SHADOWS OF LANGUAGE IN PHYSICS AND CYBERNETICS

In a large variety of disciplines, fundamental studies often straddle in self referential situations, in need of relativization to-language and complementaristic resolution. In such attempts, the languages at p lay are hardly visible themselves. Only shadows of language, somewhat characteristic of the various disciplines, become visible and tractabl e. We select two domains, quantum mechanics and cybernetics, for a com parative study of their complementarity concepts with consequence for understandings of observability, describability, and objectivity. In p articular, we compare Bohr-Pauli's 'non-detachability of the observer' and von Foerster's aphorisms for objectivity. In quantum mechanics, w ith its emphasis on experimentability and measurability, Bohr's primar y view of complementarity takes the form of a tension between definabi lity and measurability. In cybernetics, we have a central interest in inferribility above the more constructive measurability, and the lingu istic complementarity takes the form of a tension between describabili ty and interpretability. In quests for a complete quantum mechanical m easurement language, we face an interesting situation, that of simulat ing semantic measurability by syntactic inferribility. It calls for a cybernetic tie, whereby the two processes of assertibility, by measura bility and by provability, become united under complementarity. Althou gh semantic and syntactic processes are complementary within the measu rement language, they may be unfolded in levels of constructivity, all owing identification of the lowest levels. Namely, identification of t he constructivity level of a basic measurement sentence, i.e., a sente nce which can be affirmed by a direct measurement (without involving f urther inferences), with the lowest constructivity level of syntactic provability. We exemplify with an explanation of a recent challenge ag ainst Bohr's wave-particle compementarity. Namely, by the so called do uble-prism experiment of Ghose, Home, and Agarwal. We find the experim ent quite interesting, not because of the alleged challenge, but by re alizing that its interpretation requires a levelled approach to quantu m theory.