Summary
The paper considers Ernst' Cassirer's standpoint with reference to Euclidean geometry and the complementarity principle of quantum theory, interpreted as a choice between a causal description and a space — time description. The acceptance of the complementarity principle by Cassirer not only lands him off the Kantian path slightly, but it also leads him to some contradictions and incompatibilities within his own system of thought. 1. Accepting complementarity, Cassirer cannot still hold that there is an infinite hierarchy of objective levels as he does towards the end of hisDeterminismus; and 2. accepting complementarity, Cassirer cannot still hold on to the observability principle of Leibniz.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cassirer, E.:Determinism and Indeterminism in Modern Physics' tr. T. Benfey, Yale. New Haven, 1956, forward.
Cassirer, Ernst:Substance and Function and Einstein's theory of Relativity, trs. W. C. Swabey & M. C. Swabey, Dover 1953 (hereafter abbriviated as SFER).
Cassirer, E.:Determinism and Indeterminism in Modern Physics, (hereafter referred to asDIMP).
Natorp in his preface to the 1923 edition of his‘Die Logischen Grundlagen der exakten Wissenschaften’ Lpz and Berl. vii.
SFER p. 409.
ibid. p. 412.
For the orders in physics see my ‘Conceptual Orders in Waismann and Cassirer’,Journal of the Indian Academy of Philosophy, Volume VIII, no. 2.
SFER, p. 93.
Poincaré, H.:La Science et l'Hypothèse, Paris, p. 61.
Reichenbach, H.:The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, University of California Press, 1951, p. 130–39.
Kant: ‘On the first ground of the distinction of regions in space’ English trs. by John Handyside inKant's Inagural Dissertation and Early Writings on Space, Chicago, 1929.
DIMP, p. 163.
ibid. p. 163.
Cassirer:The Problem of Knowledge vol. IV, trs. Paul Schrecker Yale, New Haven, p. 24.
DIMP, p. 164.
Kant:Critique of Pure Reason.
Northrop, F. S. C.: ‘Natural Science and the Critical Philosophy of Kant’ in theHeritage of Kant, edt. G. T. Whitney and D. F. Bowers, Princeton, 1939, p. 62.
DIMP, p. 115.
Physikalische Zeitschrift, 1937.
DIMP, preface-last sentance.
Born, Max:Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance, Oxford, 1949, p. 208.
See Hanson, N. R.:The Concept of Positron, Cambridge, ch. I.
For further illustrations see A. d'Abro;The Rise of the New Physics, Dover, 1951, ch. XLI p. 951.
Bunge, M.: ‘Strife about complementarity’,The Bri. Jn. for the Phil. Sc., vol. VI, no. 21, p. 4.
Hutten:The Language of Modern Physics, London, 1956 p. 174.
Hanson: op cit. ch. I.
Feyerabend, P.: ‘Problems of Microphysics’ inFrontiers of Science and Philosophy, London 1964.
de Broglie:Revolution in Physics.
Feyerabend: op. cit. p. 192.
DIMP, p. 212.
Bohm, David:Causality and Chance in Modern Physics, London 1957 also cf. ‘Hidden variable theories as a step towards a new language structure for physics’, inContemporary Physics, Vienna 1969.
Heisenberg, Werner:Physics and Philosophy, Harper, ch.VIII also hisThe Physicist's conception of Nature, London 1958, p. 40.
ibid. p. 128.
ibid. p. 139.
Cf. Bohm's reply to Heisenberg'sPhysics and Philosophy; ‘Classical and non-classical concepts in the quantum theory’The Bri. Jn. for the Phil. Sci. vol. XII no. 48, p. 275.
For a detailed discussion on complementarity and determinism see Rosenfeld, L.: ‘Strife about Complementarity’ inScience Progress vol. XLI, July 1953 no. 163, p. 393.
Alexander, P.: ‘Complementary Descriptions’,Mind vol. LXV (1956) p. 159.
SFER, p. 376–77.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sundaram, K. Kant or Cassirer: A study in complementarity. Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 3, 40–48 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01800818
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01800818