When champions meet: Rethinking the Bohr–Einstein debate

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 37 (1):212-242 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

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 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Modern physics and problems of knowledge.Paul M. Clark (ed.) - 1981 - Milton Keynes: 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.
The description of nature: Niels Bohr and the philosophy of quantum physics.John Honner - 1987 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by Niels Bohr.
Constructing the myth of the copenhagen interpretation.Kristian Camilleri - 2009 - Perspectives on Science 17 (1):pp. 26-57.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
143 (#120,018)

6 months
6 (#201,673)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.Jan Faye - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Einstein Completeness as Categoricity.Iulian D. Toader - 2023 - Foundations of Physics 53 (2):1-15.
Is Bohr’s Correspondence Principle just Hankel’s Principle of Permanence?Iulian D. Toader - 2024 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 103 (C):137-145.
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.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations