Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Summary. We discuss a specific way in which the notion of complementarity can be based on the dynamics of the system considered. This approach rests on an epistemic representation of system states, reflecting our knowledge about a system in terms of coarse grainings (partitions) of its phase space. Within such an epistemic quantization of classical systems, compatible, comparable, commensurable, and complementary descriptions can be precisely characterized and distinguished from each other. Some tentative examples are indicated that, we suppose, would have been of interest to Pauli.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Andrea Bonaccorsi (2010). New Forms of Complementarity in Science. Minerva 48 (4):355-387.
Dugald Murdoch (1987). Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Physics. Cambridge University Press.
Paul Busch & Christopher Shilladay, Complementarity and Uncertainty in Mach-Zehnder Interferometry and Beyond.
Klaus Meyer-Abich (2004). Bohr's Complementarity and Goldstein's Holism in Reflective Pragmatism. Mind and Matter 2 (2):91-103.
K. Sundaram (1972). Kant or Cassirer: A Study in Complementarity. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 3 (1):40-48.
Harald Atmanspacher (2002). Weak Quantum Theory: Complementarity and Entanglement in Physics and Beyond. [REVIEW] Foundations of Physics 32 (3):379-406.
Harald Atmanspacher (2006). Complementarity in Classical Dynamical Systems. Foundations of Physics 36 (2):291-306.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads27 ( #51,668 of 729,377 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 729,377 )
How can I increase my downloads?