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

[Flannel Jesus]

You're only talking past me because you think that debate is relevant.

It's not. Quantum mechanics doesn't force the position you think it forces. I've distinguished between the type of realism bells theorem disproves and the type of realism most quantum physicists believe in, including Sean Carroll. You're choosing to keep "talking past each other" by not acknowledging that distinction, and not acknowledging the fact that many, most even, quantum physicists are philosophical realists who reject Einstein's specific "local hidden variables" type of realism.

By just ignoring all of the points I made above, you're choosing to keep this a conservation where we "keep talking past each other".

[Iwannaplato]

You're only talking past me because you think that debate is relevant.

It's not. Quantum mechanics doesn't force the position you think it forces. I've distinguished between the type of realism bells theorem disproves and the type of realism most quantum physicists believe in, including Sean Carroll. You're choosing to keep "talking past each other" by not acknowledging that distinction, and not acknowledging the fact that many, most even, quantum physicists are philosophical realists who reject Einstein's specific "local hidden variables" type of realism.

By just ignoring all of the points I made above, you're choosing to keep this a conservation where we "keep talking past each other".

Well, let's add in that he is not only keeping it at 'talking past each other' but using a dominance technique at the end of his post:

I suggest you get more familiar with the fundamentals of the P_Realist vs Anti-P_Realist debate, else we will be talking pass each other all the time.

IOW you lack the knowledge. He has nothing to learn. Once you've caught up to him, then you will no longer be talking past each other.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You're only talking past me because you think that debate is relevant.

It's not. Quantum mechanics doesn't force the position you think it forces. I've distinguished between the type of realism bells theorem disproves and the type of realism most quantum physicists believe in, including Sean Carroll. You're choosing to keep "talking past each other" by not acknowledging that distinction, and not acknowledging the fact that many, most even, quantum physicists are philosophical realists who reject Einstein's specific "local hidden variables" type of realism.

By just ignoring all of the points I made above, you're choosing to keep this a conservation where we "keep talking past each other".

I have taken your points into consideration.

Note in fact, there are two opposition camps of physicists within QM,
1. quantum physicists who refute hidden variable of Einstein who are realists
2. quantum physicists who refute hidden variable of Einstein who are anti-realists.

In this case, the question is whose, 1 or 2 version is realistic?
Note my argument above on why the anti-realist's version of QM is most realistic.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not debating that. You think I'm debating if 1 or 2 are correct. I'm not.

I'm debating your position that 2 is NECESSARY, and the only thing anybody who accepts quantum mechanics can possibly believe.

It is not necessary. Many people who know a lot more about quantum mechanics than either of us know - I'd wager the vast majority in fact - are in camp 1.

I'm not arguing camp 1 is correct or necessary, I'm arguing that it is distinctly allowable, intellectually, and I've given a hell of a lot of reasons for that.

Your reason prior for saying camp 1 is disproven was bells theorem, but it seems now you're implicitly accepting that bells theorem actually rejects a more specific flavour of realism than just philosophical realism altogether - which is fantastic! That's progress! Bells theorem rejects Einstein's local hidden variables flavour of realism, and not philosophical realism altogether. I believe we are now on the same page there.

If you can accept that qm as a whole allows for philosophical realism to coexist with it - regardless of whether you think it's correct or not - then that's really all I'm arguing for.

[Flannel Jesus]

Many people who know a lot more about quantum mechanics than either of us know - I'd wager the vast majority in fact - are in camp 1.

To make this specific, I would argue that if you asked the majority of quantum physicists, "was quantum physics happening before conscious life discovered it? Will quantum physics continue to happen even after conscious life goes extinct?" the vast majority of them would not hesitate to say Yes.

To say that quantum mechanics doesn't allow for philosophical realism is to claim you understand the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics much better than people who actually know how to do the math, better than people who actually understand how to read the research papers. I just don't think it's likely that you're justified in that level of confidence.

And, again, keep in mind that I'm not saying anti realism is wrong, just that it's not required by the science.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Many people who know a lot more about quantum mechanics than either of us know - I'd wager the vast majority in fact - are in camp 1.

To make this specific, I would argue that if you asked the majority of quantum physicists, "was quantum physics happening before conscious life discovered it? Will quantum physics continue to happen even after conscious life goes extinct?" the vast majority of them would not hesitate to say Yes.

To say that quantum mechanics doesn't allow for philosophical realism is to claim you understand the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics much better than people who actually know how to do the math, better than people who actually understand how to read the research papers. I just don't think it's likely that you're justified in that level of confidence.

And, again, keep in mind that I'm not saying anti realism is wrong, just that it's not required by the science.

Obviously, I have never disputed Bell's Theorem where I don't have the relevant expertise.

Note I stated earlier;

"I like to highlight my OP in this case is ultimately to support my anti-realist position within the realist vs anti-realist debate.
From there to support my human-based-FSK, thus human-based-moral-FSK and so, moral facts which are Objective, therefore, Morality is Objective."
This is why I raised this OP in the Ethics Section and not in the Science Section.

Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

However somewhere, Professor Jim Al-Khalili did admit somehow he could not accept the above totally with a strong conviction and still think 1. is likely.
This meant that he is stuck with the 200K years old common sense which is the default and very natural; that was highlighted by Kant;

Kant wrote:
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR B397

Note it is not about the Mathematics in this case [this is a philosophy forum], it is specifically about the OP and its philosophical consequences involving;

the two opposition camps of physicists within QM,
1. quantum physicists who refute hidden variables of Einstein who are realists
2. quantum physicists who refute hidden variables of Einstein who are anti-realists.

My point is 1 is not a realistic position, it is illusory.
It is not translatable to human-based-FSK-moral-facts.
That will hinder expeditious moral progress.
Therefrom we cannot envision perpetual peace.

[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.

"This is the text, here. There's a tear in the paper and one letter is missing. One letter Mr. Poy, one letter is all we need, and we will finally know what happened on 23/9/2943. You, of course, know the significance of that date, yes?" Hira prompted. "I'm aware, si, of the Hildon incident. This document was found among the possessions of Mr. Hildon then?" Poy deduced. "Remarkable! Mr. Poy, it seems we've not made a mistake by soliciting your expertise" Hira was overjoyed to remark.

"How many letters, symbols?" Poy wanted to know. "We already tried that Mr. Poy. A dead end!" informed Hira. "All sense?" Poy questioned. "Nyet! All nonsense!" Hira said with a sigh. "Are you sure? What exactly do you mean by nonsense?" Poy asked. "I'll give you a sample, here, see for yourself!" Hira handed him a document and written on it POYPOYPOYPOY. "That's your name Mr. Poy and we've done a little background check on you. Your name doesn't mean anything, it was given to you by your grandfather who is now deceased, taken from a book written by none other than Arthur Veen!"

[Iwannaplato]

Below is a study of the beliefs around realism, anti-realism and constructivism amongst scientists. IOW it is a paper not trying to figure out which worldview is correct, but trying to see where scientists, categorized by area of study, place themselves regarding, for example, the independent existence of the objects of scientific study....[note: the link below automatically downloads a pdf]
https://osf.io/z2gek/download
Physicists tend to be realists.
The group with the most anti-realist positions are social scientists, for example anthropologists.

So, regardless of the ultimate truth of the issue...
1) there is no consensus
2) physicists still tend to be realists.

I would say I mainly fit in the anti-realist camp. Especially when we are waxing ontological - as opposed to many everyday situations. So, it's not like the results of this study give me some powerful appeal to authority. Quite the opposite.

But it does fit my sense that antirealism is not the consensus position in science, and certainly not in the physical sciences.

Of course paradigmatic biases take a long time to shift. So what is semi-consensus today may be seen as bias tomorrow.

I think in relation to VA the most interesting area of discussion is whether one can successfully combine ontological anti-realism with moral realism.

Why are morals the exception to antirealism?

I have not concluded that this must be hypocritical or impossible. But I think a direct explanation by VA about his antirealism with the exception of moral realism would be an interesting topic and probably worth exploring by all parties.

What does this mean?

What does this say about the ontology of objects and the ontology of morals?

Must one use ontological realist arguments to support moral realism or is there another way to demonstrate that morals are real? Either moral rule OR moral attitudes.

IOW what is the ontological difference between behavioral and attitudinal tendencies and oughtness-to? How do we demonstrate the oughtness- ness is real.

Is it only real in homo sapiens? Are wolf behavioral tendencies and attitudes not also oughtnesses? If yes, how so? If not, how do we deal with contradictions between other species attitudinal differences with our purportedly objective moral facts? Also, where is this oughtness? How do we look at it? Demonstrate it?

[Flannel Jesus]

Many people who know a lot more about quantum mechanics than either of us know - I'd wager the vast majority in fact - are in camp 1.

To make this specific, I would argue that if you asked the majority of quantum physicists, "was quantum physics happening before conscious life discovered it? Will quantum physics continue to happen even after conscious life goes extinct?" the vast majority of them would not hesitate to say Yes.

To say that quantum mechanics doesn't allow for philosophical realism is to claim you understand the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics much better than people who actually know how to do the math, better than people who actually understand how to read the research papers. I just don't think it's likely that you're justified in that level of confidence.

And, again, keep in mind that I'm not saying anti realism is wrong, just that it's not required by the science.

Obviously, I have never disputed Bell's Theorem where I don't have the relevant expertise.

Note I stated earlier;

"I like to highlight my OP in this case is ultimately to support my anti-realist position within the realist vs anti-realist debate.
From there to support my human-based-FSK, thus human-based-moral-FSK and so, moral facts which are Objective, therefore, Morality is Objective."
This is why I raised this OP in the Ethics Section and not in the Science Section.

Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

However somewhere, Professor Jim Al-Khalili did admit somehow he could not accept the above totally with a strong conviction and still think 1. is likely.
This meant that he is stuck with the 200K years old common sense which is the default and very natural; that was highlighted by Kant;

Kant wrote:
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR B397

Note it is not about the Mathematics in this case [this is a philosophy forum], it is specifically about the OP and its philosophical consequences involving;

the two opposition camps of physicists within QM,
1. quantum physicists who refute hidden variables of Einstein who are realists
2. quantum physicists who refute hidden variables of Einstein who are anti-realists.

My point is 1 is not a realistic position, it is illusory.
It is not translatable to human-based-FSK-moral-facts.
That will hinder expeditious moral progress.
Therefrom we cannot envision perpetual peace.

I'm glad that you finally have come to say explicitly that your conclusions are not just what's required by raw quantum mechanics, but by your philosophy on realism and FSKs instead. That's all I wanted.

Thank you.

[Flannel Jesus]

Below is a study of the beliefs around realism, anti-realism and constructivism amongst scientists. IOW it is a paper not trying to figure out which worldview is correct, but trying to see where scientists, categorized by area of study, place themselves regarding, for example, the independent existence of the objects of scientific study....[note: the link below automatically downloads a pdf]
https://osf.io/z2gek/download
Physicists tend to be realists.
The group with the most anti-realist positions are social scientists, for example anthropologists.

I'm on mobile so it was hard to find the exact questions they asked these scientists, but it looks like this form of realism is even more specific and more "extreme" than the Philosophical Realism that VA is discussing. They didn't even ask the question, I don't think, that would be required to distinguish his kind of realism, which is this:

Do you believe there is a mind-independent reality at all?

Instead, they focused on questions that are far more specific, like, do you believe your field of expertise is an accurate representation of reality?

You could conceivably answer No to that question, but Yes to the mind independent question. Hell, it's possible you could answer Yes to that question and No to the mind independent question, and I even think VA would do so for some fields of study, as counter intuitive as that sounds.

I need to open up that pdf on my pc though, i couldn't do a text search on my phone. Interesting study. Ill follow this up later

[Iwannaplato]

Do you believe there is a mind-independent reality at all?

They did ask this question, more or less.

I need to open up that pdf on my pc though, i couldn't do a text search on my phone. Interesting study. Ill follow this up later

I'm on a pc and had couldn't search in it, which is odd. I'm used to pdfs that have their own search function and then usually the browser search will work otherwise. But with this pdf it did not work. I don't know why. So, I had to get in their and get my hands a little dirty.

[Flannel Jesus]

Do you believe there is a mind-independent reality at all?

They did ask this question, more or less.

Yes, I see it now:

statement 2, “Even if we cannot be certain which scientific theories are ultimately true, we can be certain that there is an ultimate truth out there waiting to be discovered.”

And table 3 shows peoples answers to that. It was not easy to find out how it was scored by scanning through the document, but I found out there were 7 levels of confidence

completely disagree, mostly disagree, slightly disagree, neither agree nor disagree,
slightly agree, mostly agree, completely agree...

For purposes of analysis, a response of ‘completely disagree’ to one of these statements was scored as 1, ‘mostly disagree’ as 2, and so on.

with 4 being neutral, 1 being complete disagreement and 7 being complete agreement.

So, given statement 2 and the scoring system, we look at table 3 and find the average score from a Physicist is 5.0, slighly agree, from a Chemist is a 5.3.

Statement one is "The objects and phenomena studied by science exist independently of how we conceive of or think about them." I think it's interesting that Physicists score this one, on average, a 6.0, Mostly Agree, but only a 5.0 on statement 2.

In other words, physicists are more sure that "the objects and phenomena studied by science exist independently of how we conceive of or think about them" than they are that "there is an ultimate truth out there waiting to be discovered". Maybe they're not disagreeing that there is an ultimate truth, maybe they're just not confident that it has any possibility of being discovered - it could be that they're merely disagreeing with the 'waiting to be discovered' part of it, rather than the ontological existence of reality itself. Especially given they're confidence in statement 1, which does seem to imply a pretty strong belief in the mind-independent existence of the various things they study.

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)

[Skepdick]

Below is a study of the beliefs around realism, anti-realism and constructivism amongst scientists. IOW it is a paper not trying to figure out which worldview is correct, but trying to see where scientists, categorized by area of study, place themselves regarding, for example, the independent existence of the objects of scientific study....[note: the link below automatically downloads a pdf]
https://osf.io/z2gek/download
Physicists tend to be realists.
The group with the most anti-realist positions are social scientists, for example anthropologists.

This framing has the potential to be misleading given how we currently conceptualise physicists being closer to the ground (less abstract?), and social sciences being high up in the tower of abstraction.

This paints a picture of them existing on opposite ends of some spectrum, or a pyramid but that's a misleading view because it already encodes the bias that the ground is "at the bottom".

The study appears to have left out the formal sciences (logic/mathematics/computer science etc.) - the people who invent the thinking instruments used by Physicists. Least we forget that Einstein's "spacetime" is a Minkowsky space.
Or rather - the study appears to conflate the formal sciences with physicists e.g the usual STEM classification.

It is not possible for physicists to understand or model anything without Mathematics. In fact there's no way to comprehend the "nature of" fundamental particles except via understanding their Mathematical behaviour.

And it's precisely philosophers of Mathematics who keep asking the question: Do the mathematical objects which describe "electrons", "quarks" and "gluons" refer to real entities; or are they just theoretical artefacts that are necessary for the functioning of our physical theories?

Are the "fundamental particles" ontological, psychological or emergent phenomena when ontology and psychology interact?
And it's at this point that the fight over categories starts again. Are Mathematicians part of sociology or physics?

Well Mathematics is highly abstract, if not the most abstract of disciplines. It's definitely more abstract than sociology. It's not grounded in anything but "pure reason". Without going too far into the forest of Platonism - Mathematics is a psychological and social phenomenon that happens to have a profound utility in physics. So the STEM field seems to have culturally appropriated it.

[Iwannaplato]

This framing has the potential to be misleading given how we currently conceptualise physicists being closer to the ground (less abstract?), and social sciences being high up in the tower of abstraction.

I don't think the article does that, and that's not my position. I'm probably, as an aside, more on the side of the anthropologists than the physicists.

This paints a picture of them existing on opposite ends of some spectrum, or a pyramid but that's a misleading view because it already encodes the bias that the ground is "at the bottom".

One could interpret the article this way. And my plucking out two results from the article might make it seems even mroe this way. But I don't think that's what they concluded.

It is not possible for physicists to understand or model anything without Mathematics. In fact there's no way to comprehend the "nature of" fundamental particles except via understanding their Mathematical behaviour.

I think there is an aside in a article about numerical realism and how this might have skewed the results.

And it's precisely philosophers of Mathematics who keep asking the question: Do the mathematical objects which describe "electrons", "quarks" and "gluons" refer to real entities; or are they just theoretical artefacts that are necessary for the functioning of our physical theories?

Could well be. Another line of thought, as a pragmatist, is

what if it's good for physicists to be realists, even if they waxed philosophical on occasion and said 'Well, yeah, anti realism fits better with current knowledge'. Just as someone thinking most of the time in terms of determinism might make a worse teacher. So, they answer a question related to their work in free will terms, but when taking a philosophy course they argue, always, in favor of determinism.

Are the "fundamental particles" ontological, psychological or emergent phenomena when ontology and psychology interact?
And it's at this point that the fight over categories starts again. Are Mathematicians part of sociology or physics?

Sort of related to this and what I just said about physicists

I know only the joke that most mathematicians are platonists during the week and formalists on the weekend.

And then the closest I could come to a skurvey related to this...
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results. ... ain=coarse

Well Mathematics is highly abstract, if not the most abstract of disciplines. It's definitely more abstract than sociology. It's not grounded in anything but "pure reason". Without going too far into the forest of Platonism - Mathematics is a psychological and social phenomenon that happens to have a profound utility in physics. So the STEM field seems to have culturally appropriated it.

With these weird results, sometimes, where somethng like non-Euclidian geometry just seemed like, yes, pure reason, a kind of fantasy game...that in the end turns out to relate to 'the way things are'. Or Fibonacci numbers first coming out of prosody in India and then later it appears to be a nice description (or underlying cause or concidental pattern) in various part of nature.

Of course, perhaps, we have just played around with numbers is so many ways that some of it will be applicable. On the other hand it seems less random than that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To make this specific, I would argue that if you asked the majority of quantum physicists, "was quantum physics happening before conscious life discovered it? Will quantum physics continue to happen even after conscious life goes extinct?" the vast majority of them would not hesitate to say Yes.

To say that quantum mechanics doesn't allow for philosophical realism is to claim you understand the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics much better than people who actually know how to do the math, better than people who actually understand how to read the research papers. I just don't think it's likely that you're justified in that level of confidence.

And, again, keep in mind that I'm not saying anti realism is wrong, just that it's not required by the science.

Obviously, I have never disputed Bell's Theorem where I don't have the relevant expertise.

Note I stated earlier;

"I like to highlight my OP in this case is ultimately to support my anti-realist position within the realist vs anti-realist debate.
From there to support my human-based-FSK, thus human-based-moral-FSK and so, moral facts which are Objective, therefore, Morality is Objective."
This is why I raised this OP in the Ethics Section and not in the Science Section.

Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

However somewhere, Professor Jim Al-Khalili did admit somehow he could not accept the above totally with a strong conviction and still think 1. is likely.
This meant that he is stuck with the 200K years old common sense which is the default and very natural; that was highlighted by Kant;

Kant wrote:
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR B397

Note it is not about the Mathematics in this case [this is a philosophy forum], it is specifically about the OP and its philosophical consequences involving;

the two opposition camps of physicists within QM,
1. quantum physicists who refute hidden variables of Einstein who are realists
2. quantum physicists who refute hidden variables of Einstein who are anti-realists.

My point is 1 is not a realistic position, it is illusory.
It is not translatable to human-based-FSK-moral-facts.
That will hinder expeditious moral progress.
Therefrom we cannot envision perpetual peace.

I'm glad that you finally have come to say explicitly that your conclusions are not just what's required by raw quantum mechanics, but by your philosophy on realism and FSKs instead. That's all I wanted.

Thank you.

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.