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

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

The above issue is raised very often re my discussion with objective moral facts, so I am raising it here in this moral section.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 12, 2023 1:49 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 12, 2023 11:34 am The point is whatever is reality including real humans, they cannot exist without the human factor.
It cannot be an human-independent-fact without the human factor.
Wtf? Nothing exists unless there are humans?
Do you think that quantum events didn't exist before humans observed and described them, and that they wouldn't exist if humans didn't observe and describe them?
A straight yes or no answer will suffice. Cards on the table.
PH insist Morality is not Objective because there are no objective moral facts.
But what PH claimed as objective facts is groundless and meaningless, i.e. his so-called facts are illusory and do not exist as real in the highest realistic sense.

According to PH's facts, the moon exists even if there are no human factors in relation to it [superficially look at the moon]. The following is PH non-quantum realism, i.e.
  • Under what you would call a non-quantum mechanical definition of real, known as local realism, real is defined as when an object, like a car, has definite properties independent of observation or measurement. Meaning the universe exists external to our minds.
    https://medium.com/predict/nobel-prize- ... cde7685600#:~
But in Quantum Physics, i.e. it is proven in QM realism [the thesis that won the 2022 Nobel Prize of Physics] that there are no objective mind-independent things if there is no interaction of human conditions in that cognition.
  • Nobel Prize Winning Scientists’ Findings show the Universe isn’t ‘Real’.
    Ibid
    "But under quantum mechanics, local realism gets a little dicey. And three theoretical physicists, John Clauser, Anton Zeilinger and Alain Aspect, were recently jointly awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for a 1972 experiment, and many subsequent experiments, showing that the local realism view of the universe is likely to be false."
  • Okay, let us explain.

    The scientists’ findings show that the universe cannot be locally real, as particles lack definite spin-up or spin-down properties (quantum state) prior to their observation or measurement. Therefore, the simple act of observing a particle changes its state, contradicting the rules of local realism.
    In other words,
    the universe is “real,” but only when you’re looking at it.
    Ibid

The point is QM realism as above is not some kind of fantasy, but it is translated to high intensity utilities for humanity.

Another article [out of the hundreds] supporting the above;
  • The quantum experiment that could prove reality doesn't exist
    We like to think that things are there even when we aren't looking at them. But that belief might soon be overturned thanks to a new test designed to tell us if quantum weirdness persists in macroscopic objects
    Link
Btw, there is mind-independent reality within common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics, but these [which is so obvious] are crude & lower level realism with lower degree of objectivity and they is not as realistic as QM realism.

See this post from the later pages:
viewtopic.php?p=625541#p625541

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."

For a simplified understanding of QM,
The SIMPLEST Explanation of QUANTUM MECHANICS in the Universe!
which also explain how QM is applied to the micro as well as the macro world.

Here is an important point with QM;

"Quantum entities have a character of spread-out ness. For example an electron in an atom occupies a fuzzy cloud of existence. It is possibly everywhere within that cloud at the same time. However when you ask the question (by experiment) where is the electron you will find it (obviously) in only one place. So how does the electron transition from being at many places at the same time to being at precisely one location. The means by which this happens is know as the “collapse of the wave function” (or in layman’s terms the collapse of the fuzzy cloud!) . So you think - it’s an atom sized cloud which collapses that’s hardly a big deal.
However, in the case of a free electron (an electron outside an atom) this cloud could be the size of the visible universe and our current theory says that this cloud of potential existence can collapse to a single point instantly."
-Pat Devil in Quora
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:14 am, edited 4 times in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:26 am The above issue is raised very often re my discussion with objective moral facts, so I am raising it here in this moral section.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 12, 2023 1:49 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 12, 2023 11:34 am The point is whatever is reality including real humans, they cannot exist without the human factor.
It cannot be an human-independent-fact without the human factor.
Wtf? Nothing exists unless there are humans?
Do you think that quantum events didn't exist before humans observed and described them, and that they wouldn't exist if humans didn't observe and describe them?
A straight yes or no answer will suffice. Cards on the table.
PH insist Morality is not Objective because there are no objective moral facts.
But what PH claimed as objective facts is groundless and meaningless, i.e. his so-called facts are illusory and do not exist as real in the highest realistic sense.

According to PH's facts, the moon exists even if there are no human factors in relation to it [superficially look at the moon]. The following is PH non-quantum realism, i.e.
  • Under what you would call a non-quantum mechanical definition of real, known as local realism, real is defined as when an object, like a car, has definite properties independent of observation or measurement. Meaning the universe exists external to our minds.
    https://medium.com/predict/nobel-prize- ... cde7685600#:~
But in Quantum Physics, i.e. it is proven in QM realism [the thesis that won the 2022 Nobel Prize of Physics] that there are no objective mind-independent things if there is no interaction of human conditions in that cognition.
  • Nobel Prize Winning Scientists’ Findings show the Universe isn’t ‘Real’.
    Ibid
    "But under quantum mechanics, local realism gets a little dicey. And three theoretical physicists, John Clauser, Anton Zeilinger and Alain Aspect, were recently jointly awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for a 1972 experiment, and many subsequent experiments, showing that the local realism view of the universe is likely to be false."
  • Okay, let us explain.

    The scientists’ findings show that the universe cannot be locally real, as particles lack definite spin-up or spin-down properties (quantum state) prior to their observation or measurement. Therefore, the simple act of observing a particle changes its state, contradicting the rules of local realism.
    In other words,
    the universe is “real,” but only when you’re looking at it.
    Ibid

The point is QM realism as above is not some kind of fantasy, but it is translated to high intensity utilities for humanity.

Another article [out of the hundreds] supporting the above;
  • The quantum experiment that could prove reality doesn't exist
    We like to think that things are there even when we aren't looking at them. But that belief might soon be overturned thanks to a new test designed to tell us if quantum weirdness persists in macroscopic objects
    Link
Btw, there is mind-independent reality within common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics, but these [which is so obvious] are crude & lower level realism with lower degree of objectivity and they is not as realistic as QM realism.
*yawn* idiot.

You still don't grok (and I doubt you ever will) that the problem is adjectives. ADJECTIVES! ADJECTIVES!

ADJECTIVES!

By the law of identity: The universe is the universe is the universe. The universe is nothing other than itself!

So what the hell does "The universe is real" even mean ?!?!?

"The universe is real" expresses a subjective judgment! It expresses the feeling/emotion/quality of "realness" (whatever the hell that is) ABOUT the universe.

Just as much as "The universe is not real" expresses a subjective judgment! It expresses the feeling/emotion/quality of "non-realness" (whatever the hell that is) ABOUT the universe.
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 »

Note the fact that living entities were programmed with attention on the external since 4 billion years ago till the present, which is the default for the majority of humans.

The OP is very counter intuitive and as such cause terrible cognitive dissonances driving the ignorant to condemned and mock those who proposed the OP. This is so evident in this forum where some posters will go berserk when they read the proposals of the OP.

I have been presenting the thesis of the OP for a long time and face all sort of resistance and mad behavior from those who are triggered with cognitive dissonances.

Fortunately the 2022 Nobel Prize of Physics has sort of vindicated my claims.

For those who still feel very uncomfortable with the OP they should reflect inward to understand how 4 billion years of evolution has reinforced their dogmatism to the old thinking.
This is basically more of a psychological issue rather than an epistemological one.
..............

Do any physicists dispute that Bell’s inequality can rule out local hidden variables?
Yes, there are a small number of physicists who dispute this.
https://www.quora.com/Do-any-physicists ... -variables

What the Nobel prize gets wrong about quantum mechanics
https://iai.tv/articles/einstein-god-an ... -auid-2255
Tim Maudlin
viewtopic.php?p=647710#p647710
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Jun 11, 2023 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:36 am *yawn* idiot.

You still don't grok (and I doubt you ever will) that the problem is adjectives. ADJECTIVES! ADJECTIVES!

ADJECTIVES!

By the law of identity: The universe is the universe is the universe. The universe is nothing other than itself!

So what the hell does "The universe is real" even mean ?!?!?

"The universe is real" expresses a subjective judgment! It expresses the feeling/emotion/quality of "realness" (whatever the hell that is) ABOUT the universe.

Just as much as "The universe is not real" expresses a subjective judgment! It expresses the feeling/emotion/quality of "non-realness" (whatever the hell that is) ABOUT the universe.
You are idioting yourself.

You need to exercise a bit of the Principle of Charity to understand the context of what is reality in the articles above.

I believe the term 'real' is common within the QM community, note Hawking's 'Model Dependent Realism'.

"As noted by physicist Niels Bohr (1958), founder of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, in The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet" "(as cited in Barad, 2007, p. 254).


You are just a idiotic gnat here trying question the use the term 'real' by the giants of QM.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:47 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:36 am *yawn* idiot.

You still don't grok (and I doubt you ever will) that the problem is adjectives. ADJECTIVES! ADJECTIVES!

ADJECTIVES!

By the law of identity: The universe is the universe is the universe. The universe is nothing other than itself!

So what the hell does "The universe is real" even mean ?!?!?

"The universe is real" expresses a subjective judgment! It expresses the feeling/emotion/quality of "realness" (whatever the hell that is) ABOUT the universe.

Just as much as "The universe is not real" expresses a subjective judgment! It expresses the feeling/emotion/quality of "non-realness" (whatever the hell that is) ABOUT the universe.
You are idioting yourself.

You need to exercise a bit of the Principle of Charity to understand the context of what is reality in the articles above.

I believe the term 'real' is common within the QM community, note Hawking's 'Model Dependent Realism'.

"As noted by physicist Niels Bohr (1958), founder of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, in The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet" "(as cited in Barad, 2007, p. 254).


You are just a idiotic gnat here trying question the use the term 'real' by the giants of QM.
Idiot. You aren't smart enough to bullshit me.

The terms "the universe", "existence", "reality", "ontology" etc. etc. etc. are all synonymous.

If you insist the term "real" has valid usage, I demand you differentiate between "real" and "non-real". What's the difference?

You are so fucking stupid you haven't figured out that the core tension is ultimately between a monist and dualist metaphysic above all else.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

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

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:36 am
"The universe is not real" expresses a subjective judgment!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... munication.)
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:45 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 7:36 am
"The universe is not real" expresses a subjective judgment!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... munication.)
I bet you don't even understand the difference in meaning between "The universe is not real" and "the universe is not locally real".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
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 Feb 13, 2023 7:26 am The scientists’ findings show that the universe cannot be locally real, as particles lack definite spin-up or spin-down properties (quantum state) prior to their observation or measurement. Therefore, the simple act of observing a particle changes its state, contradicting the rules of local realism.
In other words,
the universe is “real,” but only when you’re looking at it.
Ibid
[/list]


The point is QM realism as above is not some kind of fantasy, but it is translated to high intensity utilities for humanity.

Another article [out of the hundreds] supporting the above;
  • The quantum experiment that could prove reality doesn't exist
    We like to think that things are there even when we aren't looking at them. But that belief might soon be overturned thanks to a new test designed to tell us if quantum weirdness persists in macroscopic objects
    Link
Btw, there is mind-independent reality within common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics, but these [which is so obvious] are crude & lower level realism with lower degree of objectivity and they is not as realistic as QM realism.
There's a mind-independent reality in qm too. The idea that qm has anything to do with the mind is a very fringe belief.

It's just that that mind independent reality looks much different from the sorts of things we, as human beings, are used to thinking about, and "local realism", which is the naive view of how the stuff we call "material" works at the lowest level of reality, isn't actually how it works.

But "local realism isn't true" shouldn't be taken to mean NOTHING is real.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:58 am There's a mind-independent reality in qm too. The idea that qm has anything to do with the mind is a very fringe belief.
Lolwut?

The wave function literally encodes all of your uncertainty about the possible measurement outcomes. That's why it only provides you with probabilities and not scalar values for measurements - a range of possibilities. It's epistemic.

That's why you have to go and hack/update the probabilities after you take a measurement. It's eternally grounded in the interaction between the observer and the system.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:01 am The wave function literally encodes
That sounds like a statement about objective reality, that a function is literally encoding something
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:01 amall of your uncertainty about the possible measurement outcomes.
This makes it sound like the wave function is somehow aware of human beings, human brains, and what they think. I do not believe there's any evidence of that, and as I said that's a very fringe take. There are some genuine qm researchers who believe this fringe take, so me saying it's fringe isn't saying it's strictly false - it may be true, I guess - but it shouldn't be taken to be the unambiguous undebatable truth that all experts in the field agree with, because it's not. It's fringe among experts.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:09 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:01 am The wave function literally encodes
That sounds like a statement about objective reality, that a function is literally encoding something
I mean sure. Of course it says something about objective reality.

The function literally encodes the scientist's objective state of mind.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:09 am This makes it sound like the wave function is somehow aware of human beings, human brains, and what they think. I do not believe there's any evidence of that, and as I said that's a very fringe take.
You are anthropomorphising the wave function. The wave function has no awareness of any sort.

The scientist (who is aware of their own uncertainty) encodes their own knowledge and uncertainties in the wave function.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:09 am There are some genuine qm researchers who believe this fringe take, so me saying it's fringe isn't saying it's strictly false - it may be true, I guess - but it shouldn't be taken to be the unambiguous undebatable truth that all experts in the field agree with, because it's not. It's fringe among experts.
Anybody who thinks the wave function is an ontological not an epistemological statement is not an "expert" in my view.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

A lot of people learned about qm by watching a movie called What the Bleep Do We Know, which was basically just a bunch of quantum mysticism saying a bunch of fringe, at best, takes as fact. Mostly that "we create reality by thinking about it."

That's what I was referring to when I said
There's a mind-independent reality in qm too. The idea that qm has anything to do with the mind is a very fringe belief.
Just for clarity, I'm referring in that second sentence to the idea that qm proves that human minds create reality somehow. That's in response to a lot of what veritas was saying, which seemed to be along those lines.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:29 am A lot of people learned about qm by watching a movie called What the Bleep Do We Know, which was basically just a bunch of quantum mysticism saying a bunch of fringe, at best, takes as fact. Mostly that "we create reality by thinking about it."

That's what I was referring to when I said
There's a mind-independent reality in qm too. The idea that qm has anything to do with the mind is a very fringe belief.
Just for clarity, I'm referring in that second sentence to the idea that qm proves that human minds create reality somehow. That's in response to a lot of what veritas was saying, which seemed to be along those lines.
I don't see anything peculiar about that.

That which people call "reality" is the epistemic/mental construct your cognition/perception has allowed you to experience.

None of us have access to "reality" in the ontological sense. To pretend that we are speaking about reality (e.g in the ontological sense); and not our experience of reality (e.g in the epistemic sense) is the standard Philosophical delusion.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Ok well in any case, the idea that qm proves that the mind creates reality in that way is fringe, that's all I'm saying.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:39 am Ok well in any case, the idea that qm proves that the mind creates reality in that way is fringe, that's all I'm saying.
No, it's not.

Mind creates all meaning - including the meaning of the Mathematical formalisms which encode our knowledge. That's so trivial anb obvious that even calling it "fringe" is fringe.

Without the mind everything is indeterminate.
Post Reply