Synthesis of Mind and Matter

The links in the table on the left take you to sub-headings on this page.

Perception is common to everything that has a mind. Hence everything that includes mind always has both a subjective component and an objective component. So, in general, mind is always relative and ties together subjectivity with objectivity. Mind can never be either purely subjective or purely objective.

The two components of mind allow me to formulate the relation of matter to mind in a new way. A major dilemma in physics is whether matter is best described as an assortment of discrete particles or as a display of wave patterns. Using the ideas in the article Waves and Particles,

The full relationship between mind and matter is :
waves are the subjective component of mind ;
matter is the objective component of mind.

Matter is a relative objectivity within the universal mind of god. My view of consciousness is that it is made up of will (or will power), mind, and feeling. So mind interacts with will. The universal will of god gives rise to the forces (such as gravity and electricity) that rule creation.[³]. Mind as pure thought (separate from will) is unlimited and continuous, but when it generates reality it becomes bounded and chunky. Chunkiness seems to be the manner in which will handles mind. So matter exists as discrete units and energy is quantised.

Some theorists believe that matter can be manipulated by the mind of the human observer, especially in experiments in particle physics. Is this likely? Sometimes matter does not seem to be significant. Perhaps only under this condition can it be manipulated by a human mind.

Physicists use the bubble chamber to give a diagrammatic representation of what occurs in their high-energy experiments. How should their results be interpreted ? I give my view. For the unstable or transient particles, which have a very minute length of life, will or force is not dominant and the pictures of the bubble chamber show only the play of mind upon these particles  – rather like observing a dream. [4].

All particle experiments have a built-in factor of uncertainty. The observer is a part of what he observes, or the mind of the scientist can be a part of his experiment. This relation is not likely to be significant except at the particle and atomic levels, where the factor of uncertainty can allow the mind of the scientist to influence that which he wants to observe.

The scientist may initially produce computerised patterns of transient-particle behaviour that he wants, if possible, to detect in his subsequent experiments. It is arguable how much this focus of mind actually creates the very patterns that he may later ‘find’ in the bubble chamber photographs, that is, the photographs may sometimes mean little more than that the mind of the scientist is directly affecting particle reality. The quantised effect that will has on mind implies that the scientist can only affect his experiment in certain allowed ways and not in a random manner. The longer-lived of the transient particles no doubt exist, but the plethora of the short-lived ones perhaps exists only in the laboratory (and in the mind of the experimenter) and no where else in creation.

The unstable particles are not important in the evolution of matter, at least within the world of reality that humans know. In other worlds the lifetimes of the particles may change and so give a different hierarchy of the particle types.

Synthesis

The analysis of the wave-particle problem enabled me to draw together my ideas on mind into a synthesis.

Will and feeling within the individual person are just lower harmonics of universal will and universal feeling. It is the universal mind that becomes individualised into "units" of matter and subjective minds, in order to facilitate the creation of consciousness or life forms. A person (or any other unit of consciousness) is a blend of will, mind and feeling, and of these the mind is the most important factor. This is a static framework in which to understand consciousness. [ Additionally, in order to analyse some issues, I use a dynamic framework for consciousness, and I call this "ego and karma", where ego is the personality and karma is the sum of all forms of determinism acting on a person.] [5]

Within objective mind, or universal mind (of god) :

The picture of relative subjectivity  is that of patterns and individual units of mind.
It is the wave and a system of relationships. It is a web of subjective minds. It is the arena of change.

The picture of relative objectivity  is matter.
It is the particle and individual objects. It is the bodies that house the subjective minds. It is the arena of causality. [6]

Within subjective mind (of a person) :

The picture of relative subjectivity  is ‘Becoming’.
It is the ego, searching for existential meaning in relationships. It is the way that life is lived. It is non-linguistic and functional. The ego is defined by its differences from other egoes.

The picture of relative objectivity  is ‘Being’.
It is karma (or determinism), the realisation of psychological values. It is the way that life has become structured through fixed beliefs. It is linguistic and causal. [7]. Karma gives rise to identity or sameness with other people.

Time and Gravitation

Mind is relative. Within mind, ego is the relative subjectivity whilst karma is the relative objectivity. Time is different between the two factors of mind. The ego lives in the present, so relationships are those that exist now. Karma relates to the past. Mystics proclaim that mystic time is not the same as conventional or clock time. This view only means that time in the present is relatively subjective, whilst conventional time is relatively objective.

The same difference occurs in matter. The wave or pattern is of the present, whilst the particle is of the past.

I apply my understanding of relativity to views of cosmic creation in order to explain some differences between the ideas of Newton and Einstein (bearing in mind that Einstein's use of the term 'relativity' is not the same as my use of it). Beginning at the Big Bang, the density of matter was extremely great : atoms did not exist, only components that formed nuclei. As the universe expanded, the density fell, so allowing atoms to form (this scenario is that of Einsteinian space-time). As further expansion occurred, the density decreased even more, thereby allowing larger, molecular units of matter to form (now we have Newtonian space-time).

Newton used absolute (or clock) time in Euclidean space as the framework for his ideas on astronomy. Einstein used ‘relative’ time, blended with non-Euclidean space, as his framework. Neither concept of time and space is completely right in all situations ; both are needed. Einstein’s ideas relate to a relative subjectivity, Newton’s to a relative objectivity. Now subjectivity precedes objectivity. In my view of the evolution of the cosmos, Einsteinian space-time arises first, whilst the density of matter is very great and fairly uniform. Then as the universe expands, so the density gradually decreases and becomes non-uniform, and we end up with chunky centres of matter. Now we have units of creation that function in a Newtonian space-time.

In our solar system, the astronomy of the inner planets (Venus and Mercury) suggests that Einsteinian space-time is influencing them. This does not indicate that Newtonian space-time is only a useful approximation to reality and nothing more. It indicates that our solar system is still completing the transition from Einsteinian space-time to Newtonian space-time.

What is the implication of these ideas?
To grasp the idea that a wave is a relative subjectivity, and yet nevertheless real, results in a re-orientation of the scientific paradigm, because a subjective wave is only real if it is a product of an objective mind. Therefore to accept that the wave-particle problem is really a problem in relativity leads straight into the theory of philosophical Idealism, and the displacement of realism as the ground of science.

The number in brackets at the end of each reference takes you back to the paragraph that featured it.
The addresses of my other websites are on the Links page.

[¹]. My ideas about God are described in the article Monism and Dualism on my website A Modern Thinker. [1]

[²]. The article in which I describe my idea of relativity is The Ego and Relativity. [2]

[³]. The idea that the universal will underlies the forces of "Nature" was presented by Arthur Schopenhauer. I use his ideas in the article Will and Representation on my website A Modern Thinker. [3]

[4]. See the previous article on Philosophical Idealism for the view of reality as a dream, that is, when only universal mind is active. [4]

[5]. For my ideas on ego and karma, see the article Existentialism and Psychology. [5]

[6]. Causality and change are sometimes different issues, and sometimes related issues. See the article Causality and Change. [6]

[7]. The ego is non-linguistic because it seeks meanings, which are non-linguistic (which implies that they are based on emotions and feelings which cannot be articulated). Karma is based on values, which are linguistic (and so can be articulated).
For a comparison between existentialism and psychology, see the article Existentialism and Psychology.
For a comparison between meanings and values, see the article Meaning and Value on my website A Modern Thinker. [7]

The articles in this section are :