Essence and Existence XIV

7th November, 1999

By  Franz J. T. Lee 

Natural Science and Quantum Physics

SCENE:   Philosophy Seminar

(The lecture begins.)

Coseino: Today I will be relaxing, joining you all as an active listener.
However, beforehand, I wish to make some introductory remarks.
We are starting the next section of our seminar. After having introduced some aspects of classical, traditional philosophy, we will now introduce our own Science  a n d   Philosophy . My assistant, Indira, has the pleasure to introduce modern Theoretical Physics to you, but with a definite, a different perspective: it is our interpretation, and it is seen through our scientific-philosophic eyes, also it serves as a platform to understand our Unilogic  a n d  Dialogic.

Furthermore, I wish to remind you, as already stated before, that Thinking, Theory, Philosophy and Society, which concern us here in this lecture, "is no Sunday afternoon window-shopping spree"; the most difficult thing for a thinker, a philosopher to do, is precisely to think, to philosophize. And not everything is thinking or philosophy!

Also, on another occasion, I have emphasized, that there are three major ways to express thoughts. Firstly, simple things can be expressed simply, formal-logically, unilogically, as intellectual levels. Also, there are simple and advanced levels of thinking. Generally, acts and actions are concrete, simple, and they can be expressed as such in language.

Secondly, thinking  a n d  thought have to be acquired, by intellectual  a n d  rational efforts. Not every street gossip or discotheque rambling are thinking; in fact, they have nothing to do with thought. The Intellect has a complex endeavour,  a n d  Reason  has an even more complicated and arduous ontic task. Complex relations, like E=mc2, can only be expressed on a degree,  in a complicated manner. There are no catechism or cook book for Einstein's Theories of Relativity. I want you to remember this, when you follow the lecture.

Thirdly, relations on the frontier of Human Transcendence are
enormously stringent and vague; they take simple and complex relations into account, but they superate them, they excel Science  a n d  Philosophy itself. They concern mensions, not levels, not degrees, not acting, not thinking -- in fact, not believing, not hoping -- but transcending, excelling. This facullty, dormant in billions of people,  has to be "activated", otherwise there can be no possibility whatsoever to understand anything concerning Trialogic.

Finally, levels, degrees and mensions can be inter-related, but they should not be applied willy-nilly, in a chaotic, confused manner. In this philosophic "spirit", I hand you over to Indira. You all have already a copy of her lecture. During the week, please study the contents thoroughly, thereafter, we will discuss the various aspects in detail in our next seminars. Once more, please, recollect: what follows, is not an introduction to Theoretical Physics in a Science Seminar, but the introduction to our  Science  a n d  Philosophy.

Well, Indira: hic Rhodus, hic salta!  Here is the Rose, dance!

Indira: Okay! I wish you a delightful afternoon, filled with intellectual concentration and wise understanding!

Natural Science and Quantum Physics

In earlier expositions of our philosophy, we stated, that Natural Science falls in the realm of intellect, as intellect is directed towards Cosmos, and designs "thinking about natural acts", about acting nature. Reason, we stated, is directed towards Einai, and designs "thinking about social thought, about thinking society. Within the further elaboration of our philosophy, the limits of intellect in establishing a relation towards Cosmos became clear, as intellect is limited towards identification, which is equivalent to "non-relation", and thus remains within our Unilogics. It is only in our Trialogics, where a different relation towards Cosmos can be established, where a differentiation AND triversification of Cosmos itself can be performed, and where its multifacetical spectrum can be grasped by transcending the dialogical domain of Einai, of thinking.

One of the realms of Natural Science, that displays the difficulties of trying to approach a multifacetical, diverse spectrum with inadequate, unilateral-logical parameters, is Quantum Physics, which deals with microcosmic realities. In Quantum Physics, the scientists have been literally forced to transcend their unilateral parameters of thought, that is, the limits of intellect. In the following lecture we will try to illustrate, how Quantum Physics, epistemologically spoken, "lies in the neighbourhood" of our Trialogics, that we are currently elaborating in detail.
Thus, in today's introduction, we will deal with the topic mainly in an epistemological, more precisely, trans-philosophical way, although, at some moment, we will have to go into the most important details from a physical-scientific point of view. Please do note however, that we don't claim to be experts in Quantum Physics, but simply try to approximate the topic in what concerns the epistemological problems Quantum Physics deals with, and which are part and parcel of our Trialogics.
 

Classical Physics and Quantum Physics - A brief Overview

In order to approximate what distinguishes Quantum Physics from Classical Physics, we will have to say a few words about the physics of Isaac Newton, who completed the transition, begun by Galileo Galilei, from medieval-scholastic, Aristotle-based physics towards a physical system, that has come to be known as "Classical Physics". An epistemological summary of Classical or Newtonian Physics can only draw one conclusion from it, which is, that Newton’s world is a closed system of complete determinism. Every thing, every appearance, every process is strictly determined and basically follows the same set of everlasting rules, which are the laws of mechanics. Continuous, rectilinear-homogeneous motion reigns, "absolute" motion, isolated and enshrined within a closed inertial system, that tends to stay at rest internally and has no external relation to any other system.

The above described motion, as it is being cut off from any relation, both towards itself and towards rest, turns out to be motion-at-rest, in the final analysis, rest itself. Thus, Newton did not formulate the laws of motion, but the laws of motion-at-rest, of rest itself; and it was Albert Einstein in his general theory of relativity, who established the laws of motion, relating motion to rest and comprehending it as rest
a n d  motion, because what makes motion motion is precisely its being related to rest. Only by relating motion to rest can the "laws of motion" be explored, which firstly have to identify rest - what Newton did -, then to identify motion - what the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz did in his famous transformation equation, which identifies the relation that exists between a system-at-rest and a system-in-motion with regard to the same temporal-spatial "event" to be measured -, and finally to differentiate motion as rest  a n d  motion - what Einstein did in his general theory of relativity, relying among other premises precisely on Lorentz’ transformation equation.
 

Determinism

We stated above, that the one conclusion to be drawn from Newton’s Physics is determinism. Thus, all things, appearances or "events" stand in a causal chain of correlation and intercorrelation, which operates within the unilinear "cause-effect" parameter. Everything, all events, are necessarily locked into this causal connection-chain; accident does not figure in this system. The performance of every thing, appearance and event is due to objective laws, more precisely, to the mechanical forces of pressure, push, and mass attraction. All effects are being reduced to mechanical causes, all motion to mechanical motion and all laws to mechanical laws. In mechanical determinism, the behaviour of any given inertial system is being determined in a unilinear way by its initial status, and so the necessary behaviour of the system as well as of its components can be predicted according to the laws of mechanics.

Determinacy and predictability are identical within this cosmovision, they fully coincide. As can be seen in the works of Kepler, Galilei and especially Newton, a system had been elaborated by these physicists, that not only correctly described the mechanical motion and intercorrelation of physical bodies in general, but that even allowed to exactly calculate and predict the motion of the macrocosmic bodies, that is, the orbits of the planets. No "supra natural hypothesis" were necessary anymore to explain the secrets of the universe. This is how classical mechanics came to be sort of a prototype method of the so called "exact" natural sciences, and its principles were assumed to be valid for the whole cosmovision of nature, which was seen as one, continuous, uninterrupted chain of causes and effects, necessarily and inevitably interlinked and related to each other.

This kind of universal, mechanical determinism found its utmost expression in the conception of Laplace’s "Demon". The French mathematician and astronomist Pierre Simon Marquis de Laplace assumed an "intelligent being", that is conceived as being capable to know and analyse all forces that are acting in nature, as well as all the co-ordinates of all bodies at a determined time. Thus, the "Demon" could grasp the motion of the biggest body of the universe as well as that of the smallest atom in one sole formula. From any given status of the universe, the "Demon" could calculate each past and future status of the universe and its components in detail, due to the laws of mechanics.

Amongst other critics of mechanical determinism, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who, in 1755 in his astonishing "General History of Nature and Celestial Theory", where he explained the origin of the universe with the help of his nebular hypothesis and the forces of attraction and repulsion, emphatically denied in his attack against mechanical determinism, that causality could simply be reduced to a purely mechanical relation-chain of cause and effect. Kant demonstrated the narrow limits of mechanical determinism by stating, that the "Newton of the Blade of Grass" had not yet appeared, in other words, that the mechanical laws of cause and effect were not sufficient to explain more complex forms of motion, such as organic life:
"One should not be displeasured when I dare to say: that rather is the origin of all celestial bodies, the cause of their motions, in short, the origin of the whole current shape of the universe to be clearly and completely understood in a mechanical way, than the coming into being of a single herb or worm."

The deterministic cosmovision defines nature as a closed, inertial system, existing objectively and independently of human recognition, and being at rest in its totality. The Euclidean, three-dimensional concept of space and a correspondingly linear-homogeneous concept of time are not only the conditio sine qua non for "rest" and "motion" to make formal-logical sense, but also form the mayor underlying premises, both of determinism and of the vision of nature as a continuum, where necessity, causality and predictability reign.
- Recapitulating: space, time, rest, motion, continuum, necessity and causality form the premises of determinism.
 

Indeterminism

With the transition of Classical Physics towards Modern Physics at the turn of the century rose the suspicion, that the deterministic world outlook, as performed by Newtonian Physics and as exposed before, was most probably "wrong". The famous wave-particle-duality in Quantum Theory, described by Niels Bohr in his "complementarity principle" and specified by Werner Heisenberg in his "uncertainty principle", showed, that mechanical-deterministic explanations totally failed in the sub-atomic realm of reality, and had no validity where randomness reigns. From this particular problem was drawn the conclusion, that determinism as a whole had to be discarded and replaced with indeterminism - at least in sub-atomic reality.

The philosophical-epistemological origin of the indeterministic interpretation of sub-atomic reality by modern physics basically lies in identifying "determinacy" with "predictability".
Indeterminism, as exposed by Quantum Physics, considers the predictability of events as the main criteria of their determinacy and thus concludes, that determinacy cannot be valid in a realm, where it is impossible to make unequivocal (ein-deutig), definite predictions, as is the case in Quantum Physics, where randomness reigns and the "Demon" of Laplace has converted itself into Einstein’s notorious "Dice-Player".

The indeterministic cosmovision defines nature in microcosmic dimensions as an open, dynamic "non-system", being its existence influenced by and thus dependent upon human recognition and measurement. Microcosmic events cannot be determined in space and time parameters, as the open system in its totality is in motion. Microcosm is a discontinuum, where randomness, qualitative "jumps" and unpredictability reign. Summing up: space (as non-space), time (as non-time), rest (as non-rest), motion (as non-motion), discontinuum and randomness form the premises of indeterminism.

Apparently, there is a decisive difference between determinism and indeterminism, being the one precisely what the other one is not, and vice versa. Yet, taking a closer look and speaking qualitatively, as none of the two establishes a relation towards the other, we are confronted with the very same thing, that is, with identity, with rest. The "relation" established between determinism and indeterminism is exclusive: it is determinism versus indeterminism, the formal-logical, exclusive non-relation: either the one, or the other. It is precisely this formal-logical non-relation that has come to be the mayor stumbling block in Quantum Physics and within the indeterministic world outlook. However, within Quantum Physics itself, we will see, that inevitably an effort had to be made to relate things in an "unusual" way, beyond the limits of Formal Logical either-or-relations, in order to interpret the events that occur in sub-atomic reality.
 

The Transition from Classical Physics to Quantum Physics
 

The Atomist Structure of Matter

At the turn of the 19th towards the 20th century, experimental physics became confronted with the atomist structure of matter and its characteristics of randomness, showing the atomist units of matter an accidental, indeterminable behaviour, that is, not definable within space and time parameters, which thus fell outside the range of the Newtonian laws of motion. Explanation efforts of this randomness behaviour led to the formation of Quantum Theory in the years between 1900 and 1926. But it was only after 1926, that a total rupture with Newtonian or Classical Physics was inevitable.
 

Quantum Theory

Quantum Theory departs from the assumption, that radiation energy is not being emitted or absorbed continuously, but in a discontinuous way as "minimum amounts" of energy, that are frequency-dependent and discrete. The assumption of the discrete character of events in sub-atomic nature has not been the exclusive discovery of the German physicist Max Planck; already in the late 19th century, the English physicist Sir Joseph John Thomson had discovered the discrete character of electrical charges. It was Planck, however, who, in 1900, explicitly formulated a "quantum hypothesis" as the result of his experiments on the distribution of energy concerning the spectrum of the black body radiation.

The main statement of Max Planck’s quantum hypothesis is, that nature is not to be understood as a continuum, but in a discrete, fragmented, interrupted, unstable, accidental way. The matter-constituting, discrete "units" are the "quanta", the particles. Objects, that appear continuous to the eye, are being "quantized", that is, understood as being composed of  particles, just like a photography, which is composed of uncountable colour spots, and appears as a continuum in its totality, but being quantized, however, it turns out to be composed of discrete particles.
Planck himself did not yet try to relate the two moments, "continuum" and "discontinuance", like it sort of forcibly had been undertaken at a later point by the physicists Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, in order to "make sense" of the events as they occur in sub-atomic reality. The insight in nature as being both continuous  a n d  discrete as well as  neither continuous nor discrete "all at the same time", would certainly not occur to the quantum physicists of the first generation.

As we do not have access to "classified knowledge", and do not know the actual status quo of Quantum Physics at the turn of the millennium, we only can deduce from relating various important data, that formerly inconceivable kinds of establishing relations have long been "discovered" and are being (ab-)used in form of mind control and "classified technology".
In any case, in spite of Planck’s experiments and formulation of the quantum hypothesis, theoretical physics long remained dominated by the classical, Newtonian conception of nature as being a continuum. Also, the scientific conception of the atomist structure of nature would still take years to be generally accepted.
 

"Making Sense"

The criteria for something to "make sense" is a parameter setting, within which we arrive at the conclusion, that something does or does not "make sense". Mathematics and Formal Logics talk about their logic as of a two-value-logic, simply because it operates with two values: "true" and "false". In reality, however, it is a one-value-logic, precisely because only one of two or any given number of values can be "true", never both or all of them, and so we arrive at the famous, exclusive non-relation that affirms the one, true principle: either true or false.

The problem starts, whenever something is obviously not explainable within the formal logical Either-Or- Parameter Setting, and we still try to force it into this strait-jacket, although it completely falls outside its range. In this case, only if the parameter settings as suggested by Formal Logics are being left behind, can a different kind of relations be established between any two or three or "x" given values, which was exactly the case in Quantum Physics, where a different kind of parameter setting had to replace the formal-logical one, and where explanations of a complicated nature demanded a different kind of logical relation than the one and only "either-or-relation", that is allowed to be established in Formal Logics, and that no longer "makes sense" in a multi-mensional environment.
Specifically, this problem can be traced in the steps that had to be taken beyond Formal Logics, as they manifest themselves in the wave-particle duality and the inevitably adopted "complementarity principle".
 

Wave-Particle Duality and Complementarity Principle

The conception of the "complementarity principle" is a methodological and epistemological, non-formal-logical  tool for the interpretation of quantum mechanics, specifically the wave-particle-duality, and was introduced into Quantum Physics in 1928 by the Danish physicist and head of the famous Copenhagen School, Niels Bohr. The complementarity principle states, that, epistemologically spoken, both aspects, the particle a n d  the wave aspect, equally apply to elementary particles, but that the aspects themselves radically exclude each other. It so denotes a specific relation between two concepts, that both determine  a n d   exclude each other, concerning sub-atomic, elementary particles.

In sub-atomic reality, the properties that are displayed by the particles depend on the nature of the experiment; in one case, the particles act like such, in another case, the same particles act like waves; but they never act as both, particle and wave, at the same time and in the same respect. Thus, wave- and particle properties are complementary, that is, elementary particles have both particle and wave properties, but never display these properties simultaneously. From the fact, that the respectively displayed aspect depends on the choice of the measurement apparatus and thus from the scientist who leads the experiment, has been drawn the conclusion, that the respective properties do not actually "belong" to the elementary particle itself, but are being created in the experiment, in the scientific process of observation. In spite of the complementarity principle and still stuck to Formal Logics, the wave-particle duality turned into a real dilemma for the quantum physicists.

Interestingly, this dilemma had found an early expression in the 17th century dispute between the followers of Newton’s and the Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygen’s respective theories of light. Newton developed a particle-based theory, whereas Huygen’s theory of light was wave-based. Both theories were equally adequate to explain the phenomena of light. In the course of the 19th century, Huygen’s wave-based theory seemed to have finally won the battle, as it was the only one that was capable of explaining the phenomenon of diffraction of light.

However, with the discovery of the light-electrical effect by the German physicists, Heinrich Hertz and Wilhelm Hallwachs, a phenomenon became known, that principally could not be explained with the wave-based theory. It was Einstein in 1905, who, with his photon-theory and having fallen back upon the particle theory of light, gave the first plausible explanation for the light-electrical effect as discovered by Hertz and explained by Hallwachs. An experiment conducted by the American physicist Arthur Holly Compton in 1923 and which came to be known as the "Compton-Effect", provided the experimental proof for the adequacy of the particle-theory of light.

From that point on, there were two specifically different, scientific ways of explanation for determined properties of light. The insight into the particle-properties of light-waves led the French physicist Louis-Victor De Broglie in 1925 to an investigation of the reverse problem: If waves possess particle properties, do particles also possess wave properties? De Broglie’s hypothesis was confirmed by the observation of particles in different experiments, in which the particles revealed typical wave properties like interference and diffraction, frequency and amplitude. This meant, that both, electromagnetic wave and particle, had to be assigned both particle a n d  wave-properties. It was the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, who, in 1927, with the help of his uncertainty principle, gave an insight into this mutual dependence of properties that yet exclude each other.

Perhaps it is interesting to note here, that due to the persistence of formal logical thinking, even in a realm the explication of which demanded a much more advanced logics than unilateral either-or parameters, there had been many efforts to ultimately eliminate one of the two intrinsical components of the theory of the wave-particle duality and to reduce it to the "standard" formal-logical, unilateral scheme of deterministic mechanics. Efforts were made in order to re-establish and universalize the "classical" particle theory and diminish the wave character of particles by only admitting "probability waves"; and also in reverse, to eliminate the particle aspect and only admit waves, by reducing the particle phenomenon to the assumed existence of "wave packages", like the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger did. Yet, "probability-waves" and "wave-packages" still operate with both of the two principles, that is, particles  a n d  waves. So, none of these efforts was convincing and it became more than evident, that not only did the conception of the closed system of classical mechanics fail in explaining the structure and properties of the so called "smallest particles of matter", but that the very assumption of the existence of ultimate, "smallest" matter-units itself had to be reviewed, if not discarded.

The simple fact, that the complementarity principle does not allow to draw the classical, "unequivocal", that is, formal-logical "either-or-conclusion", has led many a physicist to assume, that the wave-particle-duality forms a logical contradiction, and thus has to be interpreted as an argument for agnosticism, which has often been underlined with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which we will illustrate later on. They argue, that complementarity, as it impedes an unequivocal conclusion to be drawn from the observed experiment with regard to its underlying reality, demonstrates the ultimate limit of human recognition of nature.

This argument makes perfect sense within the limited horizon of unilinear Formal Logics and its one and only, exclusive either-or parameter precisely of  not-relating things, where "contradiction" is the forbidden fruit, and where it is imperative to derive all different aspects from the one, single principle, "A". From the point of view of any other logic, beginning with dialectics, this argument is equivalent to sheer unilaterality and misses the multi-mensional boat, where contradiction is a conditio sine qua non for valid statements, and where the assertion, that properties, that exclude each other, are being displayed in different sides of the same, physical event, is a valid assertion and actually meets with sub-atomic reality.

With unilateral logics, unilateral problems are solved. With multimensional logics, multimensional problems are solved. There is no problem whatsoever to make the multimensional statement, that the elementary particles are neither particles nor waves, or that they are both, particles  a n d  waves, and even, that they are both: [particles and waves] AND [neither particles nor waves].
At an earlier stage of Quantum Physics, it was only the discredited dialectical materialists, who were able to approximate the wave-particle duality without any problems, and who thought of the necessity to apply at least a three-value-logic in order to adequately express the phenomenon, and where, as they expressed it, besides the two values "absolute truth" and "absolute falseness", there must be a third one,  "relative truth". (And we, in this case, would add the "missing link" they forgot: "relative falseness".)

From all what we have been elaborating so far, we can state: Particles and waves are the two sides of the same phenomenon. We call the phenomenon "wavicle" or "particlave", and, according to our trialogics, understand it as: being particle, being wave, being particle  a n d  wave, being neither particle nor wave, that is, being particle a n d  wave AND wavicle.
 

Towards Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

From 1925 on, departing from Planck’s quantum hypothesis, quantum mechanics began to be elaborated. (Note the inadequacy of the concept "mechanics" here, which belongs to the classical, Newtonian, deterministic closed-system conception of unilateral cause and effect.) Basically and according to the duality-problem, there were two simultaneous and independent formula’s: Werner Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, which departed from classical particle-mechanics, and Erwin Schrödinger’s wave mechanics, which departed from the description of the wave-phenomenon. Both formulas dealt with the very same scientific-physical phenomenon, and their conclusions were equivalent; this means that the illustration of the phenomenon is essentially the same, however each formula constitutes a different, mathematical method.

Keeping in mind, that the physical object of quantum mechanics is the structure of atoms, from the above explained results, that this structure cannot be described either trough the classical wave-, or the classical particle concept, but precisely through the two of them. Quantum mechanics thus denotes and reflects the wave-particle duality in its method of explaining it by both, wave a n d  particle mechanics. The scientific-physical problems, that had formerly risen when applying only one of the two concepts, turned out to be fake problems caused by a limited, formal-logical conception of exclusive either-or non-relations, and not to be real physical problems as such.
 

Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

In 1927, Werner Heisenberg discovered a problem with regard to improving measurement conditions in order to achieve greater accuracy. He sustained, that due to a basic, objective limit, the precision of measurement procedures in order to eliminate disturbances caused by the same measurement procedure, cannot be improved, let alone optimized. The simultaneous determination of the variables energy (E) and time (t), respectively impulse (p) and range (stretch, span) (q), the product of which is the physical equivalent of an "effect", is impossible to realize in an accurate, definite way. If the exact location in space of an electron was to be measured as precisely as possible, the electron had to be exposed to extremely short-waved light or "hard gamma radiation". This, however, caused a significant change in the electron’s impulse. Was the electron being exposed to less energy containing, long-waved light, the impulse suffered less influence, but the location could not be determined with exactitude, it became "unsharp" (uncertain).

As, in the sense of classical mechanics, the unequivocal determination or definition of a particle’s status requires the simultaneous knowledge of its place and impulse, which is the equivalence to its "departure conditions" or "origin", the representatives of the Copenhagen School (Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Jordan) draw from the above illustrated problem the conclusion, that events in the sub-atomic realm are basically subdue to indeterminacy. The determinacy of Classical Physics, understood as predictability and personalized in Laplace’s "Demon", had found its counterpart in the indeterminacy of Quantum Physics, understood as unpredictability, and a Demon that had turned into Einstein’s dice-playing "God".

Before we continue with our exposition, we will take a short look at the definitions given to "quantum", "particle" and "wave". The concept "quantum" is being defined as "smallest, indivisible energy amount", and often used synonymously with "particle". The concept "particle" is being defined as "material body of smallest expansion" and is being counterpoised to the concept of "wave", that denotes an "infinitely extended, periodically spreading, oscillating change of a physical quantity".
Particle, being conceived as "body", in other words as being physically delimited, denotes the greek peras, the "limited", whereas wave, being conceived as infinitely extended, that is, without limits, denotes the greek apeiron, the "unlimited". We only can indicate here, that peras and apeiron, in early Greek Philosophy, determine each other and are linked to the philosophical problem of the relation of "part" and "totality".

Being the elementary particles or "wavicles" both, particles a n d  waves, as well as neither particles nor waves, they cannot be interpreted within a formal-logical theory like the classical, mechanical model introduced in our description of determinism. An electron, for example, does not have a defined location in the sense of Classical Physics, precisely because it is no sharply limited, rigid particle or "body". It is itself a limited-unlimited, oscillating wavicle. Thus, to demand a "clear", "unequivocal" definition and location in the sense of Newtonian mechanics does not make sense here in Quantum Physics.

The indeterministic conclusions, as drawn from Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, are based on the simple fact, that two determined, complementary variables cannot be measured simultaneously with the expected exactitude, that is, their "origin" or departure conditions cannot be determined, and also not any other past, present or future status. The behaviour of the elementary particles is "probable" according to probability calculus applied in Quantum Physics, but unpredictable in a formal-logical, deterministic-mechanical sense. Although Max Planck himself had noted, that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle does not necessarily exclude determinism, none of the quantum physicists ever came to establish a similar relation between determinism and indeterminism as had been established between particle and wave properties, or even to go further and understand indeterminism as [determinism  a n d  indeterminism].

In the last analysis and as long indicated by the dialectical materialists, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle expresses the limits, within which the exclusive particle- or the exclusive wave-theory are applicable. It sort of provides an evaluation of the mistakes one commits, when unilaterally applying either the particle or the wave theory.
 

Conclusion

As Quantum Physics in its totality remained within Formal Logics, despite the efforts undertaken in the complementarity principle and the wave-particle duality, indeterminism has been equalled and associated with formal logical contradiction and thus with epistemological agnosticism.
According to the conclusions drawn by the Copenhagen School of physicists from the problems as they manifest themselves in Quantum Physics, cosmic, sub-atomic objectivity, we would say, identity, is denied; the epistemological object does not exist as such, as part of objective, cosmic reality, but is perceived as being created in the process of measurement and observation. The complementary properties, wave and particle, are perceived as being produced by the subject, who influences the object in the experiment. This is why it is not possible to recognize the "object-in-itself", its essence. Accordingly, the Copenhagen School gave an agnosticistic interpretation of the wave-particle-duality and the uncertainty principle, being this agnosticism an intrinsical part of what has become known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics.

We must mention, however, that at a later point, the agnosticistic unity of the Copenhagen School fell apart, and a differentiation set in, turning Niels Bohr and Max Born towards materialism and Werner Heisenberg from subjective to objective, platonic idealism, with only Pascual Jordan remaining on the original, subjectivistic-idealistic position.

We conclude, that one of the reasons if not the main reason for the subjective-idealistic interpretation of Quantum Physics by the Copenhagen School, is their remaining stuck in Formal Logics from their heads to their toes, and operating with the respective, limited, epistemological parameters. The unastonishing fact, that the mechanistical conception of causality failed in Quantum Physics, necessarily had to lead to the interpretation of indeterminacy in the sense of agnosticism by the physicists of the Copenhagen School.

Thus, the kind of indeterminism arrived at by the Copenhagen quantum physicists is nothing but another version of classical determinism itself, not being able to transcend the formal logical limits of unilaterality.

Coseino: Indira, thanks! I also thank you all for your kind attention. Study the lecture with conscientious diligence. Till next time.

(NEXT)