"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended ... thus the concept of particles cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density are particularly high."
(Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950)
"It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics. ... The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles."
(Carver Mead, Professor Emeritus at Caltech. Received $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize in 1999)
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jstarko
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:37 am Post subject: A Critque of the Foundations of the Ontology of the WSM |
 |
|
I recently came across the theory and was rather impressed with the idea. Upon further thought and scrutiny, however, I noticed a rather significant problem with the WSM I located in Dr. Milo Wolff's paper obtainable off of his website. I'll copy and paste sections of a paper I recently wrote on the subject. The first half of the paper was an explanation of theory and the background, so I'll post relevant passages:
| Quote: |
However, there is a huge tendency to push this theory from the realm of science into the realm of philosophy. It is from this perspective that this theory must be examined extremely closely. The scientist must ensure his discipline describes the behavior of universe, not defines the nature of the universe. Jacques Maritain explains this explicitly saying, “May it never be forgotten what an error it would be to try to build a Philosophy of Nature, and "a fortiori" a metaphysics, on the theoretical conclusions of modern physics and its explanations of the world.” Maritain explicitly says that each discipline must retain its own objective.
Geoff - true, mathematical science is about showing logical relationships using quantities, it says little about whether the actual concepts are real or not, e.g. 'particles and forces'. Clearly they are just human constructions, only approximations of the real world.
Maritain directly addresses the issue of making ontological conclusions from a system of physico-mathematical knowledge. He says that these types of sciences work:
"On the physical real but for the purpose of envisioning it from the formal point of view of mathematics, and of the mathematical laws or prescriptions which link together the measurements gathered from nature by our instruments. [They] resolve all [their] concepts into the measurable. And on the deductive synthesis which [they] construct [are] verified only by the coincidence of the numerical results of that synthesis."
These sciences observe qualities of nature which can only be measured mathematically. Because they are based on a system of mathematics, they do not represent real causes in nature but only signs and symbols of the real causes.
Geoff - Largely true, though the fact that we can logically relate things tells us that physical reality must have a logical / necessary interconnection aspect to it.
These sciences, however, are based more on the physical world than the mathematical. Because of this “ontological preoccupations will intervene obliquely in this science. It will obliquely carry along with it ontological values.” These sciences will inherently attempt to make ontological conclusions because they begin and end in the physical world, and thus an “invincible ontological tendency of the human reason as well as the pressure exercised on it in spite of everything by the principle of causality must necessarily influence him in some way.” Scientists will usually attempt to make ontological conclusions from these types of theories because the human mind desires to discover the origin of the universe. Because these sciences begin and end in the physical world, it seems logical that one could derive ontological conclusions from the theories. However, it is of the utmost importance to realize that these sciences are “completely indifferent as to whether these explicative entities so constructed are real beings or whether they are beings of reason.” Scientists are not concerned with the type of beings that arise from their conclusions. For them, there is no distinction between the importance of a real being or a mental being; “All that matters for him is the explicative value of these entities in function of the network of equations of the physical theory.” Scientists will accept that all beings are merely mental beings if it fits into their theory. They are not concerned if their beings are real at all!
Geoff - Which is why philosophy and metaphysics are important to science as they are about the 'things in themselves' not just our mind's representation of the thing.
This does not mean, however, that these conclusions drawn by scientists are completely lacking in value. Their conclusions can tell us something about nature symbolically. Maritain says that:
"The physicist wishes to penetrate the secrets of matter; but the very type of knowledge to which he is bound prohibits him from attaining the nature of matter in itself. He attains it in the observable and measurable, and thereby real, determinations which are for him the substitutes of essence, and he scrutinizes it and fathoms it to the very degree that he mathematically symbolizes it."
The physicist does reach an understanding of the nature of matter, but this knowledge is derived from mathematical symbols, which are beings of reason. Because he begins his search with beings of reason, the scientist can never know nature more precisely than a being of reason. It is not possible to attain a level of accuracy better than the least accurate foundation of a search. The scientist knows the nature of matter as verified symbols which in turn prevent him from knowing the nature of matter as it ontologically exists.
In his wave structure of matter theory, however, Dr. Wolff draws several ontological conclusions. He says:
"The philosophical conclusions are fascinating, particularly concerning the connectedness of the universe: Everything we are and observe here on Earth, matter, laws, life, necessarily depends on the existence of all the matter in the universe. We must conclude, if the stars and galaxies were not in the heavens, we could not exist! Thus, we are part of the universe, and the universe is part of us."
Geoff - Yes. Very nicely written, directly deduced from the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM Cosmology, explains Mach's Principle, Equation of the Cosmos, unites finite universe with infinite space, deduces redshift with distance. All very profound)
Dr. Wolff posits that our very existence is dependent upon all other matter in existence. It is possible that the change of one being across the galaxy could cause our being to become something radically different. If one continues to draw ontological conclusions from this theory, the results are quite radical. For example, space is the unlimited principle of the universe. The only substance that exists is space; matter is merely an illusion created by the interference of waves. Therefore, all things in existence, such as rocks, trees, planets, dirt, animals, and humans, have the same value.
Geoff - Depends what you mean by 'value'. But yes, there are just waves in space, the rest is a construction of our mind.
These ontological conclusions cannot be drawn from this theory. Dr. Wolff constructs the wave structure of matter on three mathematical principles: the wave equation, the wave density principle, and the minimum amplitude principle. From these principles, he concludes that all matter is the motion and interference of waves in space. However, all of these principles, including waves themselves, are mathematical, which are beings of reason. Norris Clarke says that mathematical entities “can never provide adequate models for the dynamic world of real being.” Because the theory is built upon the symbolic language of mathematics, it can only explain the nature of matter and the universe symbolically, leaving no room for ontological conclusions which explain the very nature of matter and the universe. Symbols only represent something else; they cannot tell us what something really is. Thus, the theory can tell us something real about the universe: it behaves like waves moving in space. It cannot, however, tell us the nature of the universe.
|
Geoff - This is where you misrepresent things. For example, I came to the idea of WSM without any maths at all, purely from metaphysics and philosophy. Maths just helps us confirm the logic with precision - but it is not necessary. I clearly sense existing in space, it is easy to imagine space exists as a wave medium, that matter is a spherical standing wave in space. So metaphysics (study of substance and its properties) can tell us about the nature of space (it is a nearly rigid wave medium). Most importantly the WSM explains how maths is possible - waves behave logically due to properties of space, and can be quantified, e.g. wavelength, frequency, velocity, number of wave center 'particles'. This is the important argument when you discuss maths - how it can exist and relate to reality.
In summary, the WSM is based upon 3 mathematical principles. Mathematics is merely a language of symbols, and thus can never attain a knowledge more accurate than a symbol. A real ontological conclusion cannot be drawn from something which is merely symbolic. The conclusion itself would be symbolic, thus not making it ontological.
Geoff - No. WSM is based on Space existing as a substance with properties of a wave medium. Mathematical physics of WSM is based on three principles, which could really be written as one principle and a series of laws that arise from it (e.g. you can deduce Milo's third principle MAP from first two actually).
EDIT: If you would like the origin of specific quotes, I have them all but haven't included them because of time. I have page numbers and sources for each reference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chris Wright
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 51
Location: Scotia
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:28 pm Post subject: jstarko's critique |
|
|
That is a very interesting article, and I share your skepticism about the validity or meaningfulness of such statements as 'the universe is one'.
Hi Chris,
All is one is just standard term from metaphysics. Perhaps it is better to say "Only One substance exists, Space, with properties of a wave medium."
Is that better?
However, are you not more fundamentally attacking that type of statement, rather than the specific conclusions of Wolff and Haselhurst from the WSM?
What I mean is, we could equally condemn any such vagary whether or not it claims to follow on from science or maths.
I wonder if I have misunderstood, however: could you explain exactly what you mean by 'an ontological conclusion' in this context?
And is it not misleading to suggest that the WSM is founded on purely mathematical principles? We use maths to describe the physical universe, as observed. Therefore, the real observations must have existed before Milo's mathematical interpretations of them.
Geoff - Well said. I agree.
Does this not allow the WSM ontological conclusions - even if those put forward are somewhat vague and silly? Chris Wright
Geoff - Now Chris, i know that you like these little arguments with me, to wave the red flag. But this is a philosophy / science forum. You need to give reasons. So please, of the hundreds of claims i have made about truth and reality, can you tell me which ones are silly (not true). Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gil
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 42
Location: Maine, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:11 pm Post subject: Point/Counterpoint |
|
|
Very, very interesting points in your post Jstarko, and most professionally presented. I think this is a welcome addition to contemporary thought. And, excellent counterpoints, Chris. Jstarko's post centers the debate quite succinctly, but I am clearly on Chris, Milo and Geoff's side. Jstarko, you must clearly realize that Molo Wolff's symbols are first taken from the real ontological world, we all see, touch, smell, hear, feel and know to be sound and true, to our innate senses. The innate senses are our ontological absolute ground. Further, the infinite singularity of space is also our known ontological ground, and it's sure filled with many things mathmatizable and real, called finite wave/matter. It's all absolutely clear enough to my senses...
Regards,
Lloyd |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
haselhurst
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 728
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe, Infinite Space. Status: Endangered Species. Cause: Ignorance
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi everyone,
Sorry for delay in replying - must have missed this post when it was first made (it is a good post).
I have added some comments to above posts. But I really did not need to, Lloyd has stated things perfectly - true, clear, simple concise. Well done, thanks.
Geoff
PS - And there is only one side we are on - truth. That is what we are seeking at all times. And most of the time it is simple and obvious - it is our feeble emotional biologically programmed minds that make it hard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Wright
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 51
Location: Scotia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: vague and silly statements |
|
|
Forgive me, Geoff, for implying that the WSM is vague and silly; as a theory of physics, it says something very definite about the way we understand the universe, and that is perfectly valid.
But 'the universe is one' I just don't see as meaningful. You replace it with 'Only One substance exists, Space, with properties of a wave medium.' - but if this means the same thing, I'm confused as to what that thing is. David Hume, who you seem to appreciate, would reject all usage of the word 'substance' for its failure to denote anything; 'Space', with a capital, means - what, exactly? What is the distinction between a wave medium and a substance with properties of a wave medium?
Taken together, this all apparently means that the universe is one. Well, I'm confused.
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
haselhurst
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 728
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe, Infinite Space. Status: Endangered Species. Cause: Ignorance
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Chris,
Seems we don't understand one another - as i don't really understand your criticism (which I appreciate / take in the right way!).
The WSM is founded on the metaphysical idea that only one substance (space) exists (as you know). The many things are formed from waves in space.
So in our finite spherical universe (within infinite space) it is not possible to think of one thing existing on its own, all things are interconnected by their in and out waves - they are all part of one thing (space and its wave motions).
"What is the distinction between a wave medium and a substance with properties of a wave medium?"
Well air and water might be considered wave mediums - but really they are all made from one substance Space (and its wave motions), which is the true wave medium.
So there is only one real substance - Space. It has properties of a wave medium - that is all that exists, everything else exists as waves in space.
The problem with this is that it does not explain emotional / representational aspects of the mind. But it explains so many other things that it should be pursued (as I see things).
BTW - How are your studies going? What are you up to?
All the best,
Geoff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Wright
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 51
Location: Scotia
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject: mystical statements |
|
|
Hi Geoff.
When you say 'the universe is one' that could physically mean something that is so tautological as to not be worth saying. The fact that you say it, however, suggests that there are meaningful conclusions to be drawn from it alone. There are of course massive implications for the WSM theory - but that states a great deal more than that the universe is one 'thing'. The danger is that you conclude from the universe being one thing some kind of moral system - confusing science and ethics, as I see it. So I am not objecting to the truth of that assertion, as such, but to the way it seems to be used to justify mysticism.
Sorry these discussions are a bit circular and antagonistic - we should just leave it here, I think.
As for me, I'm in my final year of school here in Scotland. My intention next year is to study Philosophy and Literature at university. I slightly regret having moved so far away from science; if I could take all my subject choices over again I think I might have aimed for psychology or evolutionary biology, since that's what I find most interesting at the moment. But I'm also looking forward to the course I've chosen, even if I'm not likely to come across electrons and such like.
I hope all is well in the middle of the outback. I think I would enjoy your peaceful lifestyle - or maybe it's not so peaceful, with websites to run and nature to cope with?
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Anthony
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 346
Location: Helsinki
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Chris,
Sorry to 'butt in'. Just wanted to mention that there are probably elements of life, generally, that are unseeable, or even 'quantifiable', until you reach them. We can never understand what the love for our children feels like, until we have children to love! It's just not the same as anything you would have previously experienced. These are the kind of feelings that are generally associated with 'mysticism', but not altogether the same thing.
In older 'cultures', the younger generations usually had/have to go through some 'initiation' process, to acheive Adulthood, but this is no intellectual theorizing, this is Real Life, where things are killed and eaten, where Death is a sacred part of Life, and where the understanding of 'Unity' is what keeps the people together, as they know that to divide themselves in their opinions, and from Nature, would be certain suicide!
This is also the roots of our own 'Mysticism', and subsequently, 'Religion'.
This association with Nature is what gives the valuable insight into the 'Oneness', and this, I believe, is almost certainly how Geoff is able to perceive the WSM in this 'Whole' way. (Geoff?) - (see the recent thread on the 'beauty of it all')
So, my suspicion is, that not only would you enjoy the peaceful lifestyle, but you would also understand how NATURE COPES WITH US! - And that's not to mention the clarity it would bring to your studies!
I'll 'butt out' again now. 
Wish you all the best, in your endeavours,
Steve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Simple Science Forum - Dynamic Unity of Reality
FAQ
Search Forum
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
