Cognitive Computing: a potential link between Quantum Computing and Linguistics

[Martin Michael Musatov]

Computational literalism is a relatively new term amongst the
scientific and cognitive computing community. The basis of it is the
theory certain terms of human understanding may simply not hold up to
quantum processing to machine-human logic barriers. These machine-
human logic barriers are thought to exist in the form of terms of
human understanding current functioning machines such as computers
obey. Terms that would fall into this category might include terms
like "delete" or "enter" as they are terms machines effectively obey
and do what humans understand the terms to mean. The exciting
extension of computational literalism pertains to terms of negation
such as "error" or "not" appearing in software code or algorithms,
because, at least according to some theorists studying this field,
assert that terms such as "error" or "not" when processed by a machine
or computer do not necessarily mean (respectively) "failure" or "does
not equal". Computational literalism holds the notion that (perhaps)
on a quantum level that is to say according to a quantum computer
(actual or theoretical) terms that seem to differentiate betweent to
opposites could actually be similar or even (strikingly) synonymous
via a morphism in computer code or algorithms. One such example of
this would be the following "bit" or "tag" of <code>possible=possible
impossible=possible-im.{{-}}{{+}}.</code> Such statements have complex
implications that pertain to very deep logic and physical realities of
mechanical operations and present a vast arena of possible scenarios
to suggest and consider for scientists in a variety of related fields,
bridging cognitive studies, such as linguistics, with computer
science, to conventional physical sciences such as electrical
engineering or computer design. This information was gathered from
extensive independent study by a large group of individuals
collectively within these communities and so (it seems) there is no
one theorist or field credited with its creation, spawning fittingly,
it appears to be simply a birth of an idea, of which the results, or
implications, applications, theoretical or actual, simply remain to be
seen in the slow duration of much study, experimentation, and
diligence. Theories, and new ideas, for centuries, as studied by
anthopologists, and sociologist, have adopted, many ideas seem
beneficial from seemingly detached studies being joined within the
context of open discussion, rather than the context of trying to solve
a specific problem. Which, from an economic perspective, I find this
makes sense, as solving problems make money, and make like better for
us, and because of this, the focus of great minds have a tendency to
gravitate to the problem as opposed to focusing any energy or
resources on the connections between seemingly unrelated fields in the
context of open discussion.