Natural Code of Subjective Experience

The paper introduces mathematical encoding for subjective experience and meaning in natural cognition. The code is based on a quantum-theoretic qubit structure supplementing classical bit with circular dimension, functioning as a process-causal template for representation of contexts relative to the basis decision. The qubit state space is demarcated in categories of emotional experience of animals and humans. Features of the resulting spherical map align with major theoreties in cognitive and emotion science, modeling of natural language, and semiotics, suggesting several generalizations and improvements. The developed model bridges psychological, quantum-theoretic, and semiotic perspectives, allowing for an integrative account of subjectivity, agency, and meaning in living Nature.


Introduction
Phenomenon of meaning is difficult for mathematical account. Inert behavior of physical systems for which mathematics is known to work is so different from subjective, context-dependent, creative nature of interpretation and sense-making, that the latter are considered to lie out of the scope of quantitative science (Hernández-Fernández, 2021;Markoš & Cvrčková, 2013). In this respect, semiotics in its present state shares the problem of psychology, linguistics and other humanitarian disciplines routinely contrasted with the exact sciences (Brower, 1949;Madill & Gough, 2008;Smedslund, 2016).
Existing quantitative methods address various forms of semiotic activity like recognition of signal patterns, statistical regularities in genetics and words' usage, and others (Lacková & Faltýnek, 2021). As shown e.g. in the field of natural language processing, this approach offers a lot of quantification and analytic tasks to be formulated and solved. The resulting regularities, however, capture traces of the meaning-making activity rather than its essence, consistently eluding mathematization.
Limitations of mechanistic science stimulated approaches to the problem of meaning with the quantum theory, generally considered as having little to do with macroscopic processes including natural cognition. Nevertheless, quantuminspired conceptual insights about the relation of subject, object and consciousness (Beshkar, 2020;Pattee, 1978;Petrenko & Suprun, 2015), the nature of decision, information, and coding in biology (Pattee, 1979;Wills, 2019), the contextuality of meaning and subjective experience (Aerts et al., 2000;Grygar, 2017;Maruyama, 2020), the origins of semiosis, language, agency, and other cornerstones of human nature (Matsuno, 2020;Morf, 2018;Wendt, 2015), indicate the opposite in accord with foundational ideas of N. Bohr, W. Pauli, E. Schrödinger, and other scholars of the highest rank Meier, 2001;Schrödinger, 1944). In this perspective, quantum theory reflects fundamental principles to human cognition and not just provides mathematical formalism used to model statistics of human decision and judgment (Aerts et al., 2016;Busemeyer & Bruza, 2012;Haven & Khrennikov, 2013;Khrennikov, 2010). These latter results, however, raise a question if conceptual analogies might be developed to get in touch with quantitative modeling, massively advanced in recent decades.
The present work aims to meet this challenge, with the decisive difference derived from a single idea. As proposed by Surov (2021a), it identifies an elementary situation of sense-making with a resolution of a two-way alternative like doing versus non-doing or yes vs. no. Representation of behavioral context relative to this particular decision and subject then constitutes meaning of this information, formalized in a mathematical structure known in quantum theory as qubit. Qubit vector states then form a dedicated semantic space, constructed by a subject specifically for resolution of the considered decision alternative (ibid.).
This paper bridges this model of subjective task-oriented meaning with the field of biosemiotics. Building on the model of emotions (Surov, 2021b), it is a follow-up paper, situating the result in semiotic context and making further progress. Previously established structure of qubit-affective states, in particular, is identified as a basic code of subjective experience, challenging the conclusion on impossibility of quantification of meaning noted above. As shown in "Alignment with Semiotics and Cognitive Science" section, the resulting model integrates a number of cornerstone findings in cognitive and emotion science, quantum-inspired models of natural language, and semiotic paradigms of J. von Uexküll and Ch. S. Peirce. This result is approached in the following steps. First, "The Qubit Model of Context Representation" section summarizes the mathematics of the qubit semantic space following (Surov, 2021a) and discusses its ontological basis. Next, "Phase Dimension: Subjective Causal Order" section describes the structure of the qubit's process-semantic dimension. "Qubit States of Subjective Experience" section then explains the function of this structure as a code of subjective experience based on the model of emotions proposed in Surov (2021b), additionally describing quantum-like mechanics of subjective experiential states.
After relating the obtained result to the existing theories of semiotics and cognitive science in "Alignment with Semiotics and Cognitive Science", "Outlook" section concludes the paper.

The Qubit Model of Context Representation
"Pure States and the Bloch Sphere" and "Mixed States and the Bloch Ball" sections summarize the quantum-theoretic formulation of the qubit model following the standard quantum-theoretic routine (Jaeger, 2007;Le Bellac, 2006;Nielsen and Chuang, 2010). A reader interested in conceptual rather than quantitative side of the approach may skip this mathematical part and proceed to "Polar Angle: Favorability of Contexts" and "Ontological Basis" sections exemplifying the working of the model and discussing the ontological basis of its application to cognitive-behavioral domain.

Pure States and the Bloch Sphere
Consider a subject bound to make a choice between two mutually exclusive cognitive-behavioral alternatives: DO or NOT DO, TRUE or FALSE, YES or NO, etc. Regardless of its nature and form, all information used to make this decision, called context, is represented by the subject in the qubit state (Le Bellac, 2006) where 0 and 1 label the alternatives, c i are real-valued coefficients, and 0°≤ ϕ < 360° is phase parameter. Angle brackets �⋅⟩ denote column vectors, so that qubit state � ⟩ is a vector in two-dimensional space formed by basis vectors �0⟩ and �1⟩ With coefficients c i parameterized via (polar) angle 0°≤ ≤ 180°, state (1) is visualized by a vector pointing from the origin of a three-dimensional Cartesian space to the surface of a unit-radius Bloch (Poincaré) sphere shown in Fig. 1 Unlike standard Euclidean geometry, orthogonality of the qubit states corresponds to the opposite orientation of their vectors, as e.g. for basis states ⟨0�1⟩ = 0 located at the poles of the sphere. The circular process dimension ϕ differs the qubit from classical bit-like probability space, equivalent to the diameter of the Bloch sphere.
By representing context in relation to the basis decision to be made by an individual, the qubit state (1) encodes its subjective significance, or meaning (Surov, 2021a).

Mixed States and the Bloch Ball
If an individual is unable to integrate all available information in a single pure qubit state (1), several such states are blended with probability-weights P i in a mixed state This generalizes pure states (1) corresponding to sum (3) with a single component. Geometrically, mixed states are visualized by (Stokes') vectors (Jaeger, 2007) occupying interior of the Bloch sphere along with its surface. The latter accommodates pure states for which inequality (4) is saturated.
Fragmentation of mixed state (3) to pure components � i ⟩⟨ i � is quantified by purity or coherence of arbitrary qubit state (Jaeger, 2007, p.5). Minimal purity corresponds to a state in the center of the Bloch sphere x = y = z = 0, while maximal value is achieved for all pure states (1) with Stokes vector (4).  (Surov, 2021a). The context, or (informational) environment of an individual is shown by gray bands. In subjective cognition, its meaning for making the basis decision is encoded by mixed (4) (1) where ⟨ �i⟩ denotes inner product of basis vector �i⟩ with complex-conjugate (Hermitian) transpose of (1), � ⟩ † = � c 0 e −i c 1 � . These probabilities are measured statistically for an ensemble of identically (indistinguishably) staged experiments, while their unity sum means that exactly one of the alternatives is realized in each experiment.
Probabilities (5) quantify favorability of the considered context for choosing the basis alternatives in cognition of a subject. This is function of polar angle 0°≤ ≤ 180° in the qubit-state encoding, defining proximity of vector � ⟩ to the poles of the sphere corresponding to = 0° and = 180°. In the mixed-state case ("Mixed States and the Bloch Ball" section) this function is realized by the Z-component of Stokes vector (4) − 1 ≤ z = p 1 − p 0 ≤ 1. Example A context described by a single word "thirst" is typically favorable for positive decision in choice whether to have a drink �1⟩ = �drink⟩ or not �0⟩ = �no drink⟩ with > 90° so that p 0 = cos 2 ( ∕2) < 0.5 < sin 2 ( ∕2) = p 1 .
For a choice whether to take a walk �1⟩ = �walk⟩ or not �0⟩ = �no walk⟩ , in contrast, favorability of the same context is not so obvious, possibly producing near 90 ∘ or a mixed state with the Z-component of vector (4) close to zero. In presence of additional information, e.g. likelihood to find water along the way, subject's representational algorithms could change these values in both directions.

Ontological Basis
Formally, the use of the qubit states for behavioral modeling as described above does not require any special justification just like any other mathematical tool. However, the quantum theory is strongly associated with the modeling of elementary physical systems, whereas cognitive terminology used above clearly refers to macroscopic physiological phenomena. In light of this dissimilarity, one can hardly avoid asking if there is any fundamental reason for such a peculiar choice. While detailed resolution of this puzzle is still underway, a gross picture of the emerging conceptual structure is sketched in Surov (2021a).
A central element of this view is understanding of the expression (1). One could note that throughout this section and the rest of this paper there is no talk about a system residing in two different states �0⟩ , �1⟩ at the same time, as typical �thirst⟩ = cos 2 �no drink⟩ + e i sin 2 �drink⟩ for magic-inclined interpretations of quantum theory (Cabello, 2017;Marin, 2009;Merali, 2015;Mermin, 1981). Instead, the qubit state (1) denotes not actual, but a potential state of the basis uncertainty in the classical sense of Heisenberg (1958), ch. 10: in the decision act, one of the superposed alternatives comes real, while the other is irreversibly discarded. In actuality, a decision-making agent is thus always in a single state with a well-defined history in the past. Future, in contrast, is objectively multivariant and thus exists in real sense; objective, quantum uncertainty (Ballentine, 2016) refers to a junction point at which the agent's behavior is not predetermined, but is free to proceed in either of several superposed paths (Bohm et al., 1987). This understanding of superposition (1) thus frees quantum theory from weirdness blocking its application to biological systems (Pattee, 1972;Rosen, 1996). Ontological potentiality entails objective freedom of living subjects, missing in classical behaviorism that treats organisms as machines executing pre-programmed stimulus-response scripts (Surov, 2021a). Proper account of actual and potential, present and future, external and internal thereby makes quantum theory unique for modeling of living Nature. 1 With quantum theory increasingly applied outside of physics, physiological realization of quantum-like cognition becomes an object of intensive search including quantum brain (Adams & Petruccione, 2020;Melkikh & Khrennikov, 2015;Tarlacı, 2010), neural (Pereira & Almada, 2011;Suppes et al., 2012), and electromagnetic (Popp & Beloussov, 2003;Sevush, 2006) wave processes, and classical neural nets (Deng et al., 2017;Selesnick & Piccinini, 2018). For behavioral-semantic modeling, however, this question is of minor importance. An individual -the quantum -is not dissected and looked inside, so that models of its internal performance are unavailable by definition. One can either guess intentions of others based on their behavior, or make sense of it in one's own semantic spaces. In both cases, an individual's subjective state is encoded by the same mathematical structure of the qubit state.

Phase Dimension: Subjective Causal Order
Although phase dimension of the qubit is used for modeling of interference phenomena in probabilistic behavior (Surov, 2021a), its cognitive role was not known until recently. The encoding of subjective experience proposed in this paper follows from interpretation of the qubit's phase as circular causal structure derived from basic cycles of Nature (Surov, 2021c). This section summarizes the model and rationale behind it, necessary for the present purpose. Notwithstanding this logic, the model is not deduced from previous results in logically rigorous way; it contains a fair degree of the author's arbitrariness to be tested in practice. Along with its main goal, the results reported further in this paper contribute to this validation process beyond the existing experimental evidence (ibid.).

Relation to Polar Angle
In contrast to polar angle , azimuthal phase ϕ of the qubit state (1) does not enter probability expressions (5). As seen from Fig. 1, this dimension in orthogonal to and Z, so that e.g. setting ϕ = 0° or ± 90° would not affect favorability of the qubit state (6). In the reverse direction, decision probabilities observable from behavior of an individual do not provide (direct) information about phases of the underlying qubit states; this allows, in particular, to build multiple context representations describing the same decision probabilities. In this sense, phase dimension ϕ functions as subjective dimension of qubit state, contrasting with the polar angle uniquely defined by the observed data. 2

Constraints and the Approach
Possible cognitive functions of the qubit's phase parameter ϕ are restricted by the following features of the qubit representation: • Universality of the qubit model, applying to binary decision alternatives of any nature as indicated in "The Qubit Model of Context Representation" section. Accordingly, cognitive function of the qubit's phase parameter should be as basic as the Good-Evil dichotomy representing limiting cases of favorability. • Circularity of the qubit's phase dimension, repeating itself after every 360° making one full circle. In contrast with linear favorability dimension or Z, the corresponding cognitive feature should organize contexts in harmonic proximity relations with no limiting poles. • Orthogonality of the azimuthal phase to the qubit's polar angle as noted above.
This implies e.g. that cognitive feature encoded in the qubit's phase should not restrict favorability of the same context encoded by the polar angle.
According to the principles of (functional) invariance (Lorenz, 1974;Lakoff, 1990) and structural isomorphism (Piantadosi, 2020), cognitive role of the qubit's phase dimension should mirror some evident natural phenomena. According to the second restriction above, the things to look for are repetitive processes in Nature. Immediate examples of this kind are heartbeat, year and day-night cycles, motions of waves, wheels, clocks, mechanical oscillators, and so on.
Either explicitly or implicitly, all these motions are circular. Movement of a pendulum, for example, is routinely represented by rotation of a point in the positionvelocity (phase) plane; for quantum-physical qubits carried e.g. by electrons' spin, the same precessive motion is observed when putting the particle in the external magnetic field (Feynman et al., 1964, ch.7). In all cases, plane of circular motion corresponds to the XY plane of the Bloch sphere hosting the azimuthal phase ( Fig. 1), so that the latter encodes, literally, the phase of the considered cyclical process.
The Concept Cognitive function of the qubit's phase follows from the same isomorphism principle defining not only topology, but also internal structure of this dimension. Convenient starting points are year and day-night cycles organizing activity of humans for a long time.
Sowing, for example, is reasonable only in when the soil is wet and the warm season lies ahead, which is the spring of the Northern climates; herding cattle is most productive in summer when meadows are rich; cropping goes in the fall when the harvest is ready; recovery and learning are concentrated in winter with a lot of free time. Likewise, hunting, fishing, traveling, building and other activities are traditionally aligned with cyclical environmental conditions. Similar structure demarcates the day-night cycle. Morning is for detecting novelties and planning, midday contains most of the work, evening fits for collection and estimation of the results, while recovery and rest occur at night. In this scheme morning, day, evening, and night map to four seasons of the year starting with spring, illustrating process-structural isomorphism.
This accommodation of activities in natural order ensuring the best possible efficiency is the principle behind the qubit's phase dimension of subjective semantic space. According to generality of the qubit model, it holds for activities not coupled to daytime or calendar. In metaphoric way, the same process stages demarcate classical narrative and screenplay structures, scientific projects and papers, building of theories, cybernetic control loops, life-cycle of products in the market, human life itself, and numerous other examples. In agreement with the dynamic hypothesis (van Gelder, 1998), so organized cognition works as a simulator of the processes of subjective interest (Bubic et al., 2010;Gładziejewski, 2016) empowered by processstructural isomorphism. Universal applicability of this principle satisfies the first among three restrictions in the above list.
Within the qubit semantic space, the azimuthal phase represents an abstract process, associated with the basis decision alternative and populated with particular contexts according to cognitive algorithms of a subject. In line with the logic of functional information and equivalence classes (Sharov, 2010;Auletta, 2016), this dimension is discretized to distinct ranges hosting contexts of particular processsemantic roles. The "morning" functional class, for example, would accommodate contexts identifying the basis uncertainty and providing motivation to resolve it; for the decision to have a drink or not ("Polar Angle: Favorability of Contexts" section), in particular, this could be the "thirst" context (6) with ϕ in the specific "morning" range.
The final conceptual ingredient is the choice of the number of the basic processsemantic classes. This number is set to three based on a fundamental feature of quantum semantics, following directly from its mathematical structure (Surov, 2021a). As in physics, this is the minimal number of contexts requiring phase parameters to be represented in a single qubit Hilbert space, so that the triple of contexts is considered as a minimal carrier of subjective meaning (ibid.), cf. Eco & Sebeok, 1983, Peirce, 1991).

Process-Semantic Stages
Names of the basic process-semantic stages can be extracted from any of the cyclical processes mentioned in "The Concept" section. A convenient source, for example, is the classical three-act narrative structure "Setup -Development -Resolution" (Field, 2005;Seger, 2010) aligning with the triadic requirement just discussed. Abstracted from the domain-specific meaning, the resulting process stages are 1. Novelty, 0 • ≲ ≲ 120 • Contexts describing newly recognized factors requiring resolution of the basis uncertainty; 2. Action, 120 • ≲ ≲ 240 • Contexts describing the action taken to handle the novelty; 3. Result, 240 • ≲ ≲ 360 • Contexts describing outcomes of the action, possibly leading to new novelties.
Without prior bias, these stages are set to divide the azimuthal phase range 0°− 360° to equal sectors of ∼ 120 • each. Choices of zero and direction are matters of convenience. In the following, the cycle starts at ϕ = 0° with the onset of Novelty, resulting in the ranges indicated in the list above. For some applications, triadic categorization may be not optimal due to (i) insufficient angular resolution and/or (ii) lack of logically desirable process-wise semantic opposition due to the odd number of stages. The primary triad above is then supplemented with a secondary one, doubling the number of categories to six as shown in Fig. 2 Azimuthal phase ranges for this triple are set according to the symmetry argument used above. In the six-stage case, ranges of the main triple are reduced by half around their means, producing six sectors of ∼ 60 • each as shown in Fig. 2

(a). 3
Example Consider a subject in making a decision whether to build a new house (1) or not (0). Then, azimuthal dimension of the corresponding qubit semantic space might be populated with particular contexts in the following way: 1. Perception: contexts describing circumstances and observations resulting from the previous actions and leading to the considered decision alternative: aging of the existing construction, anticipation of new residents, environmental pressures, etc. 2. Novelty: contexts describing a particular novel factor (surprise, issue, problem) addressed by the considered decision: destruction of the former house, growing of the family, etc. 3. Goal-plan: contexts setting objectives regarding the novelty and describing plans for its achievement: with the goal of increasing or improving the living space, the plan could include funding strategy, architecture, floor plan, schedule of the works, etc. 4. Action: contexts describing implementation of the plan, including preparation of the resources and building process with all associated activities and effort. This arrangement of qubit context representations in the azimuthal phase dimension exemplifies the possible causal structure that might be constructed by some subject for the considered set of behavioral contexts. Alternatively, one could consider building the same house for the joy of the process itself, or to compete with a neighbor; in each case, the selection and ordering of the contexts would be different. These latter options indicate process-semantic structures that might be imposed upon the relevant behavioral contexts, alternative to the one detalized above. This multivariance illustrates the fundamental subjectivity of the qubit's phase dimension noted in the beginning of this section.

Asymmetry of Primary and Secondary Triads
Although mathematically symmetric, primary and secondary process stages differ in variation of the activity during the process cycle. Namely, onset of primary stages changes quality of the activity: • Processing of Novelty requires cognitive mobilization and focused analysis absent in Perception; • Effective Action requires a shift from cognitive, visionary activity at the Goalplan stage toward practical, down-to-earth implementation in real circumstances; • Adequate assessing of the Result requires equanimity hardly possible in rush of the Progress stage.
Secondary stages, in contrast, do not require significant psycho-physiological reconfiguration of an organism: • Perception can be seen as defocused mode of observation used to estimate the Result at the previous stage. • Setting Goals and Plans is cognitive activity compatible with detection and recognition tasks of Novelty stage; • Progress-class activity largely continues energetic implementation initiated at Action stage; Due to this difference, primary stages are fundamentally more explicit, more easily identified and formalized. Whereas mathematics permits unlimited angular resolution with any number of stages, physiologically-essential considerations of this kind restrict feasible structures of subjective experience.

Cartesian Axes
X and Y axes of the qubit's azimuthal plane have interpretable cognitive functions used in the following analysis.
The Y-axis discriminates contexts according to their (external) Activity. It takes minimal value at Perception stage, when passive observation of the environment is an internally-oriented process. As a subject engages in analysis and modeling at the Novelty stage, Activity gets higher; the result is, nevertheless, mainly internal achievement as reflected by negative Activity score. The next Goal-plan stage, in contrast, is mainly directed outside by definition of goals and plans; their realization, however, is still ahead. Activity reaches maximum at the next, fully outside-oriented and the least reflexive stage opposite to Perception. Subsequent shift towards communication and feedback at the Progress stage requires empathy and mutual understanding with decreasing Activity. This trend strengthens upon turning to the Result stage, mostly focused on estimation and preservation of the achievements earned before.
The X-axis quantifies the ability of a subject to influence the course of subsequent stages in a given context. This ability is maximal near ϕ = 90° where a subject is free to set goals regarding the considered Novelty. During subsequent Planning, Action, and Progress, space for maneuvers is steadily shrinking, decreasing subjective freedom. The minimum is reached near ϕ = 270° when there is no way to change anything about the final Result. Afterwards, subjective ability to influence grows due to enaction of internal degrees of freedom. First, this is the ability to choose subjective estimation of a given Result. This growth strengthens as one detaches himself from objective conditions during Perception. A lot of freedom at the next Novelty stage is due to strong conditioning of the Goal-planning by previous recognition and modeling.
As described in "Polar Angle: Favorability of Contexts" section, the remaining Z axis measures contexts according to their favorability for the basis alternatives. Qualitatively, this categorizes contexts to favorable and unfavorable, putting them in the top and bottom hemispheres of the Bloch sphere, z ≷ 0 (4). Similar categories arise from the X and Y axes, classifying contexts as restricted-free and externallyinternally oriented, respectively.

Qubit States of Subjective Experience
Process-semantic categorization of the qubit's azimuthal phase shown in Fig. 2(a) demarcates only the equator of the Bloch sphere, Fig. 1. As suggested by the function of the polar angle in Fig. 2(b), contexts mapped above and below this evaluatively-neutral line could be denoted as Good-Novelty and Bad-Novelty, Good-Goal-plans and Bad-Goal-plans, and so on. As shown in Surov (2021b) for human cognition, these semantic classes constitute a universal coding system of subjective experience and meaning called emotion.
This section extends the scope of this model to account for subjective experience in living Nature. First, "Emotions as Basic States of Subjective Experience" section provides a necessary background, summarizing a generalized conception of emotion as self-regulatory affective-experiential states and indicating their basic classes known from emotion science. Next, "Process-Value Classes of Experience and "Spherical Map" sections describe process-semantic structure and the resulting spherical map of subjective-emotional states. Then, "Mixing of Experiences" section explains the quantum-theoretic mechanism of mixing, necessary for practical application of the model. Finally, "Quantum-Like Mechanics of Experience" section outlines quantum-like mechanics of subjective experience.

Emotions as Basic States of Subjective Experience
Function Human emotions are central in studies of biological drives, adaptation and hedonic tones, motivations, actions tendencies and dispositions, processes of categorization and appraisal, communication, development, and social relations (Gross and Feldman Barrett, 2011;Lazarus, 1991a). This variety of manifestations is captured by conceptualizing emotion as a core system of self-regulatory sense (Alcaro et al., 2017;Peil, 2014;Salvatore & Freda, 2011), in which emotions are primal states of personal experience involved in behavior control of natural cognitive systems.
The function of sense-making, however, is beyond the standard meaning of the term "emotion", strongly associated with human-specific content. The required generality is better captured by the less anthropomorphic term "affect". This notion, in particular, includes proto-emotional states of primitive organisms: far from delicate matters of human emotion, positive ( > 90 ∘ ) and negative ( < 90 ∘ ) feedback signals encode, for example, subjective sense of E coli in nutritious and toxic contexts (Peil, 2014), constituting its single-cell psychology (Pattee, 1982). In the same logic, function and structure of human emotions extends to other forms of life (Anderson & Adolphs, 2014) including mammals (Lorenz, 2002;Panksepp, 2005), insects (Gu et al., 2019), and birds (Lorenz, 2005, ch.11). In line with (Salvatore & Freda, 2011;Kull, 2019), an alphabet of affective states then can be seen as a basic semiotic system in living Nature, hardwired in basic physiology of biosystems (Panksepp, 1998;Wang et al., 2020a).

Process-Value Classes of Experience
Process-semantic structure of emotional experiences follows from their role encoding distinct psycho-physiological scripts regulating behavior in archetypal situation classes covering activity of an organism (Ekman, 1992;Johnson-Laird & Oatley, 1992;Lazarus, 1991b). The resulting allocation of basic emotions to the primary and secondary process stages ("Process-Semantic Stages" section) established in (Surov, 2021b) is as follows.

Novelty: Fear -Surprise
By definition, a new factor recognized as Novelty drops out of the expected, normal course of events. Because of its disturbing and often threatening implications, default evaluation of Novelty is negative with typical subjective experiences being anxiety, confusion, startle, fear, etc. Positively evaluated novelty, in contrast, is experienced as wonder, amazement, curiosity, and surprise-like emotions.

Action: Rage -Zeal
In contrast to mainly cognitive processing of Novelty, external work at the Action stage requires maximal mobilization of the organism's resources and skills. In positive mode, this activity is accompanied by enthusiasm, courage, love, passion, zeal, other energetic and high spirits. In negative way, the action turns destructive as indicated by anger, rage, hatred and similar emotions.

Result: Sadness -Joy
At the Result stage, the activity is again mostly internal ("Cartesian Axes" section) and therefore less energetic and forceful. Positive assessment of the result is experienced as contentment, joy, and other calming and gracious states. Negatively evaluated result is accompanied by sadness, grief, dismay, other depressing and inhibitory emotions.

Six main classes of emotions indicated in "Emotions as Basic States of Subjective
Experience" section thus map to three primary process-semantic stages uniquely. Joy, for example, fits only to the Result-class semantics: when facing Novelty there is nothing yet to celebrate, while Action runs on energy and force instead of joyful sentiments. This rationale, readily observed for other classes, is the basis of processsemantic model of emotions (Surov, 2021b).

Secondary
In the same logic, secondary process stages generate six additional classes of subjective experience:

Perception: Serenity -Depression
In positive way, reflecting and observational activity of Perception stage is facilitated by calm and serene emotions, possibly accompanied with positively connoted anticipation of the future. In negative way, the same activity is accompanied by melancholy and depression.

Goal-plan: Inspiration -Stress
Setting goals and drawing plans is positively accompanied by inspiration and excitement, with the first term preferred due to clearer process-semantic function. Failure in these activities is experienced as irritation, stress, and similar negative states.

Progress: Acceptance -Disgust
Depending on the evaluation of intermediate results and feedback received at this stage, contexts of this class are reflected by emotions of acceptancedelight or disappointmentdisgust.
As compared to the primary six, terms in this list are notably lower in the ranking of typical emotions (Fehr & Russell, 1984). The reason is asymmetry between two process-semantic triads noted above. Although no less important compared to the primary stages, secondary ones are often included therein, thus staying somewhat behind the affective-experiential scene. The remaining number of six primary emotions then matches baseline capacity of human attention, limited to 7 ± 2 items at once (Miller, 1956). This alphabet of affective signs extends the binary self-regulatory code of Peil (2014) to the subjective dimension ("Phase Dimension: Subjective Causal Order" section).

Spherical Map
Classes of experiences identified in "Process-Value Classes of Experience" section map to the Bloch sphere according to schemes of process-semantic and evaluative dimensions shown in Fig. 2(a). Namely, the equatorial plane is divided into six sectors of 60° each corresponding to Perception, Novelty, Goal-plan, Action, Progress, and Result-type contexts, with upper and lower hemispheres containing positive and negative experiences.
The resulting spherical structure is sketched in Fig. 3. In each process-semantic class, positive and negative-valued subjective states are discriminated in polar dimension according to Fig. 2(b). For example, the difference between positive and negative experiences of the novelty labeled as Surprise and Fear is quantified by polar angles surprise > 90 ∘ and fear < 90 ∘ . By belonging to the same process-semantic class Novelty, both emotions have the same azimuthal phase ϕ novelty ≈ 60 ∘ . In this way, positive-negative pairs for six process stages produce 12 emotional classes described in "Process-Value Classes of Experience" section. 4

Mixing of Experiences
As mentioned in "Mixed States and the Bloch Ball" section, pure qubit-emotion states at the surface of Bloch sphere, in practice, represent decision contexts when subject is able to include the perceived context in unitary cognitive representation. This implies, in particular, that subject must be in full control over the basis uncertainty, and that the basis alternatives must be well defined. In practice, violations of these requirements lead to mixing of subjective experiences, as accounted by the mixed qubit states described in "Mixed States and the Bloch Ball" section.
Consider a situation when several basis alternatives are affected by the same context at once, as e.g. in a road accident that crashed the subject's car. For this subject, the event may (a) interrupt the plan of making a trip, (b) introduce possible responsibility for damage, and (c) conclude with one's survival.
The considered context (road accident) is represented in each of these bases, generating its own pure experiences � a ⟩ , � b ⟩ , and � c ⟩ each living in a private qubit Hilbert space H i • H a is formed by alternatives to make a trip �1 a ⟩ or not �0 a ⟩; • H b is formed by alternatives to pay for damage �1 b ⟩ or not �0 b ⟩; Fig. 3 The qubit code of (pure) subjective experience being the Bloch sphere (Fig. 1) demarcated in process-semantic and emotional categories. Three primary (black) and three secondary (gray) process stages demarcating equatorial circle identically to Fig. 2(a) generate 12 emotion classes of subjective experience. Positive and negative-valued experiences locate at northern and southern Bloch hemispheres according to Fig. 2(b). Modified from Surov (2021b) • H c is formed by alternatives to survive �1 c ⟩ or not �0 c ⟩.
Non-discrimination of these bases by a subject blends corresponding pure experiential states � i ⟩ with some probability weights P i (3). The result is a mixed qubit-emotional state ⃗ S (4) of decreased length, describing a "free-floating" emotion-experience possibly attributed to the event itself regardless any particular basis uncertainty, living in a synthetic Hilbert space combining initial pure experiences. The same mathematics describes mixing due to fragmentation of cognitive representation or partial subjective control. This decoherence process (Zurek, 1991) is visualized by gradual projection of the initial pure state shown in Fig. 2(b). Ultimately, this collapses the state to the diameter of the Bloch sphere representing non-emotional, objective part of the experience.
Mixed qubit-emotion states inherit process-semantic structure introduced for the pure-state case in an obvious way shown in Fig. 2. Namely, mixed states of each process-semantic class occupy the interior of the Bloch sphere in the same azimuthal sectors as pure states, supplementing the spherical map shown in Fig. 3 with radial dimension.

Quantum-Like Mechanics of Experience
Ontology of the developed approach ("Ontological Basis" section), implies that the proposed model should not stop at static description of states. This section sketches how the qubit code of subjective experience is handled in practice, detailing its construction, maintenance, and collapse in the course of decision-making, drawing parallels with the same processes in elementary physical case. An example would be Stern and Gerlach's setup developed in 1922 to study quantum mechanics of individual electrons (Feynman et al., 1964, ch.6, Le Bellac, 2006. Construction Construction of an individual experience encoded by the qubit state (1) is analogous to preparation of the same state in physical experiment. For an individual electron, a basis decision alternative appears when it faces an inhomogeneous magnetic field across the trajectory of its travel: in this situation, the electron is bound to deflect either along or opposite to the field's gradient. The qubit state (1) predicting probabilities of this choice is then defined by the orientation of the gradient relative to the direction of its previous decision of the same kind (ibid.).
Similarly, a driver on a crossroad processes information from one's environment and maps it to the qubit-semantic state, possibly experienced as emotion. Specifics of macroscopically-embodied subjects is longer memory, more complex algorithms and sensor tools suggesting one to discriminate and make sense of more environmental features than just direction of magnetic field. Akin to the world beyond the body's boundary, elements of one's own identity can be also recognized as targets of decision open for potential change. This allows humans to modify their algorithmic toolbox (i.e. in the form of culture) that for electrons is (probably) fixed.

Maintenance
To prevent decoherence of a subject's experiential state due to mixing described in "Mixing of Experiences" section, the corresponding Hilbert space must be shielded from other such spaces deployed both within and outside of the organism's spatial boundaries. As in physics, this aims to protect the system from interaction with its actualized environment, minimizing leakage of information (Ollivier et al., 2004;Zurek, 1991).
In cognitive systems this could require from an individual to abstain from related judgments, rational analysis, decision-making, or self-report of one's subjective state recording it in the environment. Such caution could be necessary, in particular, for decisions in temporally-extended contexts like e.g. texts requiring prolonged reading (Surov et al., 2021). Any intermediate measurement would modify the state of the subject, thereby affecting probabilities of the final decision as observed by (Atmanspacher et al., 2004;Yearsley and Pothos, 2016).
Collapse Actualization of one of the basis alternatives previously superposed in potentiality state (1) eliminates the corresponding qubit space. In the Stern-Gerlach experiment this act, also known as collapse of the wavefunction, happens when the chosen path is recorded as a classical bit in a measurement apparatus or environment (Ollivier et al., 2004;Zurek, 1991). Subjective uncertainty about its state is modeled by two-event Kolmogorovian probability space equivalent to diameter of the Bloch sphere.
The collapse is not instantaneous, although might be considered so for many practical purposes. It takes time necessary for a particle to enter one of the alternative spatial channels and proceed there until overlaps with other channels become negligible (Auletta, 2005;Bohm et al., 1987). Similarly, so-called quantum jumps take time to reconfigure the system from one to another eigenstate or "proper vibration" (Schrödinger, 1952) as observed e.g. for atomic transitions (Minev et al., 2019).
In macroscopic behavior, collapse of the qubit semantic space occurs due to decision-making and related reasons exemplified in the previous paragraph. Accordingly, all involved contexts are stripped off their meaning subjectively imposed on them within this space. Depending on the decision's scale, the corresponding transition might take macroscopically considerable times due to e.g. physiological inertia of an organism (which could be experienced, for example, as a specific psychological devastation evident upon finishing of a large project). Semantic collapse, of course, does not mean erasure of the represented information, including culture, skills, and individual knowledge. According to the algorithmics and memory available to the subject, it might be stored and used to construct subjective states in semantic spaces of future decisions.

Alignment with Semiotics and Cognitive Science
This section relates the developed model to major theoretical approaches in psychology and emotion science, quantum-inspired modeling of natural language, and semiotics.

Semantic Dimensions and Psychological Scales
Osgood's Semantic Factors Cartesian axes of the qubit state space (Section "Cartesian Axes") correspond to semantic factors Evaluation (pleasantness-unpleasantness), Potency (strain-relaxation, dominance-submissiveness), and Activity (arousalsleepiness) forming classical EPA space of affective meaning (Osgood, 1952;1962), underlying in particular the structure of human emotions (Fontaine et al., 2007;Mehrabian, 1996;Schlosberg, 1954). Quantum semantics thus provides a theoretical foundation for this cornerstone of modern cognitive science. The notion of affective meaning (Osgood, 1962), illustratively, appears to be a tautology: in the present approach, the meaning (at least, in the human realm) is always affective.
Semantic similarity of elements is classically quantified by Euclidean distance between the corresponding points in EPA space (Osgood, 1962). In the qubit code, this corresponds to the similarity between the corresponding states measured by trace distance (Nielsen & Chuang, 2010, ch. 9.2). As the latter is equivalent to Euclidean distance between the corresponding Stokes vectors (4) (ibid.), this establishes metric correspondence between the quantum and classical models of semantics.

Circumplex Models of Emotion
Although classical EPA space includes the same Cartesian dimensions as qubit's one, their geometrical relations evident in the Bloch sphere were not recognized. 5 This was discovered in emotion science, where circular arrangement of emotional states is supported both by theoretical reason and experimental data. The most used circumplex model of this kind builds an emotion circle in the valence-arousal plane corresponding to Evaluation and Activity dimensions of classical EPA semantics (Hevner, 1936;Russell, 1980). The present model carries this circular topology as an integral feature of a twodimensional Hilbert space of qubit states. Valence-arousal circumplex, in particular, is a section of Bloch-emotional sphere by the Y-Z plane shown in Fig. 1 by bold circle. Extreme pleasure and displeasure then stand for the poles �1⟩ and �0⟩ denoting assured realization of the basis decision alternatives, while extreme arousal and sleepiness correspond to the Action and Perception process stages. Pleasantness/ unpleasantness -attention/rejection emotion circle (Schlosberg, 1952) and valencepower circumplex (Scherer et al., 2013) are understood analogously. These models thus can be considered as empirically discovered two-dimensional versions of the Bloch sphere shown in Fig. 3.

Psychological Observables
Given the qubit state in any particular basis, quantumtheoretic algebra predicts decision probabilities for all experimental setups accommodated in the same Hilbert space. This is achieved by modifying the measurement basis, while context representations are kept in place. In Bloch representation this corresponds to rotation of the sphere's diameter 1-0, with initial basis alternatives �1⟩ , �0⟩ moving on the surface. Possible positions of the resulting states are shown in Fig. 1 by orthogonal vectors �1 r ⟩ , �0 r ⟩ forming the basis of a new observable (Nielsen & Chuang, 2010, ch. 2.2.5). Probabilities of choosing these alternatives in the same context (1) are found from Born's rule (5) with �i⟩ replaced by �i r ⟩.
Similar methodology is invented in psychological research. In particular, the valence-arousal circle of emotional states is shown to integrate diverse psychological variables (Yik et al., 2011;, mapping them to definite angular positions in circumplex exactly analogous to the quantum-theoretic routine. Harmonic correlation between such psychological observables reported in Yik et al. (2011) is a typical correlation of qubit observables as a function of angle between them.

Conceptual Approaches to Affective Experience
The present model is closely related to concepts of central assembly (Tomkins, 1981) and core affect , classic in emotion science.

Core affect and Psychological Construction
Classical core affect is defined as a neurophysiological state of an organism potentially accessible to consciousness as a primitive, non-reflective emotion (Barrett & Bliss-Moreau, 2009;Russell, 2009;. Essentially, it is a compressed form of sensory data that "need not be directed at anything", as properly expressed by the "homeostatic barometer" metaphor (Lindquist et al., 2012) since pressure is a scalar quantity. Accordingly, subjective meaning of classical core affect is constructed at an additional cognitive stage, categorizing sensory input based on conceptual knowledge of an organism (Barrett, 2015).
The quantum concept of emotion, in contrast, is semantic from the start, with subjective experience being constructed always relative to a particular decision alternative. A "free-floating" emotion appears only when its basis is not consciously recognized, possibly leading to mixed experience as shown in "Mixing of Experiences" section. Classical core affect thus accounts for this de-contextualized, objectified limit of its quantum version.
Central Assembly Quantum concept of experience is also close to Tomkins' notion of central assembly considered as the principal function of affect (Tomkins, 1981). According to this view, affect is a universal motivational mechanism driving the realization of cognitive-behavioral tasks by amplifying their subjective urgency; like no instrument would work without power supply, no activity is possible without coassembly with someone's affective system. By considering emotion as targeting particular cognitive-behavioral tasks, Tomkins' theory aligns with relativity of quantum semantics. Categorization of tasks then defines categorization of the corresponding affects in eight or nine primary classes. 6 A crucial ingredient added to this by the quantum approach is that an infinite variety of tasks is reduced to a single elementary act of binary decision.

Quantum Models of Structural Linguistics
The present approach shares mathematics with quantum models of natural language describing actualization of "meanings" of individual words as a special case of decision making (Busemeyer & Bruza, 2012;Khrennikov, 2010). In terminology of structural linguistics, these words and "meanings" are referred to as signifier(s) and signified(s) (De Saussure, 1959).

Superposition of Signifieds
Consider, for example, the word bug. Taken alone, this signifier might refer to (1) an insect or (0) an error in a computer program. This uncertainty, not due to subjective lack of knowledge, is of objective quantum type (Section "Ontological Basis"), with no correct answer prior to a particular use. Accordingly, the uncertain state of this ambivalent signifier is represented as superposition of potential signifieds formally identical to (1) and (6) (supposing for simplicity that these two alternatives are mutually exclusive and no other is possible). This uncertainty is resolved by putting the word "bug" in a context mentioning e.g. forest or programming. Analogous to experimental apparatus in physics, interaction with such contexts actualizes one of the alternatives and discards the other. As in decision-making in behavioral models, this "semantic collapse" (Bruza & Cole, 2005;Bruza & Woods, 2008) is a discontinuous transition from potential to actual ("Ontological Basis" section), from "pregnantial" to "salient" (Thom, 1990, ch.1). 7 It is an act of creative interpretation central to the practice of natural languages (De Luca Picione & Freda, 2016;Gabora & Kitto, 2017;Markoš, 2011).

Superposition of Signifiers
Alternatively, a single signified -for example, "olive" -might be concurrently addressed by two different signifiers, e.g. "fruits" and "vegetables" (Aerts, 2009;Aerts et al., 2015). Two corresponding propensities of actualization in this type of experiments are shown to interfere as two coherent sources of �bug⟩ = c 0 �insect⟩ + c 1 �error⟩ 6 Interest, surprise, fear, anger, distress, disgust, contempt, enjoyment, and shame-humiliation (Tomkins, 1981;Tomkins & Mccarter, 1964). In agreement with the process-semantic model, these primary affects are differentiated in their neurophysiological dynamics: the first three (Novelty stage) are activating, the next three (Action) maintain activity at high level, while the last triple (Result) is inhibitory in nature (ibid.). 7 R. Thom reintroduced actuality, potentiality and collapse (analog of catastrophe) in his own terminology. Unfortunately, he did not relate them to quantum theory that he was familiar with, which probably resulted in the qualitative character of semiophysics.
light at a given spot on a screen. Dependent on the interference phase, the resulting judgment probabilities generalize classical probability calculus and logic, allowing for more flexible and precise modeling of experimental data (ibid.).
This feature of quantum logic is useful in practice. For example, identifying signifiers and signifieds with query terms and text document makes the above setup useful to develop algorithms e.g. for information search (Melucci, 2015;Wu et al., 2021) and sentiment analysis (Wang et al., 2020b). These ideas are further developed from individual to multiple words, allowing models of semiotic networks (Galea et al., 2012;Kitto et al., 2011), human cognitive structures (Gabora & Kitto, 2013;Osipov et al., 2014), and semantic Internet (Aerts et al., 2018).

Concepts of Meaning
"Meaning" of words as their objective property that can be actualized and recorded obviously differs from the approach developed in this paper. This terminological issue, of course, does not compromise practicality of the cited models, 8 describing actualization dynamics in association structures. The present approach adds a view that meaning (in its essentially subjective sense) is encoded not in the basis-state nodes, but in cognitive superposition states constructed by a subject prior to each actualization act.

Conception of Meaning
In semiotics of Jakob von Uexküll, an individual picking a stone to chase away unfriendly dog endows this object with a throwing quality, or tone; an individual knowing how to use a ladder endows it with a climbing quality (von Uexküll, 1982;. This subject-and task-oriented conception of meaning agrees with the present approach. Namely, objects like stones and ladders are contexts, while climbing and chasing away the dog define the basis decision alternatives whether one succeeds in these activities or not. In both approaches, subject impresses subjective meanings on objective contexts according to one's behavioral practice. Functional Cycle Functional cycle organizing meaning in the Uexküll's approach (ibid.) aligns with the process cycle shown in Fig. 2(a). The mapping is established by coarse-graining the latter to a two-stage Perception -Action structure corresponding to perception and motor fields of the functional cycle. Subject operating perception and effector tools of an organism (ibid.) could be depicted as an additional estimation field corresponding to the Result in the main process-semantic triad ("Process-Semantic Stages" section).
Subjectivity Locus of subjectivity in the Uexküll's functional cycle may be interpreted differently. As in the tick's cognition limited to few perception and effectuation tools (ibid.), functional cycles of simple animals is largely predetermined by physiology. Such individuals are said to utilize the corresponding meaning structures provided to them from the outside. Subjectivity then may concentrate to a single point within functional cycle, making it graphically similar to a looped stimulus -organism -response structure (Young, 2016).
Stronger subjectivity of animals and humans, in contrast, allows them to invent and learn new perceptual and effect cues non-programmed by their biological constraints. As in learning to use ladder for climbing in the example above (von Uexküll, 2010, p.94), this amounts to construction of artificial functional and meaning cycles. Multiplicity of possible semantic structures in human behavior considered in "Process-Semantic Stages" section accounts for this regime of high cognitive freedom.
Umwelt Quantum approach aligns with the Uexküll's conception of an Umwelta subjective world formed by meaning structures exercised by an individual (von Uexküll, 1992) • whether a fishing will succeed (1) or not (0); • whether a family will bring up a child (1) or not (0); • whether a ship will arrive to its destination (1) or not (0), and so on. Each uncertainty controlled by a subject then generates a complete sphere of subjective experience by itself, with associated process-semantic structures demarcating timelines of the projects. A single "free-floating" Umwelt then arises from blending of such task-specific Umwelts analogous to mixing of emotional experiences discussed in "Mixing of Experiences" section.
By grounding Umwelt in objective behavioral uncertainty ("Ontological Basis" section) rather than in receptor and effector capacities, the quantum approach suggests extension of this concept to novel kinds of agents. Decisions whether to start a new sprout (1) or not (0), whether to blossom this particular day (1) or not (0), for example, suggest considering plants as living agents, operating corresponding Umwelts in their own times and spaces (von Uexküll, 1992, p.326, Merrell, 2001. Recently revealed perception and effectors mechanisms of plants (Chamovitz, 2012), in fact, lead to the same conclusion even within the Uexküll's basic approach.
Less usual is extension of the concept to elementary physical systems showing "quantum" behavior, routinely certified in laboratory conditions today. Such are, for example, electrons in Stern-Gerlach experiment discussed in "Quantum-Like Mechanics of Experience" section, with the only perceptual cue being the local magnetic field. The corresponding Umwelt is then the same qubit state (1) -the "quantum core affect" of an individual electron in a particular experimental run.

Semiotics of Charles Sanders Peirce
The present model also aligns with the Peircean semiotic theory (Favareau, 2009;Peirce, 1991). With the current context and the basis of potential states �0⟩ , �1⟩ identified with object and interpretant, respectively, the qubit state (1) corresponds to a sign. In this perspective, the present paper describes the mathematical structure of Peircean sign for a special type of interpretant -a binary decision alternative. Aligning with the terminology of Bateson (1972), the interpretant is then a difference that makes an objective context subjectively significant (i.e. meaningful), while signthe qubit state -encodes that significance.
Dynamic and Affective Nature As the qubit-encoded sign is the interface between the past and the future-in-the making (Valsiner, 2001), quantum semantics aligns with Peirce in its dynamic aspect (Queiroz and Merrell, 2006). The last sentence of the previous paragraph, for example, reads Peircean order firstness (sign) -secondness (object) -thirdness (interpretant) from the end to the beginning. Direct reading is that a sign (I) encodes meaning of a context (II) in relation to the basis decision alternative (III), which is the starting point of "The Qubit Model of Context Representation" section. In this respect, the dynamic interpretation of quantum theory used in this paper is unique in aligning with Peircean semiotics.
The affective nature of the qubit-semantic state also aligns with that of Peircean sign -a domain of feeling, raw elementary experience that cannot be analyzed and thought about, as developed in Lewis (2021), Kolmogorova et al. (2021) and Kull (2019) considering, in particular, a special type of emonic sign. In contrast to Peirce, however, the present approach at the same time considers sign as the locus of meaning.
Generality As sketched in "Quantum-Like Mechanics of Experience" section, this interpretation of Peircean theory suggests extension of its applicability from biological systems down to atomic-scale quantum phenomena. 9 This suggests an approach to a long-standing problem of semiotics asking how information acquired meaning, or when a molecule became a sign (Deacon, 2021;Favareau, 2021;Pattee, 1970). In the present view, such a moment is nowhere to be found. Genuinely subjective meaning is inherent to Nature, at least as far as quantum mechanics holds true. The problem is better stated in terms of learning: novel algorithms for causal representation, novel perceptual and effector cues, novel differences to take care off and to act upon. Deployed in appropriate organisms, progress in such learning amplifies micro-level quantumness to the macroscopic scales (Grössing, 1997;Jedlicka, 2017) within hierarchies of semiotic agencies (Sharov and Tønnessen, 2021, ch.6).

Outlook
As seen from the previous section, separate aspects of subjective meaning inherent to the developed model were previously known from various lines of research: • dimensions of affective meaning are identified by Ch. Osgood, while their circumplex geometry is discovered in emotion science ("Semantic Dimensions and Psychological Scales" section); • task-oriented nature of affective experience and its centrality in human cognition are revealed by pragmatic approaches to emotion ("Conceptual Approaches to Affective Experience" section); • qubit state algebra is widely used in quantum models of cognition, decision, and natural language ("Quantum Models of Structural Linguistics" section); • functional conception of subjective meaning and its cyclical structure are due to J. von Uexküll ("Semiotics of Jakob von Uexküll" section); • triadic and dynamic nature of semiosis is discovered by C.S. Peirce ("Semiotics of Charles Sanders Peirce" section).
There is, however, a decisive novelty that allowed to make progress in quantification: grounding of subjective meaning in binary choice. However simplistic that may seem at the first sight, in quantum approach decision acts of this kind are the only thing an individual ever does; the rest of behavior are algorithms executed without conscious control like walking or riding a bicycle. Central to the present model of meaning, this standardization seems to be nature's solution for versatile and simple behavioral control applicable to past, present, and future decision situations and contexts.
As envisioned by Peirce, the developed approach succeeds by making a step into the domain of Nature that eluded mathematization before -potentiality, or becoming contrasted to actuality and being usually looked at (Kauffman, 2020;van Hemmen, 2021;Weber, 2011). As descriptions of actuality boil down to a single metacode -the bit, qubit takes the same place in potentiality -the realm of subjective experience, emotion, meaning, genuine individuality, agency, and novelty (Auletta & Torcal, 2014;Morf, 2018;Kawade, 2009). The two domains and two encodings, however, are not antagonistic but complementary to each other, with the bit being a decohered limit of the qubit stripped of subjective dimension. Skepticism for quantification of meaning (de Mul, 2021;Hoffmeyer & Emmeche, 1991;Markoš & Cvrčková, 2013) then appears as limited to Shannon's concept of objectified information and Kolmogorovian decontextualized (single-context) probability (Khrennikov, 2009a, ch.6).
This continuity accounted by mathematics of quantum theory is expected to bear enormous practical impact. It bridges exact sciences accounting for actual states of Nature with humanitarian disciplines that presuppose orientation around the notion of meaning due to the very nature of their "object" -a living individual (Sebeok, 2001;von Uexküll, 1982). This paper sketched a quantitative theory of sign necessary for that (Brier, 1998), with its generality emphasizing the unity of Nature (Zipf, 1942).