Bohr's doctrine of classical concepts already accepts that distinct experimental arrangements constitute distinct phenomena, so the coexistence of v(f(Q)) and v'(f(Q)) across contexts reflects genuine phenomenal plurality, not ontological incoherence.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
classical concepts(Bohr's view on the role of classical concepts in quantum mechanics)
A refinement of everyday concepts of position and action in space and time
coexistence(referring to different observed values existing across different experimental contexts)
When two or more things exist or are true at the same time.
experimental arrangements(as what creates different phenomena)
The specific setup or equipment used when conducting a scientific test—different setups can measure different things about the same object.
incoherence(Illustrated by the coexistence of pro-slavery compromises and democratic/equality principles in the US Constitution.)
The condition in which a legal or constitutional document contains provisions that are mutually inconsistent or in tension, resulting from the competing interests of those who drafted it.
phenomena(Distinguished from data in the context of scientific explanation)
The targets of scientific learning, inferred from data rather than identical to data itself
phenomenal plurality(as an explanation for why different experiments give different results)
The idea that there genuinely are multiple different things we can observe, depending on how we look—not just different measurements of one fixed reality, but actually different observable phenomena.
v(f(Q)) and v'(f(Q))(as used in formal logic notation)
Symbolic notation where v means 'the value of' and f(Q) is a function applied to something called Q; the prime mark (') indicates this is a new or different version after some change.