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

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:30 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:00 am You are, in fact, confusing distinct senses of realism. That's probably why you think that qm and bells theorem disprove all types of realism - you think your dichotomy is all there is.

You're incorrect

Einstein's realism and Carroll realism are very different. Bells theorem disproved the former
Just to throw in a thought: he often talks about the scientific FSK as if this is a unified FSK - though he does occasionally talk about Newtonian and Einsteinian FSKs. The problem here is that a number of sciences - geology, astronomy, physics, biology - talk about things like the moon, and prehuman species, and the Big Bang, and the formation of the tectonic plates, and so on as they existed before we looked at them. So, there are a number of FSKs going on in there with different conclusions (or assumptions) even within his now favorite physics.

Now one could argue that we have 'looked at' the Big Bang through telescopes. But this would mean that the original expansion and later things like the formation of the solar system were set into existence when we looked at the Big Bang through telescopes. Further it would mean that future beings could be calling the moon into existence from other solar systems or galaxies. We really can't make any claims about what is when we aren't looking since we don't know what's looking, where and how and when. And that's assuming nothing exists until seen.

It becomes very interesting to think that when humans arose and looked at things, this looking created the postential for the very complicated evolution of species and so when we dug in the ground we found fossils. It all seems rather ornate and not very parsimonius, this creating of a fossil record and apparant residue of creatures that lives long before us and plants that lived before them and solar systems that existed before ours and.....
It's always so peculiar to me how individuals shift perspectives from me to we without so much as blinking an eye.

And then they never question how one comes to possess other people's memories; or question whether those memories were correctly transmitted; or what would even be considered sufficient evidence for rejecting what's already solidified in your mind as historical fact.

What makes you trust your own memory so much? What makes you reject the 5-minute universe for example?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_ ... hypothesis

And why is it that we accept the past as having some sort of "factual" status, but we don't accept the future? Absolutely nothing in the laws of physics prevents the universe to having begun in the future and heading towards its end at The Big Bang.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9558
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

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

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:04 pm
It's always so peculiar to me how individuals shift perspectives from me to we without so much as blinking an eye.
How could you tell what he was doing with his eyes? :?
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:14 pm How could you tell what he was doing with his eyes? :?
Quite easy. We blink once every 5 seconds. We shift perspective in an instant.

It's statistically improbable to have the two coincide.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

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

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:04 pm It's always so peculiar to me how individuals shift perspectives from me to we without so much as blinking an eye.
Like in the above sentence.
And then they never question how one comes to possess other people's memories; or question whether those memories were correctly transmitted; or what would even be considered sufficient evidence for rejecting what's already solidified in your mind as historical fact.
Or mind reading. Knowing what has solidified in other minds or has never been questioned there.
What makes you trust your own memory so much? What makes you reject the 5-minute universe for example?
Mind reading degrees of trust in other minds or the entire history of that mind's rejections. And/or deducing beliefs based on in context responses to a person with specific assumptions himself without paying attention to the context.
And why is it that we accept the past as having some sort of "factual" status, but we don't accept the future?
I don't know why you do and don't. My goodness you seem to be attributing/reacting to some behavior to me in your 'past'.
Absolutely nothing in the laws of physics prevents the universe to having begun in the future and heading towards its end at The Big Bang.
That's why I was compelled to write what you quoted. I hope you can find peace with that. See you in the Big Crunch.

See, here's the thing. And I know you know this: some people can manage to entertain ideas. Like the 5 second universe. They can consider that. They can be armchair generals and entertain challenging ideas.

But how do they live? (there's the rub) Do the wild ideas they can entertain ever affect their actual behavior in any significant way?

Of is it just thoughts? I can entertain this thought. I can entertain the thought that is supposed to be the opposite, they say. They entertain thoughts and feel superior to people who don't entertain these thoughts...but they live pretty much the same as these people they feel superior to. The various thoughts they entertain either entail very little on need do or can do about. Or they simply never leave the armchair general chair an investigate experiences and skills that relate to ideas off the beaten track.

Do they ever take up, hm, what's a fun example....? Like, say, shamanism and take the underworld seriously and live such that these ideas that take them outside their cubicles and bourgeois but kinda spartan empty apartments where they do what any other middle class professional does with their time, bachelor or not. Middle of the road, secular activities any one from Cornell, where they went or wish they went or some state version or UK version, engages in.

It's usually just thoughts. And while it's true that most people here, most philosophers can't even question some of their own assumptions, this entertaining less common ideas....it's just a head game for most who can 'entertain off the beaten track' ideas.

Their armchair general behavior, lifestyles indicate nothing out of the ordinary. They never really put their ass on the line. They never really did anything in any sustained way to actually see if this would lead to change they would care about.

Like a little video game in the head.

Dabbling.

And yes, dabbling with some mindbendy ideas, and then going back to the same old civilized averageness indistinguisable on a behavioral level from those damned idiotic philosophers. The little thinky habits of the mind are conflated with a self, perhaps even with bravery.

Not understanding that while we can pretend that it's all about language and categories and really it's all about words or code...

they're living in the most average little box like everyone else they look down on, looked down on because those little people had the temerity to disagree with someone.

Hey, it could be X. Then the next day, hey moron it could be Y.

All the while living exactly like the people they look down on confusing words in the head with knowledge, and shuffling this deck of words for understanding. Which is what they claim to hate about philosophers, all the while living exactly like them, for all pragmatist purposes.

Come on, get out of the cubicle! Actually try something.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

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

Post by popeye1945 »

The moon does not exist if no biological subjective consciousness looks at it, the world/moon for all reactive creatures is a subjective experience, the only means of knowing the world/moon we have. If science is correct, matter is not made of matter but energy, nothing exists in the present to biology that is not in the presence of said energy or energies, this is true of any object. All is subjective biological readout of altered biology.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:40 am The moon does not exist if no biological subjective consciousness looks at it, the world/moon for all reactive creatures is a subjective experience, the only means of knowing the world/moon we have. If science is correct, matter is not made of matter but energy, nothing exists in the present to biology that is not in the presence of said energy or energies, this is true of any object. All is subjective biological readout of altered biology.
As I had mentioned we need to take context, perspective and FSKs into account.

In the common sense FSK, the moon exists if no humans are looking at it.
In the Newtonian FSK, the moon exists if no humans are looking at it.
In the Einteinian FSK, the moon exists if no humans are looking at it.

However,
In the QM FSK, the moon does NOT exists if no humans are 'looking' at it.
One has to shift paradigm and FSK.
In this FSK, the whole moon is taken to be comprised of particles and principle of Wave Function collapse is applicable to each and every particle that make up what is Moon.
'Looking' is not common sense looking but rather, it is humans directing their consciousness at the moon [particle filled] and thus invoking 'measurement' that trigger the Wave Function collapse.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

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

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:13 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:40 am The moon does not exist if no biological subjective consciousness looks at it, the world/moon for all reactive creatures is a subjective experience, the only means of knowing the world/moon we have. If science is correct, matter is not made of matter but energy, nothing exists in the present to biology that is not in the presence of said energy or energies, this is true of any object. All is subjective biological readout of altered biology.
As I had mentioned we need to take context, perspective and FSKs into account.

In the common sense FSK, the moon exists if no humans are looking at it.
In the Newtonian FSK, the moon exists if no humans are looking at it.
In the Einteinian FSK, the moon exists if no humans are looking at it.

However,
In the QM FSK, the moon does NOT exists if no humans are 'looking' at it.
One has to shift paradigm and FSK.
In this FSK, the whole moon is taken to be comprised of particles and principle of Wave Function collapse is applicable to each and every particle that make up what is Moon.
'Looking' is not common sense looking but rather, it is humans directing their consciousness at the moon [particle filled] and thus invoking 'measurement' that trigger the Wave Function collapse.

The moon is a subjective experience, take away the conscious subject and the object ceases to be, subjectively. The energy that had given the experience of the moon would still be there, though unperceived energy.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:13 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:40 am The moon does not exist if no biological subjective consciousness looks at it, the world/moon for all reactive creatures is a subjective experience, the only means of knowing the world/moon we have. If science is correct, matter is not made of matter but energy, nothing exists in the present to biology that is not in the presence of said energy or energies, this is true of any object. All is subjective biological readout of altered biology.
As I had mentioned we need to take context, perspective and FSKs into account.

In the common sense FSK, the moon exists if no humans are looking at it.
In the Newtonian FSK, the moon exists if no humans are looking at it.
In the Einteinian FSK, the moon exists if no humans are looking at it.

However,
In the QM FSK, the moon does NOT exists if no humans are 'looking' at it.
One has to shift paradigm and FSK.
In this FSK, the whole moon is taken to be comprised of particles and principle of Wave Function collapse is applicable to each and every particle that make up what is Moon.
'Looking' is not common sense looking but rather, it is humans directing their consciousness at the moon [particle filled] and thus invoking 'measurement' that trigger the Wave Function collapse.

The moon is a subjective experience, take away the conscious subject and the object ceases to be, subjectively. The energy that had given the experience of the moon would still be there, though unperceived energy.
Energy = MC2 is a Einsteinian theory.

When energy is taken in the QM perspective,
even energy will NOT be conceived if no humans are considering it within the QM FSK.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

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

Post by Dontaskme »

For any 'thing' to be known at all, the 'thing' must already exist.

Therefore, when 'one thing' is known - 'every-thing' is known.

Since everything is dependently arising, nothing has any true independent existence.
Put another way, nothing that appears to exist actually exists autonomously, as a single entity.

Therefore, implying the 'moon' is absent when not observed is absurd. Why, because subject and object are ONE ..not two.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:53 am Energy = MC2 is a Einsteinian theory.

When energy is taken in the QM perspective,
even energy will NOT be conceived if no humans are considering it within the QM FSK.
What in the hell could this possibly mean? You start the paragraph with "When energy is taken in the QM perspective" and end with "if no humans are considering it within the QM FSK."

Which is it, are we "taking" energy in the qm perspective, or are no humans considering it in the qm FSK? You can't have both simultaneously.

If you mean that qm has a theory about what's true outside of its own fsk, then, A, qm doesn't explicitly talk about FSKs at all, and B, that goes against you entire approach to FSKs. If facts are only facts within FSKs, then anything an FSK says about reality, it only applies within that fsk and not outside of it. That's what your whole fsk thing is, right?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Anybody who still thinks quantum mechanics for some reason grants some kind of magical importance to conscious observation, please read this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observe ... m_physics)

There's no magical spot in qm for consciousness. There are a couple interpretations of qm where consciousness is central, but they aren't qm itself, and their popularity among people who actually know the science is rather low. That doesn't mean they aren't correct, but it does mean it's worth distinguishing that idea from qm itself, something va here doesn't do
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:53 am Energy = MC2 is a Einsteinian theory.

When energy is taken in the QM perspective,
even energy will NOT be conceived if no humans are considering it within the QM FSK.
What in the hell could this possibly mean? You start the paragraph with "When energy is taken in the QM perspective" and end with "if no humans are considering it within the QM FSK."

Which is it, are we "taking" energy in the qm perspective, or are no humans considering it in the qm FSK? You can't have both simultaneously.

If you mean that qm has a theory about what's true outside of its own fsk, then, A, qm doesn't explicitly talk about FSKs at all, and B, that goes against you entire approach to FSKs. If facts are only facts within FSKs, then anything an FSK says about reality, it only applies within that fsk and not outside of it. That's what your whole fsk thing is, right?
Not too sure of your point.

What I am trying to say is;

Energy = MC2 is a Einsteinian theory which is from the Einsteinian FSK.
This is true when taken in the Einsteinian FSK, i.e. there is energy when no humans are interacting [measurement] with it.

But if anyone were to impose [or shift perspective] the above into a QM FSK,
then there is NO energy when no humans are interacting [measurement] with it.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

You don't allow the atomic model of chemistry to make claims about h2o outside of its own fsk. You say it's h2o claims are true only insofar as someone is thinking about chemistry and seeing the world through the eyes of that fsk.

You seem to be giving your own interpretation of qm a privilege, as an FSK, that you don't give to other FSKs. The privilege of being able to say things are true about the world even when nobody is thinking about that fsk, seeing the world through the lens of that fsk.

"in the QM perspective,
even energy will NOT be conceived if no humans are considering it within the QM FSK."

I find this privilege puzzling, and apparently arbitrary
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9558
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

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

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:10 am Energy = MC2 is a Einsteinian theory which is from the Einsteinian FSK.
You are totally bonkers. :?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:38 am Anybody who still thinks quantum mechanics for some reason grants some kind of magical importance to conscious observation, please read this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observe ... m_physics)

There's no magical spot in qm for consciousness. There are a couple interpretations of qm where consciousness is central, but they aren't qm itself, and their popularity among people who actually know the science is rather low. That doesn't mean they aren't correct, but it does mean it's worth distinguishing that idea from qm itself, something va here doesn't do
Not sure what is interpreted as 'consciousness' in the above article.

When I mentioned 'consciousness' it is in opposite to 'unconsciousness' as in a person in a coma.
It is wakefulness in a person that enable to person to perform 'measurement'.

Consciousness:
a. : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... sciousness
Post Reply