Quantum tunnel of love

○

CTA-PILOT-000 ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIARY — ENTRY 2

Quantum Tunnelling Our Way Out

The Translating Receiver and the Governed Passage of Meaning

A Novel Interpretation of Quantum Tunnelling

Stefaan Vossen
Dot Theory / Constitutional Physics
28 July 2026

REVIEW DRAFT v0.1 — CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL AND INTEGRATED LITERATURE ANALYSIS

⊙

Documentary provenance and authorship

This essay records observations made by Stefaan Vossen during the evaluation and constitutional development of CTA-PILOT-001A and CTA-PILOT-001B. Those pilots are the root experimental and documentary setting in which the observations became visible; they are not presented here as completed empirical proof of the argument developed below.

The essay, its conceptual synthesis, and derivative Dot Theory notes—including the Acceptance Instrument (AccI) and the proposed language of constitutional quantum tunnelling—are authored by Stefaan Vossen as products of the Dot Theory research programme. The contributions of Johann Pascher, Marcel Krüger and James D. Leavitt to the relevant pilot discussions are acknowledged in the documentary record and below. Such acknowledgement does not imply co-authorship of this essay or transfer of authority over its derivative programme objects.

The paper remains a public archaeological diary entry: a reasoned proposal recovered from work in progress, offered for criticism rather than asserted as a settled scientific theory.

Ontological neutrality

This paper does not prescribe an ontology of consciousness. It neither affirms nor denies that consciousness is produced by the brain, transmitted through it, extended beyond it, or related to a wider informational field. It examines receiver, filter and antenna descriptions because they expose a recurring structural question: how does information become locally expressible through an operator?

The narrower proposal is operational. Whatever ontology a reader adopts, a person or system working from a bounded record can be studied as a translating receiver whose access, inferences, interventions and successor expressions remain open to evidential review.

Recoverability becomes productive when bounded information can pass through an accountable operator and emerge as a reviewable successor expression. This essay proposes “constitutional quantum tunnelling” as a structural analogy for that passage: not the literal tunnelling of meaning as a quantum object, but the governed movement of admissible reach across evidential and representational barriers.

The operator is the constitutional site at which admissible information becomes accountable expression.

1. An observation from the pilots

The phrase “quantum tunnelling our way out” arose during the evaluation of CTA-PILOT-001A and the related design discussions for CTA-PILOT-001B. Pilot 1A asks whether a published methodological architecture can be recovered from a finite corpus, applied without private authorial clarification, and communicated to another independent reader. Pilot 1B, still only a candidate successor design, asks a different question about endogenous control, exogenous audit and the evidential meaning of crossing a declared threshold. Neither pilot was designed to test a theory of consciousness or a literal quantum process. Yet both repeatedly exposed the same deeper structure.

A source object does not travel intact into another person merely because files are delivered. The recipient has access to a bounded record, not to the author’s full history, intentions or internal model. The recipient must locate relevant evidence, distinguish source from inference, translate unfamiliar relationships, preserve uncertainty and produce a new expression. That expression may be better or worse, faithful or distorted, communicable or opaque. It is a successor object, not a transparent duplication of the source.

This observation shifts attention from information as a thing transmitted to the action by which information becomes meaningfully expressible. The operator—human, computational or hybrid—is not simply the final destination of a message. The operator is where access becomes interpretation and interpretation becomes a documentary consequence. The resulting output can therefore be judged only if the pathway through which it arose remains recoverable.

The pilots supplied the archaeological setting for this recognition. They do not own the derivative concept, nor do their contributors become co-authors of every later programme note that develops from it. Rather, they are the recorded site at which a native Dot Theory question became operationally visible: what must be preserved when meaning crosses from one evidential condition into another?

2. Why transmission is not yet meaning

Claude Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication famously formalised the transmission of messages through channels under conditions of noise. Its power came partly from bracketing the semantic content of the messages. The engineering problem was whether a selected message could be reproduced at another point with measurable reliability, not whether the receiving system understood what the message meant (Shannon, 1948). That distinction remains essential. A corpus can be transmitted perfectly while its architecture is misunderstood; a string can be copied without its evidential function surviving the copy.

Later work on semantic information has tried to recover what Shannon deliberately set aside. Floridi argues that meaningful and well-formed data are not automatically semantic information, while Kolchinsky and Wolpert relate semantic information to correlations that matter to a system’s continued existence (Floridi, 2005; Kolchinsky and Wolpert, 2018). These approaches differ, but both make the same broad point: information becomes semantically significant only in relation to conditions that exceed bare transmission.

For the present proposal, meaning need not be defined as a metaphysical substance. It can be treated more modestly as the recoverable organisation of claims, relations, exclusions, implications and limits within a declared object. A receiver understands that object not when every word has arrived, but when enough of those relations can be reconstructed without silently importing material that was not supplied.

The problem is therefore constitutional before it is computational. Who was entitled to access which evidence? What was excluded? Which transformation was performed? What assumptions entered? Which uncertainty was preserved? What does the output now authorise anyone to say? These questions govern the passage from received data to accountable expression.

3. The translating receiver

The central proposal is that an operator should be understood as a translating receiver. “Receiver” identifies the operator’s dependence upon what becomes available. “Translating” identifies the active work required to convert one representational register into another. Neither term is sufficient alone.

A passive receiver model imagines that information arrives and is reproduced with no material interpretive transformation. That model may serve idealised signal transfer, but it is inadequate for unfamiliar scientific frameworks, archival records, legal evidence or interdisciplinary texts. Selection, segmentation, ordering, terminology, prior models and tool behaviour all affect what can be recovered.

A constitutive receiver model acknowledges that the receiver’s architecture participates in the result. Predictive-processing accounts, enactivist approaches and hermeneutic traditions each reject the picture of understanding as simple intake. Perception and interpretation involve prior organisation, active engagement and a relation between parts and wholes (Clark, 2013; Friston, 2010; Ricoeur, 1976; Varela, Thompson and Rosch, 1991/2017). Yet a purely constitutive account can appear to dissolve fidelity into perspective: if every receiver makes its own world, what restrains arbitrary reconstruction?

The constitutionally governed translating receiver supplies that restraint. Translation remains active and operator-relative, but the relation between source and output is governed through declared access, provenance, admissibility, uncertainty classification, residual preservation, fidelity review and prohibited inference. The claim is not that the operator disappears. It is that the operator becomes locatable.

This yields a formal chain that can be inspected at every transition: source object; admissible information; receiving operator; translation architecture; interpretive action; successor expression; evidential review; permitted extension. The chain does not promise perfect equivalence. It provides a means to identify where differences entered and what they permit.

Figure 1. The source-to-expression chain. The successor expression is not a copy by presumption; its relation to the source must remain reviewable.

Three receiver models

Model

Role of receiver

Principal strength

Principal risk

Passive receiver

Receives and reproduces a signal

Clarity and tractability in idealised transmission

Conceals interpretation and transformation

Constitutive receiver

Actively organises what becomes meaningful

Acknowledges priors, embodiment and context

Can slide towards unconstrained relativism

Constitutionally governed translating receiver

Actively translates under declared evidential and procedural conditions

Makes operator contribution, provenance and limits reviewable

Can become administratively heavy or falsely reassuring if governance is merely formal

4. What, exactly, is tunnelling?

In quantum mechanics, tunnelling describes non-zero transmission through a potential barrier that a classical particle of the same energy would not surmount. The phenomenon is mathematically specific: it follows from wave mechanics, boundary conditions and the non-vanishing amplitude of a quantum state within and beyond a barrier. Its probability depends on the system, the barrier and the state. Debates about tunnelling time show that even within physics, apparently simple language about “crossing” can conceal difficult questions about what is measured and what a model entitles us to say (Razavy, 1988; Olkhovsky and Recami, 1992; Winful, 2003).

The present essay does not claim that semantic objects obey the Schrödinger equation or that evidential review is a physical potential. “Constitutional quantum tunnelling” begins as a disciplined analogy. It asks whether the relational structure of tunnelling—barrier, admissible passage, state dependence, preserved identity and measurable emergence—can illuminate how meaning travels across documentary and epistemic boundaries.

The barrier in this analogy is not ignorance in the abstract. It is a declared discontinuity: between source and receiver; private intention and public record; one framework and another; data and interpretation; local result and general claim; scientific finding and jurisprudential consequence. Classical intuition often assumes that these gaps are crossed either by direct copying or by authorial explanation. The pilots deliberately remove that easy route. The question becomes whether enough structure can emerge on the other side under bounded access.

What “tunnels” is therefore not a substance called meaning. It is the admissible reach of a candidate relation. A claim that was initially local to a source may become recoverable by an independent operator; a recovered architecture may become executable; an execution may become communicable; a communicable account may become interoperable. At every stage, the successor state is related to its predecessor but acquires a different evidential status.

This analogy is strongest when it preserves its limits. Quantum tunnelling is a demonstrated physical effect. Constitutional tunnelling is presently a proposed structure of evidential passage. The latter may eventually admit mathematical treatment through operators, admissibility conditions, preserved invariants and successor states, but no such formal identity has yet been demonstrated.

Figure 2. Constitutional tunnelling as a structural analogy. The Acceptance Instrument defines the relation; the translating receiver performs the passage; review determines its reach.

Structural correspondences and limits

Quantum-tunnelling term

Constitutional correspondence

Limit of the analogy

State

A claim, model, relation or meaning-bearing expression

A semantic object is not a quantum wavefunction

Barrier

Declared evidential, representational or jurisdictional discontinuity

No physical potential is asserted

Transmission amplitude

Recoverability under bounded information and operator conditions

No Born-rule probability is claimed

Boundary conditions

Terms of access, acceptance, use, exclusion and review

Governance rules are not quantum boundary conditions

Emergent state

A successor expression with preserved and altered features

The successor is not assumed identical to the source

Measurement

Fidelity, communicability and audit procedures

Review does not collapse a literal quantum state

5. Reconstruction, tomography and bounded evidence

The most scientifically useful comparison is not mystical but reconstructive. Inverse problems ask how an unobserved object or state may be inferred from indirect measurements. Such problems may be ill-posed: different underlying states can fit the same observations, small changes in data can produce large changes in reconstruction, and stabilising assumptions may be needed. The reconstruction is therefore inseparable from the measurement design and model class.

Quantum-state tomography makes this dependence explicit. Vogel and Risken showed how quasiprobability distributions can be reconstructed from families of rotated quadrature measurements, while later reviews detail practical reconstruction algorithms, mode-matching limits and the role of experimental conditions (Vogel and Risken, 1989; Lvovsky and Raymer, 2009). One does not “see” the quantum state directly. A state estimate is reconstructed from admissible observations through a declared procedure.

CTA-PILOT-001A is not quantum tomography. It does, however, share a disciplined structural question: what representation of an underlying architecture is recoverable from the observations supplied to an operator? Prior exposure changes the effective data. Private clarification changes the measurement regime. A model that fills gaps from hidden memory may appear successful while invalidating the test. The admissible information set must therefore be bounded before reconstruction begins.

This is why recoverability cannot be reduced to correct answers. A candidate reconstruction must distinguish exact source-supported recovery, supported inference, provisional interpretation, unresolved ambiguity and speculation. Multiple reconstructions may remain admissible. Failure to recover may indicate an opaque source, an inadequate receiver, an unsuitable tool chain, insufficient evidence or some interaction among them. The pilot’s purpose is to locate those possibilities rather than erase them.

The quantum-information analogy is consequently strongest when expressed in plain terms: what can be reconstructed depends on the information made available to the operator and the reconstruction procedure permitted. That proposition is neither uniquely quantum nor trivial. It is a general condition of accountable recovery.

6. The receiver is active

Cognitive science supplies several reasons to reject passive reception. Predictive-processing accounts describe perception as an interaction between incoming signals and hierarchical expectations; active-inference approaches connect perception and action through generative models; enactivist accounts emphasise that cognition arises through embodied engagement rather than detached representation (Clark, 2013; Friston, 2010; Varela, Thompson and Rosch, 1991/2017).

These traditions differ sharply in scope and commitment. They should not be recruited as a single scientific endorsement of Constitutional Physics. Their shared relevance is narrower: the receiving system has an architecture, and that architecture conditions what becomes salient, coherent and actionable. A receiver does not merely wait for the world to write itself inside.

The extended-mind thesis adds another complication. Clark and Chalmers argue that cognitive processes can include stable environmental resources rather than ending at the skull (Clark and Chalmers, 1998). In contemporary reconstruction work, the relevant “operator” may include a person, an AI model, retrieval infrastructure, file-preparation steps, prompts, external notes and institutional rules. Treating only the final human judgement as the operator would conceal the distributed system that produced it.

Constitutional governance therefore requires a provenance chain broad enough to record the actual receiver. A clean AI workspace is not simply a blank screen; it is a claim about prior memory, custom instructions, connected sources, account-level retention and available tools. A human intervention is not an embarrassing contaminant to be hidden; it is an event to be declared. The operator becomes scientifically useful when its boundaries and interventions are explicit enough to audit.

7. The human as antenna, filter or interface

The idea that the brain receives or filters consciousness rather than producing it has a long intellectual history. William James contrasted productive and transmissive functions of the brain, using the latter to keep open the possibility that individual consciousness might express a wider reality through a limiting organ (James, 1898). Henri Bergson developed related distinctions between perception, memory and bodily selection, while Aldous Huxley later popularised the image of the brain as a “reducing valve” through which a larger field of mind is narrowed for practical life (Huxley, 1954).

These are metaphysical and philosophical proposals, not established results of neuroscience. Contemporary research overwhelmingly demonstrates systematic dependence between brain conditions and conscious experience, but such dependence alone does not logically settle every possible account of production, modulation or transmission. The responsible position here is neutrality. The paper takes the reader’s ontology rather than imposing one.

The receiver metaphor remains useful because it distinguishes local expression from possible source. Yet the pilot architecture replaces the unspecified cosmic field with a declared corpus. It replaces untraceable reception with recorded access. It replaces revelation with reconstruction. It replaces metaphysical certainty with reviewable successor expression.

This bounded version does not prove or disprove consciousness-as-antenna theories. It shows how one structural intuition within them can be operationalised without importing their ontology: a local operator may receive only part of an informational domain, transform what is received, and express a result conditioned by the receiver’s architecture. The scientific question then becomes not “is the person tuned to cosmic knowledge?” but “what information was available, what transformation occurred, and what relation between source and expression can be demonstrated?”

8. The constitutionally governed receiver

If the receiver is active, accountability cannot be added only at the end. It must govern the relation through which passage occurs. This is the role proposed for the Acceptance Instrument, or AccI: a reproducible constitutional object that declares who may act, upon which evidence, under what conditions, within which limits and subject to which review.

The AccI does not guarantee understanding. It constitutes a cooperative admissible space in which the attempt becomes legitimate. Participants remain distinct; acceptance does not imply endorsement, equivalence or shared ontology. The instrument defines information access, role authority, recusals, custody, withdrawal, prohibited inference and evidential thresholds. In Dot Theory language, it helps establish the bounded relation within which A*—the cooperative admissible space—can exist.

The translating receiver then performs the recovery and translation within that relation. The successor expression preserves the result. Review determines its legitimate reach. This sequence prevents a common collapse: because a relation was accepted, the result is not thereby true; because a procedure ran, the output is not thereby faithful; because a reader understood it, the underlying framework is not thereby validated.

Existing provenance standards offer a useful comparison. The W3C PROV model distinguishes entities, activities, agents and derivations so that the history of a data product can be exchanged and assessed (Moreau and Missier, 2013). The constitutional proposal extends that concern from data lineage into interpretive entitlement: not only who produced an object, but what the resulting object is permitted to mean.

The operator is therefore the point at which admissible information becomes accountable expression. The phrase does not elevate the operator above the evidence. It locates responsibility for the transition.

The Acceptance Instrument constitutes the relation. The translating receiver performs the passage. The successor expression preserves the result. Review determines its legitimate reach.

9. What Pilot 1A and Pilot 1B actually contribute

The archaeological value of Pilot 1A lies in its deliberate separation of source, access and reconstruction. The Track B operator is intended to receive a finite Constitutional Physics corpus without private explanation, use a clean and auditable environment, recover the architecture, apply it to bounded external framework objects and preserve the full record. A later reader receives a locked output package rather than the reconstruction history. The experiment therefore distinguishes recoverability, application, fidelity and communicability rather than allowing success in one to stand for all.

Pilot 1B contributes a different observation. Its developing four-arm architecture distinguishes uncontrolled execution, monitoring, matched control and a proposed Internal Dot Gate. Its most important constitutional distinction is that an endogenous controller forms part of the dynamics, whereas exogenous audit must remain independent of the controller’s own success criterion. A threshold crossing cannot define failure, trigger rescue and then prove rescue by itself.

Together, the pilots expose a general pattern. Meaning and claims cross boundaries only by passing through declared conditions. An internal operation produces a state; an external review decides what that state warrants. Evidence cannot travel backwards to repair a frozen predecessor claim, and a local result cannot automatically extend into healthcare, consciousness, jurisprudence or physical law.

This paper is itself a test of that restraint. The pilots are root material for the observation, but they are not evidence that meaning literally tunnels. The diary records a candidate relation discovered through their construction. The relation must stand or fail on the quality of its argument and any later formalisation.

10. From meaning to consequence

The tunnelling analogy becomes jurisprudential when a successor expression acquires authority. Courts, regulators, reviewers and institutions routinely receive bounded records and produce interpretations with consequences. The issue is not only whether an interpretation is intelligible, but whether the interpreter had jurisdiction, whether the evidence was admissible, whether contrary material was preserved, and how far the conclusion may travel.

Dworkin’s account of legal interpretation emphasises that adjudication is neither mechanical retrieval nor unconstrained preference; interpretation seeks coherence within a practice whose authority and integrity matter (Dworkin, 1986/1998). Constitutional Physics approaches the same terrain from documentary governance. An operator may express a meaning, but interpretive entitlement is conditional. A person’s authority, the admitted corpus and the review procedure all contribute to the status of the output.

This is why “more right” requires careful language. A claim may become more recoverable, more demonstrable, more faithful, more communicable or more procedurally warranted. Those are genuine evidential gains. They do not amount to absolute ontological truth. Each level requires its own acceptance conditions, and passage is non-transitive: fidelity does not establish empirical validity; communicability does not establish equivalence; legal recognition does not retroactively validate a scientific model.

The productive relation therefore has a simple constitutional grammar: acceptance constitutes the relation; operation produces evidence; review determines reach. The act of review is not merely a gatekeeper placed after discovery. It is what prevents meaning from expanding beyond the conditions that made it recoverable.

11. Failure conditions and rival explanations

A proposal is strongest when it identifies how it could fail. The first failure is category error: borrowing quantum terminology may create an impression of physical explanation where only structural analogy exists. The remedy is explicit claim layering and refusal to use quantum prestige as evidence.

The second failure is hidden prior exposure. An operator may reconstruct an architecture because the relevant pattern already exists in memory, training data, private correspondence or connected retrieval. A successful answer would then measure contamination rather than recoverability. Clean-environment evidence and exposure declarations reduce, but cannot eliminate, this risk.

The third failure is silent repair. Human or AI systems often regularise ambiguity, correct apparent mistakes, flatten layout or supply plausible bridges. Such behaviour may produce a coherent account at the cost of evidential fidelity. The record must distinguish source recovery from inferred repair.

The fourth failure is governance theatre. Hashes, manifests and role schedules can create an appearance of rigour while substantive decisions remain discretionary or opaque. A constitutional instrument is useful only when it changes what participants may do, what must be recorded and what conclusions remain prohibited.

The fifth failure is anthropocentrism. “Operator” should not be equated automatically with one human mind. The operative receiver may be distributed across a person, model, tools, documents and institutional constraints. The boundary must be declared rather than presumed.

The sixth failure is overextension. A successful documentary reconstruction may justify a claim about recoverability under specified conditions. It does not justify consciousness, cosmic information, universal semantics or physical law. The receiving domain must impose its own evidential barriers.

Finally, the analogy may simply add no explanatory value. If “tunnelling” does no more than rename ordinary interpretation, it should be abandoned. Its value depends on whether the barrier-and-passage structure helps specify admissible information, operator conditions, preserved invariants, successor states and review thresholds more clearly than existing language alone.

12. Quantum tunnelling our way out

The title is deliberately provocative. It does not propose an escape from evidence. It proposes an escape from the false choice between perfect transmission and arbitrary interpretat ion.

The passive model says meaning arrives intact. The relativist model says the receiver creates whatever meaning appears. The constitutionally governed translating receiver occupies the difficult middle. Meaning is recovered through an active operator, but the operator’s contribution is located, the evidence is bounded, the transformation is recorded and the successor expression is reviewed.

On this account, constitutional tunnelling is the governed passage by which bounded information crosses an evidential or representational barrier through a translating receiver and emerges as a reviewable successor expression. The proposition is structurally informed by quantum tunnelling, reconstruction science, cognitive models, hermeneutics, provenance and jurisprudence. It is not yet a mathematical identity among them.

The wider cultural invitation is therefore modest but consequential. Claims do not become more right through repetition, confidence or authority alone. They become more entitled to travel when they survive explicit barriers without losing the record of what changed. Productive relations arise when distinct operators and frameworks can cooperate without surrendering identity, provenance or residual disagreement.

The result is not certainty. It is a secured point from which further exploration becomes admissible. We do not tunnel our way out of uncertainty by escaping evidential barriers. We do so by making every passage through them accountable, recording what survives the crossing, and turning that record into a hold for the next exploration.

Acknowledgements and contribution record

The constitutional-tunnelling formulation was refined through exchanges arising during CTA-PILOT-001A and CTA-PILOT-001B. Johann Pascher contributed to the control-boundary and hysteresis discussions; Marcel Krüger contributed the monitor-only arm, transition-protection and evidential corrections within Pilot 1B; James D. Leavitt supplied the originating Internal Dot Gate and dual-measurement hypothesis around which the Pilot 1B discussion developed. These contributions are acknowledged as root documentary context. The prior the AccI derivative note and all other Captain’s log entries as well as the present constitutional-tunnelling synthesis are authored by Stefaan Vossen as Dot Theory research-programme outputs.

AI assistance statement

An AI research system was used under the direction of Stefaan Vossen to support literature discovery, structural comparison, drafting and documentary production. All conceptual claims, distinctions, attributions and publication decisions remain the responsibility of Stefaan Vossen. AI assistance does not constitute independent validation of the paper. Copyright attributions as per publishing website.

References

Clark, A. (2013). “Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12000477.

Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. (1998). “The Extended Mind.” Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. doi:10.1093/analys/58.1.7.

Dworkin, R. (1986/1998). Law’s Empire. Oxford: Hart Publishing reprint.

Floridi, L. (2005). “Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70(2), 351–370. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00531.x.

Friston, K. (2010). “The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 127–138. doi:10.1038/nrn2787.

Huxley, A. (1954). The Doors of Perception. London: Chatto & Windus.

James, W. (1898). Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kolchinsky, A. and Wolpert, D. H. (2018). “Semantic information, autonomous agency and non-equilibrium statistical physics.” Interface Focus, 8(6), 20180041. doi:10.1098/rsfs.2018.0041.

Lvovsky, A. I. and Raymer, M. G. (2009). “Continuous-variable optical quantum-state tomography.” Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(1), 299–332. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.299.

Moreau, L. and Missier, P. (eds.) (2013). PROV-DM: The PROV Data Model. W3C Recommendation, 30 April 2013.

Olkhovsky, V. S. and Recami, E. (1992). “Recent developments in the time analysis of tunneling processes.” Physics Reports, 214(6), 339–356. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(92)90015-R.

Razavy, M. (1988). “Quantum tunneling: A general study in multi-dimensional potential barriers with and without dissipative coupling.” Physics Reports, 168(6), 305–370. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(88)90123-8.

Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press.

Shannon, C. E. (1948). “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423; 27(4), 623–656. doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x and doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x.

Varela, F. J., Thompson, E. and Rosch, E. (1991/2017). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vogel, K. and Risken, H. (1989). “Determination of quasiprobability distributions in terms of probability distributions for the rotated quadrature phase.” Physical Review A, 40, 2847–2849. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.40.2847.

Winful, H. G. (2003). “Delay Time and the Hartman Effect in Quantum Tunneling.” Physical Review Letters, 91, 260401. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.260401.

Worrall, J. (1989). “Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?” Dialectica, 43(1–2), 99–124. doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.1989.tb00933.x.

The record of a passage becomes the hold from which the next exploration begins.

⊙