awkward. The "purest" formulation
in this sense makes it clear, that self-reference must be inherent in the definition of the
sign. Below, we analyze this definition, which for the sake of clarity is here divided into
smaller sections:
1. A Sign, or Representamen, is a First
2. Which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its Object,
3. As to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant, to assume the
same triadic relation to its Object in which it stands itself to the same object.
The three sections of the definition are seen to reflect the three phenomenological
categories. The first section is self-contained: the sign as a First refers to nothing else; it
is an icon of itself. Reference to an object is introduced as a dyadic relation in the second
section, for although the text speaks about a genuine (i.e. irreducible) triadic relation, the
third factor has not been introduced yet. The Secondness of the sign is an index of the
object.

Figure 2: The sign as a triadic relation. R = Representamen, O = Object, I = Interpretant

At the bottom of the figure is shown a linear representation of the sign relation, I-R-O
with two sign links (-) connecting the three factors, R, O, and I. The sign links represent
physical processes and are interaction bonds, i.e. each link contain two oppositely
directed causal relations, as can be seen by comparison with the triangular causal diagram
above. The linear diagram has the advantage of showing that the causal relation between
O and I can only exist as mediated by R. Also, it makes it easier to depict a chain of
signs, where the interpretant of the first relation becomes the representamen of the second
relation, and the representamen of the first relation becomes the object of the second
relation.
The reflexivity of the sign relation is the feature that makes this particular way of
chaining signs possible. This is the idea of unlimited semiosis, the potential of creating
new meaning that is inherent in Peirce'
s conception of meaning and in the Law of Mind.
In continuation of the sign definition quoted above he says:
"The Third must indeed stand in such a relation, and thus must be capable of determining
a Third of its own; but besides that, it must have a second triadic relation in which the
Representamen, or rather the relation thereof to its Object, shall be its own (the Third'
s)
Object, and must be capable of determining a Third to this relation. And this must
equally be true of the Third'
s Thirds and so on endlessly; - - "
The diagram below shows how the new interpretant (J, the "Third'
s Third") can be
chained to the first relation I-R-O, so we get J-I-R-O where the second relation J-I-R has
I as the representamen and R as the object.

Figure 3: A more detailed diagram of the sign relation showing its potential for creating
a new sign with I as the representamen and R as the object.
7

The causal relations in figure 3 are labeled with letters, f, g, and h which have the
additional meaning of category numbers assessing the relations as either 1: potential, 2:
actual, or 3: general. The following selection rule must be valid in order to ensure that the
chain is unbroken:
h

f.

The links can then be similarly categorized: the R-O link by f, the I-O link by g, because
the connection between I and O is established by the I-R link. The g-relations (I-O and IR) represent the ground of the sign relation (this is not very clearly stated in Peirce'
s
verbal formulations, and there is no general consensus about how "the ground" ought to
be defined). The ground (as defined here) and its category number g gives rise to the
basic sign classification: 1: icon, 2: index, and 3: symbol.
3.1 INTERACTION BONDS AS SIGN LINKS:
Sign relations can be synthesized by means of the interaction-bond-graph-technique,
developed by H.M.Paynter [11]. This framework for the building of dynamic models has
a natural affinity to the principles of thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum mechanics.
Although all interactions are local, the system also contains non-locality in the form of
causal constraints that account for the non-local entanglement of quantum states. Such
constraints enter the definition of some of the icons, like the two "junctions" that
represent

Kirchhoff'
s

node-

and

mesh-

equations

for

networks.

The iconical (pictorial) representation of dynamic relations in the formalism makes it

possible to circumvent the prohibition against ontology and the use of mental images of
the quantum world. An implementation of the bond-graph icons as computing elements
may provide a crucial step in the development of quantum computers. In the most general
formulation of the technique every bond is associated with a metric tensor that defines the
scalar product of the two complex vectors (effort and flow) that constitute the interaction.
The technique thus incorporates the general principle of relativity, including Einsteinlocality. The Reticulation (network-structuring by bond- graph-icons) of the sign relation
leads for the representamen R to the partial differential wave- equations described as
sections repeated in space like a three dimensional crystal. The processes of Preparation
and Detection, associated with the R-O, and the I-R bonds, respectively, are naturally
8

Quantized as causal shifts that are distributed through the network from the connecting
junctions. In this way the quantization of action and the projection postulate for
measurements are given a natural and realistic explanation.
4. AXIOMS OF QUANTUM SEMIOTICS:
1. The quantum mechanical state vector is a sign.
2. A sign or representamen (R), according to Peirce, is a first standing in such a
genuine triadic relation to a second, called its object (O), as to be capable of
determining a third, called its interpretant (I), to assume the same triadic relation
to its object in which it stands itself to the same object [5].
3. The representamen R in a quantum semiotic sign relation mediates between the
quantum

mechanical

object

and

the

interpretant

I:

I-R-O
4. The interpretant I is a potential, actual, or general purely physical result of
measurement.
5. The sign links ( -- ), in the dyadic parts R-O and I-R of the sign relation are
interaction bonds corresponding to the physical processes of preparation (the RO link) and registration (the I-R link).
6. Each sign link is characterized by the Peircean categories as either 1: potential, 2:
actual, or 3: general.
7. The category numbers, f and g, of the R-O link and the I-R link are restricted by
the selection rule: g

f.

8. The qualisign 11 (g = f = 1) is the continuum of the Hilbert space H. The symbol

(g = f = 3) is synthesized from the lower signs by successive actualizations of
potential links (1

2) and generalizations of actual links (2

3).

9. The six classes of signs (gf) are connected with Peirce'

s semiotic definitions and
Dirac'
s bra-ket notation in the following way

(33)
symbol
qp

(23)

(13)

indexical

iconic legisign
p

legisign

(11)

(12)

qualisign

iconic

(22)
sign

indexical sinsign

10. A measurement is a permanent registration. The physical setting of an

interpretant (the I-R link) preceding the registration is an irreversible process.
11. Registration is a dissipative and noisy process.
12. For a dissipative admittance

the quantum noise on the current, whose

spectrum is given by the fluctuation- dissipation (FD) theorem[6] corresponds to a

time-series

of

discrete

events

13. The collapse or reduction of the state vector requires the setting of a dissipative
sign link corresponding to the appropriate ray of H before the measurement. The

10

projection on the ray is the first of the quantum events predicted by the FD
theorem.[7]
14. The collapse of a state vector for more than one particle requires prospective
coincidence counting.
15. The violation of Bell'
s inequalities and other superclassical correlations is due to
a common context of detection of several particles represented by preset
coincidence counters.
16. Quantum Mechanics is strictly local and all the so called "non-local" effects can
be simulated in a purely classical and local scenario provided there is a common
context for the registration of individuals. [8].
5. NON-LOCALITY OR CONTEXTUALITY:
Classical, non-contextual logic implies Bell'
s inequalities, which are clearly violated
by the formalism and experiments. To explain this violation by non-local action-at-adistance is unsatisfactory, because there is no such thing in the fundamental principles of
relativistic physics and no practical ways of using it (e.g. for super-luminal
communication). A common context for the detection of the two separate (but entangled)
particles might explain the violation of Bell'
s inequalities even without action-at-adistance [8]. Such a common context could be provided by the coincidence counters in
Aspect'
s experiments [1], but the experiments in Innsbruck [2] have shown that the
inequalities are violated and the predictions of Quantum Mechanics are satisfied under
circumstances where all coincidences are found retrospectively by comparison of the
arrival times of the individual particles. It seems, thus, that contextuality alone is not a
sufficient explanation. One has to accept some sort of non-locality, or "passion-at- adistance" as it has been called by Shimony(1983).[9]
Thus we can study the effects of non locality and non-contextuality using the
semiotic language which has been proposed and work out the appropriate interpretation
which it admits to. P.V. Christiansen has attempted one such explanation of Bell
Inequalities from the semiotic point of view.[8]

11

6. ENTROPY, INFORMATION AND MEANING:

An alternative approach to the discussion of meaningful structures on a physical
basis is the attempt to discuss "information" as something related to physical entropy.
There have been some attempts to reformulate quantum mechanics on information
theoretic primitives and some remarks here may be useful.
"Information" may be without any meaning and still exist. "Meaning" is something
general, Thirdness, but a specific string of letters, like "sjxipesdqo" that contains
information, does not necessarily contain meaning. From the viewpoint of the
telecommunication engineer it is essential that the information transmitted through a
telephone line is actual, but meaningless, i.e. it exists on a level of Peircean Secondness.
Entropy in a physical system is not "lack of information" i.e. non-existing information,
but potential information about the exact microscopic state of the system. In principle this
information could be obtained or actualized whereby the microstate would be known and
the entropy reduced to zero. In this case the existing information would change its mode
of being from firstness to secondness, but thirdness is out of the question, because it is
specific information that cannot be generalized. So, entropy is a potential, meaningless
information. If we try to build a theory of meaning by saying that "entropy is lack of
information, so information must be negative entropy, and information has meaning",
then we are in fact saying that meaning can be understood as "lack of meaninglessness".
There is nothing wrong with Shannon'
s "Theory of Information" when we remember that
the potential meaning of the Shannon-information is outside the scope of the theory and
is left to the human listener on the telephone. Also, there is nothing wrong with the
information theoretical description of physical entropy as potential information about the
microstate of a physical system, so it is not just a funny coincidence that Shannon'
s
information and Gibbs'entropy are given by the same probabilistic formula. The physical
information theory, as worked out by Szilard and Brillouin [10] in the discussion of
Maxwell'
s demon has something important to say on the physical limits of how much
structure a system can exhibit, but it can say nothing about whether these structures are
meaningful or not.

12

A theory of meaning must take departure in the concept of a sign, and here Peirce'
s
semiotic philosophy, physical theories of spontaneous order formation, and Ren Thom'
s
catastrophe theory are applicable, because they build on the notion of an underlying
continuum from which discrete categories may emerge by continuous growth and habit
formation. In this way we may be able to bridge the gap between naturalistic and
humanistic studies.

7. CONCLUSION:
Thus the field of semiotics can be effectively applied on quantum mechanics to
develop a new language which may give new fundamental insights to many controversial
aspects of interpretations of quantum theory in general. Axiomatization of quantum
semiotics is a fundamental step forward to understand and consistently develop and give
a new direction to the meaningful expression of quantum mechanical primitives. It can
also be suggested that semiotics can be applied on similar lines to the newly developing
field of Quantum Information Theory and its ramifications can be checked and analyzed.
I sincerely hope that semiotics of quantum mechanics can establish itself as a missing
link between the well understood area of mathematical structure of quantum mechanics
with its philosophical structure of interpretations to give us a new insight to the
correctness of its interpretations as they stand today.
REFERENCES
1. A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982).
2. G. Weihs, A. Zeilinger, et al. "The EPR Gedankenexperiment in Real World",
Preprint, Institut fur Experimentalphysik, Universite Innsbruck, (june 24,1998).
3. N. Bohr "Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be
Considered Complete", Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).
4. Peirce'
s letter to Lady Welby, december 23., 1908. See:
I. C. Lieb, Charles S. Peirce'
s Letters to Lady Welby, 1953, New Haven.
5. Collected Papers, ed. Hartshorne & Weiss, CP 2.274.
6. H. B. Callen and T. A. Welton, Phys. Rev., 83, 34 (1951).
7. P. V. Christiansen, The Semiotics of Quantum-Non- Locality, IMFUFA text no. 93
(1985).
8. P.V. Christiansen, "Peircean Local Realism Does Not Imply Bell'
s Inequalities",
Preprint, Symp. the Foundations of Modern Physics, Joensuu, Finland, 1990.
9. A. Shimony."Controllable and uncontrollable Non- Locality", Proc. Int. Symp.
Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Tokyo. (1983).
13

10. L. Brillouin, Science and Information Theory, 1962, Academic Press, N.Y.
11. H. M. Paynter, Analysis and Design of Engineering Systems, MIT, Cambridge,
(1960).

14