Original Source
..
Complementarity and the Metaphysics of Quality
Bohr argued that complementarity provides an objective description of physical
reality by retaining classical concepts for describing phenomena but restricted
them from describing an independent reality. Part of his defense of this view
is that the descriptive concepts of classical physics are not a priori
categories but are developed to communicate unambiguously a description of an
actual experience. It is this that gives complementarity a direct reference to
aspects of experience, thus providing an empirical basis on which a theory can
be accepted or rejected.
..
The acceptance of a theory is not only a function of its empirical information.
But, as we have seen in the case of Einstein, a theory may be rejected because
it fails to conform to an ideal stipulating the sort of description of nature
that a suitable theory provides. Since quantum theory does not conform to
descriptive ideals of the classical framework, Bohr developed his
complementarity to show how the acceptance of the quantum postulate entails a
generalization of the classical framework. The growth of science reveals that
the presuppositions of the classical framework turn out to be true only in
special cases and so must be replaced by a more generalized framework.
..
The framework of complementarity only makes sense in a realistic
interpretation of the scientific description of nature. We learn empirically
from the success or failure of theories what nature permits us to presuppose
about it in order to describe it unambiguously. This is just another way of
saying that science informs epistemology; that the nature of reality molds our
description of it. The fundamental physical claim of complementarity, the
point at which it changes classical presuppositions, is the assertion that to
describe a phenomenon as an observation of a physical interaction, theory must
represent that interaction such that the interacting systems form an
individual whole, with the consequence that after the interaction, observer
and observed have changed states in an "uncontrollable" or discontinuous
manner.
..
There would seem to be a correlation between complementarity and the
Metaphysics of Quality, which Robert M. Pirsig proposed in his book Lila; An
Inquiry into Morals. Pirsig has explored this correlation in a paper he
presented at the Einstein Meets Magritte conference in 1995. Philosophically,
Pirsig and Bohr are linked by William James, as described in Part 6 of this
review and in my paper Pragmatism, Precession
and the Metaphysics of Quality . In Pirsig's paper, Subjects, Objects,
Data and Values, he attempts to link his own Metaphysics of Quality with
complementarity via what Pirsig calls the "Conceptually Unknown".
..
In any case, after the effort I have made in putting this review together, I
can find no indication whatsoever that Bohr ever implied such a concept. In
fact, if complementarity, as Bohr envisioned it, is understood properly, the
"uncontrollable" manner in which Pirsig's Dynamic Quality operates lies
completely outside the framework of complementarity as it is impossible to
communicate the observations of Dynamic Quality unambiguously. This isn't to
say we cannot experience Dynamic Quality, but rather that we are unable to
communicate such an experience in terms others can agree with unambiguously.
This certainly has a zen flavor to it, as is so well described as the it in
the wonderful book by Eugen Herrigel, Zen in the Art of Archery, from which
Pirsig drew on in his first book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance;
An Inquiry into Values.
..
I myself see the correlation between complementarity and the Metaphysics of
Quality as a very fundamental shift in how our perceptions of subject and
object are formed. Classically, or in what Pirsig terms Subject/Object
Metaphysics, both subject and object have distinct boundaries imposed upon
each by our preconceived notions of an underlying independent reality. These
boundaries are swept away in both the Metaphysics of Quality and in
complementarity by examining the notion of an independent reality and finding
it lacking.
..
Pirsig and Bohr both used Occam's Razor to make a fundamental division in
reality between what it is that we are aware of and what it is that we are
not. My interpretation of Occam's Razor says that, all things being equal, the
simple choice is the best choice. Bohr used this fundamental division to make
his complementarity a complete theory of our physical reality by focusing upon
the quantum of action as a whole. Pirsig, on the other hand, recognized that
what it is we can perceive is only a minuscule portion of reality. Yet, both
men arrive at the same conclusions by taking different paths.
..
Value; Mind versus Matter
Pirsig's path begins when he asks: "When you say the world is composed of
nothing but value, what are you talking about?" [1]
Bohr's lesson of
complementarity tells us that value is only found in that which can be
communicated unambiguously. And for such communication to arise, we must use
everyday concepts in order that we make our self understood to others.
..
For Bohr, the classical notion of subject and object was indispensable, and
yet it could only be used in complementary ways, which provided for an
expanded point of view. This required dropping the notion of any independent
reality existing behind the notion of subject and object. Pirsig also says
that our classical subject/object metaphysics is indispensable to our way of
perceiving reality, but it is only a small part of the bigger picture his
Metaphysics of Quality provides. Pirsig writes:
..
...if one asks what is this "man" (which is not a body and not a mind) one
doesn't come up with anything. There isn't any "man" independent of the
patterns. Man is the patterns. ...Our language is so organized around
them and they are so convenient to use it is impossible to get rid of
them. There is really no need to. Like "substance" they can be used as
long as it is remembered that they're terms for collections of patterns
and not some independent reality of their own.
[2]
..
While Bohr steadfastly refused to speculate on where observation originates,
Pirsig uses the term Dynamic Quality to provide an answer. In fact though,
since, according to Pirsig, Dynamic Quality is an undefinable something that
defies any explanation, I can certainly see why Bohr refused to go there. Bohr
was first and foremost a scientist, and as such, he was concerned with
describing physical reality. Anything that lay "outside" physical reality held
no meaning for him whatsoever. It seems to me that neither Pirsig or Bohr were
wrong in their approach, it's just that the former is a philosopher while the
latter was a scientist, and therefore their priorities were of a different
nature to start with.
..
Pirsig asks: "If the world consists only of patterns of mind and patterns of
matter, what is the relationship between the two?"
[3] Bohr's complementarity
answers by stating that there is no relationshipbetween mind and matter, other
than our own descriptions of each, communicated unambiguously with others.
What Bohr called unambiguous descriptions, Pirsig labels patterns of value.
However, complementarity tells us that in order for these patterns to contain
value, they must be no ambiguity involved, otherwise the value is lost.
..
Pirsig writes: "Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They
originate out of society, which originates out of biology, which originates
out of inorganic nature". [4]
For mental patterns to originate out of society,
they must be communicated unambiguously within that society, otherwise those
patterns contain no value. This has very deep implications as far as our
physical reality is concerned. Everything we know, everything that we are,
originates as mental patterns, and these patterns originate out of society, or
the social level of Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality. These patterns are not
representational of an independent reality, as is customarily supposed, but
rather these mental patterns are representational of the culture in which they
arise.
..
Free Will versus Determinism
Pirsig uses his Metaphysics of Quality to solve what he terms the "platypus"
of free will versus determinism by saying: "... if the determinists let go of
their position (remember Einstein and his difficulty coming to terms with
complementarity) it would seem to deny the truth of science. ... In the
Metaphysics of Quality, this dilemma doesn't come up. To the extent that one's
behavior is controlled by static patterns of value it is without choice. But
to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's
behavior is free". [5]
..
As we have seen in this review, Bohr was very interested in philosophical
problems during his university days, and one aspect held special interest for
him; the controversy of free will versus determinism. Unfortunately, Bohr
never really expounded on what complementarity has to say about free will
versus determinism. However, after laboring over his writings, I feel that the
free will versus determinism platypus does not come up in complementarity
either, and so Bohr did not see a need to address the dilemma at all in any of
his writings. Henry J. Folse, however, attempts an explanation of what he
thinks Bohr's meaning might have been had he pursued it:
..
When a subject reports willing to do an action freely, he gives an entirely
accurate and truthful description of his experience. However, here the
awareness of the freedom in willing to do his act is considered part of the
subject's state in the experience. ...Hence, it must regarded as belonging to
the subject's side of the subject/object distinction. ... We can of course
shift this distinction and describe this act of freely willing to do a certain
action as itself an object, but in doing so the single phrase, "the act of
freely willing", including the subject's feelings in doing the act, now refers
to what falls wholly on the object side and cannot refer to the (now
different) "subject" whose conscious awareness is the basis for describing the
whole experience as an experience of willing to do an act freely. Thus we pass
from one plane to another. [6]
..
(see Part 6 of this review; Bohr's analogy between multivalued mathematical
equations and experienced reality.)
..
Since complementarity does not subscribe to an independently existing reality,
the subject/object distinction can be shifted simply by agreeing unambiguously
to shift it. Therefore, as in the Metaphysics of Quality, the dilemma of free
will versus determinism never arises at all. This is something which gave
Einstein great difficulty in seeing and so he never agreed with Bohr's
complementarity as a framework for an expanded description of reality.
Causality and Ethics
..
Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality is a value-based descriptive system for
describing our physical reality, which consists entirely of what he calls
static quality patterns of value, which are not representational of an
independently existing reality, but rather what value we unambiguously agree
those patterns hold. Complementarily is a system of descriptive concepts
referring not to an independently existing reality behind those concepts, but
rather to a description of a phenomenal reality, communicated in an
unambiguous way. How does complementarity deal with ethics? Not in the same
fashion that Pirsig does with his Metaphysics of Quality, yet it is clear that
the meaning of complementarity is also based on a value system created by
unambiguous communications resulting in our forming agreements as to the value
each descriptive term contains. This seems to be an unwritten underlying
assumption in Bohr's framework of complementarity which he never approaches.
..
Bohr's use of causality as a complementary value in describing the atomic
system seems to be in line with Pirsig's usage of "value preconditions" in the
Metaphysics of Quality. In Bohr's complementarity, it is not the observation
that "causes" the result, as is a commonly held belief about Bohr's
philosophy. Instead, just as the Metaphysics of Quality states that A does not
"cause" B, but rather B values pre-condition A, complementarity says that
observing does not "cause" the results, but rather the results must
pre-condition the observation. [7]
Causality as we normally understand it does
not exist in the framework of complementarity. Again, this is an area of
complementarity that Einstein refused to agree with in any way, and spawned
his famous saying "God does not play dice with the universe!"
..
So just what does this mean in the framework of complementarity in terms of
ethics? Bohr's thoughts never go in this direction, yet it is clear to me that
if they did, he would have arrived at the same conclusions as Pirsig's
Metaphysics of Quality. In a sense, there is no meaning, no value, in reality
except that which we give to unambiguous agreements which we use to form our
individual realities with. This is where the notion of Good arises.
Complementarity is in agreement with the Metaphysics of Quality in that there
is no independently existing notion of "Good" in our reality. Since there is
no assumption of an independent reality, there is no absolute truth, no
absolute good, no absolutes, period.
..
The ideals that classical subject/object metaphysics seek after are the result
of complementary "pictures" of reality that do not represent that reality per
se, but rather a phenomenal reality we form with our unambiguously
communicated agreements between self and environment. Complementarity says
that if we wish to say the universe is composed of value, and if we can
communicate that notion in an unambiguous fashion, then the universe is indeed
composed of value.
..
Static Latching versus Unambiguous Communication
In Lila, Pirsig uses the term "static latching" to describe the formation of
what Bohr called unambiguous communication. He writes: "Historically every
effort to unite science and ethics has been a disaster". [8]
Pirsig's
Subjects, Objects, Data and Values paper is just such an effort to unite
science and ethics, and in a way, so was Bohr's complementarity. Bohr insisted
that for science to take any meaning out of quantum physics, the observation
of the atomic system must be set up beforehand in an unambiguous fashion, and
from this fact, he realized that complementarity is the very way in which we
perceive our physical reality.
..
To understand just what Bohr meant by setting up the observation beforehand,
perhaps it is advantageous to study the way the rudimentary perceptions of
reality arise in animals and thus we may gain a better understanding of that
process which we so often overlook in ourselves. Wolfgang Kohler, better known
for his Gesalt Psychology, studied the mentality and intelligence of apes from
1913 to 1917 at the Anthropoid Station in Tenerife. In "The Mentality of Apes"
he relates many instances of controlled learning experiences by chimpanzees.
One experiment was set up like this:
..
A piece of fruit is placed on the floor outside a cage containing a
chimpanzee. There are two openings in the cage, one about about three feet off
the floor, below which the fruit is placed outside the reach of the
chimpanzee's grasp, and the other hole at ground level at the other end of the
cage. In order to successfully retrieve the fruit, the chimpanzee must learn
to use a one meter long stick, tied by a string to the outside of the cage, to
push the fruit towards the other opening low to the floor where he can reach
it.
..
..
Kohler observed a particularly intelligent male, Sultan, first try and reach
the fruit with his arm, then pick up the stick and pull the fruit toward
himself with the stick, and try and reach it with his hand, but the hole in
the mesh was too high up for him to successfully grab the fruit from that
location. Sultan then took the stick and, pushing the fruit sideways away from
himself to the hole at the other end of the cage, scampered around and reached
through the lower hole and successfully retrieved the fruit.
..
Kohler writes:
We thus have the case ... that an act in itself meaningless, even
disadvantageous, becomes intelligent in connexion with another, but only
then (Go later to the second place and reach objective from there). In fact,
the whole taken together constitutes the only possible solution.
The first part of the experiment (a) pushing away from the animal to a
second place, cannot arise intelligently alone. It is often more
disadvantageous than useful; part (b) however, (Going to the second place
and seizing the object) does not yet come into consideration.
..
Is it conceivable that (a b) spring from the situation intelligently
surveyed by the animal (or man) as one complete and unitary plan of action?
I see no other way, if the beginning of the procedure contains no trace of a
solution, but seems rather to prevent one, and so cannot arise as a isolated
part. Actually a whole is required to justify, as it were, its "parts"-- for
such procedure as described to be intelligently accomplished.
..
The theory of forms recognizes wholes which are something more than the "sum
of their parts"; here a whole is required, which even stands in a certain
opposition to one of its "parts". That seems peculiar; evidently this state of
things would be crucial for any theoretical attempt to understand the
occurrence of intelligent solutions physiologically.
[9]
..
The one complete and unitary plan of action that K”hler observed seems to be
analogous to Pirsig's Quality Event and to the quantum event of atomic
physics. The entire observation must be taken as a whole, which is more than
the sum of its parts. Static latching is part of unambiguous communication,
yet the Quality Event is more than the parts that the unambiguously
communicated results imply, for Pirsig's Quality Event has a complementary
non-event which lies outside the one complete and unitary plan of action,
which he calls Dynamic Quality. This is what Bohr refused to speculate about
in any way, and what Pirsig calls the "Conceptually Unknown" in his Subjects,
Objects, Data and Values paper.
..
Summary
The idea behind Bohr's complementarity is extended by Pirsig's Metaphysics of
Quality, and yet it must be realized that when the Quality Event is focused
on, the complementary non-event must be ignored completely in order for the
observation to be communicated in an unambiguous fashion. If we focus on
static quality everyday reality, Dynamic Quality cannot be observed and
communicated unambiguously in any fashion. However, by the same token, we may
focus on Dynamic Quality should we so choose. But in that case, static quality
everyday reality must be ignored. Still, since we are unable to communicate
unambiguously the observations of Dynamic Quality in static quality terms, for
all intents and purposes that observation is an individualistic Quality Event
only, thus in no way can such an observation be part of our everyday
description of reality.
..
This ends the review. Thanks for reading! Any and all comments are sincerely
appreciated and you may email me
[Dan Glover, or]
here.
..
Other Links
Perceptions of Quality
..
Footnotes
[1] Lila; An Inquiry into Morals, bantam paperback, page 176
..
[2] Ibid., page 178
..
[3] Ibid., page 177
..
[4] Ibid., page 179
..
[5] Ibid., page 180
..
[6] The Philosophy of Niels Bohr; The Framework of Complementarity, page 179
..
[7] A "Thank You" to Doug Renselle for suggesting this!
..
[8] Lila; An Inquiry into Morals, page 182
..
[9] Wolfgang K”hler, The Mentality of Apes, page 227-8
..
The Framework of Complementarity
Part 1 - Overview Early Years Bohr Formulates Complementarity
Part 2 - Argument for Complementarity
Part 3 - Comments on Complementarity
Part 4 - Complementarity and the Uncertainty Principle
Part 5 - Refinement of Complementarity
Part 6 - Extension of Complementarity
Part 7 - The Nature of Empirical Knowledge
Part 8 - Complementarity and the Metaphysics of Quality