  Einstein's philosophy of physics (as clarified by Fine, Howard, and Held) was
predicated on his Trennungsprinzip, a combination of separability and locality,
without which he believed objectification, and thereby "physical thought" and
"physical laws", to be impossible. Bohr's philosophy (as elucidated by Hooker,
Scheibe, Folse, Howard, Held, and others), on the other hand, was grounded in a
seemingly different doctrine about the possibility of objective knowledge,
namely the necessity of classical concepts. In fact, it follows from Raggio's
Theorem in algebraic quantum theory that - within an appropriate class of
physical theories - suitable mathematical translations of the doctrines of Bohr
and Einstein are equivalent. Thus - upon our specific formalization - quantum
mechanics accommodates Einstein's Trennungsprinzip if and only if it is
interpreted a la Bohr through classical physics. Unfortunately, the
protagonists themselves failed to discuss their differences in this
constructive way, since their debate was dominated by Einstein's ingenious but
ultimately flawed attempts to establish the "incompleteness" of quantum
mechanics.
  This aspect of their debate may still be understood and appreciated, however,
as reflecting a much deeper and insurmountable disagreement between Bohr and
Einstein on the knowability of Nature. Using the theological controversy on the
knowability of God as a analogy, Einstein was a Spinozist, whereas Bohr could
be said to be on the side of Maimonides. Thus Einstein's off-the-cuff
characterization of Bohr as a 'Talmudic philosopher' was spot-on.
