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

Routledge eBooks

Complementarity, Causality, and Explanation

John P. Losee

Published Jul 28, 2017• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Philosophers have discussed the relationship of cause and effect from ancient times through our own. Prior to the work of Niels Bohr, these discussions presupposed that successful causal attribution implies explanation. The success of quantum theory challenged this presupposition. Bohr introduced a principle of complementarity that provides a new way of looking at causality and explanation.In this succinct review of the history of these discussions, John Losee presents the philosophical background of debates over the cause-effect relation. He reviews the positions of Aristotle, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. He shows how nineteenth-century theories in physics and chemistry were informed by a dominant theory of causality and how specific developments in physics provided the background for the emergence of quantum theory.Problems created for the causality implies explanation thesis by the emergence of quantum theory are reviewed in detail. Losee evaluates Bohr's proposals to apply a principle of complementarity within physics, biology, and psychology. He also discusses the feasibility of using complementarity as a principle of interpretation within Christian theology. This volume, which includes an in-depth index, is an essential addition to the libraries of advanced undergraduate and graduate students, philosophers, and those interested in causality and explanation.

DOI
10.4324/9781315080772

Related papers

Complementarity in Psychology

John P. Losee

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.

Routledge eBooks•Jul 28, 2017•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

What is complementarity?: Niels Bohr and the architecture of quantum theory

Arkady Plotnitsky

This article explores Bohr's argument, advanced under the heading of 'complementarity,' concerning quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, and its physical and philosophical implications.In Bohr, the term complementarity designates both a particular concept and an overall interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, in part grounded in this concept.While the argument of this article is primarily philosophical, it will also address, historically, the development and transformations of Bohr's thinking, under the impact of the development of quantum theory and Bohr's confrontation with Einstein, especially their exchange concerning the EPR experiment, proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in 1935.Bohr's interpretation was progressively characterized by a more radical epistemology, in its ultimate form, which was developed in the 1930s and with which I shall be especially concerned here, defined by his new concepts of phenomenon and atomicity.According to this epistemology, quantum objects are seen as indescribable and possibly even as inconceivable, and as manifesting their existence only in the effects of their interactions with measuring instruments upon those instruments, effects that define phenomena in Bohr's sense.The absence of causality is an automatic consequence of this epistemology.I shall also consider how probability and statistics work under these epistemological conditions.

Physica Scripta•Dec 1, 2014•14 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

Complementarity Beyond Physics: Niels Bohr's Parallels

Arun Bala

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.

•Dec 23, 2016•4 citations

Niels Bohr, Complementarity, and Realism

Henry J. Folse

The so-called “orthodox” interpretation of quantum physics attributed to Niels Bohr is commonly regarded as abandoning realism. I have already opposed this view elsewhere (Folse 1985) but partially in response to criticism of my position (Shimony 1985), here I propose to relate Bohr’s realism to recent contributions to the realism debate given by Hacking (1983), Cartwright (1983), and Ellis (1985). Specifically, I argue that Bohr’s complementarity viewpoint requires a causal entity realism. Furthermore, labeling Bohr an anti-realist with respect to theories is misleading because it assumes the correspondence theory of truth that Bohr holds quantum theory forces us to reject. Although there are many realist views, I take the root of realism to be the quest for knowledge about the reality producing the phenomena we experience. It is realism in this sense that Bohr defended and that makes science significant to metaphysics.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1986•10 citations
Philosophers have discussed the relationship of cause and effect from ancient times through our own. Prior to the work of Niels Bohr, these discussions presupposed that successful causal attribution implies explanation. The success of quantum theory challenged this presupposition. Bohr introduced a principle of complementarity that provides a new way of looking at causality and explanation.In this succinct review of the history of these discussions, John Losee presents the philosophical background of debates over the cause-effect relation. He reviews the positions of Aristotle, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. He shows how nineteenth-century theories in physics and chemistry were informed by a dominant theory of causality and how specific developments in physics provided the background for the emergence of quantum theory.Problems created for the causality implies explanation thesis by the emergence of quantum theory are reviewed in detail. Losee evaluates Bohr's proposals to apply a principle of complementarity within physics, biology, and psychology. He also discusses the feasibility of using complementarity as a principle of interpretation within Christian theology. This volume, which includes an in-depth index, is an essential addition to the libraries of advanced undergraduate and graduate students, philosophers, and those interested in causality and explanation.
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.
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?
This article explores Bohr's argument, advanced under the heading of 'complementarity,' concerning quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, and its physical and philosophical implications.In Bohr, the term complementarity designates both a particular concept and an overall interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, in part grounded in this concept.While the argument of this article is primarily philosophical, it will also address, historically, the development and transformations of Bohr's thinking, under the impact of the development of quantum theory and Bohr's confrontation with Einstein, especially their exchange concerning the EPR experiment, proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in 1935.Bohr's interpretation was progressively characterized by a more radical epistemology, in its ultimate form, which was developed in the 1930s and with which I shall be especially concerned here, defined by his new concepts of phenomenon and atomicity.According to this epistemology, quantum objects are seen as indescribable and possibly even as inconceivable, and as manifesting their existence only in the effects of their interactions with measuring instruments upon those instruments, effects that define phenomena in Bohr's sense.The absence of causality is an automatic consequence of this epistemology.I shall also consider how probability and statistics work under these epistemological conditions.
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.
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.
The so-called “orthodox” interpretation of quantum physics attributed to Niels Bohr is commonly regarded as abandoning realism. I have already opposed this view elsewhere (Folse 1985) but partially in response to criticism of my position (Shimony 1985), here I propose to relate Bohr’s realism to recent contributions to the realism debate given by Hacking (1983), Cartwright (1983), and Ellis (1985). Specifically, I argue that Bohr’s complementarity viewpoint requires a causal entity realism. Furthermore, labeling Bohr an anti-realist with respect to theories is misleading because it assumes the correspondence theory of truth that Bohr holds quantum theory forces us to reject. Although there are many realist views, I take the root of realism to be the quest for knowledge about the reality producing the phenomena we experience. It is realism in this sense that Bohr defended and that makes science significant to metaphysics.