Correct me if I'm wrong. "Entanglement" is a relationship between two electrons such that if one changes (e.g. spin) then the other one changes.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 5:18 PM glen <[email protected]> wrote: > Were you to write something like: "... scientists, when they use such rich > catachreses as 'entanglement', fail to take responsibility for consequences > of such use", I would not object. That word, unlike metaphor, has a fairly > concrete meaning, something like "fills lexical gaps in scientific > terminology, providing names and concepts where none previously existed". > > Or, were you to write something like: "... scientists, when they use such > rich didactic metaphors as 'entanglement', fail to take responsibility for > consequences of such use", that would be OK too. The 'didactic' qualifier > helps the reader *understand* whatever the hell you might mean. > > I don't actually care that much what the first person who used a word > meant by that word. Etymology and usage history are interesting and can > sometimes hint at the word's normative meaning. But what matters much much > more is what the current author(s) mean when they use the word. > > And, again, if everything's a metaphor, then the word 'metaphor' is > useless... like saying everything is a thing. It feels like the Bad kind of > "sophistry" to use a phrase like "the metaphor (metaphor)". It not only > wastes everyone's time; it also gives me The Ick: > https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the%20ick It's difficult > to steel man something when that thing grosses you out. > > > On 3/17/26 12:31 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > Cmon, Glen, where is the Steelman of Yore? > > > > To apply the metaphor (metaphor) to every utterance is no more "corrupt" > than to mathematize every proposition. It becomes corrupt only when it is > not pursued honesty. "Entanglement" is a metaphor. It directs the mind. > "Natural selection" is a metaphor. It also directs the mind. > > > > My worry is that scientists, when they use such rich metaphors as > entanglement fail to take responsibility for the consequences of such use. > Let's assume that the person who first used the metaphor, entanglement, > meant something by it. We can formalize the analysis of metaphors just as > we can mathematicize any proposition. And in that formalization, we can > sort out the direction, and misdirection in the metaphor. What did they > intend when they used the metaphor entanglement? What did they NOT > intend? And when the disclaimers have been completed, is there anything > left of the metaphor. If not, then, perhaps,*/scientists should stop using > the metaphor/*. In the same way that we have stopped calling porpoises > "fish". > > > > I don't know enough to even speculate what role "entanglement" as a > metaphor has played in the development of quantum physics. But I claim to > know enough about human behavior to assert that it has played some role, > and that physicists run some risks if they altogether disclaim it. > > > > What might we gain, SteelMan, from exploring human thought as movement > from metaphor to metaphor, each new experience being understood as a > version of some previous one? My love is like a red,red rose, delicate, > delighting, fragrant. But OH! the thorns. Did I mean the thorns. Was > there ever a rose that did not have thorns? Metaphors are like that. > > > > When you say that we metaphorists are liars, what are the experiences of > being lied to that you bring to bear. When we analyze metaphors (I > assert), it's always best to be as particular as possible. Describe to me > a particular jarring instance of being lied to. Now project that > experience onto the experience of being metaphored to. What are the > surplus meanings of applying the metaphor; which of those surplus meanings > are disclaimed; once these disclaimers have been noted, does the metaphor > retain any heuristic value. > > > > I have to say, I don't like being called a liar. But -- as the saying > goes -- "if the foo shits", I guess I have to wear it. So, what experience > do you imagine when you imagine being lied to? What aspects of that > experience do you intend when you call metaphorists liars? What aspect do > you disclaim? What is the heuristic value of the metaphor, once the > disclaimers have been made. > > > > By the way, just as an interpersonal matter, if you call me a sinner, it > doesn't help that you immediately call yourself a sinner. Any contempt > you feel for yourself, does nothing to salve the contempt you feel for me. > In fact it makes it worse. I have to bear the contempt of an admitted > /sinner!/ > > > > But I love you anyway. I wouldn't engage you if I didnt. > > > > Nick > > > -- > ¡sıɹƎ ןıɐH ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ > ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα > σώσω. > > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
