Representational interference and the limits of abstract representation

This paper introduces the Representational Uncertainty Principle (RUP) as a structural account of the limits of representational precision. We argue that as representations become more narrowly defined—by fixing more internal structure—they constrain the integration of perceptual and contextual cues. This often suppresses representational flexibility: the capacity to draw on multiple situational cues to stabilize meaning. When this flexibility is reduced, representational diffraction becomes more prominent: a structural phenomenon in which aspects of a situation are subsumed under a representation that deviates from the expected or standard framing, resulting in ambiguity or tension. Drawing on a structural analogy with quantum mechanics, we treat interference and diffraction as complementary manifestations of how representational content is formed. This framework explains why overly precise representations often fail in contexts that demand sensitivity to subtle variations. We support this account through examples of conceptual ambiguity and apparent contradiction, and by developing a framework that distinguishes between the structuring role of the representational vehicle and the dynamic process of integration that gives rise to content. The RUP thus highlights a structural tension between abstraction, context sensitivity, and the need for orientation within experience.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Synthese
Published
2025-11-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-05331-w
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Embodied and Extended Cognition
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.43
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Representational interference and the limits of abstract representation

Uwe V. Riss
1 citations
Synthese
Embodied and Extended Cognition
1.43
article

Representational interference and the limits of abstract representation

Uwe V. Riss
article en
1 citations

Abstract

This paper introduces the Representational Uncertainty Principle (RUP) as a structural account of the limits of representational precision. We argue that as representations become more narrowly defined—by fixing more internal structure—they constrain the integration of perceptual and contextual cues. This often suppresses representational flexibility: the capacity to draw on multiple situational cues to stabilize meaning. When this flexibility is reduced, representational diffraction becomes more prominent: a structural phenomenon in which aspects of a situation are subsumed under a representation that deviates from the expected or standard framing, resulting in ambiguity or tension. Drawing on a structural analogy with quantum mechanics, we treat interference and diffraction as complementary manifestations of how representational content is formed. This framework explains why overly precise representations often fail in contexts that demand sensitivity to subtle variations. We support this account through examples of conceptual ambiguity and apparent contradiction, and by developing a framework that distinguishes between the structuring role of the representational vehicle and the dynamic process of integration that gives rise to content. The RUP thus highlights a structural tension between abstraction, context sensitivity, and the need for orientation within experience.

SyntheseVol. 206(5)
FernUniversität in Hagen (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Embodied and Extended Cognition
1.43
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.