is the moon there when we are not looking.

[jackles]

If we as observers are existance in side an event.then the moon by reason exists wether or not its in or out of are awareness as an observing existance .because we then would not have pre existed the moon as an observer.but if or existance existed befor the moon existed then the moon is inside our existance and then it is in a state of probability as to our observation.it comes down to the identity of the observing existance.or put another way it comes down to the existance status of the observing existance relative to the moons existance status.

[Ginkgo]

If we as observers are existance in side an event.then the moon by reason exists wether or not in our out of are awareness as an observing existance .because we then would not have pre existed the moon as an observer.but if or existance existed befor the moon existed then the moon is inside or existance and then it is in a state of probability as to our observation.it comes down to the identity of the observing existance.or put another way it comes down to the existance status of the observing existance relative to the moons existance status.

See ,my post below.

This is why Einstein proposed the hidden variables idea. He said, " I like to know the moon is there regardless as to whether I am observing it".

[Impenitent]

Hey diddle diddle,
The cat and the fiddle,
The cow jumped over the moon,
The little dog blinked and closed his eyes,
The cow floated away to his doom.

-Imp

[jackles]

Must dtop drinking and posting at the same time.sorry

[Skip]

It better be, or the tide won't go in, won't go out; a miscommunication could happen.

(Hey, it's better than strinking and striving!)

[jackles]

The object viewed is an illusion if the viewer is more real than the object being viewed.so if the viewers consciousness is nonlocal to the event .the moon being local is an illusion.all locality would be illusion.including the tides and the rest of created existance.because creation or locality would have to originate from nonlocality.the viewers real identity..

[Skip]

Sure, if that makes you happy.

[petrushka.googol]

Do you cease to exist if there is nobody on the moon to look at you?

hmm..the portents are ominous,

[jackles]

Dont get wot your on about there.elaborate if you can.

[petrushka.googol]

In the world of the very small uncertainty applies. the more accurately you try to locate the position of a particle (say through an incident photon) the less likely you are to be correct.

However for a large body like the moon even a beam of incident photons would not displace it by even 1 femtometre.

Uncertainty does not apply in the same magnitude as it does in the micro-world and hence it would not significantly affect our "knowledge" of the moon from the vantage point on the earth.

I think this is a cogent argument.

[jackles]

Yes what you say deffinatly applies to the brain side of things but if consciousness pre existed the universe.then everything inside it is ultimately illusion in cluding the moon.

[petrushka.googol]

I think you are alluding to Kant.

He opined that we interpret time in the sequence of which perceptions are resolved into tangible entities by the brain.

In the light of this if we relate this to our consciousness it opens up a plethora of possibilities...

[jackles]

Kant. i think by looking at the drawing on another post is half way there.if consciousness was a construct of the bigbang it would be time space constricted.i dont think that it is.

[hammock]

If we as observers are existance in side an event.then the moon by reason exists wether or not its in or out of are awareness as an observing existance .because we then would not have pre existed the moon as an observer.but if or existance existed befor the moon existed then the moon is inside our existance and then it is in a state of probability as to our observation.it comes down to the identity of the observing existance.or put another way it comes down to the existance status of the observing existance relative to the moons existance status.

No offense intended, but the title seemed clearer than whatever you were trying express above: Is the moon there when we are not looking?

I don't expect to find anything "there" or such a "there" itself [a spatiotemporal place for locating things] after I become a corpse, including myself still hanging around. Which is likewise what I consider a general un-alive and non-conscious existence to consist of as it is to itself. The trans-psychological "state" which I will rejoin upon death.

So no. The Moon as an image or as an understanding in thought / memory or as a sign or as a description or as a felt object to visit by spaceship is no longer manifested / known when it is not observed / considered. Anymore than the sights and sounds of a moving train watched on a computer monitor is still in a scenic environment in a video when that file is not being converted into what is experienced from the screen / speakers. I suppose one could call its source on the harddrive "a train" for practical reasons. But I don't know how those microscopic magnetized patterns representing code on a hard disc would ever wind-up being referred to as a "train" by alien visitors that were utterly disinterested in converting such data into our visual / aural phenomena.

Similarly, but minus even that much essence... Whatever the trans-psychological source of the empirical and scientifically described "Moon" is will be quite the nothing to nothing me after the nothing of trans-psychological being greets a dead person with the phenomenal nihilism that eliminative materialists can only dream about while still alive and conscious.

[Hobbes' Choice]

No, it is somewhere else.