Some Further Elucidation on Dialectical Materialism, Bohr's "Copenhagen Interpretation," and Quantum Mechanics
If we look to Bohr, who is my primary influence in how I would interpret modern physics to validate DiaMat, we find that
A) depending on how a quantum entity is observed, with the understanding that observation is not passive but a concrete interaction, it is affected in such a way that a particular aspect is measured, while if it were observed in another way a different aspect could be measured (this is the "wave function collapse," if what we are trying to measure is something like location).
B) despite contradicting each other, these measurements are all objectively true, and the aspects they measure real, in the sense that the model they produce, a model of a situation (be that model an algebraic "wave function," or a single number, etc. etc.), has a correspondence to Material reality. This is contra more subjectivist readings of QM such as that of Heisenberg (also identified with "Copenhagen, despite their disagreements-- see the article on the C.I. in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) or more recent "Quantum Mysticism"; it is also contra the rigid and indeed idealist view of someone like Newton or Einstein or Leibniz or Aristotle, to whom there must exist independent of material (i.e. matter, space, and energy) transcendent principles or laws of God(s) which act on the material to make it act as it does.
And so, ergo, even if you can't observe them all simultaneously, there are in a quantum entity or relation-- and therefore all entities, since everything ultimately is an arrangement of quanta-- contradictory (Marx or Mao's term) or complementary (Bohr's) aspects, all of which you could observe, albeit only one at a time, and our ability to understand material reality, and indeed its existence itself, is contingent not on compliance to transcendent and eternal noncontradictory principles but the dynamical interpenetrating relationships-- i.e. material dialectics-- of these contradicted aspects that are really materially there in the things themselves, i.e. in the monistic reality of the Material world.
I would freely admit that I am trained more on Marxist philosophy than modern physics. But I have studied physics academically a little, and understand that there are many philosophical schematics for understanding it, and one of them (to my mind, one of the better of the ones I was taught (Many Worlds theory is stupid, for instance)) seems pretty well to validate DiaMat. Bohr took as his motto "COTRARIA SVNT COMPLEMENTA"-- a phrase which practically could have come from Heraclitus, whom Marx identifies as the progenitor of dialectical thinking about being.
