Types and forgetfulness in categorical linguistics and quantum mechanics

The role of types in categorical models of meaning is investigated. A general scheme for how typed models of meaning may be used to compare sentences, regardless of their grammatical structure is described, and a toy example is used as an illustration. Taking as a starting point the question of whether the evaluation of such a type system 'loses information', we consider the parametrized typing associated with connectives from this viewpoint. The answer to this question implies that, within full categorical models of meaning, the objects associated with types must exhibit a simple but subtle categorical property known as self-similarity. We investigate the category theory behind this, with explicit reference to typed systems, and their monoidal closed structure. We then demonstrate close connections between such self-similar structures and dagger Frobenius algebras. In particular, we demonstrate that the categorical structures implied by the polymorphically typed connectives give rise to a (lax unitless) form of the special forms of Frobenius algebras known as classical structures, used heavily in abstract categorical approaches to quantum mechanics.Comment: 37 pages, 4 figure

From Simple to Complex and Ultra-complex Systems:\ud A Paradigm Shift Towards Non-Abelian Systems Dynamics

Atoms, molecules, organisms distinguish layers of reality because of the causal links that govern their behavior, both horizontally (atom-atom, molecule-molecule, organism-organism) and vertically (atom-molecule-organism). This is the first intuition of the theory of levels. Even if the further development of the theory will require imposing a number of qualifications to this initial intuition, the idea of a series of entities organized on different levels of complexity will prove correct. Living systems as well as social systems and the human mind present features remarkably different from those characterizing non-living, simple physical and chemical systems. We propose that super-complexity requires at least four different categorical frameworks, provided by the theories of levels of reality, chronotopoids, (generalized) interactions, and anticipation

A universe of processes and some of its guises

Our starting point is a particular `canvas' aimed to `draw' theories of physics, which has symmetric monoidal categories as its mathematical backbone. In this paper we consider the conceptual foundations for this canvas, and how these can then be converted into mathematical structure. With very little structural effort (i.e. in very abstract terms) and in a very short time span the categorical quantum mechanics (CQM) research program has reproduced a surprisingly large fragment of quantum theory. It also provides new insights both in quantum foundations and in quantum information, and has even resulted in automated reasoning software called `quantomatic' which exploits the deductive power of CQM. In this paper we complement the available material by not requiring prior knowledge of category theory, and by pointing at connections to previous and current developments in the foundations of physics. This research program is also in close synergy with developments elsewhere, for example in representation theory, quantum algebra, knot theory, topological quantum field theory and several other areas.Comment: Invited chapter in: "Deep Beauty: Understanding the Quantum World through Mathematical Innovation", H. Halvorson, ed., Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. (as usual, many pictures