Our main claim is that Bohr adopted a principle-theoretic approach to quantum mechanics in order to reconcile two principles: the distinction principle, which asserts the necessity of a clear epistemic distinction between a classical apparatus and a quantum system, and the non-separability principle, which asserts that the two systems are ontologically non-separable in any measurement process. The latter principle is a consequence of Bohr's argument that, during a measurement interaction, the quantum system and the measurement apparatus form a 'new kind of individuality'. To support our argument, we first demonstrate the overlooked fact that, according to Bohr, the measurement interaction is a physical, irreversible process and not merely an epistemic acquisition of new information. In this respect, quantum mechanics must be regarded not only as a universal theory, but also as revealing no non-arbitrary difference between a quantum realm and a classical realm; the distinction is purely pragmatic. The tension between the epistemic necessity to rely on a neatly distinguishable classical realm and the ontic non-separability of the quantum system and the classical apparatus inclined Bohr to refuse to provide a constructive account of the measurement process, such as that later proposed, for instance, by spontaneous dynamical reduction models.
Our main claim is that Bohr adopted a principle-theoretic approach to quantum mechanics in order to reconcile two principles: the distinction principle, which asserts the necessity of a clear epistemic distinction between a classical apparatus and a quantum system, and the non-separability principle, which asserts that the two systems are ontologically non-separable in any measurement process. The latter principle is a consequence of Bohr's argument that, during a measurement interaction, the quantum system and the measurement apparatus form a 'new kind of individuality'. To support our argument, we first demonstrate the overlooked fact that, according to Bohr, the measurement interaction is a physical, irreversible process and not merely an epistemic acquisition of new information. In this respect, quantum mechanics must be regarded not only as a universal theory, but also as revealing no non-arbitrary difference between a quantum realm and a classical realm; the distinction is purely pragmatic. The tension between the epistemic necessity to rely on a neatly distinguishable classical realm and the ontic non-separability of the quantum system and the classical apparatus inclined Bohr to refuse to provide a constructive account of the measurement process, such as that later proposed, for instance, by spontaneous dynamical reduction models.
In this paper I present and critically discuss the main strategies that Bohr used and could have used to fend off the charge that his interpretation does not provide a clear-cut distinction between the classical and the quantum domain. In particular, in the first part of the paper I reassess the main arguments used by Bohr to advocate the indispensability of a classical framework to refer to quantum phenomena. In this respect, by using a distinction coming from an apparently unrelated philosophical corner, we could say that Bohr is not a revisionist philosopher of physics but rather a descriptivist one in the sense of Strawson. I will then go on discussing the nature of the holistic link between classical measurement apparatuses and observed system that he also advocated. The oft-repeated conclusion that Bohr's interpretation of the quantum formalism is untenable can only be established by giving his arguments as much force as possible, which is what I will try to do in the following by remaining as faithful as possible to his published work.
Niels Bohr asserted both that (i) the properties of quantum systems are specifiable, in general, only in relation to mutually exclusive experimental arrangements which may be freely chosen by experimenters, and that (ii) observed physical behavior is objective. In a move that reduces the apparent tension between those two assertions, Bohr put forward an analogy between quantum complementarity (in effect, the dependence of property values on measurement apparatus configuration in quantum mechanics) and the principle of relativity (in effect, the dependence of property values on the inertial reference frame in special relativity). Here, Bohr's analogy is considered in a theoretical context. The elements of quantum mechanics and special relativity involved are set side by side, the analogous elements are identified with their roles in the analogy spelled out, and a number of dissimilarities that impact the force of the analogy are indicated-for example, quantum value determination, in general, requires an uncontrollable interaction during measurement, whereas non-quantum relativistic value determination does not. These dissimilarities point to weaknesses in the analogy, which he did not highly develop, and suggest that any stronger such analogy involving the two theories must take these differences more fully into account.
Having discussed the meaning of complementarity in general and wave particle complementarity in particular, I wish now to explicate Bohr's subtle argument for the thesis that certain pairs of classical concepts which are mutually compatible in classical physics are mutually exclusive in quantum physics, i.e. the thesis of kinematic–dynamic complementarity. It is generally held that Bohr regarded the mutual exclusiveness in question as being not only epistemic but also ontic or semantic, in the sense that the uncertainty principle expresses a restriction not only on the joint measurability of canonically conjugate observables but also on the joint instantiation of the properties corresponding to these observables. I shall consider the question of the ontic or semantic construal of kinematic–dynamic complementarity in Chapter 7. Bohr's argument for complementarity in the epistemic sense is, however, more fundamental: it goes to the heart of his theory of observation and measurement in quantum physics. What, then, is Bohr's argument? The mutual exclusiveness of kinematic and dynamic properties Kinematic and dynamic attributes in quantum mechanics are mutually exclusive in the sense that they cannot be simultaneously measured; they are, in this sense, epistemically incompatible. Why did Bohr think this? His reasons may seem intricate, but they are basically quite simple. Two main factors, he maintains, account for the epistemic incompatibility: ( a ) measurements of these two different sorts of properties require mutually exclusive experimental arrangements, incompatible measurement procedures; ( b ) the indeterminability of the interaction between the object and the instrument of measurement precludes extrapolation of the different measurement results to one and the same time.
Without Niels Bohr, QBism would be nothing. But QBism is not Bohr. This paper attempts to show that, despite a popular misconception, QBism is no minor tweak to Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is something quite distinct. Along the way, we lay out three tenets of QBism in some detail: 1) The Born Rule---the foundation of what quantum theory means for QBism---is a normative statement. It is about the decision-making behavior any individual agent should strive for; it is not a descriptive "law of nature" in the usual sense. 2) All probabilities, including all quantum probabilities, are so subjective they never tell nature what to do. This includes probability-1 assignments. Quantum states thus have no "ontic hold" on the world. 3) Quantum measurement outcomes just are personal experiences for the agent gambling upon them. Particularly, quantum measurement outcomes are not, to paraphrase Bohr, instances of "irreversible amplification in devices whose design is communicable in common language suitably refined by the terminology of classical physics." Finally, an explicit comparison is given between QBism and Bohr with regard to three subjects: a) The issue of the "detached observer" as it arose in a debate between Pauli and Bohr, b) Bohr's reply to Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, and c) Bohr's mature notion of "quantum phenomena." At the end, we discuss how Bohr's notion of phenomena may have something to offer the philosophy of William James: A physics from which to further develop his vision of the world---call it an ontology if you will---in which "new being comes in local spots and patches."
INTRODUCTION In his essay ‘Quantum Mechanics Without “the Observer”’ (in [20], 7–44), Popper criticizes the Copenhagen Interpretation and suggests construing the quantum theory as a ‘generalization of classical statistical mechanics’ ([20], 16). The uncertainty relations, he says, set ‘limits to the statistical dispersion … of the results of sequences of experiments’ ([20], 20) and not to what can be said about individual systems. Some strange features of orthodox microphysics are due either to a misinterpretation of probability, involving some ‘very simple mistakes’ ([20], 42); or else they are a straightforward consequence of the fact that the quantum theory is a statistical theory. For example, ‘the reduction of the wave packet … has nothing to do with quantum theory: it is a trivial feature of probability theory’ ([20], 37). The idea of probability that is presupposed in all these arguments, however, is Popper's propensity interpretation. Adopting this interpretation suffices for making clear what the quantum theory really is: a ‘generalization of classical statistical mechanics’ ([20], 16). This is Popper's position as I understand it. This position, it seems to me, is attractive enough as long as one does not carry the analysis too far. But it breaks down when confronted with all the facts which Bohr wanted to take into account. Altogether Popper's criticism and his alternative proposals once more reveal the strong points of the Copenhagen philosophy, and especially of the ideas of Niels Bohr. Today it is very difficult to find a satisfactory account of these ideas.
What Niels Bohr called the `epistemological lesson' of `complementarity' was the result of reasoning analogically from the classical conception of a mechanical state to a new quantum mechanical conception of an `object' in a mechanical state. Bohr proposed to redefine the `objectivity' essential for scientific description in terms of the epistemological demand for unambiguously communicable descriptions of observational results, a move which has profound consequences for how we can understand the concept of the quantum mechanical state and the nature of the `system' which is `in' this state. Here it is argued that the old notion of the `object' which is in a classical mechanical state is drawn from a substance/property ontology derived from Aristotle's analysis of categorical propositions. In moving to describing a system in a quantum mechanical state, the system that is `in' such a state can no longer be so regarded as a substance possessing properties. Bohr argues that the concept refers to an interaction which has a feature of wholeness or `individuality' that implies that the distinction between `object system' and `observing system' is relative to the context of the description. This conclusion, in turn, implies the need for a combination of complementary modes of description; however, because of his reticence in making ontological claims, he failed to develop this dimension of his new framework of complementarity.