|[The Quantum] postulate implies a renunciation as regards the causal space-time co-ordination of atomic processes.||I.e., there is no y = f(t) analytic function which can describe space-time coordination of atomic processes.||This is what bothered Einstein about complementarity and triggered his famous saying 'God doesn't play dice with the universe', or words to that effect.|
|The quantum postulate implies that observation of atomic phenomena will involve an interaction with the agency of observation not to be neglected.||The quantum postulate implies that any observation of atomic phenomena will involve an interaction with the agency of observation not to be neglected. Accordingly, an independent reality in the ordinary physical sense can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation.||Nor can there be an independent observer apart from the observed phenomenon.|
|Classically it was possible on the basis of an observation to define the state of the closed system isolated from interaction by correcting for the disturbance produced by observing it. In Bohr's words, "the interaction is controllable"||PDR believes this hints at the concept of local context. PDR believes all Quantonic interrelationships experience different levels of (statistical or stochastic) stability which may be measured in terms of their latch duration. The Quantonic interrelationships for any Quality Event may be ordered by stability, and for quasi-classical observations measurement may converge (adaptively) on selectable stable interrelationships. Imagine, for example, the integral of selected nodes of the 'ket.'||I think part of the misunderstanding revolving around complementarity involves the term "controllable interaction", by which Bohr seemed to mean that by which we communicate unambiguously, and thereby turn into a local context that our awareness can then deal with. Bohr's insistence on the need for using classical concepts arose from this conviction that complementarity is fundamental to how we perceive reality.|
|The very nature of quantum theory thus forces us to regard the space-time co-ordination and the claim of causality, the union of which characterizes the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features, of the description, symbolizing the idealization of observation and definition respectively.||Given Stein's work and my comments above, I think Bohr is mistaken here. Classically space and time were different concepts until Einstein's theories of relativity united them. Now we know space-time is an identity, not a complementary interrelationship. Causality is produce of analyticity, determinism, and inductivism, all of which are well-refuted in any physical realm (all seem perfectly acceptable in any pure conceptual realm of mathematics -- which I see as a blissfully ignorant but pedagogic path of SOM philosophy). See Pirsig, Stein, Popper, et al.||I am as yet unconvinced that Bohr was mistaken, yet at the same time I am not able to offer a convincing reason why.|
|Just as the relativity theory has taught us that the convenience of distinguishing sharply between space and time rests solely on the smallness of the velocities ordinarily met with compared to the velocity of light, we learn from the quantum theory that the appropriateness of our usual space-time descriptions depends entirely on the small value of the quantum of action compared to the actions involved in ordinary sense perceptions.||To all of this I would simply respond, "Reality
It is important to understand what Bohr is saying about the complementarity twixt space-time and causality. Classically, as you noted, separate space and time concepts were analytic and causal. In other words classical science unified both concepts of time and analyticity, and, in addition, both concepts space and analyticity. In Einsteinian relativity space-time became unified and classical analyticity of its unification retained. In quantum science space-time has its own Steinian complement: nonspace-nontime, or what Stein calls nonspace, and I call nonactuality. We can represent these: Reality = quanton(nonactuality,actuality), or reality = quanton(nonspace,space). In quantum reality, nonspace is analytic and space is stochastic because of quantum reality's quantized and random nature of measurement events which allows nonspace to create, change, and discreate space.
|This provides Bohr's reasoning for regarding the classical framework as a special case of which complementarity is a generalization. I tend to relate this to Stein's work relating space and time as special conditions of non space and imaginary time.|
|Of course, there can be no question of a quite independent application of the ideas of space-time and causality.||Absolutely! Stein's ontology approaches this idea. Pirsig's MoQ is a new philosophy which parents the new science.||And that independent application of ideas must be accomplished through unambiguous communication of these ideas.|
|In the discussions of these questions, it must be kept in mind that, according to the view taken above, radiation in free space as well as isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties on the quantum theory being definable and observable only through their interactions with other systems. Nevertheless, these abstractions are, as we shall see, indispensable for a description of experience in connection with our ordinary space-time view.||In the new ontology, my conjecture is flux will be our one, general abstraction, and we will say Static Patterns of Value (both particles/substance and subjective phenomena) represent latched flux abstraction and all else represent unlatched flux abstraction. Flux-latched and flux-unlatched metaphors are something like this fluxL: SQ, mixed state, actuality, space, etc. And fluxU: DQ, pure state, nonactuality, nonspace, etc.||It is clear to me that both Bohr and Pirsig believe the subject and object dichotomy to be composed of only concepts, abstractions. Pirsig said that the intellect level was just such an abstraction and it appears that Bohr would agree with him on that count.|
This ends Part 2, The Argument for Complementarity.
The final paragraph in the first section the Como papers marks a transition to the remainder of the paper in which Bohr turns his attention to showing how the uncertainty relations express the complementary aspects of the description. This will be explored further in part 4 of this review. But first, Part 3 contains Comments on Complementarity. The reader is free to skip directly to Part 4 now, or continue sequentially with this review. And thank you for reading!