6 Conclusion

In the first part of this essay we found that a rational basis for several principles, believed to support the philosophical basis of the CI, does not exist. The mysterious nature of the CI, which contains undefined statements in its definition, can be expected to lead to further obscurities whenever applied to single particles. This is indeed what happens. An attempt by EPR to make the contradictory character of the CI explicit, i.e. to prove the p-incompleteness of QT - or the non-existence of an individuality interpretation for QT - was successful. Bell’s proof of m-completeness cannot be used to invalidate EPR’s proof of p-incompleteness. Our final conclusion is that QT is p-incomplete and m-complete. The common failure to distinguish the two different meanings of completeness is due to an old ’deterministic dogma’ which rules our thinking even today. This dogma invalidates, if true, our final conclusion. However, this deterministic point of view is not a logical neccessity but rather a historical grown intellectual habit. According to the present analysis it is incompatible with the structure of QT and should be abandoned.