In this writing, I reconstruct the Principle of Complementarity in Quantum Mechanics, elaborated by Niels Bohr, and the conception of objectivity implied in it (and in Bohr's writings).Then, I connect it with the epistemological pragmatism of the philosopher Richard Rorty.My aim is to reinterpret some issues of this quantum description that concern the category of objectivity from the Rortian perspective in a plausible way.This allows me to connect in a positive and a negative sense some quantum (and Bohrian) assumptions to the Rortian perspective, but mainly, it allows to reconsider the framework of scientific objects from the modern perspective to a new pragmatist and anti-essentialist point of view.
In this writing, I reconstruct the Principle of Complementarity in Quantum Mechanics, elaborated by Niels Bohr, and the conception of objectivity implied in it (and in Bohr's writings).Then, I connect it with the epistemological pragmatism of the philosopher Richard Rorty.My aim is to reinterpret some issues of this quantum description that concern the category of objectivity from the Rortian perspective in a plausible way.This allows me to connect in a positive and a negative sense some quantum (and Bohrian) assumptions to the Rortian perspective, but mainly, it allows to reconsider the framework of scientific objects from the modern perspective to a new pragmatist and anti-essentialist point of view.
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.
Niels Bohr introduced the concept of complementarity in order to give a general account of quantum mechanics, however he stressed that the idea of complementarity is related to the general difficulty in the formation of human ideas, inherent in the distinction between subject and object. The complementary descriptions approach is a framework for the interpretation of quantum mechanics, more specifically, it focuses in the development of the idea of complementarity and the concept of potentiality in the orthodox quantum formulation. In PART I of this article, we analyze the ideas of Bohr and present the principle of complementary description which takes into account Einstein's ontological position. We argue, in PART II, that this development allows a better understanding of some of the paradigmatic interpretational problems in quantum mechanics, such as the measurement problem and the quantum to classical limit. We conclude that one should further develop complementarity in order to elaborate a consistent worldview.
Niels Bohr introduced the concept of complementarity in order to give a general account of quantum mechanics, however he stressed that the idea of complementarity is related to the general difficulty in the formation of human ideas, inherent in the distinction between subject and object. The complementary descriptions approach is a framework for the interpretation of quantum mechanics, more specifically, it focuses in the development of the idea of complementarity and the concept of potentiality in the orthodox quantum formulation. In PART I of this article, we analyze the ideas of Bohr and present the principle of complementary description which takes into account Einstein's ontological position. We argue, in PART II, that this development allows a better understanding of some of the paradigmatic interpretational problems in quantum mechanics, such as the measurement problem and the quantum to classical limit. We conclude that one should further develop complementarity in order to elaborate a consistent worldview.
The theory of complementarity became prominent during the last century (primarily as a result of the ideas of Niels Bohr and quantum physics). It gradually developed into a dominant paradigm un-derlying research into the nature of existence. Bohr’s exposition of the principle also emphasized its epistemological value for providing more accurate information regarding what seem to be paradoxical aspects of reality. The principle of complementarity has proven to have far reaching philosophical im-plications concerning such basic notions as subject and object, space-time and causality, chance and necessity, and more. However, scholars also acknowledge that it contributes to resolving the problem of the discontinuity between underlying reality and the human ability to conceptualize the ontological nature of existence. It has grown in popularity because it seems to off er a means of addressing dichoto-mies in other sciences and in philosophy.When analysts scrutinize the factors that infl uenced Bohr’s understanding of the principle of comple-mentarity they fi nd that one source clearly stems from the infl uence of American Pragmatism. Although the Pragmatist infl uence is traced primarily to William James there is at the roots of the philosophy of Pragmatism reference made to concepts that refl ect the principle of complementarity explicating how to gain reliable knowledge concerning the nature of existence. From the very inception of American Prag-matism there was the recognition that Western philosophy faced a problem connected with
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...