At the edge of relational insight
With Bohr, quantum theory reaches a new level of sophistication. He does not merely acknowledge limits; he articulates a principle for navigating them: complementarity. Certain descriptions, mutually exclusive in their classical logic, are nonetheless jointly necessary for a complete account of phenomena. Position and momentum. Wave and particle. Cause and effect. Each is valid, but only within its context.
This principle is not an apology. It is a discipline of thought.
Phenomena, Not Objects
Bohr’s central insistence is deceptively radical:
-
Physics does not deal with independent, pre-existing objects.
-
Physics deals with phenomena: the results of specific experimental arrangements.
-
Properties emerge only within the context of these arrangements.
Here, Bohr comes very close to a genuinely relational insight: reality is not “out there” to be represented. The world of physics is what can be actualised as phenomena under particular conditions of construal.
For a moment, the door Planck opened swings wide.
Complementarity: Mutual Exclusion Without Reduction
Complementarity formalises a subtle truth: descriptions can be mutually exclusive, yet jointly necessary. No single measurement captures the totality. Classical categories cannot be naively combined. The world is structured not as a sum of independent elements, but as a network of constraining contexts in which phenomena emerge.
Here, relational ontology resonates:
-
Complementary descriptions point to perspectival limits, not ontic fuzz.
-
Phenomena are instantiated, not pre-existing.
-
The “object” is never separate from the event of observation.
Bohr’s thought dances on the edge of a relational cut.
The Critical Halt
And yet — and here lies the misstep — Bohr cannot release the idea that descriptions describe something. The phenomenon is primary, but he still assumes that what is described exists independently in some sense. The “classical picture” lingers, subtle but persistent. Even as he emphasises the inseparability of system and measurement, he treats the measured property as if it were a thing.
This is where the closest encounter with relational ontology falters. Bohr almost lets go of object-based realism, but he holds on to just enough to prevent the leap.
A Near Relational Cut
Bohr’s conservatism is strategic. He preserves the operational integrity of physics while nudging conceptual boundaries. The tension is fertile: it creates a space in which relational thinking can be discerned, tested, and reflected upon — even if it is not yet fully actualised.
What Bohr Makes Possible — and What He Forecloses
Bohr’s insistence on phenomena and complementarity:
-
Opens the door to seeing reality as a network of instantiated events, not pre-existing objects
-
Forces attention to the conditions under which phenomena are actualised
-
Introduces the notion of mutually exclusive but jointly necessary descriptions
Yet by retaining the idea that descriptions somehow “refer” to something, Bohr preserves a representational anchor. The world is still, in some sense, out there. The relational cut is nearly made, but not completed.
Bohr’s conversation is pivotal because it demonstrates both the power and the limit of approaching relational ontology from within quantum theory. The edge is visible; the leap remains a choice.
The next encounter will explore someone who attempts to reify the wave itself — and in doing so, makes explicit the tension between formalism and construal.
Next: Erwin Schrödinger — The Wave That Would Not Decide
No comments:
Post a Comment