Some questions

[bearish]

I recently read a commentary on Daniel C. Dennett’s 1991 book, Consciousness Explained, which argues for a materialist theory of consciousness. It was interesting, but while I was reading it I was asking myself: “What is meant by philosophical materialism, or rather, what do people who call themselves philosophical materialists mean by matter?

I used Google to look up “What is matter?” and after one or two boring-looking high-school lessons on the atom, came to your pages which are very nice.

However, I have some questions. Since about the end of the 1990s I have been coming across oblique references to the new view that matter is formed by waves. I quickly “came to that conclusion myself” because it made sense –moreover, lots of other people seemed to accept it. However, from watching the video interview with Milo Wolff and in various other places, I have the impression that he was the inventor of the idea. So where are all those other people getting it from?

Another question is this: clearly, this would seem to put the materialist theory of consciousness in a different light; is consciousness really bound by standing waves, or is it a state in which there is some opening up of these standing waves to “non-standing” waves, etc.? I am sure others must be asking more sophisticated versions of this question.

Finally, I find your pages very interesting, especially as you are bringing philosophy and science together – and I hope a flaw in the thinking of many scientists will start to be remedied by this. The flaw I refer to is their seeming incapacity to integrate the slightest awareness of the role of power into the understanding of their subject. Where does will come from? Can will be explained by free-standing waves? I’m not saying it can’t (even though it may sound a ridiculous question to some), but such questions seem essential if we are to make any progress at all as a species.

[haselhurst]

Hi Mr Bearish,
What an interesting letter. I hope that over several years we can discuss these things and clear up many of the misunderstandings.

I am very sorry for my late reply - please do not think me rude. I am just overwhelmed with work / emails and a bit obsessive in doing my own work.

A few short replies;

Materialism I think tends to refer to matter and inherent in this is the idea of particles. The correction is to apply this term to Space as a substance with properties of a wave medium. This has been the big problem for Science, we study matter because that is what we see and interact with, we have left space in the background (Newton). Einstein tried to correct this, but worked with mathematical fields in space time, rather than real waves in Space.

I don't see much evidence on internet that many people are discussing the wave structure of matter. But it is an ancient idea, I think Buddha mentions it somewhere, and the ancient Greek and Eastern philosophers realised that reality was a dynamic unity. Milo Wolff actually deduced fundamentals of QT and Relativity, so he has formalised the maths physics foundations of WSM. But there is lots to be done!

The spherical standing waves actually change standing wave patterns whenever light is emitted / absorbed by an electron in atom / molecule. This relates to QT and discrete energy states of light and matter / matter interactions. So yes, this must relate to mind as well. But obviously very complex, and I still cannot explain how mind can experience emotions if there are only waves in Space. But at least WSM explains how we can sense 'external' world and how we can have logic / reason.

Finally, I hope you are right. I certainly agree that physics, philosophy and metaphysics should (must) be studied together. I hope the website helps in this process.
Cheers,
Geoff

PS - I am away for next 3 months, so you won't hear much from me.