Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Series on knots and everything

Current quantum physics, state/observer philosophy: complementarity

Published Aug 1, 2009• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1142/9789814261685_0011

Related papers

Quantum Physics and Philosophy–Causality and Complementarity

Raymond Klibansky, Niels Henrik David Bohr

Niels Bohr•Jan 1, 1996•81 citations

Complementarity: From Physics to Philosophy, From Philosophy to Physics

Arkady Plotnitsky

Springer eBooks•Nov 14, 2006•0 citations

Bohr’s philosophy of wave-particle complementarity

Dipankar Home

Resonance•Oct 1, 2013•6 citations

Complementarity and the Scientific Method

Patrick A. Heelan

Heelan argues that the philosophy of complementarity, although successful in providing physicists with a common language with which to describe quantum phenomena, also contains a theory about scientific method and about human knowing which is open to criticism. Heelan here criticises the following points arising out of the philosophy of complementarity: psycho-physical parallelism; the view that quantum mechanical properties are to be defined classically; and the perturbation theory of measurement. In the course of the criticism, he elaborates the distinction between two types of concepts with different logical structures; viz., operational or observational concepts which state a similarity between things judged on the basis of appearance or utility to us, and explanatory concepts which state a similarity between things judged on the basis of a self-defining set of different relations between things. Heelan thus shows how a physical concept is definable by any appropriate measuring-process. The description of the measuring­process and, hence, the definition of the physical property involve the two classes of concepts described above, but in different ways. Thus one may regard the Indeterminacy Relations, not as stating limi­tations of our knowledge, but as describing more exactly the behaviour of individual systems.

•Jan 1, 1965•0 citations

Biología y filosofía de la complementariedad en Niels Bohr

Karim Gherab Martín

This article discusses Niels Bohr's philosophy of complementarity in the field of biology. To do this, it shows how the concept of complementarity arises in quantum physics and how Bohr generalizes it so that to apply it to biology. Likewise, the article looks for the philosophical sources that give rise to the philosophy of complementarity and concludes that said philosophy is oriented towards an epistemological, rather than an ontological, analysis of subatomic objects and living beings.

Bajo Palabra•Nov 26, 2020•5 citations

Complementarity and Paradox in Quantum Physics

Robert Samuel Matthews

Routledge eBooks•May 17, 2022•0 citations
Heelan argues that the philosophy of complementarity, although successful in providing physicists with a common language with which to describe quantum phenomena, also contains a theory about scientific method and about human knowing which is open to criticism. Heelan here criticises the following points arising out of the philosophy of complementarity: psycho-physical parallelism; the view that quantum mechanical properties are to be defined classically; and the perturbation theory of measurement. In the course of the criticism, he elaborates the distinction between two types of concepts with different logical structures; viz., operational or observational concepts which state a similarity between things judged on the basis of appearance or utility to us, and explanatory concepts which state a similarity between things judged on the basis of a self-defining set of different relations between things. Heelan thus shows how a physical concept is definable by any appropriate measuring-process. The description of the measuring­process and, hence, the definition of the physical property involve the two classes of concepts described above, but in different ways. Thus one may regard the Indeterminacy Relations, not as stating limi­tations of our knowledge, but as describing more exactly the behaviour of individual systems.