Abstract
Einstein's philosophy of physics (as clarified by Fine, Howard, and Held) was predicated on his Trennungsprinzip, a combination of separability and locality, without which he believed objectification, and thereby "physical thought" and "physical laws", to be impossible. Bohr's philosophy (as elucidated by Hooker, Scheibe, Folse, Howard, Held, and others), on the other hand, was grounded in a seemingly different doctrine about the possibility of objective knowledge, namely the necessity of classical concepts. In fact, it follows from Raggio's Theorem in algebraic quantum theory that - within an appropriate class of physical theories - suitable mathematical translations of the doctrines of Bohr and Einstein are equivalent. Thus - upon our specific formalization - quantum mechanics accommodates Einstein's Trennungsprinzip if and only if it is interpreted a la Bohr through classical physics. Unfortunately, the protagonists themselves failed to discuss their differences in this constructive way, since their debate was dominated by Einstein's ingenious but ultimately flawed attempts to establish the "incompleteness" of quantum mechanics. This aspect of their debate may still be understood and appreciated, however, as reflecting a much deeper and insurmountable disagreement between Bohr and Einstein about the knowability of Nature. Using the theological controversy on the knowability of God as a analogy, we can say that Einstein was a Spinozist, whereas Bohr could be said to be on the side of Maimonides. Thus Einstein's off-the-cuff characterization of Bohr as a 'Talmudic philosopher' was spot-on.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2006
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsb.2005.10.002
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,827
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 87 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Bohr as a Phenomenological Realist.Towfic Shomar - 2008 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 39 (2):321-349.
Emergence of Complementarity and the Baconian Roots of Niels Bohr's Method.Slobodan Perovic - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44 (3):162-173.
Refocusing Bohr's Quantum Postulate.Allen C. Dotson - 2008 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 39 (3):610-619.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Niels Bohr and the Vienna Circle.Jan Faye - 2007 - Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook 14:33-45.
Paul Dirac and the Einstein-Bohr Debate.Alisa Bokulich - 2008 - Perspectives on Science 16 (1):103-114.
Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Physics.Dugald Murdoch - 1987 - Cambridge University Press.
Modern Physics and Problems of Knowledge.Paul M. Clark (ed.) - 1981 - Open University Press.
Laudan's Model of Axiological Change and the Bohr-Einstein Debate.Henry J. Folse - 1990 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:77 - 88.
Constructing the Myth of the Copenhagen Interpretation.Kristian Camilleri - 2009 - Perspectives on Science 17 (1):pp. 26-57.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
125 ( #81,697 of 2,432,722 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #294,374 of 2,432,722 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes