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: 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: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:12 am That second video is from a weird conspiracy religion channel, you aren't doing your position any favours by pulling support from places like that.

I haven't watched the first video, but the title of it probably gives the gist. It's probably about bells theorem and local realism, about how local realism was disproven. That's fantastic, and it's true! But it doesn't say the moon doesn't exist when nobody looks at it.
Have you listened to this?

Here at 54:30
https://youtu.be/ISdBAf-ysI0?t=3214
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."

Do you doubt Professor Jim Al-Khalili credibility?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Like you, when he says that he isn't distinguishing between "properties of things aren't singular and definite before measurement" and "the thing itself doesn't exist in any sense before measurement". I think that's a worthwhile thing to distinguish. Bells theorem makes the first statement, not the second one. Even if you can find some science popularizer who, out of context, seems to support what you're saying.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Would you be saying the moon doesn't exist when we don't look, even if we lived in a classical universe? Would you be making the same sorts of arguments about why the moon doesn't exist when we aren't looking, that you make in the h2o threads?
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: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:26 am Like you, when he says that he isn't distinguishing between "properties of things aren't singular and definite before measurement" and "the thing itself doesn't exist in any sense before measurement". I think that's a worthwhile thing to distinguish. Bells theorem makes the first statement, not the second one. Even if you can find some science popularizer who, out of context, seems to support what you're saying.
science popularizer??
Given the awards and honors below, I have the confidence Professor Jim Al-Khalili do have some degree of credibility, until some more credible physicists point out he is a fake.

Awards and honours
2007 – Royal Society Michael Faraday Prize for science communication
2008 – Appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 2008 Birthday Honours
2013 – Warwick Prize for Writing, shortlist, Pathfinders
2014 – RISE leader award[37]
2013 – Honorary Doctor of Science, Royal Holloway, University of London[23]
2016 – Inaugural winner of the Stephen Hawking Medal for Science Communication[38]
2017 – Honorary Doctorate, University of York[39]
2018 – Elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS)[24]
2019 – Honorary Doctor of Science, University of St Andrews[40]
2019 – Outstanding Achievement in Science & Technology at The Asian Awards.[41]
2021 - Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), "for Services to Science and Public Engagement in STEM."[25]
2022 – Honorary Doctor of Science, University of Birmingham

Note I just do not take his words alone but depend on support from many other sources which I had read which i had not kept as a record to reproduce easily.
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: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:27 am Would you be saying the moon doesn't exist when we don't look, even if we lived in a classical universe? Would you be making the same sorts of arguments about why the moon doesn't exist when we aren't looking, that you make in the h2o threads?
As I has always asserted, each FSK has its objective truth but we must be aware of its relevance, limitation and weakness.

Thus I would agree "the moon exists when we don't look at it" if considered within the Newtonian and Einsteinian FSK but not the QM FSK.

Note my principle,
whatever the fact, it must be conditioned [qualified] to a specific FSK.

I do not agree to a claim such as,
The moon exists even no one is looking at it. PERIOD!
Water is H2O. Period!
That is what PH and gang is claiming.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
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 science popularizer isn't an insult, and it's not mutually exclusive with being a good scientist. But their roles are different, and the things they say while wearing one hat do not always perfectly correspond to the things they say in the other hat.

But I did look through those list of awards he won and most of them look like he won them precisely as a science popularizer. Idk why that's a problem for you, it's not a problem for me, I'm sure he's a great and smart dude.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
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 9:45 am
Note my principle,
whatever the fact, it must be conditioned [qualified] to a specific FSK.

I do not agree to a claim such as,
The moon exists even no one is looking at it. PERIOD!
Ah okay, your title certainly makes it seem like you think that, period.

But still, I don't think qm proves that.

Take this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28Fwx1RMTfg

Which you linked earlier. Listen to what he says about the tennis ball. He says it's position exists in an indeterminate state prior to measurement, but that that indeterminate state is very very narrow. And notice that he doesn't say "the tennis ball doesn't exist prior to measurement".

The moon and the tennis ball can be treated the same.
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: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:47 am A science popularizer isn't an insult, and it's not mutually exclusive with being a good scientist. But their roles are different, and the things they say while wearing one hat do not always perfectly correspond to the things they say in the other hat.

But I did look through those list of awards he won and most of them look like he won them precisely as a science popularizer. Idk why that's a problem for you, it's not a problem for me, I'm sure he's a great and smart dude.
The contention is,
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"
it seem you do not agree with it.

I agree with it, and I refer to those who supposed have credibility on the subject.

Science popularizer is generally derogatory often with reference to those who are generalists.
But Professor Jim Al-Khalili is a Quantum Physicists and at the same time is a good communicator speaks a lot about him.

He would not have won so awards if he had not presented what is objective and the truth of Quantum Physics.
Thus when he agreed "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" that give me sufficient confidence level it is true.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
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 10:09 am He would not have won so awards if he had not presented what is objective and the truth of Quantum Physics.
Thus when he agreed "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" that give me sufficient confidence level it is true.
That's the problem with taking the short-hand wording of a science popularizer too literally. I'm sure if you listened in detail to the rest of what he says, he actually talks about the properties of things prior to measurement, and the fact that you can say things about those properties prior to measurement. You just can't say singular, definite things about those properties, but you can say things. That's what the wave function is. The wave function is a thing you can say about the property of a thing prior to measurement (like the position of a photon through a double slit, for example).

You're over generalising from a mind fuck moment in a video
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: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:50 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:45 am
Note my principle,
whatever the fact, it must be conditioned [qualified] to a specific FSK.

I do not agree to a claim such as,
The moon exists even no one is looking at it. PERIOD!
Ah okay, your title certainly makes it seem like you think that, period.

But still, I don't think qm proves that.

Take this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28Fwx1RMTfg

Which you linked earlier. Listen to what he says about the tennis ball. He says it's position exists in an indeterminate state prior to measurement, but that that indeterminate state is very very narrow. And notice that he doesn't say "the tennis ball doesn't exist prior to measurement".

The moon and the tennis ball can be treated the same.
The tennis ball does not exists until it is measured [observed or cognized].
What exists if anything in indeterminate state it not its existence per-se.

Analogy,
1. ice do not exist until water is subject to a temperature below 0 degree centigrade.
we cannot say ice per se exists as liquid water.

2. Hollow mask illusion;
Note there was no convex shaped until you set your eyes on it.
It is the same with other visual illusions, which do not appear until you look at them, e.g. the bent-stick in water, etc.

While the above can easily be deciphered, the QM effect [defying common sense] is more subtle.
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: Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:09 am He would not have won so awards if he had not presented what is objective and the truth of Quantum Physics.
Thus when he agreed "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" that give me sufficient confidence level it is true.
That's the problem with taking the short-hand wording of a science popularizer too literally. I'm sure if you listened in detail to the rest of what he says, he actually talks about the properties of things prior to measurement, and the fact that you can say things about those properties prior to measurement. You just can't say singular, definite things about those properties, but you can say things. That's what the wave function is. The wave function is a thing you can say about the property of a thing prior to measurement (like the position of a photon through a double slit, for example).

You're over generalising from a mind fuck moment in a video
As I had stated, I am not relying on Professor Jim Al-Khalili or that video alone.
I have read of this point extensively to gain confidence of the point.
The videos are the sort of quickie references to give one a lead to the point.

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.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Mar 28, 2023 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
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 10:22 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:50 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:45 am
Note my principle,
whatever the fact, it must be conditioned [qualified] to a specific FSK.

I do not agree to a claim such as,
The moon exists even no one is looking at it. PERIOD!
Ah okay, your title certainly makes it seem like you think that, period.

But still, I don't think qm proves that.

Take this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28Fwx1RMTfg

Which you linked earlier. Listen to what he says about the tennis ball. He says it's position exists in an indeterminate state prior to measurement, but that that indeterminate state is very very narrow. And notice that he doesn't say "the tennis ball doesn't exist prior to measurement".

The moon and the tennis ball can be treated the same.
The tennis ball does not exists until it is measured [observed or cognized].
What exists if anything in indeterminate state it not its existence per-se.

Analogy,
1. ice do not exist until water is subject to a temperature below 0 degree centigrade.
we cannot say ice per se exists as liquid water.

2. Hollow mask illusion;
Note there was no convex shaped until you set your eyes on it.
It is the same with other visual illusions, which do not appear until you look at them, e.g. the bent-stick in water, etc.

While the above can easily be deciphered, the QM effect [defying common sense] is more subtle.
That seems like your personal interpretation, rather than the science-as-it-is. That's not quantum mechanics, that's quantum mechanics through the eyes of VA.

There's nothing wrong with that, you're allowed that, but it's worth being honest about that.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
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 10:33 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.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

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

Post by Sculptor »

What if a chimp sees the Moon?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
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 »

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.
Post Reply