Bohr & God (or Truth vs. Clarity)...

Rebecca Cox2 said:Legend has it that someone once asked Bohr—after he "formulated" Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle as a complementary system (the idea that you can't simultaneously know both a particle's position and its momentum; the more you pin down one, the less you know about the other)—what exactly would be considered a complement to truth (wahrheit)?

Bohr’s response? Clarity. (klarheit)

If we drift into philosophical waters, this touches on some of the most heated debates out there. What does this tell us about:

a) the existence of God? How much of that concept is clarity versus truth?

b) our theories regarding "Truth"? If Bohr was onto something profound with that remark, how clear and comprehensible can any "truth" actually be?

c) our fundamental understanding of the world and the laws of nature?

Alright, physicists, philosophers, psychologists, biologists, mathematicians—everyone! This is a "multidisciplinary" topic, which is why I'm dropping it here in philosophy (the mother of all sciences)...

Rebecca Cox2 said:Word has it that Bohr was once asked a question—following his "formulation" of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle as a complementary system (the idea that you can't simultaneously pin down a particle's position and its momentum; the more you know about one, the less you know about the other)—what he believed might serve as a complement to truth (wahrheit)?

Bohr’s response was simple: Clarity. (klarheit)

When you carry this over into the realm of philosophy, it lands right in the middle of some of the most heated debates out there (and not just among philosophers). What does this tell us about:

a) the existence of God? How much of a concept is God—is He defined by clarity, or by truth?

b) our theories regarding "Truth"? If Bohr was onto something profound with that remark, how much "truth" can actually be clear and comprehensible?

c) our fundamental understanding of the world and the laws of nature?

Alright, physicists, philosophers, psychologists, biologists, mathematicians, and everyone else! This is a multi-disciplinary topic, which is why I'm bringing it here to philosophy—the mother of all sciences...

True and Clear!

If we define truth as that which remains constant,
then only the Whole can be true. A mere fragment can never reach truth.

In terms of how we perceive things, this creates a bit of a paradox—an apparent absurdity
where something perfectly clear and exact fails to actually be true.

To put it bluntly, a raw fact (something precisely measured) isn't the truth; it's practically a lie.

Within the constraints of language and logic, we can only ever express, at most,
half of the truth (and usually much less)—

while the other half is simply the negation of our initial statement.

Taylor Alvarez6 said:Now this is a great topic.👍

And Bohr hit the nail right on the head...
clarity is the complement to truth.
a) This makes it obvious that God isn't just a concept, nor can He be contained by one. Instead, God (God-Truth) becomes CLEAR only when we step outside the confines of human concepts.
b) It also follows that any theory or model of reality—whether scientific, religious, or otherwise—is NOT Truth itself. Truth is CLEAR, yet it remains incomprehensible. It is clearly visible, but impossible to fully conceptualize.
c) Our perception of the world is merely an image; we essentially imagine the world as it is. The clear truth is that the world is imagined, and furthermore, this imagined (existing) world is NOT the ultimate reality.
It's also clear that existence and reality aren't the same thing. Just because something exists for us doesn't mean it represents the absolute truth.👋

If truth is defined by what remains constant,
only the Whole is true. A part cannot be truth.
In terms of cognition, this creates a paradox—an apparent absurdity
where something perfectly clear and exact cannot actually be true.

To put it bluntly, a fact (something precisely established) isn't truth; it's a lie.
Within the confines of language and logic, one can only express, at best,
half of the truth (and usually much less)—
as the other half is merely the negation of the first statement.

Rebecca Cox2 said:Word has it that Bohr was once asked a question—following his "formulation" of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle as a complementary system (the idea that you can't simultaneously pin down a particle's position and its momentum; the more you know about one, the less you know about the other)—what he believed might serve as a complement to truth (wahrheit)?

Bohr’s response was simple: Clarity. (klarheit)

When you carry this over into the realm of philosophy, it lands right in the middle of some of the most heated debates out there (and not just among philosophers). What does this tell us about:

a) the existence of God? How much of a concept is God—is He defined by clarity, or by truth?

b) our theories regarding "Truth"? If Bohr was onto something profound with that remark, how much "truth" can actually be clear and comprehensible?

c) our fundamental understanding of the world and the laws of nature?

Alright, physicists, philosophers, psychologists, biologists, mathematicians, and everyone else! This is a multi-disciplinary topic, which is why I'm bringing it here to philosophy—the mother of all sciences...

Harold James9 said:Yes.👍

Either he skipped over it, or he agreed with mistyfox812's post and chose to stay silent.🙂

If truth is defined by what remains constant,
only the Whole is true. A part cannot be truth.
In terms of cognition, this creates a paradox—an apparent absurdity
where something perfectly clear and exact cannot actually be true.

To put it bluntly, a fact (something precisely established) isn't truth; it's a lie.
Within the confines of language and logic, one can only express, at best,
half of the truth (and usually much less)—
as the other half is merely the negation of the first statement.

If there is a paradox, it lies in the fact that what is true is not equal to Truth. A part is not the whole, which is common sense.

I believe the misunderstanding stems from the limitations of language. Knowledge expands while our vocabulary stays stagnant, meaning we try to express more and more concepts using the same old words. We are heading toward a point where experts from different fields won't even be able to understand one another.

🙂 🙂 🙂

I suspect when you say something is "true," you're referring to the classic definition—adequatio—where a statement accurately matches reality.

In our daily lives, that distinction is absolutely vital
(it's how we tell the difference between facts and lies),
but in this space, people often present a singular, absolute Truth that they expect us to follow blindly (and bow 😁)
so I feel a real responsibility to point out that what seems obvious isn't actually the ultimate Truth.

Truth isn't aletheia—in fact, it remains hidden and beyond words.

Once something becomes unspeakable, you can't capture it through speech, writing, music, art, or even a simple whistle. 🙂

swiftcobra15 said:😕

Once something becomes unspeakable, you can't capture it through speech, writing, music, art, or even a simple whistle. 🙂

Harold James9 said:

That’s just how society works: the winners get to write the history books, draft the laws, and shape the philosophy
(including ethics), effectively dictating the moral code and defining what constitutes "Truth".

Of course, all of that holds until the next major conflict, where the victors might be
own opposite side, wielding their own version of "Truth".

We actually covered this quite extensively a while back in our discussion on "good and evil in lowlands".

If we assume that Truth is something unchanging,
then only the Whole can truly be the Truth. A mere fragment can never claim that title.

From an epistemological standpoint, this creates a bit of a paradox—an apparent absurdity
where something perfectly clear and exact fails to qualify as being true.

To put it bluntly, a cold, hard fact isn't actually the Truth; it's more like a lie.

Within the constraints of language and logic, we can at best attempt to express
only half of the truth (and usually much less)—

while the other half is simply the negation of our initial statement.

Being "truthful," or simply being honest, isn't a difficult feat.
We often define honesty as just choosing not to lie.
But that doesn't mean you've managed to speak the full Truth.

In reality, attempting to speak the Truth usually ends up deceiving both ourselves and others.

Rebecca Cox2 said:Word has it that Bohr was once asked a question—following his "formulation" of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle as a complementary system (the idea that you can't simultaneously pin down a particle's position and its momentum; the more you know about one, the less you know about the other)—what he believed might serve as a complement to truth (wahrheit)?

Bohr’s response was simple: Clarity. (klarheit)

When you carry this over into the realm of philosophy, it lands right in the middle of some of the most heated debates out there (and not just among philosophers). What does this tell us about:

a) the existence of God? How much of a concept is God—is He defined by clarity, or by truth?

b) our theories regarding "Truth"? If Bohr was onto something profound with that remark, how much "truth" can actually be clear and comprehensible?

c) our fundamental understanding of the world and the laws of nature?

Alright, physicists, philosophers, psychologists, biologists, mathematicians, and everyone else! This is a multi-disciplinary topic, which is why I'm bringing it here to philosophy—the mother of all sciences...

Jonathan Brooks8 said:It could certainly be perceived as something singular, yet simultaneously remain entirely ambiguous. As an external attribute—rather than an inherent internal quality—perception can oscillate between clarity and obscurity, but only for the duration of the observation itself. Therefore, the Truth is that what is observed is both clear and unclear, provided the premise remains that it is being observed.

One cannot establish a thesis suggesting that increased clarity leads to decreased truthfulness; such a proposition, by virtue of its own strictly linear and reciprocal logic, effectively negates itself.

The Truth is this: the more clearly something is observed, the more it is subject to observation—and just as much as something is obscured, it remains under observation. In other words, the act of observation itself dictates the degree of clarity or lack thereof...😁

If the observer were a "closed system," one might argue that the object of observation is also a "closed system"—meaning higher clarity would necessitate lower ambiguity, and vice versa. But that isn't how it works; since the observer is an "open system" and the subject is an "open system" as well, any increase in clarity has the potential to simultaneously open up even greater layers of ambiguity.

mistyfox812 said:I honestly think Bohr isn't talking about whether a statement is factually true here. He's going full Hegel on us: ''Truth is the whole.''

In that sense, it’s pretty easy to wrap your head around: the more you sharpen your lens, the clearer the view gets, but you end up seeing a much smaller slice of the big picture.

So, "complementarity" basically means this—by sharpening your focus, you're actually losing something else. You can't just glue a bunch of clear little pieces together and expect to suddenly have a perfectly clear whole.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:This leads us straight into a paradox; if "Truth is the whole," then by definition, any individual segment is not the whole, which means that segment cannot be the Truth... and consequently, the clarity we find in a single part doesn't equate to the clarity of the entire system. It follows, then, that Truth (viewed as the totality) is essentially just a collection of non-truths (the segments).
One has to admit: we look at the whole and perceive only a fragment—in fact, it's impossible to even perceive a fragment without the context of the whole being present. That fragment is simply our way of witnessing how incomplete the whole appears to be.

mistyfox812 said:Yeah. Exactly. That’s why the final theory is basically impossible. All we're left with is this endless cycle of trying to explain the tiny fragments of an implicit whole.