The mind in terms of WSM

[krishna]

How you would explain supervenience in terms of WSM? Would you even consider this notion to be a genuine explanation for how the mental depends on the physical or it is an assumption to think that the mental depends on the physical? Infact according to WSM there really is no physical or mental? Am i right to understand it this way?

[Guest]

I have been trying to figure this out exactly. Much of WSM is rooted in logic. However, if one thinks about it logically -- the mind and emotions aren't always logical.

Thus, how would you get illogic from a logical equation? The true "equation of the cosmos" would have to explain illogic in logical terms. Doesn't that seem logical?

[haselhurst]

Hi Krishna,
Thanks for writing to me and posting at forum.
I have just pasted in my reply to you from email.
Hopefully others will find it useful.
Cheers,
Geoff
-------------

Hey Geoff,
I think your website is absolutely fantastic, its so reassuring because i have been studying wave activity for a long time and found that current science was missing something but you have explained it all so simply.

Geoff - It is simple. The website makes it harder than need be - I am working on improving it this year. It is clearly obvious that we should consider a wave structure of matter in space (i.e. simplicity / Occam's razor, and thus strange that it was not considered earlier - I guess concepts of 'particles' and 'fields' in space-time' blinkered our thoughts).

Krishna - I am also a philosophy student, i was wondering how you would explain supervenience in terms of WSM? Would you even consider this notion to be a genuine explanation for how the mental depends on the physical or it is an assumption to think that the mental depends on the physical? In fact according to WSM there really is no physical or mental? Am i right to understand it this way?

Geoff - I think that not much has been added to philosophy since ancient Greeks (agree with Bertie Russell). Instead, what later philosophers often do is create a new word, that really means the same as an earlier concept, and make it appear that they have discovered something new and profound.
This relates to supervenience, as applied to connection between mind and matter. I agree, the two are connected (my mind moves my fingers to type, my mind is affected by drugs (matter)). This is also clearly true if reality is a dynamic unity (foundation of ancient Greek, Indian and Chinese philosophy), that one thing causes and connects the many things we experience. The wave structure of matter explains this necessary interconnection / dynamic unity of reality (founded on One thing, Space and its properties as a wave medium).
Thus I think supervenience is really just another word for 'necessary connection' (read Hume's problem of causation and necessary connexion).
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-David-Hume-Philosopher.htm

I think there is a physical word, made up of space (physical substance) and its wave motions. In the past 'physical' may have related more to material particles, which are clearly just ideas, not real existing things (naive real, from our incomplete senses).


Krishna - It would be really helpful to understand WSM a little more if you could share your knowledge on these aspects or issues of philosophy.> Thank you for your website at least
Krishna Gandhi

Geoff - Thanks for a nice kind interesting letter. Greatly appreciated.
Please join our forum, post this there. It is important, and your
discussions will help others over time.

I think that you will be taught a lot of nonsense in academic philosophy.
Hope you will compare it with wave structure of matter philosophy physics
and metaphysics - i think you will find it much more sensible.
Take care, good luck.
Geoff

-----------------------

Krishna - Thank you for getting back to me and I just posted my question on the forum. I Also read something about technical remote viewing, (don't know if TRV does what it claims too), and the science of it does question classical physics, although it can be possible based on WSM, the difference i find is the account of time. TRV considered time another dimension. This is only important if TRV really is a genuine skill. i just wanted to share that with you, but I will post this on the forum soon.
Thanks again,
Krishna

Hi Krishna,
People often add 'higher dimensions' as a way of allowing them to imagine
anything without constraints of empirical science.
But there is no need to - WSM explains these subtle interconnections between things because matter and space are a unity (discrete objects are an illusion due to our limited senses / representation of mind).
Einstein realised this - he just worked with continuous fields in space-time, rather than waves in continuous space.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Theory-Relativity.htm

Not sure about TRV, it may be possible, worth exploring (but from science
foundations).
Cheers,
Geoff

[haselhurst]

Hi Amos,
It is easy to get illogical things from a logical universe - just use chance from lack of knowledge.
An example of this. Well 20 years ago I read a book called the 'Diceman' where he decided his daily activities by throwing a dice.
I actually met my wife due to doing this (I tossed a coin, to decide if i would go up the pub to socialise with a group of Canadian women hockey players who we had just played a practice match against).
Thus my two children exist due to the toss of a coin.
But the decision was not founded on logic, just chance due to lack of knowledge in a necessarily connected universe.

Two important things relate to this.
i) The WSM explains why the universe is logical (waves behave in a logical / necessary way due to properties of space). This is why maths physics can exist.

ii) And Einstein's view of probability in Quantum Theory is correct (not Bohr / Copenhagen Interpretation).

"I still do not believe that the statistical method of the Quantum Theory is the last word, but for the time being I am alone in my opinion." (Albert Einstein, On Quantum Theory, p125 1936)

"You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the Quantum Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one."
(Albert Einstein to Max Born, On Quantum Theory, 1944)

"Einstein thinks he has a continuous field theory that avoids 'spooky action at a distance', but the calculation difficulties are very great. He is quite convinced that some day a theory that does not depend on probabilities will be found."
(Max Born letters to Albert Einstein, p158 Mar 1947)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-quantum-physics.htm

The real problem of the mind is to explain how we can have emotional feelings, how we can convert wavelengths into colors, certain shape molecules into tastes and smells, etc. All things to do with how the mind represents our sense to us.
I have no idea how to explain this - yet i am convinced that reality is a dynamic unity, thus I cannot accept that we must add a second thing, mind, as something different to waves in space.

Cheers,
Geoff

[Guest]

[haselhurst]

Hi Amos,
I agree in a metaphysical sense, as a wave is a balance between two forces (kinetic and elastic nature of space as a wave medium).

But you do not understand / appreciate the concept of representation, which is one of the central problems of the mind.
Neither balance, nor waves in space yet explains how we can convert wavelength to color (blue is a human construction of the mind).
And balance alone is incapable of explaining this, because it is not a fundamental concept (it must assume something first exists to be in balance). This is why the WSM is important to you.
But it still does not explain this central problem of the mind / representation.
Geoff

[Guest]

[Steve Anthony]

Hi Amos,

I found this (not far from here!) and wondered if you might get something from it...

http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/about117.html

In particular, this post from geoff, which seems particularly relevant...

"Why must there be an anti spherical aspect to universe?

This harmony of opposites is true to a degree.
1. There seems to be same number of negative charged 'particles' as there are positive, which in terms of WSM means that there are an equal number of in phase and opposite phase spherical standing waves, i.e. net wave amplitude (causes charge) of universe is zero (same number of electrons and positrons / matter and antimatter). I think the positrons combine with the electrons to form protons, but proton has one extra positron for a net charge of +1 (there is more to proton than this though, some extra resonance at wave center).

2. There is also this harmony of opposites in that all matter has spherical In waves and Out Waves (to form a spherical standing wave).

3. Finally Space itself must have two aspects for wave motion; slight motion of nearly rigid space, and elasticity of space. A wave oscillates between these two 'states' of space.

This also relates to the binary nature of reality. Any thoughts?
Geoff"


Is it not possible to Unify your understanding from any of this?

It is not always possible to 'flick a switch' and 'know' what your intellect is taking in. Sometimes a nice stroll through some greenery is enough to get the electrons fluctuating! (sometimes quite a few strolls are necessary!)

Best of luck with it,
Steve.

[haselhurst]

Hi Amos,

I am going to remove you from forum.
Sorry - it is a bit brutal / abrupt of me.
But I am determined to keep this forum a quality forum for people who wish to read and learn about physics philosophy and metaphysics (from past 2,500 years), and how the wave structure of matter in space explains their central problems.

I have read many fine minds. You get to the stage where you can quickly judge the quality of someones thinking as a philosopher seeking truth.
I do not find that trait in your mind. You are young and ignorant of many things (which is not your fault).
The fault is your ignorance of ignorance - to think you understand it all when you lack so much knowledge. Thus you write many things that are not true, and when this is pointed out to you you ignore it and move on making more absolute claims.
You are clearly smart, but that is not enough.
Take care, good luck on life's journey.
Sincerely,
Geoff

"Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance, is the death of knowledge. ... Philosophy is the product of wonder." (Alfred North Whitehead)

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." (William James)

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)

[Steve Anthony]