At the beginning of the paper presented at Como in 1927 Bohr stated: ‘On the one hand, the definition of the state of a physical system, as ordinarily understood, claims the elimination of all external disturbances. But in that case, according to the quantum postulate, any observation will be impossible, and, above all, the concepts of space and time lose their immediate sense. On the other hand, if in order to make observation possible we permit certain interactions with suitable agencies of measurement, not belonging to the system, an unambiguous definition of the state of the system is naturally no longer possible, and there can be no question of causality in the ordinary sense of the word. The very nature of the quantum theory thus forces us to regard the space-time coordination and the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features of the description, symbolizing the idealization of observation and definition respectively’. The contrast effectively illustrated between possibilities of definition and conditions of observation thus expresses the cognitive scope of quantum theory and summarizes the complementary and irreducible aspects of the description of objects belonging to the microworld. In Bohr's view, this contrast is the direct consequence of two general assumptions: the postulate regarding the discontinuity or individual nature of atomic processes, symbolically represented by the quantum of action, and an epistemologically binding judgement on the system of concepts whereby such processes may be described.
At the beginning of the paper presented at Como in 1927 Bohr stated: ‘On the one hand, the definition of the state of a physical system, as ordinarily understood, claims the elimination of all external disturbances. But in that case, according to the quantum postulate, any observation will be impossible, and, above all, the concepts of space and time lose their immediate sense. On the other hand, if in order to make observation possible we permit certain interactions with suitable agencies of measurement, not belonging to the system, an unambiguous definition of the state of the system is naturally no longer possible, and there can be no question of causality in the ordinary sense of the word. The very nature of the quantum theory thus forces us to regard the space-time coordination and the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features of the description, symbolizing the idealization of observation and definition respectively’. The contrast effectively illustrated between possibilities of definition and conditions of observation thus expresses the cognitive scope of quantum theory and summarizes the complementary and irreducible aspects of the description of objects belonging to the microworld. In Bohr's view, this contrast is the direct consequence of two general assumptions: the postulate regarding the discontinuity or individual nature of atomic processes, symbolically represented by the quantum of action, and an epistemologically binding judgement on the system of concepts whereby such processes may be described.
What does not satisfy me in that theory [quantum mechanics], from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Albert Einstein, Reply to Criticisms [This] implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear . In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects. Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails – because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose – the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. […]
From the preceding exposition it follows that the quantum statistical representation of an individual atomic system does not imply any renunciation regarding further knowledge about the system. On the contrary the statistical character of quantum physics directly reflects the fundamental non-causal appearance of quantal recordings, and through the discovery of the complementarity of quantal phenomena a complete but necessarily statistical description of the atom has been accomplished. Furthermore quantum physics has afforded a statistical description of macroscopic bodies through their representation as assemblies of huge numbers of identical atomic systems, and, apart from accounting in a more fundamental way for the properties already described in classical physics(the correspondence principle, p. 36), quantum statistics explains several macroscopic phenomena which cannot be understood within the conceptual frame of classical physics only. It must be maintained, however, that when observing the properties of individual atomic objects the macroscopic observational apparatus cannot be represented in terms of atomic constituents because this would destroy the unambiguity of the description. The observational apparatus fulfils its basic function of being the spacetime frame of reference for the quantal recordings precisely through its description in classical physics alone. However, when refraining from the analysis of individual quantal processes it is possible to apply quantum statistics to macroscopic phenomena, that is, the causality of classical physical phenomena can be interpreted in the quantum formalism as the statistical result of the interplay of enormous numbers of atomic processes. It is possible, then, to talk of statistical causality as a fundamental aspect of physical reality.
Complementarity and Deconstruction: Plotnitsky's Analysis and Beyond Makoto Katsumori Akita University The philosophical thought of the modern physicist Niels Bohr (1885–1962), which revolves around the concept of complementarity, has long been a major subject of historical and philosophical inquiry. Many prior studies of Bohr's complementarity, however, seem to be limited by the fact that they largely proceed within the conceptual frames of the "mainstream" philosophy of science. This being the case, his radical questioning of traditional scientific and philosophical notions—such as the unambiguity of concepts and words—has not been adequately addressed, insofar as these notions are uncritically presupposed by the commentators themselves. In other words, Bohr's thought has often been interpreted under certain tacit premises of scientific rationality that are precisely of the kind targeted by his epistemological critique. In recent years, however, there have emerged new approaches to Bohr's idea of complementarity that place it in different, less conventional, philosophical contexts. Among the most notable of these is Arkady Plotnitsky's endeavor to connect Bohr's complementarity with Jacques Derrida's project of deconstruction. In the present article, based on my recent doctoral dissertation,1 I take up this contribution by Plotnitsky as a suitable point of reference from which to [End Page 435] explore anew Bohr's thought with its radical philosophical implications. After outlining Bohr's complementarity argument and Plotnitsky's reading thereof (in the first and second sections, respectively), I will examine a series of problems that seem to face, or to be left unsolved by, Plotnitsky's account (in the third section). This critical appraisal will finally lead me to sketch a new interpretive approach of my own (in the fourth section), which both extends and delimits the intersections between complementarity and deconstruction. As regards the historical development of Bohr's complementarity, I will largely restrict myself to the period between 1927 and 1950, in which the most crucial of his innovative ideas seem to have been presented. I. Bohr's Idea of Complementarity In his 1927 lecture delivered in Como, Italy, entitled "The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory," Niels Bohr introduced the concept and framework of complementarity as a pivotal idea in his interpretation of quantum theory. From then on, he continually developed the idea of complementarity with regard not only to quantum theory but to other fields of knowledge as well. In what follows, I will first outline his complementarity argument in its "early" period, stretching from 1927 to the mid-thirties,—or, more precisely, until just before his 1935 debate with EPR.2 Bohr starts by noting that "our usual description of physical phenomena is based entirely on the idea that the phenomena concerned may be observed without disturbing them appreciably."3 This notion of physical phenomena as undisturbed by observation underlies all of classical physics and is still maintained in the theory of relativity. However, Bohr continues, a new situation has arisen with the development of quantum theory, specifically with "the so-called quantum postulate, which attributes to any atomic process an essential discontinuity, or rather individuality, completely foreign to the classical theories"; this "individuality" implies that "any observation of atomic phenomena will involve an interaction with the [End Page 436] agency of observation not to be neglected" (PWNB, 1: 53–54.). In more specific terms, any observation aimed at space-time coordination brings about an exchange of momentum and energy with the measuring rods and clocks. It is crucial here that this interaction between the object and the instrument of observation is not simply unavoidable, but "uncontrollable," which represents a "feature of irrationality" brought into the description of nature (PWNB, 1: 68, 91). For insofar as the measuring instruments are to fulfill their purpose, the interaction itself cannot be taken into account, and thus the magnitude of the disturbance always remains unknown. It follows, in Bohr's view, that "an independent reality in the ordinary physical sense can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation...
Prior to and into the first decade of Niels Bohr's 1913 atomic theory, physicists dealt with physical systems in which the usual space and time pictures of classical physics were assumed trustworthy and so could be extrapolated to any sort of matter in motion, for example, electrons move like billiard balls and light behaves analogously to water waves. In the German scientific milieu this visual imagery was accorded a reality status higher than viewing merely with the senses and was referred to as ‘ordinary intuition [ gewöhnliche Anschauung ]’. Ordinary intuition is the visual imagery abstracted from phenomena that we have actually witnessed in the world of sense perceptions. The concept of ordinary intuition was much debated during 1923–27 by physicists like Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and Erwin Schrödinger, all of whom used this term with proper Kantian overtones, and all of whom lamented its loss in the new quantum mechanics. Ordinary intuition is associated with the strong causality of classical mechanics. According to the law of causality, initial conditions (position and velocity or momentum and energy) can be ascertained with in-principle perfect accuracy. Consequently any system's continuous development in space and time can be traced with in-principle perfect accuracy using Newton's laws of motion and conservation of energy and momentum. Any limitations to the accuracy of measurements are assumed not to be intrinsic to the phenomena, that is they are interpreted to be systematic measurement errors that ideally can be made to vanish.
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.