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

University of Chicago Press eBooks

10. Metaphysical Principles and Heuristic Rules

Slobodan Perović

Published Jan 1, 2021• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Building on the previous analysis, the chapter offers a unified understanding of the inductive-hypothetical process which led to complementarity. It discusses Bohr’s hands-on epistemological and methodological standpoint that can be subsumed under a few heuristic rules, in stark contrast to Schrödinger’s methodological stance driven by particular metaphysical principles with its own advantages and limitations.

DOI
10.7208/chicago/9780226798479.003.0010

Related papers

Exploring the depths of existence

Sudip Patra, Menas C. Kafatos

We have referred to general organising principles of quantum mechanics (QM) in the previous chapter, which can be extended (as principles) to several other domains. Among such principles, contextuality-complementarity is perhaps most important in its applicability to different domains of reality. There is a consensus now ( Khrennikov, 2022 ) that these principles emerged through the original works of N. Bohr. Khrennikov (2025) has produced a seminal work in which contextuality becomes the basis of reformulation of QM, and even non-locality, which is argued to be a central feature in the orthodox QM interpretation (rather than the Copenhagen(ish) approaches), can also be reformulated in terms of local contextuality. We will hold a different approach to non-locality later in the chapter, which builds upon our earlier works ( Nadeau and Kafatos, 2001 ). We also mention here that some authors ( Plotnitsky, 2022 ) have attempted to formulate a ‘reality without realism’ view based on Bohr’s original insights. In this chapter, we provide a more detailed view of Copenhagen(ish) approaches to contextuality-complementarity. Since we think that a quantum-like framework (QLF) is also related to such approaches, contextuality-complementarity in QLF can also be formulated in the same line.

Routledge eBooks•May 26, 2026•0 citations

The methodological lesson of complementarity: Bohr’s naturalistic epistemology

Henry J. Folse

Bohr's intellectual journey began with the recognition that empirical phenomena implied the breakdown of classical mechanics in the atomic domain; this, in turn, led to his adoption of the 'quantum postulate' that justifies the 'stationary states' of his atomic model of 1913. His endeavor to develop a wider conceptual framework harmonizing both classical and quantum descriptions led to his proposal of the new methodological goals and standards of complementarity. Bohr's claim that an empirical discovery can demand methodological revision justifies regarding his epistemological lesson as supporting a naturalistic epistemology.

Physica Scripta•Dec 1, 2014•6 citations

6. Reception

Slobodan Perović

Chapter 6 argues Bohr’s model was the final stage of the elaborate inductive-hypothetical process he gradually developed and reflected upon and shows how it extended into the community of physicists working on quantum phenomena at the time. The chapter explains why his novel hypothesis induced as the synthesis of broad novel evidence was widely accepted and yet bound to be perceived as counterintuitive by his contemporaries.

University of Chicago Press eBooks•Jan 1, 2021•0 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

Comparative Discussion

Harald Atmanspacher A, Dean P. Rickles

There are no overt lines of in?uence between the quantum-inspired dual-aspect approaches presented in previous chapters – though Pauli’s and Wheeler’s inspirations might have a common origin in some of Bohr’s ideas, and some of Bohm and Hiley’s speculations build on Eddington. But they were essentially each developed independently from one another, somewhat surprisingly converging onto numerous common features that are compared in this chapter. Connections are sought amongst their deeper philosophical foundations, especially those by Spinoza, Kant, Schelling and Hegel. Also explored is the way in which different elements of the surface structure and deep structure of meaning are positioned at the core of their metaphysical projects, along with the way in which the mind-matter connection is understood. A synoptic overview facilitates the comparison of key concepts and notions utilized in the three approaches.

Routledge eBooks•Jan 31, 2022•0 citations

The principle of correspondence

Sandro Petruccioli

At the beginning of the paper presented at Como in 1927 Bohr stated: ‘On the one hand, the definition of the state of a physical system, as ordinarily understood, claims the elimination of all external disturbances. But in that case, according to the quantum postulate, any observation will be impossible, and, above all, the concepts of space and time lose their immediate sense. On the other hand, if in order to make observation possible we permit certain interactions with suitable agencies of measurement, not belonging to the system, an unambiguous definition of the state of the system is naturally no longer possible, and there can be no question of causality in the ordinary sense of the word. The very nature of the quantum theory thus forces us to regard the space-time coordination and the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features of the description, symbolizing the idealization of observation and definition respectively’. The contrast effectively illustrated between possibilities of definition and conditions of observation thus expresses the cognitive scope of quantum theory and summarizes the complementary and irreducible aspects of the description of objects belonging to the microworld. In Bohr's view, this contrast is the direct consequence of two general assumptions: the postulate regarding the discontinuity or individual nature of atomic processes, symbolically represented by the quantum of action, and an epistemologically binding judgement on the system of concepts whereby such processes may be described.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 18, 1993•3 citations
Building on the previous analysis, the chapter offers a unified understanding of the inductive-hypothetical process which led to complementarity. It discusses Bohr’s hands-on epistemological and methodological standpoint that can be subsumed under a few heuristic rules, in stark contrast to Schrödinger’s methodological stance driven by particular metaphysical principles with its own advantages and limitations.
We have referred to general organising principles of quantum mechanics (QM) in the previous chapter, which can be extended (as principles) to several other domains. Among such principles, contextuality-complementarity is perhaps most important in its applicability to different domains of reality. There is a consensus now ( Khrennikov, 2022 ) that these principles emerged through the original works of N. Bohr. Khrennikov (2025) has produced a seminal work in which contextuality becomes the basis of reformulation of QM, and even non-locality, which is argued to be a central feature in the orthodox QM interpretation (rather than the Copenhagen(ish) approaches), can also be reformulated in terms of local contextuality. We will hold a different approach to non-locality later in the chapter, which builds upon our earlier works ( Nadeau and Kafatos, 2001 ). We also mention here that some authors ( Plotnitsky, 2022 ) have attempted to formulate a ‘reality without realism’ view based on Bohr’s original insights. In this chapter, we provide a more detailed view of Copenhagen(ish) approaches to contextuality-complementarity. Since we think that a quantum-like framework (QLF) is also related to such approaches, contextuality-complementarity in QLF can also be formulated in the same line.
Bohr's intellectual journey began with the recognition that empirical phenomena implied the breakdown of classical mechanics in the atomic domain; this, in turn, led to his adoption of the 'quantum postulate' that justifies the 'stationary states' of his atomic model of 1913. His endeavor to develop a wider conceptual framework harmonizing both classical and quantum descriptions led to his proposal of the new methodological goals and standards of complementarity. Bohr's claim that an empirical discovery can demand methodological revision justifies regarding his epistemological lesson as supporting a naturalistic epistemology.
There are no overt lines of in?uence between the quantum-inspired dual-aspect approaches presented in previous chapters – though Pauli’s and Wheeler’s inspirations might have a common origin in some of Bohr’s ideas, and some of Bohm and Hiley’s speculations build on Eddington. But they were essentially each developed independently from one another, somewhat surprisingly converging onto numerous common features that are compared in this chapter. Connections are sought amongst their deeper philosophical foundations, especially those by Spinoza, Kant, Schelling and Hegel. Also explored is the way in which different elements of the surface structure and deep structure of meaning are positioned at the core of their metaphysical projects, along with the way in which the mind-matter connection is understood. A synoptic overview facilitates the comparison of key concepts and notions utilized in the three approaches.
At the beginning of the paper presented at Como in 1927 Bohr stated: ‘On the one hand, the definition of the state of a physical system, as ordinarily understood, claims the elimination of all external disturbances. But in that case, according to the quantum postulate, any observation will be impossible, and, above all, the concepts of space and time lose their immediate sense. On the other hand, if in order to make observation possible we permit certain interactions with suitable agencies of measurement, not belonging to the system, an unambiguous definition of the state of the system is naturally no longer possible, and there can be no question of causality in the ordinary sense of the word. The very nature of the quantum theory thus forces us to regard the space-time coordination and the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features of the description, symbolizing the idealization of observation and definition respectively’. The contrast effectively illustrated between possibilities of definition and conditions of observation thus expresses the cognitive scope of quantum theory and summarizes the complementary and irreducible aspects of the description of objects belonging to the microworld. In Bohr's view, this contrast is the direct consequence of two general assumptions: the postulate regarding the discontinuity or individual nature of atomic processes, symbolically represented by the quantum of action, and an epistemologically binding judgement on the system of concepts whereby such processes may be described.