BOHR'S COMPLEMENTARITY AND KANT'S EPISTEMOLOGY

[@LaureanoLuna]

38:52 "(According to Bohr) you cannot speak of attributes of objects independently of the possibility we have to explore them". That observation is the Kantian core of Bohr's position and the stance Einstein always refused to understand: physical properties are not properties of things in themselves but properties of the way they appear to us; they need not be determinate before we measure them, they are not the "elements of objective reality" EPR thought they had to be in the 1935 paper.

[@will2rein]

When I wrote this comment there were 2,774 views of this video (probably 700 of them was me). I wonder why so few, why people don’t care about these very profound questions about nature and reality. What else could be so important? Since I started to learn quantum mechanics (many years ago), I started to ponder its connections to Kant’s philosophy. This is a nice confirmation that I was not so wrong. Thank you very much Laurence.

[@WickedWitchKING]

as someone who is also quite absorbed by those things I have to object that it´s a quite naive, elitist, unwordly and ultimately even silly assumption to think that this is what matters most and what people should care about in their lifes. Maybe ppl with emotional intelligence and those who make their hands dirty by trying to save the remnants of the ecosystem are the ones that actually matter. Tell me what you kow. Then again, it wouldn´t certainly harm society if some of the millions of catvideo clicks could be transfered to this one.

[@moesypittounikos]

Because it isn't Star Wars, you see!

[@a_b897]

Kant and Bohr both seem to have had the misfortune of being misunderstood and had their ideas misrepresented both by the broader field of philosophy and science. The more I read Kant and the more I learn about quantum mechanics, I have increasingly felt that Kant’s work has real significance for the kinds of quantum problems we are still trying to solve. While I am far less read in Bohr (and a lot of what is said is, on closer inspection, often entirely inaccurate, for example his interpretation being commonly lumped in as with the “shut up and calculate” approach, which completely ignores his deep line of philosophical thought), I have been thinking more and more that Bohr seemed to be on the right track and thought it very strange how his philosophy seems to have been largely forgotton/ignored/misunderstood. I also really appreciated the point made about how modern science does *not* “disprove” or “replace” Kant. It’s a fairly tired argument that just shows a lack of understanding of Kant’s philosophy, and sadly it seems to have contributed to the lack of attention given to Kant’s work in relation to modern science (that plus the undeniable fact that reading and interpreting Kant isn’t exactly the easiest thing to do, but as we are talking about quantum physics I don’t think that should be enough to dissuade people).

[@a_b897]

If anyone has any suggestions for other videos or papers that discuss out modern understandings of quantum mechanics while seriously taking into account the philosophies of Bohr and/or Kant, please do let me know in a comment reply! I have found a few papers already, but I’m sure there are more out there (even if the venn diagram of those highly read on Kant’s philosophy, Bohr’s philosophy and quantum mechanics seems to be relatively small)

[@Dhruvbala]

Hey, what’s a good resource for beginners to the works of either?

[@a_b897]

⁠​⁠@@Dhruvbala I found ‘Kant's Philosophical Revolution: A Short Guide to the Critique of Pure Reason’ by Yirmiyahu Yovel to be a great starting point for Kant. A relatively quick read with no real background knowledge needed, and it works both as a standalone book and as an intro to read before tackling the Critique. I’ve picked up a few books on Bohr’s philosophy of physics, but I haven’t really read enough yet to give a proper recommendation on where to start.

[@nihilistictanuki6947]

From what I know about Bohr, and what I know about Kant, I would also argue that Bohr was a Kantian and that this is a pretty good viewing angle for quantum physics in general... Bohr's successors, the copenhageners and therefore our mainstream physics, unfortunately lost sight of it. The copenhagen interpretation is basically just a unintended misinterpretation (of people who lack the philosophical understanding) of Bohr. I would also like to add for consideration that modern neuroscience, as the basis of our naturalistic epistemology, is also deeply Kantanian.

[@BongboBongbong]

Awesome. Thanks!

[@nihilistictanuki6947]

I look at wokeism and the new modern feminism rather with suspicion but here it strikes me, based on the intro, but strikingly ... where are the great women scientist and philosophers (there are countless of them)?!

[@naimulhaq9626]

'Forms of objects is predetermined by a set of cognitive conditions', objects do not have intrinsic properties, object is the name of experimental in variance, not something beyond experience. Cognitive conditions will define objects, but objects will not define something beyond experience. To Bohr, phenomenon is the relation between the instrument measuring the quantum state and the micro environment under study, understood by Bohr as complementarity, which to Kant is 'requirements for knowledge', or relations of attributes. In Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of measuring position and momentum and wave/ particle complementarity involves understanding the role of 'observer', that has spellbinding consequences, physicists are not ready for. Consider the following: Phase transition transforms non-life matter into life and consciousness, due to self-organizing and self-simulating property of matter, similarly quantum field can self-simulate intelligent conscious 'observer', collapsing the field into fine tuned particles (matter, producing life), implying the Anthropic Principle, divine purpose and intelligent design, all very difficult to swallow. Who knew accepting particle/wave complementarity will lead to the designer? Schrodinger, Einstein, even Dirac were perplexed and even went into denial.

[@WickedWitchKING]

What kinda falsifies this theory: quite a lot highly sucessful "achievers" suffer from neurosis, anxiety disorder and depression even after achieving their high goals. And vice versa: quite a lot "underachievers" attain a certain peace of mind, more so than their complements.