The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

[seeds]

4. How does reality surprise us, collectively? Humanity was apparently surprised to find that heavier objects don't fall faster, when Galileo started dropping things off towers. If reality is being co-created, things like gravity, relativity, chemistry, quantum physics - they point to it at least not being co-created by the most popular ideas. Which people manifested these things into reality, overriding popular beliefs?

4.1 Why are popular superstitions not being manifested into reality?

You are assuming humans are Gods with omniscient, that what humans deemed as 'reality' is the ultimately-reality regardless of whether there are any living things to realize it or not.

The point is a one-celled living organism will "cognize" reality relative his its nature.
Humans will cognize relative to its nature.
Aliens [possible to exist] 100 [1000 or >] times which are more cognizant will cognize relative to its nature.

How is it that you can entertain the possible existence of aliens with a level of cognizance that is 1000 times (or greater ">") than that of humans, yet you cannot fathom that this particular designator [">"] could apply to an Entity who is as far above us in cognizance as we humans are above amoebas?

Indeed, I'm talking about a Being that is so far above us in scope and consciousness that its very thoughts appear to us as the three-dimensional phenomena that you are claiming (at least in the title of this thread) are illusions that aren't actually there unless we humans are looking at them.

My goodness, VA, if you already recognize the illusory nature of matter and the fact that moons, and planets, and our physical bodies are nothing more than mind-like phantasms that rely on human interactions and cognizance (conscious observations) before they can appear in their various forms,...

(kind of like the 3-D phenomena that appeared in that dream you may have had last night)

...then why is it so difficult for you to imagine these highly structured, again, "mind-like" features of the universe as simply being the extremely advanced mental holography of a higher Being - a Being with infinitely greater [">"] cognizance than us humans?

You're almost there, Veritas. You've already imagined the possibility of an alien who is 1000 times more cognizant than a human. Now just project that vision of ascending consciousness upward to the furthest possible degree and you will begin to understand that the Creator of this universe is not "an impossibility to be real."

If you want to make greater sense of your recent foray into the strangeness of quantum physics, then don't let your pride and stubbornness keep you from taking a few acclimating sips of the theistic Kool-Aid.

I argued, nothing is lost if we give up the idea of an ultimate mind-independent reality.

I agree.

Not only is nothing lost, but the net gain comes in the form of coming closer to the ultimate truth of reality, in that all of reality (be it emanant or transcendent) is dependent upon mind in some form or another.

However, your problem is that you don't seem to understand (or allow for the fact) that minds themselves (and their agents) exist independent of each other. Which means that the greater mind (and agent) of this universe, along with all of its contents (such as moons, and planets, and human bodies, etc.) exist independently of your mind, and therefore will continue to exist whether or not any of us are looking at them.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

4. How does reality surprise us, collectively? Humanity was apparently surprised to find that heavier objects don't fall faster, when Galileo started dropping things off towers. If reality is being co-created, things like gravity, relativity, chemistry, quantum physics - they point to it at least not being co-created by the most popular ideas. Which people manifested these things into reality, overriding popular beliefs?

4.1 Why are popular superstitions not being manifested into reality?

You are assuming humans are Gods with omniscient, that what humans deemed as 'reality' is the ultimately-reality regardless of whether there are any living things to realize it or not.

The point is a one-celled living organism will "cognize" reality relative his its nature.
Humans will cognize relative to its nature.
Aliens [possible to exist] 100 [1000 or >] times which are more cognizant will cognize relative to its nature.

How is it that you can entertain the possible existence of aliens with a level of cognizance that is 1000 times (or greater ">") than that of humans, yet you cannot fathom that this particular designator [">"] could apply to an Entity who is as far above us in cognizance as we humans are above amoebas?

Indeed, I'm talking about a Being that is so far above us in scope and consciousness that its very thoughts appear to us as the three-dimensional phenomena that you are claiming (at least in the title of this thread) are illusions that aren't actually there unless we humans are looking at them.

My goodness, VA, if you already recognize the illusory nature of matter and the fact that moons, and planets, and our physical bodies are nothing more than mind-like phantasms that rely on human interactions and cognizance (conscious observations) before they can appear in their various forms,...

(kind of like the 3-D phenomena that appeared in that dream you may have had last night)

...then why is it so difficult for you to imagine these highly structured, again, "mind-like" features of the universe as simply being the extremely advanced mental holography of a higher Being - a Being with infinitely greater [">"] cognizance than us humans?

You're almost there, Veritas. You've already imagined the possibility of an alien who is 1000 times more cognizant than a human. Now just project that vision of ascending consciousness upward to the furthest possible degree and you will begin to understand that the Creator of this universe is not "an impossibility to be real."

If you want to make greater sense of your recent foray into the strangeness of quantum physics, then don't let your pride and stubbornness keep you from taking a few acclimating sips of the theistic Kool-Aid.

I argued, nothing is lost if we give up the idea of an ultimate mind-independent reality.

I agree.

Not only is nothing lost, but the net gain comes in the form of coming closer to the ultimate truth of reality, in that all of reality (be it emanant or transcendent) is dependent upon mind in some form or another.

However, your problem is that you don't seem to understand (or allow for the fact) that minds themselves (and their agents) exist independent of each other. Which means that the greater mind (and agent) of this universe, along with all of its contents (such as moons, and planets, and human bodies, etc.) exist independently of your mind, and therefore will continue to exist whether or not any of us are looking at them.
_______

Yes, it is possible for aliens [empirically possible] to have 100, 1000, 1 million, 1 billion, 1 trillions or > [or whatever nth] times more cognizant power than humans.
If your alien [empirically possible] is whatever nth times greater in cognizant or acting power, I can agree with that.
Note 'empirically possible' means it can be verified and justified with empirical evidence via a credible FSK like the science-FSK which is the most credible.

BUT the typical GOD is claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-whatever.
God in this case [ontological] is a being no greater can be conceived.

Point is, when we discuss 'God' the default is always the ontological God, not the off-the-shelf varieties kind of gods [e.g. the Greek Gods, x, y, z; good and evil gods] which are inferior to the ontological God.

If your supposed god is not the ontological God, then it could either an inferior good or evil god. So, which is your god?

In any case, I agreed there could be aliens [100, 1000 or nth] times more greater than humans [existing light years away from Earth], BUT note I qualified they must be 'empirically possible', i.e. can be verified and justified via Science when the relevant empirical evidence is produced.

So, which is your god?
Do you claim it is empirically possible to be verified and justified via the human-based science-FSK?

[seeds]

You're almost there, Veritas. You've already imagined the possibility of an alien who is 1000 times more cognizant than a human. Now just project that vision of ascending consciousness upward to the furthest possible degree and you will begin to understand that the Creator of this universe is not "an impossibility to be real."

If you want to make greater sense of your recent foray into the strangeness of quantum physics, then don't let your pride and stubbornness keep you from taking a few acclimating sips of the theistic Kool-Aid.

...the typical GOD is claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-whatever.
God in this case [ontological] is a being no greater can be conceived.

Point is, when we discuss 'God' the default is always the ontological God,...

Allow me to make a slight correction in that last sentence:

Point is, when "I" [Veritas Aequitas] discuss 'God' the default is always the ontological God...

Or, better yet:

Point is, when "I" [Veritas Aequitas] discuss 'God' the default is always the limited concept of the ontological God that humans (who are the metaphorical equivalent of amoebas compared to the ontological God) have falsely imagined...

My apologies, V., it appears that because you were acknowledging the possible existence of higher levels of consciousness extending above us humans, along with noticing how the material features of the universe (such as the moon, for example) seem to resemble the illusory features of our dreams,...

...I therefore inferred that you might be on the verge of putting two and two together in a way that would allow you to see how the universe is a mind-like phenomenon.

And that led me to foolishly suggest that "you're almost there" in realizing that if the universe is a mind-like phenomenon, then it might also have an accompanying "Agent".

I was wrong in assuming that you would take that tiny (but logical) step.

So, carry on (my wayward son).
_______