Though I can't possibly claim to have "figured him out," I think your observation that the Yin-Yang logo would suit Einstein pretty well is fitting.
On the one hand, it seems very clear to me that Einstein is a thinker of platonist persuasion: He expected science to ultimately find the underlying "geometry" that orders the universe. I'm personally sympathetic to that view. I call it the Logos, or maybe the "algorithm from inception."
On the other hand, as an admirer of Spinoza, he committed himself to a philosophy of strict determinism: Even God is "bound." There is no such thing as "free will": Even God doesn't have free will; he's just executing the "program" (so to speak) that is inherent in his nature, in his "substance." (Einstein really loses me here; I mean I get what Spinoza is saying; I just don't understand why Einstein finds it persuasive.)
In this, I imagine he takes a major departure from Plato's philosophy. He seems to have these two tensions -- Plato and Spinoza -- to reconcile in his own thought, though by the Law of the Excluded Middle, both cannot be "right"; and he himself has said that if there are two mutually-exclusive propositions, at least one of them has to be "wrong."
On the surface, it seems Einstein would perhaps have rejected the Yin-Yang analogy. But it seems he lived it all the same, in his life and work.
So if Einstein conceives of a cosmological constant, it is in answer to his need for a deterministic account of the Universe. Later he admitted he had "kluged" his science by introducing this notion. On the other hand, as you note dearest sister, there may well be a "need" for a cosmological constant in order to reconcile and harmonize physical observations of reality in a mathematical way. If this can be done, it's because of "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" to describe the world.
As you know, Einstein rejected Bohr's (and Heisenberg's) Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, because "God does not play dice" -- a reference to its statistical approach to quantum phenomena.
Lindley finds it "ironic" that Einstein "objected to religious principles in others [like Spinoza, he was what we today call a "secular Jew"] when his authority for disliking quantum mechanics derived from his direct access to the thoughts of 'the Old One' [Einstein's name for God]."
Bohr chastised him for this: "Don't you think caution is needed when using ordinary language to ascribe attributes to God?" Personally, I think that's a dandy question. :^)
A lovely excerpt regarding the "germ of what became Einstein's perennial objection to quantum mechanics" comes to mind, from Lindley's Uncertainty (2007):
Since Einstein could not countenance faster-than-light phenomena, he insisted ... that quantum mechanics could not be the whole story. There must be some way, within a theory grander than mere quantum mechanics, of calculating the behavior of electrons in detail so that you could predict exactly where each and every one would end up. In that case, the probability inherent in quantum mechanics would turn out to be like the probability enshrined in the old kinetic theory of heat. There, atoms have definite properties at all times and behave, in theory, with absolute predictability. But the physicist cannot hope to know precisely what every atom is doing, so is forced to resort to a statistical description. Quantum mechanics ought to work the same way, Einstein insisted. Beneath the surface it ought to be deterministic in the traditional way. And the intrusion of probability would not indicate a fundamental breakdown in physical determinism, only that physicists had not yet figured out the complete picture.Here's another complementarity: Einstein and Bohr themselves! I wouldn't choose between these two men: Both are "right," depending on the context. :^) The "middle" between them ought not to be excluded, for it is what holds the complementarity of their differing views together, in tension. There's no use in "choosing sides" here: You need them both. IMHO, FWIW.By way of counterargument, Bohr used the newly-minted uncertainty principle to prove there was no way to extract more information about the electrons in Einstein's thought experiment -- without, that is, destroying the diffraction pattern in the process. You could get details of each electron's trajectory before it hit the screen, or you could get the diffraction pattern, but you couldn't get both.
It's not hard to imagine Einstein's exasperation at this response. Of course quantum mechanics can't give you all the information you would like. That was precisely the problem that Einstein wanted to bring into the open. Far from demolishing the difficulty, Bohr had reinforced it. Quantum mechanics couldn't be the whole story.
I love both these guys. Add in Eric Voegelin, and you have my Top Three Greatest Thinkers of the Twentieth Century.
LOLOL! My two cents, FWIW.
Thank you so much dearest sister A-G for your brilliant essay/posts of the past two days! And for your kind support.
Thanx for keeping me pinged ...
Could be. Existence is pretty constant. If the cosmos exists of its own accord, the cosmos is divine. But perhaps that's getting ahead of things. For Plato, it is always touched first with a question, what is, and always is and never becomes . . and what is always becoming, but never is?
Exactly... what if they are both more or less on the right track.(Einstein and Bohr)
I have been in arguments in the past with a person and we were both right(I learned later) but we were seeing a subject from different angles.. with different agendas..
How much we need each other.. Even on this thread.. Observation is such a crap shoot.. Its so easy to have blind spots.. Some lean toward the literal and others lean toward the spiritual.. Some like formulaeic mental precision others the artistic freedom of creative thought..
How wonderful it will be when human language becomes obsolete.. and spiritual complementarity becomes obvious.. And spiritual harmonics becomes normal.. When thought becomes colorful light and musical harmony on a field of joyful sacrifice.. and words are primitive gruntings..
Did I say anything?... (shineing fingernails) ;)
Einstein certainly was a fascinating man. Perhaps it was his uncanny understanding of the "lofty structure" of the universe that compelled him to believe in his heart of hearts that the quantum world is equally sensible, e.g. local realism.
In the end, geometric physics may hold the key to unlocking some of the mysteries of the quantum, e.g. superposition, non-locality. That would be ironic considering the shifting of views towards a cosmological constant.
Nevertheless, Einstein's story is a case study in how presuppositions can become traps and embarassments - and conversely, that the instincts of our brightest minds should be remembered, even when they cannot be formalized as a theory. Modern scientists would be wise to take note.