discussions from the start, especially because we wanted to establish a clear con-nection between quantum physics and memory. We quickly realized that analogy could be an interesting key for that. What surprised me a bit was that physicists and philosophers don’t understand the term “analogy” the same way.

Aurore Young: When we discussed this with the scientific committee, I didn’t think physicists would react to such a simple word. At first, I understood it in the same way as Céline and Caroline. But when we had to clarify it, I saw there was a real difference in our approaches because, in science, “analogy” is very strict. It means you can explain one phenomenon by another because they obey the same equations. It’s a very narrow sense. So we were worried that by using this word, some people might think memory and recollection work the same way as quantum physics, which is false.

Caroline Delétoille: There is also another point with the language and the com-munication. Often, our discussions stayed between the three of us, but there were also times when we had to share our ideas with outsiders, like the physi-cists at the Kastler Brossel Laboratory. And here, Aurore really played the role of translating our concepts. Then, others could take over. They spoke a different language, the one of quantum physics principles, with debates around concepts like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. I remember stepping back from these discussions, thinking that Aurore would translate everything for me, and then we could move forward together.

Céline Boisserie-Lacroix: I don’t know if you agree with me, but I feel like phi-losophy was really a natural common ground for us, one that allowed us to get to the heart of things while navigating through our different disciplines.

Caroline Delétoille: Yes, I totally agree. You positioned yourself at more theoret-ical and methodological levels, while guiding us through the project, returning to the basics, asking the right questions about our methodology or the nature of our analogy.

Shelly Rosenblum: I’m wondering if we could just press a little more on whether you have to invent or evolve a unique methodology for this kind of work and what it looks like. What does an art-science collaboration really look like?

Caroline Delétoille: At the start, our approach was to visit the laboratory and begin exchanging ideas. We met every two weeks, and then it became every week. We addressed different topics, but always came back to the heart of the project to discuss what was still unclear. We debated very openly, and anyone could say whatever they wanted, which I think was very important—there were no intellec-tual barriers, no one thought they couldn’t speak up for fear of sounding stupid.

Céline Boisserie-Lacroix: What concerned us most was how to convey quantum physics through feelings, and which feelings we wanted to evoke. Very quickly, the idea of an analogy between quantum objects and memories appeared to us as the right one. We simply realized that we were at the crossroads of different con-cepts: “experiencing” quantum physics, but also the question of memory. What is a particle? How can we reconstruct it? And other philosophical questions that scientists might also ask in their research.

I feel like, at the beginning, we had a lot of theoretical discussions at the inter-section of these different concepts. Maybe I’m a little biased, but I feel these dis-cussions were almost philosophical, in the sense that, as you said Shelly, we had a real discussion about what we mean by “experience”, and we also tried to clarify other terms. For example, what is entanglement? How could it be related to the concept of experience? What is memory? We had to refine each of the concepts we were using to arrive at a shared perspective.