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

DEStech Transactions on Social Science Education and Human Science

The Research on Philosophy Thought of Quantum Theory—the Discussion about Bohr’s and Heisenberg’s Natural Science Philosophy Outlook

Qi Li, Yuxia Chen

Published Dec 13, 2016• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Analyses and research into Bohr’s quantum dialectics of nature of mutual complement and Heisenberg’s quantum philosophy outlook. It gets a deeper and more systematic cognition and comprehension to quantum theory philosophy thought.
DOI
10.12783/dtssehs/isetem2016/4477

Related papers

The research on philosophy thought of quantum theory——The discussion about Bohr's and Heisenberg's natural science philosophy outlook

Zhang De

This paper discusses the natural science philosophy outlook of Bohr and Heisenberg, two most outstanding representative personers of quantum theory philosophy thought. It analysises and researches into Bohr's quantum dialectics of nature of mutual complement and Heisenberg's quantum philosophy outlook. In terms of these discussions and researches, it gets a deeper and more systematic comgnition and comprehension to quantum theory philosophy thought.

Journal of Yunnan Normal University•Jan 1, 2003•0 citations

Reflections on the philosophy of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger

Abner Shimony

Many of the pioneers of quantum mechanics – notably Planck, Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Born, Jordan, Landé, Wigner, and London – were seriously concerned with philosophical problems. In each case one can ask a question of psychological and historical interest: was it a philosophical penchant which drew the investigator towards a kind of physics research which is linked to philosophy, or was it rather that the conceptual difficulties of fundamental physics pulled him willynilly into the labyrinth of philosophy? I shall not undertake to discuss this question, but shall cite an opinion of Peter Bergmann, which I find congenial: he learned from Einstein that “the theoretical physicist is … a philosopher in workingman's clothes” ([1], q. v.). The problems with which I am preoccupied concern the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics – either epistemological, bearing on the extent, validity, and character of human knowledge; or metaphysical, bearing on the character of reality. Although quantum mechanics is not a system of philosophy, one can wonder whether it is susceptible to coherent incorporation in a philosophical system. I propose to examine the thought of three masters of quantum mechanics – Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger – not with a critical or historical intention, but in hope of finding some enlightenment concerning the problems posed by contemporary physics. I can say in advance that enlightenment will continue to elude us; nevertheless, the ideas of Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger are rich and evocative for new studies.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Feb 26, 1993•3 citations

On Bohr's Principle of Complementarity

Li Qi

Analysis of Bohr's complementarity of quantum dialectics,we may achieve the philosophy of quantum theory,there is a more in-depth knowledge and understanding.

Journal of Bijie University•Jan 1, 2010•0 citations

The Concept of Dialectical Contradictions in Quantum Physics

M. E. Omel'ianovskii

Contemporary physicists, in creating theories adequate to nature's patterns of movement and development, speak the language of dialectics whether willingly or unwillingly. Even those whose personal outlook is at variance with dialectical philosophy acknowledge this in their own way. Thus Heisenberg states that inquiry into the foundations of the quantum theory, especially as carried out by Bohr, has features reminiscent of Hegelian philosophy. (1) And, to quote Pauli, "dialectics is that mutual game of two opponents which is typical of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics." (2) Bohr himself, while discussing the quantum theory, speaks of "profoundly true statements the opposites of which likewise contain deep verities." (3)

Soviet Studies in Philosophy•Dec 1, 1963•0 citations

Clarification of the Nature of Quantum Theory Based on Scientific Philosophy

Altayev Namaz Karabalievich

It is known that there was a disagreement between Bohr and Einstein about the nature of the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics. In 1949, in the work "Remarks on Articles," Einstein clearly expressed his thoughts on this issue. He wrote: "All this discussion was needed only to clarify the following. By attempting to defend the thesis that statistical quantum theory can in principle give a complete description of individual systems, we come to highly improbable theoretical concepts. On the other hand, the aforementioned interpretive difficulties of the theory disappear if quantum-theoretical descriptions are considered as descriptions of ensembles of systems".

Journal of Physics & Optics Sciences•May 24, 2024•1 citation

On a Recent Critique of Complementarity: Part II

Paul K. Feyerabend

“Bohr was primarily a philosopher, not a physicist, but he understood that natural philosophy ... carries weight only if its every detail can be subjected to the ... test of experiment” (Heisenberg in [59], p. 95). As a result his approach differed from that of theschool-philosopherswhom he regarded with a somewhat “sceptical attitude, to say the least” ([59], p. 129) and whose lack of interest in “the important viewpoint which had emerged during the development of atomic physics” he noticed with regret ([59], p. 183).But it also differed, and to a considerable degree, from the spirit of what Professor T. S. Kuhn has called a “normal science.” Looking at Bohr's method of research we see that technical problems, however remote, are always related to a philosophical point of view; they are never treated as “tiny puzzles” whose solution is valuable in itself, even if one has not the faintest idea what it means, and where it leads: “For me” Bohr writes to Sommerfeld in 1922 ([59], p. 71) “[the quantum theory] is not a matter for petty didactic details, but a serious attempt to reach ... an inner coherence.” Emphasis is put on matters of principle ([59], p. 36) and minor discrepancies, or “puzzles” in the sense of Kuhn, instead of being deemphasized, and assimilated to the older paradigm,are turned into fundamental difficultiesby looking at them from a new direction, and by testing their background “in its furthest consequences by exaggeration” ([59], p. 329). A noteworthy example of Bohr's “non-normal” and rather metaphysical approach to physics is his scepticism in the face of the success of his own atomic model.

Philosophy of Science•Mar 1, 1969•31 citations
Many of the pioneers of quantum mechanics – notably Planck, Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Born, Jordan, Landé, Wigner, and London – were seriously concerned with philosophical problems. In each case one can ask a question of psychological and historical interest: was it a philosophical penchant which drew the investigator towards a kind of physics research which is linked to philosophy, or was it rather that the conceptual difficulties of fundamental physics pulled him willynilly into the labyrinth of philosophy? I shall not undertake to discuss this question, but shall cite an opinion of Peter Bergmann, which I find congenial: he learned from Einstein that “the theoretical physicist is … a philosopher in workingman's clothes” ([1], q. v.). The problems with which I am preoccupied concern the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics – either epistemological, bearing on the extent, validity, and character of human knowledge; or metaphysical, bearing on the character of reality. Although quantum mechanics is not a system of philosophy, one can wonder whether it is susceptible to coherent incorporation in a philosophical system. I propose to examine the thought of three masters of quantum mechanics – Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger – not with a critical or historical intention, but in hope of finding some enlightenment concerning the problems posed by contemporary physics. I can say in advance that enlightenment will continue to elude us; nevertheless, the ideas of Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger are rich and evocative for new studies.
Contemporary physicists, in creating theories adequate to nature's patterns of movement and development, speak the language of dialectics whether willingly or unwillingly. Even those whose personal outlook is at variance with dialectical philosophy acknowledge this in their own way. Thus Heisenberg states that inquiry into the foundations of the quantum theory, especially as carried out by Bohr, has features reminiscent of Hegelian philosophy. (1) And, to quote Pauli, "dialectics is that mutual game of two opponents which is typical of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics." (2) Bohr himself, while discussing the quantum theory, speaks of "profoundly true statements the opposites of which likewise contain deep verities." (3)
It is known that there was a disagreement between Bohr and Einstein about the nature of the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics. In 1949, in the work "Remarks on Articles," Einstein clearly expressed his thoughts on this issue. He wrote: "All this discussion was needed only to clarify the following. By attempting to defend the thesis that statistical quantum theory can in principle give a complete description of individual systems, we come to highly improbable theoretical concepts. On the other hand, the aforementioned interpretive difficulties of the theory disappear if quantum-theoretical descriptions are considered as descriptions of ensembles of systems".
“Bohr was primarily a philosopher, not a physicist, but he understood that natural philosophy ... carries weight only if its every detail can be subjected to the ... test of experiment” (Heisenberg in [59], p. 95). As a result his approach differed from that of theschool-philosopherswhom he regarded with a somewhat “sceptical attitude, to say the least” ([59], p. 129) and whose lack of interest in “the important viewpoint which had emerged during the development of atomic physics” he noticed with regret ([59], p. 183).But it also differed, and to a considerable degree, from the spirit of what Professor T. S. Kuhn has called a “normal science.” Looking at Bohr's method of research we see that technical problems, however remote, are always related to a philosophical point of view; they are never treated as “tiny puzzles” whose solution is valuable in itself, even if one has not the faintest idea what it means, and where it leads: “For me” Bohr writes to Sommerfeld in 1922 ([59], p. 71) “[the quantum theory] is not a matter for petty didactic details, but a serious attempt to reach ... an inner coherence.” Emphasis is put on matters of principle ([59], p. 36) and minor discrepancies, or “puzzles” in the sense of Kuhn, instead of being deemphasized, and assimilated to the older paradigm,are turned into fundamental difficultiesby looking at them from a new direction, and by testing their background “in its furthest consequences by exaggeration” ([59], p. 329). A noteworthy example of Bohr's “non-normal” and rather metaphysical approach to physics is his scepticism in the face of the success of his own atomic model.