SUMMARYThe article contains the result of an attempt to examine analytically and critically the usefulness in psychology of Niels Bohr's concept of complementarity.In the first section it is shown through quotations (from (1) and (2)) that Bohr actually applies “complementarity” with two meanings in physics: 1. Special complementarity: The relation between two sets of concepts which supplement each other but mutually exclude each other.2. General complementarity: A description that includes the conditions of observation under which a phenomenon has been produced.In the second section it is shown through quotations how Bohr through the use of the concept of complementarity forms four analogies between atomic physics and psychology, namely: 1) the subject-object relation, 2) the determinism-indeterminism relation, 3) the thought-emotion relation, and 4) the instinct-reason relation. The first two relations are examples of general complementarity, the two last ones are examples of special complementarity.In ...
SUMMARYThe article contains the result of an attempt to examine analytically and critically the usefulness in psychology of Niels Bohr's concept of complementarity.In the first section it is shown through quotations (from (1) and (2)) that Bohr actually applies “complementarity” with two meanings in physics: 1. Special complementarity: The relation between two sets of concepts which supplement each other but mutually exclude each other.2. General complementarity: A description that includes the conditions of observation under which a phenomenon has been produced.In the second section it is shown through quotations how Bohr through the use of the concept of complementarity forms four analogies between atomic physics and psychology, namely: 1) the subject-object relation, 2) the determinism-indeterminism relation, 3) the thought-emotion relation, and 4) the instinct-reason relation. The first two relations are examples of general complementarity, the two last ones are examples of special complementarity.In ...
Niels Bohr accepted the distinction stressed by Immanuel Kant and others between the awareness of an object and the awareness of being aware of that object. He noted that one of the "epistemological implications" of the success of quantum theory is the necessity of directing attention to the "placing of the subject-object distinction". Causal pictures and vitalistic pictures, like particle pictures and wave pictures in quantum theory, are interpretations that supplement each other. These pictures are complementary in the sense that both types of picture are required for completeness. This is the case both in quantum physics and psychology. The mutual exclusivity of interpretations is a cornerstone of the principle of complementarity, as it is applied within quantum theory. Bohr's analogical extension of the principle of complementarity to psychology is unconvincing. A more appropriate analogy to causal and vitalistic interpretations in psychology would be from fluid and particulate models of the behavior of aqueous solutions.
Andersen, S.B.: The instructions of Niels Bohr on the concept of observation in psychology. Nordisk Psykologi, 1987, 39 (3), 203–215. The Danish physicist Niels Bohr has summarized his insights from studies of atomic processes. He considered these insights to be universal and general for human knowledge. In his view the observational situation is an inseparable whole which always includes the observer in an essential way so that the traditional concepts of isolated objects and of cause and effect lose their meaning. Using the Danish thinker Søren Kierkegaard as a background, some of the consequences of Niels Bohr's views are discussed with respect to psychology. It is argued that another concept of knowledge, of objectivity and reality is required in psychological research.
Today it is important to see James’s original complementarity in 1890 independently of Bohr’s discussions on complementarity in order that James’s conception can be properly evaluated as the model on its own merits for quantum measurement. On the basis of new evidence and a deeper analysis of previous evidence presented here, it is very reasonable to conclude based on Bohr’s own words that Bohr read James’s complementarity between approximately 1908 and 1912. An Appendix provides the relevant text from both Bohr’s Nobel biography and his interview with the American Institute of Physics to support this conclusion. Bohr’s description of significant events in his life are matched with dates in his Nobel biography, adding support to the conclusion. How Bohr specifically adapted James’s complementarity to physics is presented. Bohr’s discussion of “mental activity” is compared here to James’s definition of complementarity focusing on consciousness and is found to be extremely similar to James’s definition. In addition, a side by side comparison of James’s definition of complementarity and Bohr’s most important and well-known definition of complementarity for physics is presented. This comparison shows just how Bohr adapted James’s complementarity to Bohr’s complementarity for physics. Examining the chapters “The Stream of Thought”” (chapter 9 in James’s “The Principles of Psychology”) and “The Relation of Minds to Other Things” (chapter 8 in “The Principles of Psychology”) shows that the very evidence that James used to develop complementarity in “The Relation of Minds to Other Things” is discussed in “The Stream of Thought,” a chapter that Bohr acknowledged reading and concerning which he had a very high opinion. It is also made clear in the paper that Bohr was aware that he had a choice to adopt complementarity for physics along the lines of James’s complementarity, which he had read, and that he rejected this possibility. Instead, in his complementarity for physics, Bohr adopted a very different approach fundamentally based on the necessity of a physical interaction between a physical system and a physical measuring apparatus with an uncontrolled aspect to obtain a specific measurement result. Bohr attempted to apply the uncertainty principle to this uncontrolled feature of the physical interaction. Bohr’s approach has been the widely adopted framework for understanding quantum measurement since 1927. The historical description of complementarity in Bohr’s Nobel biography is discussed in light of the evidence presented and is shown to be incorrect. It is important to set the record straight regarding the origin of complementarity so that James’s complementarity is not seen as an appendage of Bohr’s version of complementarity for physics. Bohr’s attempt to extrapolate what his Nobel biography incorrectly states was complementarity originally developed by Bohr, which was for physics, to other fields confuses and detracts from the importance of James’s complementarity which was in fact the original. Bohr’s detour with his proposed necessity (and its proposed fundamental significance) of a physical interaction in the measuring process with an uncontrolled aspect in quantum mechanics has distracted attention away from the possible significance of James’s original concept in psychology to quantum measurement, including its evaluation on its own merits as to whether it provides the correct conceptual framework for this measurement.
Introduction In order to develop the insight that is worked out by Brock (Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, Logos, 2003), that the philosophy of quantum mechanics should parallel Kant's philosophy of natural science, some preliminary analyses of key concepts need to be done. Initiated by Niels Bohr (Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, John Wiley and Sons, 1958), the concept of ‘complementarity’ has played a major role in the interpretation of quantum theory. However, the exact place it occupies in respect of the logical form of the relation of complementarity between descriptive predicates has not been spelled out in detail to my knowledge. Complementary predicates exclude one another as simultaneous attributions to the same subject. Exactly what form does this exclusion take? How is it related to the basic exclusion-of-predicates principle, the logical law of non-contradiction?
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.
Niels Bohr, as is well known, introduced the notion of complementarity into physics, as a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It holds that objects have complementary properties that cannot be measured accurately at the same time. For example, the particle and wave aspects of physical objects are such complementary phenomena. Both concepts are borrowed from classical mechanics, where it is impossible to be both, a particle and a wave at the same time. Particle and Wave represent the complementarity of the Discrete and the Continuous. Humans reason by means of concepts (meanings) and language, as well as, by means of logical or arithmetic symbolism. Meanings are continua, whereas logic and arithmetic are based on relations of identity and difference.