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

[Veritas Aequitas]

"As you can see, Mr. Poy, we're in quite a bind. We've translated the text, 99% of it to be precise, but ..." said Hira, dejected. "Yes, I intelligo, and it's also obvious what the problem is," Poy was being as forthright as he always was. "Ah, Mr. Poy, I knew from reading your credentials you were the right man for this job. You're familiar with this kinda issues with translating ancient texts. You've also solved some of them, yes?" Poy was pleased to hear someone speak so highly of him but also felt a twinge of anxiety - he had a reputation to lose now.

Are you aware you are "off key"?

[Agent Smith]

"As you can see, Mr. Poy, we're in quite a bind. We've translated the text, 99% of it to be precise, but ..." said Hira, dejected. "Yes, I intelligo, and it's also obvious what the problem is," Poy was being as forthright as he always was. "Ah, Mr. Poy, I knew from reading your credentials you were the right man for this job. You're familiar with this kinda issues with translating ancient texts. You've also solved some of them, yes?" Poy was pleased to hear someone speak so highly of him but also felt a twinge of anxiety - he had a reputation to lose now.

Are you aware you are "off key"?

That's possible, Most kind of you to inform me I am.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And it goes to show that the people most accomplished in the scientific FSKs of physics and chemistry are, on average, philosophical realists AND believe that the phenomena they study have an existence independent of conscious awareness of that existence. In other words, chemists think H2O is a mind independent fact. (admittedly that's slightly a stretch, but not much)

There is a lot to untangle within the above.

First we cannot conflate science-proper with philosophy-proper.
The listed article seem to conflate science-proper with philosophy-proper.

In this case, the scientists are wearing two hats, i.e. science and philosophy, and they must understand which hats they are wearing when making the various statements.

Science-Proper
The principle of Science is that a scientific conclusion, fact or truth can only be based on the empirical evidence as verified and justified via the scientific method, plus other conditions such as the necessary assumptions and limitations, and peer review which is within a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] Science.

Re Assumptions, there is the generic assumptions and the variable assumptions.
Science-proper only include the generic assumptions.

• All scientists make two fundamental generic assumptions.
  One is determinism—the assumption that all events in the universe, including behavior, are lawful or orderly.
  The second assumption is that this lawfulness is discoverable.
  https://uca.edu/psychology/files/2013/0 ... proach.pdf

The above is all about science proper as conditions within its specific scientific FSK.

Science plus philosophy-proper
When we view science with a philosophical perspective, we have;

1. Scientific Realism
2. Scientific Anti-Realism.

The variable assumptions are made by those with their specific "ism" ideologies, i.e.

1. Theists: The assumption that God exists and all of reality is created by a God awaiting discovery by science and scientists. Newton and Mendel would have made such an assumption; so did all other Christian or theistic [Muslim] scientists. I would class them within Scientific Realism.

2. Philosophical Realists adopt Scientific Realism and they will made the assumption that there is an independent Objective Reality where scientific discoveries are getting closer and closer to its ultimate independent truth.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

3. Anti-Philosophical Realists [APR] fall into various categories of idealism or empirical realism. The majority of these will fall within the Scientific Anti-Realism category.
For empirical realists and Transcendental Idealists [my view], they do not made any extra assumption and accept whatever scientific conclusions, truths, and facts emerging from the scientific FSK.
Other APRs may made other assumptions, but that is not relevant to the debate here.

When a scientist claim [say] 'water is H20' [contentious], he is asserting it within the science-chemistry FSK.

If he were to wear the philosophy hat as well with his 'ism' then we need to know which 'ism' he is qualifying his claim.

As such a scientist with the Philosophical Realism ideology will claim
first, water is H20 within the science-chemistry FSK
and insist it is an independent objective reality based his Philosophical Realism.

A scientist with a Anti-Philosophical_Realism will merely claim 'water is H20' as what the scientific-chemistry FSK conclude without any other qualifications.
Note Hawking's Model Dependent Realism where he don't give a damn for any independent objective reality but rather focus on the empirical and the scientific FSK conclusions.

It [Model-dependent realism] claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism#:

Since we are in a philosophy forum, note the necessary depth and details to get to the point.

[Iwannaplato]

All in all very interesting! Fantastic find.

And it goes to show that the people most accomplished in the scientific FSKs of physics and chemistry are, on average, philosophical realists AND believe that the phenomena they study have an existence independent of conscious awareness of that existence. In other words, chemists think H2O is a mind independent fact. (admittedly that's slightly a stretch, but not much)

Unfortunately, VA's response is to project his FSK system onto the scientists. IOW he sees them as, like him, walking around shfiting between FSKs. So, he is arguing that they are not clearly taking a stand. When in fact the scientists have a primary FSK, their scientific FSK, and no philosophy FSK hiding in their pockets. They answer with their view.

What is unfortunate about his response is that I don't think VA is a competent enough dialogue partner to separate out a valid discussion of what different FSKs might lead one to decide
from the discussion of what scientists believe.

The whole point of bringing in the survey of scientists' beliefs is to show that it is not some consensus position that realism is dead. VA regularly casts PH as some dinosaur, someone who is not up to date with current science. This implicitly and explicitly claims that now physics and physicists have deciding that anti-realism is the case. This is not true.

This doesn't mean that VA is wrong, that his anti-realism stance is incorrect. Hardly.

All it points out is his attempt to cast PH as easily dismissable is incorrect.

So, what his response to you does is shift focus from the scientists' position on realism, to yet another argument about FSK's.

That's a fine discussion, but it misses the context of me finding that study. Why I posted it. How it relates to ONE way he responds to PH. My intent was to remove one way he talks down to PH. But I think there is no reason to believe he will drop this or acknowledge the problem with implying over and over that science has moved on from PH's position.

I think there are posters who can follow this kind of thing. Keep track of the specific contexts of posts
and there are posters - I class VA and Iambiguous as being in this second class - who cannot keep track of these subcontexts.

They are so obsessed with their issues, that when specific points are criticized they always refocus on the general issue, their view of it. They repeat themselves.

Thus they never have to concede any specific point at all. It's a highly defensive pattern. Any specific point faces a repeat of the whole position.

I have followed your interactions with both of them and seen you be very careful and respectful and at no point can they manage to concede any point. They also are not able to follow any nuance related to what is being discussed in a given moment. Their habit is to slide the discussion back to the big issue, present it in their framework, not address specific points, and misread.

I admire what I see as your patience in both cases.'

I actually think VA is the more valuable poster because despite his inablity to track dialogue, he does come into the discussion with new information and his positions have shifted over the years. The main positions have not, but in his defense he brought in all the ontological realism points, for example. And while he does not argue well in specific dialogues, this opened a lot of doors for discussion.

And to be clear, I don't see either of them consciously avoiding things. I don't see them rubbing their hands and saying 'OH, I'll avoid noticing that point or what the context is.' I think they feel quite justified.

The problem is one is not a good dialogue partner if you can't notice one's own discomfort when a certain point is made. The discomfort that makes one want to shift focus. To not get the context.

And that makes this and discussions in general so tricky. Because people really do feel victimized. They are unware of what they are doing.

[Flannel Jesus]

That has been my point from the OP.
Note the contention was;

I proposed in OP re QM,
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
with anti-philosophical_realism.

You countered, re QM,
Carroll [you agree with], re a linked article by Carroll,
"The Moon Does Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"
with the philosophical realism basis.

Bell's theorem was not the issue.

This is complete bullshit.

[Flannel Jesus]

Here's a quote where I specifically put forth the idea that you're saying was your point from the beginning, and your response to it is "nope".

You have in fact been claiming that these views are required by qm from the beginning, it's obviously what you're saying in the op, and when I tried to explicitly distinguish your FSK philosophy from qm itself all you have to say is "nope".

If it has been your point from the beginning, you've done a terrible job at communicating that.

All facts, knowledge and truths are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
ALL FSKs are managed and sustained by humans [mentally, i.e. mind].
All QM facts are conditioned to the science-QM FSK.
Thus, all QM truths are mind-interdependent, not mind-independent.

The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable FSK [comparing the best of each respective FSK].
Other than the mathematics FSK which other FSK is more credible than the scientific FSK.
Thus, the truths of QM is credible.

In this case, that particular QM thesis [relatively counter-intuitive] was proven and translated into practices [technologies] that are likely to benefit greatly to human progress, that is the confidence level of the truth of this QM thesis.

Well this sounds like your personal theory, not the theory of actual physicists. I have never heard a physicist use the term fsk. Which just goes to show what I was saying before: this is not the standard view.

Nope, 'framework' [necessitate a system] is a very common concept and generic fundamental requirement within ALL fields of knowledge.

Note Science and its basic Scientific Method [a framework] within the larger scientific FSK.

Note this for example re Physics;
Richard Feyman on the need for a Framework in Physics;
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96

With reference to Mathematics;

A mathematical theory is a mathematical model of a branch of mathematics that is based on a set of axioms. It can also simultaneously be a body of knowledge (e.g., based on known axioms and definitions), and so in this sense can refer to an area of mathematical research within the established framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_theory#:

Still don't get it?

[Flannel Jesus]

And here again, your past words proving your new words wrong. You say your op was always part of your personal philosophy and not required by quantum physics, but here you are explicitly saying your op is a necessary consequence of bells theorem. How can you say that, and then say that bells theorem has nothing to do with it? You brought up bells theorem to prove your op! I didn't bring it up, you did.

In any case, I reject all that.

I reject the idea, presented without evidence, that scientists and physicists aren't interested in probing into how real, objective, mind-independent reality works. I reject the idea, presented without evidence, that quantum physics is taken by most relevant scientists to only be some sort of "mind dependent fact" rather than it touching on things that happen in reality even when no one is looking.

Most quantum physicists definitely think this stuff happens even when no one is looking.

It is very counter intuitive to many quantum physicists and personally they may have reservations but that their intuition and faith.
But at present, no one has refuted the thesis [been there for the last 50 years] that won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics that support the OP.
Besides this thesis has been applied in practice to many quantum based technologies.

If you have such a strong conviction why don't you gather your group of physicists to challenge the thesis that won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, then you can share the Nobel Prize with them.

The most famous physicists who opposed the thesis that won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was Einstein and many who had supported Einstein had admitted defeat.

Einstein was wrong: Why 'normal' physics can't explain reality
The most ambitious experiments yet show that the quantum weirdness Einstein famously hated rules the roost – not just here, but across the entire universe
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... n-reality/

If you are still skeptical, show evidence with references why the thesis that won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics is false?

[Flannel Jesus]

I just find it odd that you've changed your tune completely - for the better, I might add, you've actually improved your position by abandoning your past positions - but you're completely gaslighting me about what your past positions were.

Your op is clearly you saying quantum mechanics directly requires that the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking. Not "quantum mechanics + my personal philosophy on reality and FSKs", just quantum mechanics.

And then you brought to bells theorem as if to say, if I disagree with your op then I have to disagree with the 2022 Nobel prize winners. But now you're saying bells theorem was never used to support your op, bells theorem has nothing to do with it?

Give me a fucking break dude. Stop with the gaslighting, you've changed your position, for the better, and it doesn't hurt you to acknowledge that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Give me a fucking break dude. Stop with the gaslighting, you've changed your position, for the better, and it doesn't hurt you to acknowledge that.

But I insist on my points and that you have presented is a strawman right from the start with my OP. I can explain my position.
Instead of whining why not focus on the argument or seek further explanation why there is a difference of views.

What 'fucking break'? don't assume you are right!
However, if you are going into a 'fucking' verbal violent mode [I thought you advise me against it, I don't like these sort of swearing which is not worth my while and tit for tat is SO easy], I will not be continuing the argument for long.

[Flannel Jesus]

I told you not to insult my intelligence, I didn't tell you not to say the word fucking. I've never said you are unintelligent. I don't think you're unintelligent.

At multiple points through our conversations, I have said explicitly what I think your position is, and what I'm arguing for. You're only now saying it was a strawman. You didn't say that before. Before, you argued against my points.

If it's true that your position was always what you're now saying it is, you wouldn't ever have had any reason to argue against me. Every time I've argued that quantum physics is compatible with philosophical realism, instead of saying "no Bells Theorem proves it's not", you COULD have just said "I agree, quantum physics is compatible with Philosophical Realism, and all your examples of qm experts that are also philosophical realists prove that."

Right? But you've never said that.

Your op communicates that quantum physics requires the moon doesn't exist when no one is looking. You explicitly bring up, multiple times, that bells theorem proves that too. And now you're trying to convince me that you never argued for those things.

If it were in fact true that it was your position the whole time, you've had so so many chances to clarify that. But you kept arguing.

I just don't believe you. I don't believe it was a straw man. I believe that any person reading our conversation would interpret it the same way I have, and any person would say that what you're now saying was always your position, is in fact different from what your position has been at prior points in this thread. You have been arguing that qm itself requires these conclusions of yours. Because if you haven't, 99% of your exchanges with me could have been avoided by you just saying the words, "quantum physics itself does not require that the moon doesn't exist when no one is looking". If you had said that, none of what we've said to each other would have mattered. We could have skipped over dozens of pages of conversation, if you actually thought that and just wrote those words.

[Flannel Jesus]

I clicked a random page on this thread to see, and here it is, here's your opportunity to see the point that's central to everything:

Yes, you argue that. You're certainly allowed to argue that, I don't have any feelings of disrespect towards arguments of that position.

My point is and has always been, qm doesn't necessitate it. Qm as a science does not necessitate an acceptance of your philosophy about "reality". YOU are imposing your philosophy into qm when you say it does. YOU are being dogmatic when you say it does. I am being the opposite of those things when I say it doesn't.

Carroll, smolin, Feynman, John Bell, all these people apparently don't understand quantum physics as well as you do, if you believe that their interpretations are incompatible with the science while yours is. You are making a much stronger claim than they make, and than I make, when you impose your philosophy onto qm.

You could have easily read that and just said, "oh, that's your point? I don't disagree with that point, you're correct"

You didn't say that. And I know why you didn't.

[Flannel Jesus]

And here's a quote of yours, again, bringing up bells theorem and saying it proves your point about realism.

However, it does make sense that your position here relies on your position that realism is untenable in general - your position here has always seemed to have not much to do with actual quantum mechanics and more about your other philosophies, which you use as a lens through which to interpret quantum mechanics. I completely accept that your position entirely relies on those other philosophical positions, and not merely quantum mechanics itself. If you were up front about that, rather than saying your position is the one required by quantum mechanics itself, the conversation would have gone very differently.

I am not an expert on QM but dare say I am reasonable an expert with the dichotomy between realism vs idealism.

But that the QM principles of 2022 Nobel Prize of Physics also involved the consideration of realism vs anti-realism.
It is reported that Einstein [realism] was wrong thus the anti-realism based QM is true, given that it was awarded the Nobel Prize.
I am relying on what is reported unless you insist the reports were wrong or the Nobel Prize committed made a mistake.

So which is it? Is bells theorem relevant or not? Does bells theorem require anti realism or doesn't it? All this flip flopping has me dizzy.

You have in fact been arguing that these positions are explicitly required by qm and bells theorem, until the last two pages. If you meant to argue something else, that's your failure of communication.

It's notable, for your own understanding of the context of all this, that this was before you understood the difference between Einstein's realism and Carroll's realism - that understanding apparently caused a justified shift in your position, at least to me it appears that way, a shift you're now denying ever happened.

[Peter Holmes]

And here's a quote of yours, again, bringing up bells theorem and saying it proves your point about realism.

However, it does make sense that your position here relies on your position that realism is untenable in general - your position here has always seemed to have not much to do with actual quantum mechanics and more about your other philosophies, which you use as a lens through which to interpret quantum mechanics. I completely accept that your position entirely relies on those other philosophical positions, and not merely quantum mechanics itself. If you were up front about that, rather than saying your position is the one required by quantum mechanics itself, the conversation would have gone very differently.

I am not an expert on QM but dare say I am reasonable an expert with the dichotomy between realism vs idealism.

But that the QM principles of 2022 Nobel Prize of Physics also involved the consideration of realism vs anti-realism.
It is reported that Einstein [realism] was wrong thus the anti-realism based QM is true, given that it was awarded the Nobel Prize.
I am relying on what is reported unless you insist the reports were wrong or the Nobel Prize committed made a mistake.

So which is it? Is bells theorem relevant or not? Does bells theorem require anti realism or doesn't it? All this flip flopping has me dizzy.

You have in fact been arguing that these positions are explicitly required by qm and bells theorem, until the last two pages. If you meant to argue something else, that's your failure of communication.

It's notable, for your own understanding of the context of all this, that this was before you understood the difference between Einstein's realism and Carroll's realism - that understanding apparently caused a justified shift in your position, at least to me it appears that way, a shift you're now denying ever happened.

I've been following this discussion with interest - and I think FJ is right.

Question is: why does VA need to flip flop, dodge and weave? What's at stake? After all, VA thinks 'morality-proper' has nothing to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour. It's just about avoiding evil and promoting good, which has nothing to do with personal opinion. (?)

So why is it so necessary to reject realism in all its forms? How does that facilitate avoiding evil and promoting good?

[Iwannaplato]

I've been following this discussion with interest - and I think FJ is right.

Question is: why does VA need to flip flop, dodge and weave? What's at stake? After all, VA thinks 'morality-proper' has nothing to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour. It's just about avoiding evil and promoting good, which has nothing to do with personal opinion. (?)

So why is it so necessary to reject realism in all its forms? How does that facilitate avoiding evil and promoting good?

It seems like any concession implies that he cannot hold the position he holds.

I have been trying to show that just because you are realist does not entail that your position is outmoded and primitive. To do this I introduced a study of the positions of scientists on realism. Most physicists call themselves realists and specific believe that things exist independent of minds. VA could not acknowledge this and brought in FSKs and based on nothing asserted that the scientists were wearing the wrong hat (and that they had several hats) when answering the survey.

It seems he needs your position to be dismissable and unsupportable in science. We have moved past it. He does this with regularly also on your positions in philosophy also. For example his posts on ordinary language philosophy. If one read some of the philosophers he cited to show your ideas were no longer accepted, his own sources said that the controversy was still ongoing and adherents of your position existed, that is was controversial with sides.

Obviously he does not need to drop his position simply because he can't categorically dismiss yours. But it seems like it has to be a fait accompli. Your position can no longer be reasonably held, period.

This seems a very defensive and actually quite fragile response.

No, he can move forward, despite not being able to just dismiss you as a Cromagnon philosopher. He can contribute to policies and projects that fit his ideas. Not being able to demonstrate your position has no merit at all does not mean his position has no merit.

And so someone like FJ is left gently and persistantly pointing out obvious things to no avail.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And here's a quote of yours, again, bringing up bells theorem and saying it proves your point about realism.

However, it does make sense that your position here relies on your position that realism is untenable in general - your position here has always seemed to have not much to do with actual quantum mechanics and more about your other philosophies, which you use as a lens through which to interpret quantum mechanics. I completely accept that your position entirely relies on those other philosophical positions, and not merely quantum mechanics itself. If you were up front about that, rather than saying your position is the one required by quantum mechanics itself, the conversation would have gone very differently.

I am not an expert on QM but dare say I am reasonable an expert with the dichotomy between realism vs idealism.

But that the QM principles of 2022 Nobel Prize of Physics also involved the consideration of realism vs anti-realism.
It is reported that Einstein [realism] was wrong thus the anti-realism based QM is true, given that it was awarded the Nobel Prize.
I am relying on what is reported unless you insist the reports were wrong or the Nobel Prize committed made a mistake.

So which is it? Is bells theorem relevant or not? Does bells theorem require anti realism or doesn't it? All this flip flopping has me dizzy.

You have in fact been arguing that these positions are explicitly required by qm and bells theorem, until the last two pages. If you meant to argue something else, that's your failure of communication.

It's notable, for your own understanding of the context of all this, that this was before you understood the difference between Einstein's realism and Carroll's realism - that understanding apparently caused a justified shift in your position, at least to me it appears that way, a shift you're now denying ever happened.

As long as we can keep the discussion amiable, we can continue to grind at whatever the difference in opinion.

As I had highlighted, Newton's Law and Mendel Laws on Genetics are scientific facts and truths as conditioned imperatively upon the scientific-FSK.
However both of the above scientific truths discoverers grounded on their conclusion on the claim that God Exists which to them is significant.
But we know that the God Exists assumption is irrelevant, what is necessary is merely compliance with the scientific-FSK.

It is the same with Bell's Theorem which itself is a scientific fact or truth as conditioned to the Science-QM-FSK.
There is no need for realism or anti-realism [which are philosophical FSK] to made Bell's Theorem true as per the science-QM FSK.

Analogous to Newton and Mendel ASSUMING God's Existence to their scientific theory, Carroll [and you] adds the Assumption of Philosophical Realism to the Bell's theorem to justify the claim 'the moon exists if no humans are 'looking' at it'.
As I had argued Philosophical Realism is not realistic nor tenable, it is in a way as contradictory in claiming a square-circle exists.
Thus by assuming Philosophical Realism [Philosopy-FSK] with Bell's Theorem [Science-FSK], Carroll and yours is a corrupted claim.

Einstein had earlier ASSUMED Philosophical Realism [philosophy], to refute QM [science] by insisting there are hidden variables. That is was why he was proven wrong with Bell's Theorem.

There are three critical perspectives to deal with, i.e.
1. Science-proper [science-QM-FSK]
2. Philosophy-proper [realism or anti-realism]
3. Science + philosophy

In Carroll's case, he got his science [science-QM-FSK] right, but his philosophy i.e. Philosophical Realism wrong.
So his science + philosophy is corrupted.

Get [not necessary agree with] the above points?
Don't get emotional, if you cannot get it nor agree, let's continue to grind at it.