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

Complementarity Beyond Physics: Niels Bohr's Parallels

Arun Bala

Published Dec 23, 2016• 4 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

In this study Arun Bala examines the implications that Niels Bohr’s principle of complementarity holds for fields beyond physics. Bohr, one of the founding figures of modern quantum physics, argued that the principle of complementarity he proposed for understanding atomic processes has parallels in psychology, biology, and social science, as well as in Buddhist and Taoist thought. But Bohr failed to offer any explanation for why complementarity might extend beyond physics, and his claims have been widely rejected by scientists as empty speculation. Scientific scepticism has only been reinforced by the naïve enthusiasm of postmodern relativists and New Age intuitionists, who seize upon Bohr’s ideas to justify anti-realist and mystical positions. Arun Bala offers a detailed defence of Bohr’s claim that complementarity has far-reaching implications for the biological and social sciences, as well as for comparative philosophies of science, by explaining Bohr’s parallels as responses to the omnipresence of grown properties in nature.

Related papers

Complementarity & Reality

Ted Dace

Niels Bohr developed the framework of complementarity in response to the binding of measuring device and quantum system into an irreducible whole or "individual" at the instant of measurement. On the grounds that an organism and its environment are also bound irreducibly upon interaction, Bohr extended complementarity to biology and psychology, treating mechanistic reduction of the organism and neural objectification of consciousness as mere perspectives opposed by equally valid perspectives. In contrast to Bohr's aversion to metaphysical speculation, Heisenberg suggested that the quantum-mechanical wave function represents a real entity which determines probable outcomes of measurements given the forces acting on the system. In light of Bohr's parallel between quantum and biological systems, the probability wave of the atom ought to be mirrored in the equally intangible consciousness of the organism. I propose further that life is indeed an irreducible property of the organism and that mechanistic biology mischaracterizes life. Key to my analysis is the dual nature of time.

Journal of consciousness exploration & research•Jun 24, 2025•0 citations

An Interpretation of the Philosophy of Niels Bohr, in the light of the philosophies of Kant and Husserl

Rom Harré

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?

SATS•Jan 1, 2004•1 citation

Complementarity and Deconstruction: Plotnitsky's Analysis and Beyond

Makoto Katsumori

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...

Configurations•Sep 1, 2004•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 Scientific Rationality

Simon W. Saunders

Abstract: Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics has been criticized as incoherent and opportunistic, and based on doubtful philosophical premises. If so Bohr’s influence, in the pre-war period of 1927-1939, is the harder to explain, and the acceptance of his approach to quantum mechanics over de Broglie’s had no reasonable foundation. But Bohr’s interpretation changed little from the time of its first appearance, and stood independent of any philosophical presuppositions. The principle of complementarity is itself best read as a conjecture of unusually wide scope, on the nature and future course of explanations in the sciences (and not only the physical sciences). If it must be judged a failure today, it is not because of any internal inconsistency. Despite the expenditure of much effort, I have been unable to obtain a clear understanding of Bohr’s principle of complementarity (Einstein). Bohr’s point- and the central point of quantum mechanics- is that no elemen-

•Oct 1, 2004•19 citations

Conclusion

John P. Losee

The analogical extensions of Niels Bohr's principle of complementarity to the disciplines of biology, psychology, and theology are ineffective. It has been argued, moreover, that the principle of complementarity is ineffective within quantum theory itself. Bohr supported the claim that complementary pictorial-level interpretations are necessary for the explanation of quantum phenomena by invoking a correspondence argument. Henry Margenau criticized Bohr for recommending that physicists accept an irreconcilable dilemma, the horns of which are complementary "descriptions" in terms of classical observables and causal accounts in terms of abstract states. In his various publications, Margenau created a number of diagrams to represent the confirmation process. He agreed with P. W. Bridgman that operational definitions provide important links between constructs and the results of instrumental procedures. Despite Margenau's protest, many scientists in the 1930s were receptive to the idea that pictures of classical particles and waves are needed to complete the interpretation of quantum phenomena.

Routledge eBooks•Jul 28, 2017•0 citations
In this study Arun Bala examines the implications that Niels Bohr’s principle of complementarity holds for fields beyond physics. Bohr, one of the founding figures of modern quantum physics, argued that the principle of complementarity he proposed for understanding atomic processes has parallels in psychology, biology, and social science, as well as in Buddhist and Taoist thought. But Bohr failed to offer any explanation for why complementarity might extend beyond physics, and his claims have been widely rejected by scientists as empty speculation. Scientific scepticism has only been reinforced by the naïve enthusiasm of postmodern relativists and New Age intuitionists, who seize upon Bohr’s ideas to justify anti-realist and mystical positions. Arun Bala offers a detailed defence of Bohr’s claim that complementarity has far-reaching implications for the biological and social sciences, as well as for comparative philosophies of science, by explaining Bohr’s parallels as responses to the omnipresence of grown properties in nature.
Niels Bohr developed the framework of complementarity in response to the binding of measuring device and quantum system into an irreducible whole or "individual" at the instant of measurement. On the grounds that an organism and its environment are also bound irreducibly upon interaction, Bohr extended complementarity to biology and psychology, treating mechanistic reduction of the organism and neural objectification of consciousness as mere perspectives opposed by equally valid perspectives. In contrast to Bohr's aversion to metaphysical speculation, Heisenberg suggested that the quantum-mechanical wave function represents a real entity which determines probable outcomes of measurements given the forces acting on the system. In light of Bohr's parallel between quantum and biological systems, the probability wave of the atom ought to be mirrored in the equally intangible consciousness of the organism. I propose further that life is indeed an irreducible property of the organism and that mechanistic biology mischaracterizes life. Key to my analysis is the dual nature of time.
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?
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...
Abstract: Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics has been criticized as incoherent and opportunistic, and based on doubtful philosophical premises. If so Bohr’s influence, in the pre-war period of 1927-1939, is the harder to explain, and the acceptance of his approach to quantum mechanics over de Broglie’s had no reasonable foundation. But Bohr’s interpretation changed little from the time of its first appearance, and stood independent of any philosophical presuppositions. The principle of complementarity is itself best read as a conjecture of unusually wide scope, on the nature and future course of explanations in the sciences (and not only the physical sciences). If it must be judged a failure today, it is not because of any internal inconsistency. Despite the expenditure of much effort, I have been unable to obtain a clear understanding of Bohr’s principle of complementarity (Einstein). Bohr’s point- and the central point of quantum mechanics- is that no elemen-
The analogical extensions of Niels Bohr's principle of complementarity to the disciplines of biology, psychology, and theology are ineffective. It has been argued, moreover, that the principle of complementarity is ineffective within quantum theory itself. Bohr supported the claim that complementary pictorial-level interpretations are necessary for the explanation of quantum phenomena by invoking a correspondence argument. Henry Margenau criticized Bohr for recommending that physicists accept an irreconcilable dilemma, the horns of which are complementary "descriptions" in terms of classical observables and causal accounts in terms of abstract states. In his various publications, Margenau created a number of diagrams to represent the confirmation process. He agreed with P. W. Bridgman that operational definitions provide important links between constructs and the results of instrumental procedures. Despite Margenau's protest, many scientists in the 1930s were receptive to the idea that pictures of classical particles and waves are needed to complete the interpretation of quantum phenomena.