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

Bristol University Press eBooks

Getting to Know the Apparatus

K.M. Fierke

Published Jan 25, 2022• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Repositioning the apparatus impacts on what is seen. The rationale for repositioning and the implications for my positionality as researcher were explored in the first part of the introduction. Here we seek to deepen understanding of the apparatus, that is, the parallel between quantum physics and ancient Asian philosophies, as preparation for the snapshots that follow. Nearly a half century ago Fritjof Capra’s ([1975] 1991) The Dao of Physics drew a parallel between quantum physics and Eastern mysticism, focusing in particular on Buddhism, Daoism and Hinduism. His book, which was a sustained exploration of the parallel, was both insightful and popular. The argument resonated with the New Age politics of the 1970s. In the context of the argument that follows, Capra’s framing of quantum science and Eastern mysticism is problematic in so far as experience within the world is the primary concern here. I argue that an earlier articulation of the parallel, by the Danish physicist and father of the Copenhagen interpretation Niels Bohr (2010), provides a better positioning for exploring the meaning of mind, action and strategy in an uncertain world. Bohr argued that mysticism was not the point of the parallel, and shifted emphasis to our role as spectators and actors. Further, Bohr’s concept of complementarity provides a different angle on the relationship between science and mysticism that goes beyond the either/ or terms in which it is usually discussed. The first part of this chapter examines various ways that physicists have articulated the parallel between quantum physics and the Eastern philosophies, elaborating in particular on the contrast between Capra and Bohr.

DOI
10.51952/9781529222647.ch002

Related papers

Getting to Know the Apparatus

K.M. Fierke

Repositioning the apparatus impacts on what is seen. The rationale for repositioning and the implications for my positionality as researcher were explored in the first part of the introduction. Here we seek to deepen understanding of the apparatus, that is, the parallel between quantum physics and ancient Asian philosophies, as preparation for the snapshots that follow. Nearly a half century ago Fritjof Capra’s ([1975] 1991) The Dao of Physics drew a parallel between quantum physics and Eastern mysticism, focusing in particular on Buddhism, Daoism and Hinduism. His book, which was a sustained exploration of the parallel, was both insightful and popular. The argument resonated with the New Age politics of the 1970s. In the context of the argument that follows, Capra’s framing of quantum science and Eastern mysticism is problematic in so far as experience within the world is the primary concern here. I argue that an earlier articulation of the parallel, by the Danish physicist and father of the Copenhagen interpretation Niels Bohr (2010), provides a better positioning for exploring the meaning of mind, action and strategy in an uncertain world. Bohr argued that mysticism was not the point of the parallel, and shifted emphasis to our role as spectators and actors. Further, Bohr’s concept of complementarity provides a different angle on the relationship between science and mysticism that goes beyond the either/ or terms in which it is usually discussed. The first part of this chapter examines various ways that physicists have articulated the parallel between quantum physics and the Eastern philosophies, elaborating in particular on the contrast between Capra and Bohr.

Bristol University Press eBooks•Jan 25, 2022•0 citations

Repositioning the Apparatus

K.M. Fierke

This introductory chapter explores a very old parallel between quantum physics and Daoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. It argues that physicists, over the past one hundred years, have drawn on this parallel for a number of different reasons. In revisiting the parallel, the chapter aims to investigate what it might tell us about mind, action, and strategy in a radically uncertain world. The chapter also looks at the earlier debates in international relations which revolved around a question of whether change is possible at the international level. It then explicates the intersection of two debates that transcend disciplinary boundaries and would seem on the surface to have little to do with one another: the relevance of quantum theory for the social sciences and the importance of moving toward global international relations. The chapter emphasizes that the parallel between quantum theory and the Eastern philosophies brings the intersections between these debates to light.

Policy Press eBooks•Jan 25, 2022•0 citations

COMPLEMENTARITY AS A MODEL FOR EAST-WEST INTEGRATIVE PHILOSOPHY

Robert Elliott Allinson

Recently it has been discovered that Niels Bohr, the father of quantum physics, was acquainted, at a young age, with the ancient Chinese philosophy of Lao-Tzu.New evidence has come to light from a letter written by Bohr himself, discovered in 1998, which is a reply to a letter of inquiry from a Svend Hugo Jiirgensen, a teacher from the Danish town of Aalborg.The teacher had sent Bohr a manuscript entitled 'Tuo Te Ching and the Idea of Complementarity'.Bohr's reply, dated 26 March 1958 begins, "I thank you for your letter and the enclosed little note about Tuo Te Ching, which I have read with great interest.I believe what you say about the old Chinese philosophy is in many ways quite to the point.In my youth I received a beautiful impression of it through Ernst Merller's book 'Oldmester', and at a visit to China twenty years ago I learned how highly the memory of Lao-Tzu is still valued."Since Merller's book was first published in 1909 (the year Bohr turned 24) and Bohr by his own account was in his youth, it is clear that his knowledge of Chinese philosophy preceded his discovery of the complementarity principle in physics ( 1927).While this does not conclusively prove that he learned his idea of complementarity from Chinese philosophy, it is nonetheless a document of great interest.In any event, it is clear that Bohr valued highly ancient Chinese philosophy.It was either instrumental or decisive for his complementarity principle in physics, which has proved invaluable as an explanatory principle for Western physics.What better proof is needed to illustrate that the "Chinese mind" is not "of a different order of humanity" than its accessibility through the medium of Danish language to a Western physicist?That the same Western physicist could then apply the idea of complementarity to understand the workings of the universe common to both Western and Chinese minds is a further demonstration that the Chinese mind is as universal in its application to reality as its Western counterpart.And what better evidence can be cited to show that the

Journal of Chinese Philosophy•Feb 10, 1998•13 citations

The Tao of physics : an exploration of the parallels between modern physics and eastern mysticism / by Fritjof Capra

Fritjof Capra

•Jan 1, 1991•65 citations

Niels Bohr's Complementarity: Its Structure, History, and Intersections with Hermeneutics and Deconstruction

Makoto Katsumori

This book explores the modern physicist Niels Bohr’s philosophical thought, specifically his pivotal idea of complementarity, with a focus on the relation between the roles of what he metaphorically calls “spectators” and “actors.” It seeks to spell out the structural and historical complexity of the idea of complementarity in terms of different modes of the ‘spectator-actor’ relation, showing, in particular, that the reorganization of Bohr’s thought starting from his 1935 debate with Einstein and his collaborators is characterized by an extension of the dynamic conception of complementarity from non-physical contexts to the very field of quantum theory. Further, linked with this analysis, the book situates Bohr’s complementarity in contemporary philosophical context by examining its intersections with post-Heideggerian hermeneutics as well as Derridean deconstruction. Specifically, it points to both the close affinities and the differences between Bohr’s idea of the ‘actor-spectator’ relation and the hermeneutic notion of the relation between “belonging” and “distanciation.”

•Sep 1, 2011•8 citations

From Como to Copenhagen: The Beginnings and Ends of Complementarity

Arkady Plotnitsky, Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov +3 more

This paper examines the transformation of Bohr's interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, known as complementarity, from the version presented in his famous Como lecture (1927), which introduced complementarity, to a new version that was developed by Bohr shortly thereafter, in part under the impact of his intervening exchanges with Einstein. While the existence of more than one version of Bohr's complementarity (and of still different versions of the Copenhagen interpretation by others) has been noted, Bohr's rethinking itself of complementarity has rarely been adequately addressed. Apart from refining and indeed correcting the Como argument, the transformation in question was, I argue, defined by a shift from a more philosophical to a more experimental argument. My aim is to explore both this shift and the complexity of the relationships between physics and philosophy in Bohr's thinking in order to understand better the beginnings and the ends, also in the sense of aims, of Bohr's complementarity.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2007•0 citations
Repositioning the apparatus impacts on what is seen. The rationale for repositioning and the implications for my positionality as researcher were explored in the first part of the introduction. Here we seek to deepen understanding of the apparatus, that is, the parallel between quantum physics and ancient Asian philosophies, as preparation for the snapshots that follow. Nearly a half century ago Fritjof Capra’s ([1975] 1991) The Dao of Physics drew a parallel between quantum physics and Eastern mysticism, focusing in particular on Buddhism, Daoism and Hinduism. His book, which was a sustained exploration of the parallel, was both insightful and popular. The argument resonated with the New Age politics of the 1970s. In the context of the argument that follows, Capra’s framing of quantum science and Eastern mysticism is problematic in so far as experience within the world is the primary concern here. I argue that an earlier articulation of the parallel, by the Danish physicist and father of the Copenhagen interpretation Niels Bohr (2010), provides a better positioning for exploring the meaning of mind, action and strategy in an uncertain world. Bohr argued that mysticism was not the point of the parallel, and shifted emphasis to our role as spectators and actors. Further, Bohr’s concept of complementarity provides a different angle on the relationship between science and mysticism that goes beyond the either/ or terms in which it is usually discussed. The first part of this chapter examines various ways that physicists have articulated the parallel between quantum physics and the Eastern philosophies, elaborating in particular on the contrast between Capra and Bohr.
Repositioning the apparatus impacts on what is seen. The rationale for repositioning and the implications for my positionality as researcher were explored in the first part of the introduction. Here we seek to deepen understanding of the apparatus, that is, the parallel between quantum physics and ancient Asian philosophies, as preparation for the snapshots that follow. Nearly a half century ago Fritjof Capra’s ([1975] 1991) The Dao of Physics drew a parallel between quantum physics and Eastern mysticism, focusing in particular on Buddhism, Daoism and Hinduism. His book, which was a sustained exploration of the parallel, was both insightful and popular. The argument resonated with the New Age politics of the 1970s. In the context of the argument that follows, Capra’s framing of quantum science and Eastern mysticism is problematic in so far as experience within the world is the primary concern here. I argue that an earlier articulation of the parallel, by the Danish physicist and father of the Copenhagen interpretation Niels Bohr (2010), provides a better positioning for exploring the meaning of mind, action and strategy in an uncertain world. Bohr argued that mysticism was not the point of the parallel, and shifted emphasis to our role as spectators and actors. Further, Bohr’s concept of complementarity provides a different angle on the relationship between science and mysticism that goes beyond the either/ or terms in which it is usually discussed. The first part of this chapter examines various ways that physicists have articulated the parallel between quantum physics and the Eastern philosophies, elaborating in particular on the contrast between Capra and Bohr.
This introductory chapter explores a very old parallel between quantum physics and Daoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. It argues that physicists, over the past one hundred years, have drawn on this parallel for a number of different reasons. In revisiting the parallel, the chapter aims to investigate what it might tell us about mind, action, and strategy in a radically uncertain world. The chapter also looks at the earlier debates in international relations which revolved around a question of whether change is possible at the international level. It then explicates the intersection of two debates that transcend disciplinary boundaries and would seem on the surface to have little to do with one another: the relevance of quantum theory for the social sciences and the importance of moving toward global international relations. The chapter emphasizes that the parallel between quantum theory and the Eastern philosophies brings the intersections between these debates to light.
Recently it has been discovered that Niels Bohr, the father of quantum physics, was acquainted, at a young age, with the ancient Chinese philosophy of Lao-Tzu.New evidence has come to light from a letter written by Bohr himself, discovered in 1998, which is a reply to a letter of inquiry from a Svend Hugo Jiirgensen, a teacher from the Danish town of Aalborg.The teacher had sent Bohr a manuscript entitled 'Tuo Te Ching and the Idea of Complementarity'.Bohr's reply, dated 26 March 1958 begins, "I thank you for your letter and the enclosed little note about Tuo Te Ching, which I have read with great interest.I believe what you say about the old Chinese philosophy is in many ways quite to the point.In my youth I received a beautiful impression of it through Ernst Merller's book 'Oldmester', and at a visit to China twenty years ago I learned how highly the memory of Lao-Tzu is still valued."Since Merller's book was first published in 1909 (the year Bohr turned 24) and Bohr by his own account was in his youth, it is clear that his knowledge of Chinese philosophy preceded his discovery of the complementarity principle in physics ( 1927).While this does not conclusively prove that he learned his idea of complementarity from Chinese philosophy, it is nonetheless a document of great interest.In any event, it is clear that Bohr valued highly ancient Chinese philosophy.It was either instrumental or decisive for his complementarity principle in physics, which has proved invaluable as an explanatory principle for Western physics.What better proof is needed to illustrate that the "Chinese mind" is not "of a different order of humanity" than its accessibility through the medium of Danish language to a Western physicist?That the same Western physicist could then apply the idea of complementarity to understand the workings of the universe common to both Western and Chinese minds is a further demonstration that the Chinese mind is as universal in its application to reality as its Western counterpart.And what better evidence can be cited to show that the
This book explores the modern physicist Niels Bohr’s philosophical thought, specifically his pivotal idea of complementarity, with a focus on the relation between the roles of what he metaphorically calls “spectators” and “actors.” It seeks to spell out the structural and historical complexity of the idea of complementarity in terms of different modes of the ‘spectator-actor’ relation, showing, in particular, that the reorganization of Bohr’s thought starting from his 1935 debate with Einstein and his collaborators is characterized by an extension of the dynamic conception of complementarity from non-physical contexts to the very field of quantum theory. Further, linked with this analysis, the book situates Bohr’s complementarity in contemporary philosophical context by examining its intersections with post-Heideggerian hermeneutics as well as Derridean deconstruction. Specifically, it points to both the close affinities and the differences between Bohr’s idea of the ‘actor-spectator’ relation and the hermeneutic notion of the relation between “belonging” and “distanciation.”
This paper examines the transformation of Bohr's interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, known as complementarity, from the version presented in his famous Como lecture (1927), which introduced complementarity, to a new version that was developed by Bohr shortly thereafter, in part under the impact of his intervening exchanges with Einstein. While the existence of more than one version of Bohr's complementarity (and of still different versions of the Copenhagen interpretation by others) has been noted, Bohr's rethinking itself of complementarity has rarely been adequately addressed. Apart from refining and indeed correcting the Como argument, the transformation in question was, I argue, defined by a shift from a more philosophical to a more experimental argument. My aim is to explore both this shift and the complexity of the relationships between physics and philosophy in Bohr's thinking in order to understand better the beginnings and the ends, also in the sense of aims, of Bohr's complementarity.