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

Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 1:00 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 12:53 pm Why do think think it causes so much consternation? :lol:
Qm is the most counter intuitive thing we've ever discovered to actually be true. It's more strange than anybody prior to it's discovery could have possibly predicted, and the early interpretations of what both the equations and the experiments were saying about the nature of reality were largely unsatisfying and left so much room to the imagination.

And people have taken the opportunity to use their imagination in this space as much as possible.

Tbh even the least imaginative approach to qm is still imaginative - our world is weird. If you accept the science of qm, there's really not any way around that. The question is I suppose what flavor of weirdness you would like to accept.
Quantum mechanics, just like THIS 'world' is NOT weird AT ALL. This was PROVED IRREFUTABLY True WHEN BOTH the micro and the macro, and absolutely EVERY 'thing' ELSE in between WERE SEEN to FIT PERFECTLY TOGETHER, as One.

There is NOT a SINGLE INCONSISTENCY NOR CONTRADICTION ANYWHERE here, when LOOKED AT FULLY, and PROPERLY.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:38 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 12:45 pm Clearly you do not, which is why I gave you the link. It's essentially the same thing anyway. If something isn't 'locally real' then is it 'real'??
Do you mean "real" in the way scientists use it; or "real" in the way philosophers use it?
What IS the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE?
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 »

Age wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:55 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:38 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 12:45 pm Clearly you do not, which is why I gave you the link. It's essentially the same thing anyway. If something isn't 'locally real' then is it 'real'??
Do you mean "real" in the way scientists use it; or "real" in the way philosophers use it?
What IS the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE?
Scientists: Everything's real. Even the stuff that goes on in your head.
Philosophers: Some things aren't real. Like the stuff that goes on in your head.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2577
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: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:51 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:20 am I'm entirely unsurprised that you want to tie it into Eastern mysticism.
Btw, do you adopt Philosophical Realism? i.e.
  • Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
    [Philosophical ] Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3]
    This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.

    Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism) which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.

    Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism) which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Of course I'm a realist. So are you.
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: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:39 am Of course I'm a realist. So are you.
Another dumb fucking philosopher employing the tired old framing tactic.

I am X and I am right to be an X (begging the question)
We are all the same (hasty generalisation)
Therefore you are X (biased conclusion)

Of course, by the exact same reasoning examined from every possible perspective it follows that everyone is everything.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:58 am
Age wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:55 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:38 pm
Do you mean "real" in the way scientists use it; or "real" in the way philosophers use it?
What IS the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE?
Scientists: Everything's real. Even the stuff that goes on in your head.
Philosophers: Some things aren't real. Like the stuff that goes on in your head.
So, so-called "scientists" say that "santa Claus" "easter bunny", "fairies", for example, are real, right?

Also, does what you said and claimed above here apply to ALL so-called "scientists" and ALL so-called "philosophers"?
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 »

Age wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:45 am So, so-called "scientists" say that "santa Claus" "easter bunny", "fairies", for example, are real, right?

Also, does what you said and claimed above here apply to ALL so-called "scientists" and ALL so-called "philosophers"?
Scientist: Practices the principle of charity - goes for the steelman argument.
Philosopher: Practices sophistry - goes for the strawman argument.

You are a great Philosopher, Age!
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:20 am
Age wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:45 am So, so-called "scientists" say that "santa Claus" "easter bunny", "fairies", for example, are real, right?

Also, does what you said and claimed above here apply to ALL so-called "scientists" and ALL so-called "philosophers"?
Scientist: Practices the principle of charity - goes for the steelman argument.
Philosopher: Practices sophistry - goes for the strawman argument.

You are a great Philosopher, Age!
'you' ALSO CLAIM that to "scientists" absolutely EVERY 'thing' IS REAL. So, what you just SAID and CLAIMED here would ALSO be REAL, well at least to "scientists" anyway. That is; according to :your: "logic" here, "skepdick".

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER GREAT example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK and how these people 'back then' would, as I POINT OUT, say just about ANY 'thing' while 'trying to' back up and support what they ALREADY BELIEVE is absolutely true.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12376
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: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:51 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:20 am I'm entirely unsurprised that you want to tie it into Eastern mysticism.
Btw, do you adopt Philosophical Realism? i.e.
  • Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
    [Philosophical ] Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3]
    This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.

    Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism) which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.

    Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism) which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Of course I'm a realist. So are you.
Since you acknowledged you are a realist in response to that specific post, I presume you are a Philosophical Realist specifically and absolutely. That is the reason you DO NOT agree with the OP.

There are different types of realists from different realisms.

Yes, I am realist, i.e. an Empirical-Realist NOT a Philosophical-Realist [as defined above].

An Empirical Realist is one who believe that reality is connected directly with the empirical, i.e. whatever that is entangled with the human conditions.
Empirical realism” is a term coined by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). It is introduced and developed in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1787). The doctrine serves as the capstone to Kant's epistemology as it applies to empirical reality.
It assigns an active role to the mind in the cognition of empirical objects while simultaneously endorsing the view that the existence of such objects is worthy of the “realist” designation.
In addition to epistemology, the doctrine has influence in the philosophy of science and implications for moral theory.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... .wbeos1626#:~
This mean that the empirical realist has the same beliefs as the Philosophical Realist except the empirical realist does not claim his realism is absolute but rather empirical realism is a subsumed [a subset of] within Transcendental Idealism.

Transcendental Idealism is basically a belief that all of reality is connected with the human conditions as in Kant's Copernican Revolution.

This mean that the empirical realist will believe 'there is a moon is if human one see it' but in a different paradigm as a Transcendental Idealist, he believe 'there is no moon if no human is looking at it".

As such an empirical realist will believe an oncoming train [half a mile away] on a track he is standing on exists as real empirically even he is facing his back to it [i.e. not looking at it], and he will jump off the rail track.

When you are a Philosophical Realist, you are not an empirical realist but rather an empirical Idealist.

Note this thread;
A Philosophical Realist is an Empirical Idealist
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32009

Because you believe reality is independent of your human conditions, you are suffering from a Reality-Gap i.e. what is real out there is independent of yourself.
What is empirical to you is only effectively in your mind, i.e. idealism as defined, thus you are and empirical idealist.
This is why you insist, if your mind is not attending to [looking at] the moon, it still exists independently out there.

Even when we shift the paradigm to QM which is not conventional, you are still stuck with your philosophical realist paradigm.

Why you are sticking dogmatically to the philosophical realist paradigm should be a subject of interest for your further research.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2577
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

I'm actually not being the dogmatic one between us two, believe it or not. Your position is:

Qm has exactly one interpretation of the moons existence when nobody is looking, and that is, it doesn't exist.

My position is:

Qm has more interpretations than that, and you should allow for the possibility of compatibility with the moon existing when nobody's looking with belief in qm.

I have provided a great many arguments for that being the case, and in no world is my position MORE dogmatic than your position, since my position allows for my interpretation and your interpretation and more, but your position allows for your interpretation only. my position on the claims of this thread is categorically less dogmatic than your position.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12376
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: Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:59 am I'm actually not being the dogmatic one between us two, believe it or not. Your position is:

Qm has exactly one interpretation of the moons existence when nobody is looking, and that is, it doesn't exist.

My position is:

Qm has more interpretations than that, and you should allow for the possibility of compatibility with the moon existing when nobody's looking with belief in qm.

I have provided a great many arguments for that being the case, and in no world is my position MORE dogmatic than your position, since my position allows for my interpretation and your interpretation and more, but your position allows for your interpretation only. my position on the claims of this thread is categorically less dogmatic than your position.
Note, your dogmatism is in contrast to mine, i.e.

This mean that the empirical realist will believe 'there is a moon is if human one see it' but in a different paradigm as a Transcendental Idealist, he believe 'there is no moon if no human is looking at it".

Within the Newtonian FSK, there is a moon is if human one see it'.
Within the Einsteinian FSK, there is a moon is if human one see it'.

BUT, within QM, there is only one view re the Moon in reference to Einstein raising the issue, and where Einstein is proven wrong;
"there is no moon if no human is looking at it"

In this case, the Moon is represented a totality to particles with its related QM properties and not as the Moon in the common sense or conventional sense perspective.

Analogy:
As a human you will see an apple on a tree as what humans will see it conventionally.
But say if you become a bat, then you will not see the normal apple, but rather what you cognized as a bat-cognitive abilities would be merely a sonar image.

It is the same with the moon,
in normal circumstance as a human you will see a solid moon.
Under QM you will have to switch to QM-eyes and the QM-moon is cognized upon measurements. As such, if you turn your QM-eyes away there is no moon as per QM principles.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2577
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

No, my interpretation is in contrast to yours, not "my dogmatism". Your dogmatism is "my view is that my interpretation is the only correct approach to quantum mechanics.

This is in contrast to quantum physicists themselves, who are as a group, and as individuals, far less certain about the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics than you seem to be. It's always notable when a lay man is more certain than the experts.

I don't have a dogmatism here, because I have not made a claim that my approach is the only valid one. I have merely made the claim that your approach is not the only valid one
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12376
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: Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:53 am No, my interpretation is in contrast to yours, not "my dogmatism". Your dogmatism is "my view is that my interpretation is the only correct approach to quantum mechanics.

This is in contrast to quantum physicists themselves, who are as a group, and as individuals, far less certain about the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics than you seem to be. It's always notable when a lay man is more certain than the experts.

I don't have a dogmatism here, because I have not made a claim that my approach is the only valid one. I have merely made the claim that your approach is not the only valid one
You missed my point.

I stated your dogmatism is being dogmatic and clinging onto Philosophical Realism and thus imposing that onto to QM.

It is like,
Yours is Philosophical-Realism-QM
Mine is Transcendental-Idealism-QM

Philosophical-Realism can never jive with QM.

Note Hawking's Model Dependent Realism.
  • Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
    It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
    It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
    The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]
    The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism#:
That 'true reality' refer to the independent Objective Reality that Einstein was pining for that is translated to 'the moon does exist of no human is looking at it'.
What Hawking implied is, it is meaningless to talk about the idea
'the moon does exist of no human is looking at it'.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2577
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: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:17 am You missed my point.

I stated your dogmatism is being dogmatic and clinging onto Philosophical Realism and thus imposing that onto to QM.

And you're missing that you're the one being dogmatic and imposing your own philosophy into qm. I'm being categorically less imposing and dogmatic than you.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12376
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: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:17 am You missed my point.

I stated your dogmatism is being dogmatic and clinging onto Philosophical Realism and thus imposing that onto to QM.
And you're missing that you're the one being dogmatic and imposing your own philosophy into qm. I'm being categorically less imposing and dogmatic than you.
Happen to come across this,
Given this contrast, one might expect Carroll and Smolin to emphasize very different things in their books. Yet the books mirror each other, down to chapters that present the same quantum demonstrations and the same quantum parables.
Carroll and Smolin both agree on the facts of quantum theory, and both gesture toward the same historical signposts.
Both consider themselves realists, in the tradition of Albert Einstein.

But with Carroll claiming quantum mechanics as literally true and Smolin claiming it as literally false, there must be some underlying disagreement.

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicat ... e-universe
Albert Einstein is a traditional Philosophical Realist, as such Carroll would have done the same in imposing his philosophical realism onto QM.

But I argue Philosophical Realism is not tenable and not realistic.
Post Reply