I think it's a dead metaphor at this point. The reason I suggested that it might be a catacresis is because there's no satisfying vernacular for (the jargonal) non-separability. So the term "entanglement" is an abuse of the word to fill a hole in our lay language. But it might also be didactic, where a physicist (who may not have, nor *need*, an ordinary English term for non-separability) is simply trying to communicate the concept, perhaps as a kind of priming, right before introducing the math.
If you must toss more English words at it, maybe https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/#State? On 3/17/26 5:36 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
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] <mailto:[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 <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/
