Karl Popper and the copenhagen interpretation

Popper conceived an experiment whose analysis led to a result that he deemed absurd. Popper wrote that his reasoning was based on the Copenhagen interpretation and therefore invalidated it. Many authors who have examined Popper's analysis have found in it various technical flaws which are briefly summarized here. However, the aim of the present article is not technical. My concern is to redress logical flaws in Popper's argument: the terminology he uses is ambiguous, his analysis involves counterfactual hypotheses, and it violates Bohr's complementarity principle. Therefore, the absurdity of Popper's result only confirms Bohr's approach.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/S1355-2198(01)00034-X
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 15,974
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Henry Pierce Stapp (1997). The Copenhagen Interpretation. Journal of Mind and Behavior 18 (2-3):127-154.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Nicolaas P. Landsman (2006). When Champions Meet: Rethinking the Bohr–Einstein Debate. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 37 (1):212-242.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

22 ( #130,787 of 1,725,806 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

3 ( #210,647 of 1,725,806 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.