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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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: Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:33 am As I had stated, I am not relying on Professor Jim Al-Khalili alone.

As I had stated it was Einstein who raised the question and [challenged],
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"
and Bohr proved Einstein wrong and confirm the above,
and the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics also proved Einstein was wrong,
obvious it imply,
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It".

If you cannot make the above inference it is likely there is something lacking in your intelligence.
Nope, Einstein and bhors disagreement was about properties of things, not the existence of things.

I don't think there's any reason for you to resort to that kind of insult, I haven't said anything like that towards you.
It was reported that Einstein raised the question;
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"

As such, existence is related to the issue.

It was a counter reaction.
"You're over generalising from a mind fuck moment in a video."
I thought that was an insult especially when I told you I did read extensively on the subject.
In addition that point is leveraged upon my whole view of philosophy, re Eastern, Kantian, and the likes. This point raised in QM is a very recent thing which is a mere fringe to my whole philosophy.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

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

Post by Iwannaplato »

Harbal wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:38 am When you look at the Moon, what you are aware of is a mentally processed representation of it, presented to your consciousness by your brain. When you look away, it is that representation that ceases to exist, but the Moon itself continues to affect the tides, and perform the rest of its Moonly duties regardless of what you are looking at.
Which raises the issue [the bolded portion above] of what 'looking at' really includes. VA himself things everything is interconnected. The QM experiments are not tied to 'looking at'. It's not the visual sense, it's the much broader 'observing' and it can even be mediated observations - that is, via devices.

When we see the tides we are seening the Moon mediated by other matter.

Everything is holding everything in place, since everything is affecting everything. As long, in his view, as there is an observer somewhere and if he is correct that everything is connected/entangled.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:38 am When you look at the Moon, what you are aware of is a mentally processed representation of it, presented to your consciousness by your brain. When you look away, it is that representation that ceases to exist, but the Moon itself continues to affect the tides, and perform the rest of its Moonly duties regardless of what you are looking at.
You are conflating common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian Physics, Einsteinian Physics all in one.

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."

The task is how can you put yourself in his shoes to understand [not necessary agree with] what he is saying.
I bet if you take a full course in QM you are likely to get that sense of bewilderment with two minds on that truth.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
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: Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:43 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:33 am As I had stated, I am not relying on Professor Jim Al-Khalili alone.

As I had stated it was Einstein who raised the question and [challenged],
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"
and Bohr proved Einstein wrong and confirm the above,
and the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics also proved Einstein was wrong,
obvious it imply,
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It".

If you cannot make the above inference it is likely there is something lacking in your intelligence.
Nope, Einstein and bhors disagreement was about properties of things, not the existence of things.

I don't think there's any reason for you to resort to that kind of insult, I haven't said anything like that towards you.
It was reported that Einstein raised the question;
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"

As such, existence is related to the issue.
Scientists have a habit of using poetic language that is easy to misinterpret. The entirety of qm is within that category.

"The moon", there, is really a substitute for a photon, for example, and "exists" is a substitute for "has definite singular properties". Bells theorem was never tested on the moon, it was tested on photons and electrons. And it wasn't tested on the existence of those photons or electrons, it was tested on properties of those photons and electrons - mainly, on the property of spin.

The whole "moon existing" thing was a poetic exaggeration. If you read the epr paper, the actual example they give is about quantum particles, not macroscopic objects, and it focuses on the properties of those particles, not their existence.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Btw my comment about over generalising was not meant as an insult, simply a disagreement. If we disagree about something, that means each of us implicitly or explicitly believes the other has probably made an error in thought somewhere. I can think you've made an error without saying you lack intelligence. I don't think we need to go down that road, it's entirely unnecessary.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Does the moon exist when no one is looking?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhNsCrULfy8
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

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

Post by Sculptor »

Harbal wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:38 am When you look at the Moon, what you are aware of is a mentally processed representation of it, presented to your consciousness by your brain. When you look away, it is that representation that ceases to exist, but the Moon itself continues to affect the tides, and perform the rest of its Moonly duties regardless of what you are looking at.
What if Veritas sees the Moon?
Surely that does not count!
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9564
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: Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:48 am
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."

The task is how can you put yourself in his shoes to understand [not necessary agree with] what he is saying.
I bet if you take a full course in QM you are likely to get that sense of bewilderment with two minds on that truth.
But even Jim Al-Khalili doesn't know what he means when he says, "In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking." Not only does he not know in what sense the moon doesn't exist when not being looked at, other than its being a strange sense, but he also concedes that there is only a suggestion of it. Well I suggest that is a far cry from Jim Al-Khalili stating that the Moon does not exist if no humans look at it.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

It's worth pointing out, whatever you think of the abstract "existence" of a photon or electron or whatever prior to measurement, that the mathematical objects of quantum mechanics do, in fact, track the evolution of the wave function of these things, or the properties of these things, prior to measurement. It's perhaps a matter of personal philosophy if you believe that "the wave function of the position of this photon exists, but this photon itself doesn't exist" Vs " the wave function of the position of this photon exists, which implies that the photon itself exists." I take the second approach, it makes way more sense to me to talk about the wave function of a thing that exists then of a thing that doesn't exist.

Quantum mechanics mathematically tracks the evolution of these things which allegedly "don't exist", and it tracks the evolution of these things, using the Schrödinger equation, in a way that makes incredibly accurate predictions. At no point in the mathematical description of, say, two entangled particles, does the mathematical description say that the particles stop existing. What the mathematical description DOES say is that, at any point prior to measurement, the spin or position or momentum prior to measurement exists as a superposition, or a wave function of probabilities.

So qm is quite literally tracking this particle from the moment the experiment starts up to the moment it gets measured. It just isn't tracking it in a classical/Newtonian way.

It's poetry to leap from "the properties of this thing are indeterminate" to "the thing doesn't exist". That's a matter of personal interpretation, it's not required by the science. To me, the science suggests the opposite.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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: Tue Mar 28, 2023 11:32 am It's poetry to leap from "the properties of this thing are indeterminate" to "the thing doesn't exist". That's a matter of personal interpretation, it's not required by the science. To me, the science suggests the opposite.
It is not poetic but rather a point that warrant the Principle of Charity and reconciliation.
The original context of how the point was raised is critical.
I believe you have not fully understood the point what Einstein meant when he asked David Mermin with reference to the Moon;
Einstein didn’t like this. He wanted things out there to have properties, whether or not they were measured4:
“We often discussed his notions on objective reality.
I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it.”
1. Einstein's philosophical background [also his psychological state] is critical. Einstein was a typical physical realist, i.e. he believed things [and its properties] exist independent of the mind [human conditions], i.e. the concept of Objective Reality.
This mean things and their properties exist regardless of whether human 'look' at it or not.
It also mean things had existed before humans and will exist even if humans become extinct, a good example of such a thing is the Moon.
Einstein's 'God do not play dice' was a 'theist' [specifically a deist] who believe God created all things as independent of the human mind.

2. QM basis is Anti-Physical_Realist to 1 above.
"Quantum physics says that the universe is random and that the state of particles, like electrons or protons, can only be predicted using a probability distribution, due to their un-deterministic nature. In other words, we can only predict how particles will behave once observed, within a given probability." Link
This mean the final state of the particle is conditioned upon the human conditions [observation, i.e. interaction].

3. You just banked on the term 'properties' which is too narrow. The critical element here is "particle" with its properties and state. Btw, properties include property of existence as well. As above, the final state of the particle is conditioned upon the human conditions [observation, i.e. interaction].

4. Now the Moon [or whatever thing] in its TOTALITY is comprised of particles with its properties which are subject to the QM principles of entanglement, supposition, Wavefunction collapse, particle-wave duality, and others.
Since QM is applicable a particle, it has to be applicable to ALL particles comprising the moon.
Therefore the moon, from the QM perspective, "do not exists if no humans look at it."

Note 'the moon' Schrodinger's cat, "no sound in the forest if ......" are merely examples and illustrations to highlight counter the narrow minded dogmatic Philosophical Realists' ideology.

What the above culminate to is,
There is no objective reality that is absolute independent of the human conditions [mind] as claimed by Philosophical Realists.
What is reality is somehow entangled with the human conditions.
That's a matter of personal interpretation, it's not required by the science. To me, the science suggests the opposite.
That is too general.

Should be,
QM Science suggests, the moon does not exist if no humans 'look' at it.
Newtonian Science suggests the opposite.
Einsteinian Science suggests the opposite.
Common sense suggests the opposite.

Aside,
what is more interesting is to research on the psychological factors that drive
the narrow minded dogmatic Philosophical Realists' to cling to their ideology.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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

The Electron Fuzzy Cloud

Image

Image
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

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

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:58 am Aside,
what is more interesting is to research on the psychological factors that drive
the narrow minded dogmatic Philosophical Realists' to cling to their ideology.
This would be a realist study based on assumptions that realists make.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

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

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:21 am "Quantum entities have a character of spread-out ness.
A perfectly lovely REALIST sentence. Here's the way the world is when we're not looking at it or 'haven't made an observation yet.'

VA even accompanies it with images of what it's like then.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
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: Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:58 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 11:32 am It's poetry to leap from "the properties of this thing are indeterminate" to "the thing doesn't exist". That's a matter of personal interpretation, it's not required by the science. To me, the science suggests the opposite.
It is not poetic but rather a point that warrant the Principle of Charity and reconciliation.
The original context of how the point was raised is critical.
I believe you have not fully understood the point what Einstein meant when he asked David Mermin with reference to the Moon;
Einstein didn’t like this. He wanted things out there to have properties, whether or not they were measured4:
“We often discussed his notions on objective reality.
I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it.”
1. Einstein's philosophical background [also his psychological state] is critical. Einstein was a typical physical realist, i.e. he believed things [and its properties] exist independent of the mind [human conditions], i.e. the concept of Objective Reality.
This mean things and their properties exist regardless of whether human 'look' at it or not.
It also mean things had existed before humans and will exist even if humans become extinct, a good example of such a thing is the Moon.
Einstein's 'God do not play dice' was a 'theist' [specifically a deist] who believe God created all things as independent of the human mind.

2. QM basis is Anti-Physical_Realist to 1 above.
"Quantum physics says that the universe is random and that the state of particles, like electrons or protons, can only be predicted using a probability distribution, due to their un-deterministic nature. In other words, we can only predict how particles will behave once observed, within a given probability." Link
This mean the final state of the particle is conditioned upon the human conditions [observation, i.e. interaction].

3. You just banked on the term 'properties' which is too narrow. The critical element here is "particle" with its properties and state. Btw, properties include property of existence as well. As above, the final state of the particle is conditioned upon the human conditions [observation, i.e. interaction].

4. Now the Moon [or whatever thing] in its TOTALITY is comprised of particles with its properties which are subject to the QM principles of entanglement, supposition, Wavefunction collapse, particle-wave duality, and others.
Since QM is applicable a particle, it has to be applicable to ALL particles comprising the moon.
Therefore the moon, from the QM perspective, "do not exists if no humans look at it."

Note 'the moon' Schrodinger's cat, "no sound in the forest if ......" are merely examples and illustrations to highlight counter the narrow minded dogmatic Philosophical Realists' ideology.

What the above culminate to is,
There is no objective reality that is absolute independent of the human conditions [mind] as claimed by Philosophical Realists.
What is reality is somehow entangled with the human conditions.
That's a matter of personal interpretation, it's not required by the science. To me, the science suggests the opposite.
That is too general.

Should be,
QM Science suggests, the moon does not exist if no humans 'look' at it.
Newtonian Science suggests the opposite.
Einsteinian Science suggests the opposite.
Common sense suggests the opposite.

Aside,
what is more interesting is to research on the psychological factors that drive
the narrow minded dogmatic Philosophical Realists' to cling to their ideology.
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 11:32 am
Quantum mechanics mathematically tracks the evolution of these things which allegedly "don't exist", and it tracks the evolution of these things, using the Schrödinger equation, in a way that makes incredibly accurate predictions. At no point in the mathematical description of, say, two entangled particles, does the mathematical description say that the particles stop existing.
And here, just for completeness sake, is a quote from a genuine living quantum physicist:

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/bl ... nt-page-2/
The conventional quantum-mechanical answer would be “Sure, the moon exists when you’re not looking at it. But there is no such thing as `the position of the moon’ when you are not looking at it.”
That's exactly what I've been saying! Fancy that.
Last edited by Flannel Jesus on Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:21 am "Quantum entities have a character of spread-out ness.
A perfectly lovely REALIST sentence. Here's the way the world is when we're not looking at it or 'haven't made an observation yet.'

VA even accompanies it with images of what it's like then.
Yeah, when you actually get into the details of quantum mechanical models, it's clear that qm is making statements about particles in those moments where VA says they "don't exist". What does it mean to say that something that doesn't exist has a character of spread-out-ness? Not a lot, to me.
Post Reply