Yeah, no, sorry, I totally disagree with Marmet. I haven't had time to read everything in the link you gave, but he's essentially one of the strictest materialists I've come across in a while. Maybe there is more to his ideas than I have seen, but with stuff like this: "Such definitions require some more analysis. One notices that the words matteror material objects are essential in the above definition when we define physical realism. In fact, in the reality of thoughts one must realize that there is no physical reality because thoughts do not exist outside our mind. One arrives at the realization that in physics, realism is limited only to its relation to matter, since it is the only case for which objects really exist independently of the observer. This shows the necessity to use the word mass in the definition of reality." He is asserting that the only thing that is "real" is "mass" (whatever that is, anyway). He lays into philosophy quite harshly as well. He's basically denying the reality or validity of QM, as far as I can tell. Let's just say, so far he and I do not think alike. I may have to rethink my opinion of Ratcliffe if this guy was a major influence. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in forming an opinion.