Epistemology, Ontology, and Ethics in Copenhagen
Before continuing with this discussion post, it’s important to get a understanding of what these words really mean. Epistemology can be described as the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge (merriam-webster.com), ontology is the branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being (merriam-webster.com), and Ethics are a set of moral principles (merriam-webster.com).
Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg are both well-known physicists whose collaboration was described well in the play by Frayn, Copenhagen. Throughout their lives, these two were close because Bohr was a mentor for Heisenberg but these two disagreed at times and this created tension between the two. The second meeting from these two involved these two to discuss what went wrong between them. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle makes it hard to know the speed and location of electrons making the creation of atomic bombs very difficult for scientists. The ethics in this time period between scientists and governments is a very important issue for many reasons. When the Nazi’s took over Germany, the two scientists split up because the government would want to use anything necessary in order for their physicists to make atomic weapons for their army to have in the arsenal. The physicists knew the power they had in this period because the destruction they are capable of discovering.
Barad explains this exchange more in depth because sometimes our knowledge and self-being don’t add up like they should. Barad states, “Another crucial point that I have yet to discuss is the facts that Frayn continually confuses the epistemological and ontological issues — issues concerning the nature of knowledge and the nature of being.” (Barad, p. 18) Analyzing this statement from Barad allows people to visualize the epistemological and ontological issues and how these two scientists aren’t similar in the way they portray physics. Bohr wasn’t as worried about the destruction the atomic bomb may cause because he believed his discoveries were good for him and his country. Heisenberg, on the other hand, was more concerned about this issue and wasn’t on board with using the discoveries to end innocent lives.
The last thing Barad discussed was how these two scientists perceived the idea of the right thing to do when it comes to the atomic bomb. Both disagreed on each other’s view because their mindset and perspective, however both were not satisfied with how they contributed their physics knowledge to the world. Heisenberg was sympathizing for Bohr’s actions and still thought he was a decent person. Bohr was upset with himself because the work he did for the atomic bomb and killing a lot of innocent people. This discussion between the two scientists started from the media, Barad and Frayn, to determine the meaning behind these decisions.
Works Cited:
Barad, K. (2006). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press.
Copenhagen. (2002, September 27). Retrieved September 27, 2020, from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0340057/
Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America’s most-trusted online dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved September 28, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/
