It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Physicists do Ontology: "Does the Moon exist when we're not looking?" (The Bohr vs. Einstein debate over nonlocal vs. local reality and the EPR paradox [Peat, ch. 4, "Bohr vs. Einstein"])
Einstein resists q.m. because of its probabilistic character ("God does not play dice," to quote the famous phrase), and because both the epistemology and ontology of the Copenhagen Interpretation clashed with his classical (Newtonian) belief regarding the essential separateness of subject and object - and the belief that an external reality does exist, independent of the subject/observer:
This reality of Einstein's is known as a "local" reality. Each system or object can be defined and understood in its own particular region of space. Objects have their own independent existence, and if they change, then it must be as the result of interactions or forces acting from outside. These forces can also be defined in an objective way through the laws of nature. There are no mysterious "actions at a distance," no mystical influences. Objects possess properties, Einstein said. They move along paths; their fates are determined.
But then Bohr and Heisenberg came along with complementarity and the uncertainty principle. They denied that the electron has a path, or even that it possesses any intrinsic properties like position and velocity. In fact, they seemed to be saying that the only reality one can talk about lies in the mathematical equations, and that there is no point in trying to construct mental models of the quantum world. To Einstein this was a "tranquilizing philosophy" (as he put it in a letter to Schrödinger), a metaphysical approach to the world that induced a sleep of the mind by smothering questions about the ultimate nature of the quantum world. The Copenhagen interpretation was nothing more than "a soft pillow on which to lay one's head"; it was not a true theory of nature or an attempt to engage reality face to face, but an encouragement to daydream. (69)