A quantum-cognitive approach to dynamic meaning construction

Abstract

Language isn't just a rigid system of symbols. Instead, it's a living, embodied phenomenon, deeply intertwined with our physical experience and shaped by our interaction with the environment (Wang, 2019;Zhou & Luo, 2024). However, the dynamic nature of language brings a significant challenge to cognitive science: the well-known "stability-plasticity dilemma" (Grossberg, 1980). On one hand, for clear communication, meanings of words need to be stable and widely recognized, so everyone can understand them, no matter when or who speaks them. On the other hand, these meanings must also be flexible and adaptable in varying contexts. While traditional computational models, from early generative grammar to standard Bayesian approaches, have excelled at modeling these stable meanings, they often treat semantic ambiguity as "noise" that needs to be eliminated, rather than a valuable resource (Gärdenfors, 2014).Even with the significant "probabilistic turn" in cognitive science, which brought Bayesian models to handle uncertainty, most of these models still rely on classical probability theory. They assume the meaning of a concept is a pre-defined distribution over a set of fixed features. As Bruza and Cole (2005) pointed out, this dependence on classical set theory creates a major epistemological barrier because it treats semantic ambiguity as "noise" rather than a fundamental part of meaning construction. Though scholars have recently developed more complex tools, like Gradient Symbolic Representations (GSR), to model meanings as weighted mixtures (Smolensky et al., 2014;Mondal, 2024), these approaches are still limited by Kolmogorovian probability. They still follow the Law of Total Probability, which forces conflicting meanings to be simply added together and mixed. We argue that this basic "mixture" method isn't enough to describe or handle complex situations where meanings are incompatible or interfere with each other in context. Therefore, much empirical evidence suggests that capturing these dynamic features requires a non-classical, quantum probability framework (Surov et al., 2021).The importance of this paradigm shift becomes most clear when we analyze how everyday language works and how we interpret deep meanings in complex literary works. A classic example of such "semantic superposition" is the iconic "big fish" in Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea.Within the novel's narrative structure, this phrase isn't a static label. Instead, it operates simultaneously on multiple, even mutually exclusive, semantic levels. Here, it serves as a biological marlin, a worthy adversary, and a transcendent symbol of life's ultimate tragedy. A classical probabilistic model fails to capture the dynamic tension that a reader feels, because it forces these meanings to compete for probability mass, implying only one can be dominant. In contrast, human reading suggests that meaning exists in a "superposition" state. It stays that way until a specific context makes it "collapse" into a concrete interpretation. Crucially, these overlapping meanings aren't simple probabilistic blends. They are coherent "quantum states" within a complex adaptive system.This study proposes that Quantum Cognition offers the necessary mathematical formalism to resolve the "stability-plasticity dilemma". This is supported by its proven success in solving decision-making paradoxes in psychology (Busemeyer & Bruza, 2012;Widdows et al., 2023;Huang et al., 2025). We introduce an integrated quantum theoretical model. In this model, the interaction between embodied experience and linguistic context is characterized as a genuine quantum interference phenomenon.This framework reinterprets the tension between stability and plasticity through the lens of Wave-Particle Duality. In our model, the "particle" corresponds to the stable, discrete symbols used for communication. The "wave" captures the fluid, context-sensitive potential that allows for creative interpretation.Next, by employing the mathematical formalism of Hilbert space, we will mathematically demonstrate how semantic ambiguity can be maintained as a useful resource, rather than mere noise.This approach effectively overcomes the limitations inherent in traditional methods like static vectors and gradient symbolic mixtures. To ground these abstract formalizations, we focus on the "Big Fish" motif in Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea. Through this case analysis, we will reveal how meaning dynamically evolves, similar to "state vector collapse". Our study also extends to address the fundamental limitations of current Artificial Intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs). We argue that current LLMs, relying heavily on static statistical correlations, lack the "grounding" for true understanding. Therefore, we propose a pathway toward Quantum-Embodied AI and photonic intelligent systems by incorporating quantum-semantic principles. These systems could mimic the non-algorithmic fluidity of the human mind. Quantum probability is not an exotic addition to linguistics but a fundamental requirement for describing dynamic meaning. The research will first analyze the evolution from gradient representations to quantum interference, then formally express the wave-particle duality of meaning using mathematical methods. We will then validate this theoretical framework through the "big fish" case study and neurophysiological evidence, concluding with an exploration of its practical implications for Generative AI and Photonic we need the "quantum we the evolution of semantic theory. We will focus on mathematical models often to capture the nature of meaning. We will how meaning with static symbolic then to gradient we will the limitations of these these limitations a paradigm shift a quantum probability this "quantum turn" in deep that the basic of quantum such as and can be as of human meaning and interpretation. quantum theory can be as a framework for describing a to by like is a or is a In classical computational this is through vector Models like and a meaning by its fixed in a space, from While this method effectively captures stable such as the vector between and it becomes rigid when et that a static vector to a like creates a This vector becomes a weighted of its meanings, the in a semantic that is to models or to resolve this with dynamic they are still on They treat as a that simply the However, they lack an to model the the context is & these models assume the of not the This is by research on which that the of and et et these computational offers into how meaning from like have that meaning is not a fixed but a dynamic However, mathematical to describe the probabilistic of mutually & our of It can how but its is limited how these "collapse" in et al., et al., address the of static a major is the Symbolic Representations by et We can of as a that to the fluid, of with the of symbolic traditional vector models that a symbol or not at allows a symbol to have This approach creates a computational where or semantic meanings can simultaneously as a weighted This a more of how our language on recently this used gradient symbols to the of with the fluidity of cognitive research that linguistic meaning is as a not a discrete This allows for in semantic with evidence that meaning is and & the nature of human this model It captures the that a concept can to at a theoretical still these the framework and model follow the basic of classical probability. In these gradient models, meanings are as an not a true This in cognitive to quantum probability & & This is and we can it with an a classical gradient model an like a that on or but is by a Here, our is simply a lack of In contrast, quantum probability suggests its is more like a which is simultaneously and a dynamic until context or this in to the Law of Total that the probability of a is just the simple of its argue that this "mixture" model is for complex or linguistic are characterized not just by but by theoretical is supported by et "quantum in They that human of semantic often classical probability the & research that the interaction between a and its context creates interference similar to the and in a These interference can a to model classical theory. Therefore, this suggests that the human ambiguity not as a lack of but as a coherent cognitive resource representations have in and This to a "quantum turn" in This shift to like context-sensitive concept and meaning or even and using quantum to This a concept isn't it like a quantum on context and They the and similar so with quantum like and interference, of simple set as & This a for quantum in language as quantum not as a simple of fixed features with et This approach how we understand and rigid traditional specific concept the framework of quantum cognitive offers theoretical for in language meaning. between "quantum and "quantum that can formally features like quantum such as and However, this that quantum physical in our These are to more cognitive In this the of our the and meaning with like a varying Crucially, how these quantum to semantic and concept in quantum representations of the meaning of a isn't simply from its computational semantic models vector to be This can quantum such as of meaning and or rather than just to Bruza and Cole (2005) that semantic can be as true They deeply how quantum over can model context and our practical In this they the of meaning to quantum on the and that that are by quantum probability than by classical using and have of in semantic the that is a of meaning et approaches to quantum computational interpret meanings as quantum and and quantum et with quantum how can be and in quantum with and quantum as for modeling and semantic et "quantum turn" in computational language and the of intelligent systems of meaning on can intelligent systems more et language treat words as over semantic and to in This on like and "semantic et al., Language by to "quantum using genuine quantum to meanings et al., This method allows AI to potential or semantic in which then dynamically "collapse" on quantum This paradigm shift will semantic from methods to more context-sensitive models, which is for AI to understand dynamic dynamic interaction between and when or can also be using quantum and the concept of "quantum theory that "superposition" and into can like the into et quantum of the how quantum and and decision-making in we the limitations of traditional semantic models, inherent in capturing the and the nature of linguistic meaning. This the "quantum turn" in and an for cognitive in While this fundamental shift evidence and models for in meaning a more is still to the dynamic and of meaning within a on these basic we propose a theoretical framework on an the of our are formally similar to quantum The of this framework is the of used to understand "semantic a for the and of framework proposes an the of our are formally similar to quantum It the dilemma" in cognitive Language needs to be stable and to flexible enough to meanings on context. We argue that this is to the of quantum have the of the as a a like a discrete in a evidence a dynamic where and are theory on that are more like than words with this dynamic that meaning is like into a stable within a semantic where meanings are simultaneously and shaped by the of quantum on the theoretical by and Bruza and and we propose that a concept not be as a fixed set of a but as a "state of a This is by probability for this model, a a on its In the to a in the it as a probability an of the can be as a superposition" of semantic such as each to a & In this the a of meanings, effectively a superposition" with interference potential semantic & when we a in a specific or this as a This interaction a where the becomes a "particle" of into the specific This effectively traditional models, which treat words as to capture the dynamic in meaning our of the of we the mathematical framework of Quantum Hilbert this complex traditional classical set theory or vector everyday have Kolmogorovian probability when with and interference in meaning our model, a meaning is as a vector in a complex Hilbert The is a of meaning vectors This "superposition" can be by the the in the is not a classical but a probability It of a and a is the The of the is the theoretical of our model. In are not in probability but they how a cognitive will with in contexts. they describe the between on the from a cognitive this can be as a or in classical probabilistic but a in and of this formalism becomes when the probability of a meaning. In the probability of the of is simply the of However, in Quantum Probability, we the to the of which an a and the probability is the are the meaning is modeling the in a when are the meaning is mathematically human semantic can classical (Surov et al., is and a exists in a semantic To model the interaction between a and its context we the framework by et We describe the semantic using the have used in and to capture that are not to features et al., et al., this space, the semantic can a simple an that the semantic of the and context are no the of the is on the of the context. This the of meaning the meaning of a complex is an of the linguistic system and be to a simple of its et is not it as the narrative or We propose that the cognitive of a a by a of the meaning is by the evolution have to and dynamic in cognitive in (Busemeyer & Bruza, the the or the tension of the This how the in the Hilbert over modeling the of a reader a validate the theoretical framework we from abstract mathematical to a practical the approach to analyze the of in Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the specific is to how words in a and how meaning into a understanding. This "quantum isn't just for it's a It will demonstrate how "quantum probability can mathematically model the of deep meaning from semantic a that classical models have with when with et & Hemingway's the as a simultaneously On one hand, the the biological with a and the of and This its biological the the it to a the the a and an in for This in and will this In a traditional semantic or standard the of and are They in of a a cognitive such conflicting simultaneously to and Therefore, a classical model that the of to semantic or However, the experience isn't one of or but a This suggests that the human simple it in physical with Our is to mathematically this of mathematically the "semantic we a complex Hilbert This is by each a in the In this the vector for the meaning the is an and a of The other vector the the as a adversary, a and a symbol of the or when the is in its meaning is it's in a of To capture the between its biological and we assume a This we to the biological and the in a the "state vector is as a coherent a fundamental a specific narrative context forces "semantic the probability of the biological or meaning is Crucially, the between the is set to a coherent where This mathematical a cognitive where the system potential in until a specific context to a meaning of our is how the specific narrative context of the forces the meaning of to traditional models that treat context as a static our "quantum narrative context as a of the This the cognitive of Hemingway's in we where is through physical rather than by this we introduce a that the cognitive This is It the "semantic We that to capture the for a of with the the an abstract a of with the a biological a of is also implying or like a between matter and the meaning we a to the This specific is because it a context that is a the biological This captures the literary that the is a but its and the of that our can be as we traditional and our quantum method in how a reader a into a the between becomes We that corresponds to the probability of the the context we to this model using traditional we will a significant theoretical In the traditional classical the and of the are as not like that can The Law of Total requires to the of each the context. for the biological and we the probability of the biological with the context and it to the probability of the with its context This way of by as and simply the classical model is to implying the from its in a semantic However, this our experience of reading the when we to the the quantum we we first We the between the and the context method the to The A is by the of the the biological and the This in a of the this to the we quantum method a that approaches than the classical This significant is mathematically to the the and the context in the Hilbert by they theoretical It offers mathematical for a that literary have but to it that Hemingway's on physical in the not from the it as an This biological as a that rather than the This with on modeling of and interference, how context and can probability in and et modeling meaning as a we the experience of the mathematical of the This that when coherent is a resource for meaning not just to be our quantum model to have mathematical it must with the human We that the such as interference, and in our analysis, and describe the and within our This is with the dynamic et cognitive of its in the While classical linguistics often treats words as for words in the meaning a can be a discrete and dynamic this exists through evidence the of et that narrative the linguistic in This creates a of where semantic are in These are to and the coherent quantum this the mathematical of by the in our can be by and between in the The through and research that on within specific et & the a narrative context The Old in with the a more effectively at and are more to This is a of are or it or This the interference in our conflicting semantic to on a the from to which we "state vector at the cognitive can be as a of representations in our et a quantum probabilistic model of Here, and interference of cognitive how our of semantic traditional and classical probability the we this "collapse" is the shift from a more to a more that a specific interpretation. This shift be by dynamic in and a interpretation. on and literary reading also that complex meaning interaction between systems and This suggests that meaning requires the and of & our this of is like a from a of to one this theory in serves a current limitations of Artificial Large Language Models are but rely on static vector to understand with the nature of meaning. Our approach suggests AI must the we to a computational model that ambiguity not as to out, but as a fundamental resource for meaning construction. This framework also for neurophysiological how can how semantic are theoretical framework for dynamic meaning literary or cognitive It significant implications for how classical probabilistic models to capture the and interference in human meaning. This research AI a practical is in the major semantic that Generative Artificial from classical to isn't just an an paradigm shift for to meaning with the and as the human generative models, such as LLMs, linguistic as using classical probability to the This approach However, it context-sensitive of meaning into As research traditional vector models often meanings into one This makes it to or and language modeling proposes a it treats linguistic or as within a Hilbert This formalism at and and widely it to model mixtures of semantic and over meanings et 2025). In this a like a a semantic A by a captures a probabilistic of semantic classical these semantic models have this et from They treat each in as a over semantic on and that these representations to this to using and to and probabilistic language This in semantic et on these a semantic offers to analyze literary meaning. the in The Old Man and the it can be a biological and a symbol or In a these can be as or within a semantic Hilbert the importance of each or between them. This allows the system to a dynamically semantic rather than it to a with theoretical and empirical in which to handle linguistic ambiguity and dynamically meaning in contexts. like and and to and meanings within In these approaches, significant over vector in inherent ambiguity and semantic representations from to which model this modeling to semantic correlations, & this the is more than a complex for It a an semantic system to semantic like conflicting or as its captures between semantic for Crucially, the also meaning through with models of and These features a mathematical for modeling and meaning. they a for semantic to the limitations of static generative models but or that in language isn't a simple It from a of and a lack of or et 2025). a quantum can be as the of semantic within a complex language models propose a can be as quantum This of words and and similar to quantum interference et et 2025). In these models, meaning and or between or is by quantum on These that through complex or can express complex semantic and dynamic on these we can a method for generative quantum to or supported in a semantic a have We can with to these that the context and are will have to interference in or will have This will in the probability current models are not generative in and models, where quantum is to and stability intelligent for quantum and to useful and in complex et the and in AI from an and "semantic that from semantic in probabilistic models and suggests the need for that this these one can a In this the semantic of a or narrative be as a in a Hilbert space, often as a over semantic in a classical or then be into this semantic as or A the and of these on and effectively of and interference such a no be a it an of the semantic While this a theoretical it is with empirical This evidence suggests that models can capture semantic and the dynamic evolution of meaning more effectively than classical and semantic et et et we how intelligent systems are through embodied and photonic a major in current Artificial becomes and meaning from our dynamic physical AI models as are of physical a and with to In contrast, deep the of and This significant and inherent the of "semantic states" that can be in photonic and for semantic and to on photonic integrated et et These systems are for for traditional such as and photonic have for deep models, with et 2025). This that photonic can more the and In the quantum integrated and on and quantum et that meaning is not just an abstract vector but a within an In a photonic semantic could be by These in and interference and In this a semantic to a specific of and in a and by the While quantum and language models interference, and for semantic at the et photonic and a way to these representations into the of of on not for such dynamic this an Artificial need to mimic biological Instead, it requires a physical can and semantic Photonic and with of Hilbert interference and a clear toward such embodied we as within a complex space, human into a where and interpret these the of meaning between a and a can be as a of the true how to how to or how to While classical theory effectively it at each are and Quantum It allows to be and within Hilbert This the decision-making and the of that even the of and between these can significant coherent mixtures of by have to classical in 2025). quantum to to model each In this model, to fixed in these This mathematical framework is in like and where quantum and quantum have as for over et a semantic these theoretical that ambiguity and the of not be as but rather as valuable a AI an that allows for even It then from the to and the semantic state. language and models and to and capture complex between linguistic that are for classical methods to theory extends this to the interaction can be as or dynamically through They an that not only but also of and et semantic this paradigm a fundamental AI not or as to be Instead, they or incompatible They then to a of state. Quantum and such interaction models in which the computational is not a but a distribution over and these into AI the of system AI focus on meaning through This will a for it from current with and study a in cognitive science: how the human with its and to and such fluid, and often We argue that most current computational by words as mere static or are rigid to capture this dynamic nature of meaning. Therefore, we propose a the concept of "superposition" from classical cognitive with Quantum to our this a is no a of fixed in the but a dynamic system wave-particle A in its exists as a "wave" of it only into a meaning when by a or of Hemingway's The Old Man and the this We mathematically the tension between and in the The that quantum probability and interference, effectively and that classical probability as a classical model a probability when with conflicting semantic but our quantum model a probability of coherent meaning This mathematical for the that context just it the semantic features to and of each other Crucially, this mathematical is in biological the between the quantum and suggests that the is not a but a of the this framework offers a theoretical we must its current which also research our in a simple Hilbert While for the interference in a semantic of semantic features within a more research will need to to model these computational we must be the of the We are not the is a quantum at Instead, we for that the as a biological to using probability because these are more for these our practical implications literary a for psychology and Artificial cognitive science, this model suggests a using to specific of semantic interference meaning Artificial Intelligence, our the vector as the fundamental of in current Large Language Models the Quantum a for AI These could to understand and meaning in complex We that intelligent systems of the deep meaning of not just requires a shift to Quantum Language and Photonic that to model semantic just as meaning is more than a mathematical the novel's "Big Fish" is more than a simple It a dynamic the of into a of understanding. the quantum nature of this allows to with the of human to the of the mind.