Linguistics_reply

Linguistics and Quantum Mechanics

M.A.Popov
Prime states quantum lab limited ,27 Old Gloucester Street London WC1N 3AX

Abstract .This generalization is inspired by talk given by Wolfgang Klein at Oxford University
General Linguistics seminar (25.11. 2013 ) and it shows that Klein‘s Finiteness principle has a
remarkable analogy with Erwin Schrodinger’s Superposition principle of quantum mechanics.

Language makes infinite use of finite means

Wilhelm von Humboldt

Context.

As is known the brain-as-computer metaphor dominated so much of computational

linguistic thinking about natural languages in the 1960s and 1970s. However, for
variety of reasons ( poor mathematical foundations, computer development, new
complexities discovered by the field linguistics ) such metaphor declined now. New
quantum metaphor ( brain-as-quantum-computer ) of 1980-1990s, connected with
new applications of quantum mechanics in neurobiology and based on unavoidable
“naïve” materialism, had found, nevertheless, that brain may contain some kind of
approximations to what Ivan Pavlov earlier defined as “quantum processes in human
brain “( Luzin,1943:66-70,76 and V.V. Ivanov, 2004).
Indeed, usually brain is modelled as a neural network obeying classical nonquantum
physics. In contrast R. Penrose and H.P. Stapp in 1989-1997 attempted to prove that
quantum mechanics must play an essential role and that scientific brain simulations
can only be performed with the most powerful quantum computer. Moreover, fol-
lowing Wigner(1932) there have been numerous observations that human con-
sciousness itself is a macroquantum effect, involving superconductivity, electro-
magnetic fields,Bose condensation, superfluidity, superflourescence, thermodynamics
and decoherence mechanisms…
Probably the first attempt to produce concrete example of qubit (quantum states unit
in quantum computation ) of brain-as-quantum-computer in the form of microtube
( puzzling ubiquitous hollow cylinder that can provide cells shape ) was made by
Penrose and Hameroff in 1995-1996. But this idea is faced with the problem of
quantum coherence. Stapp has argued the first that macrosuperpositions in the brain
could be indeed relatively stable, whereas Zeh, Zurek, Scott, Hepp and Hawking have
conjectured that environment-induced coherence must destroy any kind of super-
positions in the brain actually. Max Tegmark ( 1999 ) made mathematical calculations
of the relevant decoherence rates and he unexpectedly had found that
“ decoherence calculations have indicated that there is nothing fundamentally
quantum mechanical about cognitive processes in the brain, supporting the Hepp’s
conjecture. Specifically, the computations in the brain appear to be of a classical
rather than quantum nature, and the argument by Lisewski that quantum corrections
may be needed for accurate modelling of some details, i.e. non-Markovian noise in
neutron, does of course not change this conclusion. This means that although the
current state-of-the-art in neural network hardware is clearly still very far from being
able to model and understand cognitive processes as complex as those in the brain,
there are no quantum mechanical reasons to doubt that this research is on the right
track “(1999: 12 ).

Erroneous assumption

Because Brain is not Mind, new quantum metaphor (“ brain-as-quantum-computer”)

is made erroneous assumption that physiological studies of concrete “microtube Orch
OR “ of the brain must tell us everything about taking human consciousness and
language seriously.
In contrast, we may propose that if Mind ( we assume Brain as black box , here)
contains quantum protocols or some natural quantum crypto-linguistic systems
(including some natural mathematics, memory organization, behaviouristic patterns
and entangled bio-interactions) such systems could be described and systematically
investigated by special psycho-linguistic experiments and the field observations, but
not the brain research.
Hence, similar Chomsky-like linguistic theories of 1960s associated with gene-based
Autonomous Syntax Systems ( “ Genetic Universal Grammars”) could be also con-
sidered as erroneous in scientific linguistics of the 21st century (for an in - depth dis-
cussions, please see, Peter A. Seoken (2013) as well as N. Chomsky (1972),S. Kuczaj
(1982), D.I.Slobin (1970), and Roeper (2007)).

Towards Quantum Linguistics

Main unsolved problem in early and later lexical acquisition is how infants and
second language learners lean the meaning of words. There are two major approaches
to natural mathematics of language today: the first is connected with logical ( “the
meaning of a sentence is a function of the meaning of its words” ), space vector (“ the
meaning of individual words is construct – vector” ) and category-theoretical (“ vector
space forms a compact category ( math pregroup)”) investigations of models of
meanings of the words, and, the second is represented by intuitive psycholinguistic
studies of meanings. Wolfgang Klein (1994, 2006) developed foundational Finite-
ness principle for lexical acquisition understanding which could be described by
analogy with Erwin Schrodinger’s superposition principle. Schrodinger superposition
in Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics means the possibility that a
system can be in a combination of a variety of different states. For example, the
mathematical object may be in a superposition of different places at the same time and
therefore its position is not definite in time.
Hence, Klein’s examples of statements where all finite forms can also be non-finite
and all non-finite forms (of verbs ) can also be finite. Finiteness cannot just be an
infectional category of the verb and verb morphology just one way to encode it. There
are numerous syntactic , semantic and pragmatic phenomena called the “Finiteness
restrictions “ ( a syntactically complex verb form can contain several non-finite forms
but maximally one finite form ). Klein distinguishes a topic component ( it includes a
“topic time”, a “topic world” and a “topic place”), a non-finite sentence base and a
linking component into Finite Utterance Organization ,etc ( please, see, Klein, 2006)
In order to demonstrate an importance of Finiteness principle we can use Kim Plun-
kett and Julian Major( Oxford University, BabyLab ) experiment with infant lexical
acquisition – the caregiver points at an object (Fido the dog) and says “ Look, this is
a dog “. In these circumstances, the infant has to rule out a infinite (non-finite) num-
ber of possible meanings( the size, the shape, the colour, the individual, etc ).
However, infants reliably interpret the word “dog” as a label that can be used for this
dog and FOR ALL DOGS ! Quantum theoretically speaking, Plunkett-Major
experiments propose a quantum protocol that creates a pure quantum state cor-
responding to the quantum superposition of all dogs. This superposition can be
explained by Klein’s finiteness principle, and, probably, it may be simulated using
Grover’s algorithm ( of quantum cryptology ).We await this state is highly entangled
and its entanglement measures encode some “natural” unknown mathematical fun-
ctions of human quantum mind. This algorithm could be further combined with the
quantum Fourier-like transform (?) yield an estimate of the some natural counting
words function also.
Thus, interdisciplinary quantum linguistic research of lexical acquisition may contain
cause for optimism that some of the fundamentally enigmatic features of extrordinary
Human Supermind might be understood in the framework of a quantum and linguistic
solution.

References

Иванов Вяч. Вс.2004 Лингвистика третьего тысячелетия : Вопросы к будущему.

– М.: Языки славянской культуры, Studia Philologica.
Лузин Н. Н. 1943 Ньютонова теория пределов // Исаак Ньютон: Сб. ст. к трех-сотлетию со
дня рождения / Под ред. акад. С. И. Вавилова. М.; Л.: Изд_во АН СССР, 1943. С. 53—74.
Penrose,R. 1989. The Emperor’s New Mind ,Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press.
Penrose ,R. 1997 in: The Large, the Small and the Human Mind, ed. M. Longair
Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press.
Penrose,R.& Hameroff S.R. 1995 J. Consciousness Studies 2, 98.
Hameroff,S.R. & Penrose R. 1996 J. Consciousness Studies 3, 36
Stapp H.P. 1993 Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics (Berlin, Springer).
Stapp, H.P. 1991 Found. Phys. 21, 1451.
Zeh H.D. 1981 arXiv: quant-ph/9908084, Epistemological Letters of the Ferdinand-
Gonseth Association 63:0 , Biel, Switzerland
Zurek W.H. 1991 Phys. Today 44 (10), 36.
Scott A.1996 J. Consciousness Studies 6, 484
Hawking S. 1997 in: The Large, the Small and the Human Mind, ed. M. Longair
Cambridge, Cambridge Univ.Press.
Hepp,K. 1999 in: Quantum Future, ed. P. Blanchard and A. Jadczyk (Berlin,
Springer).
Lisewski A.M. 1999, arXiv: quant-ph/9907052
Wigner E.P. 1932 Phys. Rev. 40, 749
Tegmark, M. 1999 , arXiv: quant-ph /9907009v2
Seuken P.A. 2013 From Whorf to Montague. Explorations in the theory of language
Oxford University Press
Chomsky,N. 1972 Language and mind ( New-York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich )
Kuczaj,S. 1982 On the nature of syntactic development- in: S.Kuczaj (ed) Language
development: vol.1 Syntax and Semantics. ( Hillsdale, N.Y.: Eribaum )
Slobin D.I. 1970 Suggested universals in the onthogenesis of grammar, in: EPIC
http:// www.epiced.gov./EPICWebPortal /search...
Roeper,T. 2007 The prism of grammar : How child language illuminate humanism
Cambridhe,MA: MIT Press .
Klein,W. (1994) Time and language. London:Routledge .
Klein,W. 2006 On finiteness. In V.van Geenhoven( Ed.) Semantics in acquisition (pp
245-272) ( Dordrecht : Springer ).
Klein,W. 2013 The present perfect puzzle revisited- General Linguistics seminar
Oxford Taylorian Institution.
J. Mayor,J. & Plunkett,K. 2010 A neuro-computational account of taxonomic
responding and fast mapping in early word learning. Psychological Review,117(1).