Friday, January 30, 2026

Why the Stock Market Behaves Like a Lacanian Signifier

 

How “profit” slips, why prices deceive without lying, and what traders actually encounter when they sell


1. A Strange Feeling Every Investor Has Felt

Imagine this situation.

You invest LKR 2,500,000 in the stock market.

A month or weeks later, your trading screen shows:

  • Portfolio value: LKR 2,677,000

  • Profit: +LKR 177,000

You feel good. You are good.
You believe you have made money.

Then you sell.

After settlement, your account shows:

  • Cash received: LKR 2,596,850

  • Actual profit: +LKR 96,850

More than LKR 80,000 has vanished.

Nothing illegal happened.
The broker didn’t cheat.
The market didn’t crash.

So what happened?

This moment — the gap between what appeared to be profit and what actually became money — is not a technical glitch. It is structural.

And this is where the stock market starts to resemble Lacanian theory of meaning in a surprisingly precise way.


2. A Simple Introduction to Lacan

Let’s begin with the key ideas, defined exactly where they are used.

What Is a Signifier?

In everyday language, we assume words refer directly to things.

  • The word tree → a real tree

  • The word money → actual wealth

But French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan argued something radical:

A word does not point directly to a thing.
It points to another word.

Meaning, according to Lacan, is never fixed.
It slides along a chain of references.

This sliding element — the word, symbol, or mark that seems meaningful but never fully delivers meaning — is called a signifier.


The Three Registers (Very Simply)

Lacan described human experience as operating in three layers:

  1. The Symbolic

    • Language, numbers, rules, representations

    • Examples: prices, charts, portfolio tables

  2. The Imaginary

    • Images, beliefs, narratives we tell ourselves

    • Examples: “I’m in profit”, “This stock is strong”

  3. The Real

    • What resists representation

    • What appears only when things break, fail, or are executed

You don’t encounter the Real while imagining.
You encounter it when fantasy collapses.


3. Price as a Signifier (The Key Shift)

Now let’s translate this into markets.

What Is “Price,” Really?

We think price is objective.
But in reality, price is only the last traded number, not a guaranteed transaction.

Price is a symbol, not an event.

Just like a word.

That means:

  • Price ≠ value

  • Portfolio value ≠ money

  • Profit ≠ cash

They are all signifiers — symbols that suggest something real but do not guarantee it.


4. The Portfolio Table as a Symbolic Structure

Consider this hypothetical (but realistic) portfolio snapshot:

ItemAmount (LKR)
Invested Capital2,500,000
Portfolio Value2,670,000
Displayed Profit+170,000

This table lives entirely in the Symbolic order:

  • Numbers

  • Columns

  • Screens

  • Representation

Nothing here is false — but nothing here is settled either.

The table does not show:

  • Bid–ask spreads

  • Liquidity depth

  • Slippage

  • Fees

  • Market impact

Those belong to the Real.



5. The Moment of Sale: Encountering the Real

The instant you press SELL, the signifier is forced to confront reality.

Now the market asks:

  • At what bid can you actually sell?

  • How many shares exist at that price?

  • How fast does price move when you hit the order book?

  • What fees apply?

Suddenly, something appears that was never on the screen:

The Remainder

This is the missing LKR 80,000.

In Lacanian terms, this remainder is object a
the leftover, the excess, the loss that emerges only at realization.

You never “lost” it.
You never had it.

It existed only as a circulating signifier.


6. Why the Market Feels Deceptive (But Isn’t)

Many investors say:

“The market fooled me.”

But the market did not lie.

It did exactly what language does:

  • It promised meaning

  • It withheld presence

Just like the word love never fully captures love,
the number 2,670,000 never fully captures money.

The market is a symbolic system, not a vault.


7. ASI: The Master Signifier of the Market

Let’s bring in the ASI (All Share Index).

When ASI reads 23,900, people say:

  • “The market is strong”

  • “Sentiment is positive”

ASI functions as what Lacan called a master signifier:

  • A dominant symbol that organizes belief

  • But has no substance of its own

The index going up does not mean:

  • Your stock will go up

  • Liquidity will be available

  • You will exit profitably

It only means:

The symbolic structure currently supports optimism.

Again: signifier, not guarantee.


8. Why Prices “Slip”

In Lacanian language, signifiers slide — they never settle.

In markets, prices slip because:

  • Meaning (profit) is deferred

  • Execution introduces the Real

  • A remainder is always extracted

This is not inefficiency.
It is how symbolic systems function.


9. The Mature Trader’s Shift

The inexperienced trader asks:

“How much am I up?”

The experienced trader asks:

“If I sell now, what will I actually receive?”

This is the shift from:

  • Imaginary → Symbolic → Real awareness

From fantasy to structure.


10. One Sentence That Captures Everything

In the stock market, as in language, meaning exists only until you try to realize it — and then something slips away.

That slippage is not an error.
It is the structure itself.


11. Why This Insight Is Liberating

Once you understand this:

  • You stop chasing numbers

  • You respect liquidity

  • You plan exits, not just entries

  • You stop confusing representation with possession

You don’t become cynical.
You become structurally literate.


Closing Thought

The stock market is not a casino.
It is not a truth machine.

It is a symbolic economy that continuously produces meaning —
and just as continuously withdraws it at the moment of realization.

Lacan did not write about markets.
But markets behave exactly as his theory predicts.

Because both are systems built on signifiers, desire, delay, and remainder.

Saturday, January 10, 2026

Structural Homologies: When Different Domains Share the Same Logic

Across philosophy, physics, and the human sciences, ideas often appear to belong to separate worlds. Psychoanalysis speaks the language of desire and lack; quantum physics deals with particles, fields, and equations; artificial intelligence concerns optimization, probability, and learning. Yet beneath these differences, certain structures repeat. Surely, this doesnt fall on the category of Sokalian. 

A homology is not a metaphor and not a loose analogy or a statistical relationship. It is a shared formal logic appearing in different domains, even when the surface vocabulary changes. Homologies do not claim that one domain causes the other, nor that they are secretly “the same thing.” Or correlated. They claim something more modest—and more radical: that different systems are constrained by the same structural limits.

My broader project identifies eight such homologies linking Lacanian psychoanalysis, quantum physics, and their potential impact into artificial intelligence. This blog series will introduce them gradually. In this first post, I will briefly list all eight, then develop the first in detail.


The Eight Structural Homologies (Overview)

  1. Object a ↔ Renormalization Remainder
    The irreducible leftover that cannot be eliminated without destroying the system.

  2. Extimacy ↔ Nonlocality / Entanglement
    What is most intimate is simultaneously external to the system.

  3. The Symbolic Cut ↔ Measurement Collapse
    Meaning or state emerges only through an irreversible cut.

  4. The Borromean Knot ↔ Tripartite Entanglement
    Three registers held together such that removing one collapses the whole.

  5. Sinthome ↔ Decoherence-Free Constraint
    A stabilizing singularity that holds a system together beyond interpretation.

  6. Sexuation ↔ Superselection Rules
    Logical partitions that are not empirical categories but formal limits.

  7. Pas-tout (Not-All) ↔ Weak Measurement
    Knowledge that emerges without totalization.

  8. Fantasy ↔ Optimization Landscape
    An imagined coherence that organizes behavior despite never being fully realizable.

Each of these will receive its own treatment. We begin with the first, because it sets the tone for all the rest.


First Homology: Object a and the Renormalization Remainder

Object a (Lacanian Psychoanalysis)

In Lacanian psychoanalysis, object a is not an object in the ordinary sense. It is not something the subject wants, owns, or can possess. Rather, it is the cause of desire—the remainder produced when a subject enters language and loses direct access to instinctual completeness.

Object a is not missing by accident. It is structurally produced. The subject comes into being only by losing something that can never be recovered. Desire circulates around this loss, not toward its fulfillment.

Crucially, object a cannot be removed. If it were eliminated, desire itself would collapse. The subject would no longer function as a subject.


Renormalization (Quantum Physics)

In quantum field theory, calculations often produce infinities. Renormalization is the procedure used to manage these infinities so that predictions remain meaningful.

But renormalization does not eliminate all excess. After subtracting divergences, a finite remainder always persists. This remainder is not a mistake. It is required for the theory to connect with physical reality.

If one tried to eliminate the remainder entirely—to force total cancellation—the theory would lose its predictive power. The remainder is what allows measurable quantities to exist at all.


The Structural Identity

The homology becomes visible when we look at function, not content.

• Object a is the leftover produced by symbolization
• The renormalization remainder is the leftover produced by regularization

In both cases:

  • The remainder is unavoidable

  • The remainder is not noise or error

  • The system depends on it to function

Object a sustains desire.
The renormalization remainder sustains empirical prediction.

Neither can be fully formalized away. Attempts to do so produce collapse, not clarity.


Why This Matters (Especially for AI)

Contemporary artificial intelligence often treats errors, hallucinations, and residual uncertainty as problems to be eliminated. The fantasy is that with enough data and optimization, the system will become complete.

The first homology warns us otherwise.

Just as desire requires object a, and physics requires a remainder, intelligence itself may require incompleteness. Residual uncertainty may not be a flaw but a structural condition of learning, adaptation, and meaning.

Designing systems that acknowledge this—rather than denying it—may be the key to more robust, interpretable, and ethically grounded AI.


Closing Note

This post introduces the logic of homology, not its full technical apparatus. The goal is orientation, not mastery.

In the next post, I will take up Extimacy and Nonlocality, where the paradox of inside and outside becomes unavoidable in both psychic life and quantum theory.

The remainder always returns.


A Note on the Broader Work

This post is drawn from a larger theoretical project developed in my forthcoming book:

Left-AI: Against the Fantasy of Complete Intelligence
Structural Homologies Between Lacanian Psychoanalysis and Quantum Physics — and Their Implications for Artificial Intelligence

You may find the book at Amazon. 



The book systematically develops eight structural homologies between psychoanalysis and modern physics, extending them into a critical framework for understanding contemporary artificial intelligence. Rather than proposing metaphorical parallels or speculative analogies, it argues that these domains share formal constraints rooted in incompleteness, remainder, and structural limits.

The present blog series offers an accessible entry point into that work—written deliberately without mathematical formalism or technical notation—while the book itself provides the full conceptual architecture, rigorous argumentation, and detailed implications.

More posts in this series will gradually unfold the remaining homologies.

Referenced YouTube videos:

Alan Sokal

Lacan meets Quantum Physics-Shocking Resemblances

The Hidden Symmetry Between Mind and Matter