TPF: Dualism and Interactionism

[Gnomon]

Matter is what composes bodies. They are composed of wave structures. — Dfpolis

What kind of substance (e.g. matter ; math ; other) are "wave structures" made of?


That physics has nothing more to say about what is vibrating does not mean that the constituents of matter do not oscillate in both space and time in well-defined ways. So, ordinary matter is made of waves. That is what I mean by "matter waves." — Dfpolis

So, you fill the gap in physical understanding with a label : out there in the darkness of ignorance are "matter waves". Like medieval maps, in uncharted territory, you add a cautionary note : "here be dragons waves. But you leave the key term undefined. Is that an accurate assessment?


The medium is not a key term. Physics is not philosophy. It does not aim to tell us what is, but what we can expect to observe in the physical world. Then, philosophers try to place those observations in a larger context -- one that provides a consistent framework of all human experience. — Dfpolis

OK. So, why are we discussing "matter waves" on a philosophy forum. Does the distinction between Particles and Waves have a philosophical significance regarding Dualism & Interactionism?

[Gnomon]

Most contemporary philosophers of mind employ a Cartesian conceptual space in which reality is (at least potentially) divided into res extensa and res cogitans. Then, they ask: how res cogitans could possibly interact with res extensa? I am suggesting that this approach is nonsensical because reality cannot be divided into res extensa and res cogitans. — Dfpolis

Your OP seems to be challenging conventional dualistic philosophical and scientific categories, such as Mind vs Body, or Wave vs Particle. But your (radical?) alternative perspective is difficult for conventional thinkers to follow --- in part, because it doesn't seem to fit into traditional compartmental worldviews, such as Realism vs Idealism. Nevertheless, I am beginning to see that you may have a good point, but I don't know exactly what it is. Perhaps because it is wishy-washy wavelike instead of hard-point particular. Is that a fair assessment?

I get the impression that you might be one of those geniuses who doesn't "suffer fools gladly". For example, calling your fellow genius Descartes' categories of being : "nonsensical". I view his separation of Magisteria as a political compromise, to avoid conflicts between Religion & Science, not as an absolute philosophical principle. Nevertheless, his notion has been interpreted to imply an impassible barrier between res extensa and res cogitans. Which makes sense from a Dualistic perspective, but non-sense from a Monistic stance. Is your view ultimately monistic?

One clue to where you are coming from is the statement : "I am a moderate realist. That means I think universals do not have a separate existence, but do have a foundation in reality." But, does that mean your position is midway between the exclusive extremes of Realism & Idealism ; hence, allowing some common pathway for Interaction? If so, it may be close to my own philosophical worldview of Both/And. Yet, you seem to have come to your Neither/Nor position via a different path from mine.

I think, unlike our perceived mundane reality, ultimate Reality has the Potential for both Mental & Physical expressions. And evolution was like a computer program processing Causation (energy) over time into both Matter and Mind. Does any of that make sense from your cosmic perspective?

So, ordinary matter is made of waves. That is what I mean by "matter waves."
We have known that there is electromagnetic field energy and momentum, permeating all space, since the late 19th century. As a result, Newton's third law is violated when electromagnetic forces are involved. — Dfpolis

You didn't deign to answer my request for a dumbed-down definition of "matter waves". So, I'm still not sure if you are referring to physical waves in a compressible substance, or metaphysical waves in an ethereal medium. I have a notion that light waves propagating in empty space are actually on-off alternations that are interpreted by the mind in terms of sinuous waves in a material substance. With no inertial mass to push off of, light has nothing reactive to act upon. But oscillations between something & nothing or potential & actual might be a clue to some of light's mysterious properties. This is not a developed theory, just a hunch for further investigation.