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: Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:36 am
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.
Caroll mentioned a few times 'in a real world"
So, in the real world, not only does this particular moon (of Saturn) exist when we’re not looking, it’s also in a pretty well-defined orientation — even if, in a simple model that excludes the rest of the universe, its wave function would be all spread out after only 20 years of evolution. As Zurek and Paz conclude, “Decoherence caused by the environment … is not a subterfuge of a theorist, but a fact of life.” (As if one could sensibly distinguish between the two.)

In would appear that Caroll is referring to real world in terms of Philosophical Realism.
You need to confirm this?
Does Caroll believe reality exist independent of human minds?

From an anti-Philosophical_Realism plus a QM, he would not have stated, “Sure, the moon exists when you’re not looking at it" in the absolute sense.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:14 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 »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:39 am
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.
It is a strawman to state "something that doesn't exist has a character of spread-out-ness?"

The conventional understanding of electrons is they appear [analogous] to be like solid planets circling the Sun.
Image

"Quantum entities have a character of spread-out ness" means the idea of electrons are in contrary to the above solar system analogy, thus not confined, but rather has a character of spread-out ness in terms of its possibility.
This meant that the electron could possibly collapse anywhere.

There is no electron [particle] until it is "measured".
What we identify as electron is always an ad hoc consideration.
Thus the existence of an electron cannot be independent of the human conditions [mind].
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

So your position, once again, looks like it has less to do with qm and more to do with your own personal philosophies about FSKs and human knowledge. QM has no real requirement that things don't exist, per se, prior to measurement, merely that their properties are not concrete prior to measurement.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2575
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 9:14 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:39 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:47 am 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.
It is a strawman to state "something that doesn't exist has a character of spread-out-ness?"
Why is that a straw man? You said these things don't exist prior to measurement. You also said

"Quantum entities have a character of spread-out ness." <- this is implicitly also in the context of "prior to measurement", as far as I can tell.

So you simultaneously think that they don't exist prior to measurement, and that they have a character of spread out ness prior to measurement.

I haven't deliberately created a straw man, I've read your words and responded to them more or less directly.
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: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:14 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:39 am

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.
It is a strawman to state "something that doesn't exist has a character of spread-out-ness?"
Why is that a straw man? You said these things don't exist prior to measurement. You also said

"Quantum entities have a character of spread-out ness." <- this is implicitly also in the context of "prior to measurement", as far as I can tell.

So you simultaneously think that they don't exist prior to measurement, and that they have a character of spread out ness prior to measurement.

I haven't deliberately created a straw man, I've read your words and responded to them more or less directly.
"Quantum entities have a character of spread-out ness."
The above is a quotation, not my words.
It does not imply the existence per se in this case.

Let say,
X has the tendency to roam around all the time.
In this case, we cannot determine the exact location of his whereabout until we track him down physically by various means.

Character of spread-out-ness merely means the possibility & probability of being anywhere when measured.
It does not mean a particle exists spread out like a spider web.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

So we have quantum physicists who say what I say, that the moon exists but has indeterminate position prior to measurement

We have quantum mathematics, which do operations on these quantum particles prior to measurement to calculate their wave functions, where they might exist, prior to measurement.

We have this idea that quantum entities are spread out prior to measurement.

All in all, I see no requirement whatsoever in the actual science of it all that we have to accept your conclusion that things don't exist when nobody is looking. As far as I can tell, quantum mechanics just says the properties are in flux, in a probability cloud, are indeterminate, prior to measurement. And I don't think "the photons properties are indeterminate" is synonymous to "the photon doesn't exist".

That's a philosophical leap you choose to make, and you are arguing as though it's a leap that the science of qm requires us all to make, or else we're rejecting qm. That's not the case, and there's enough here to show that's not the case. Sean Carroll even says it's the classic qm position that your interpretation is not the case.

You can make the philosophical leap yourself, if you want to, but you're not justified in thinking it's scientifically, intellectually required for everyone else to make the same leap
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: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:17 am So we have quantum physicists who say what I say, that the moon exists but has indeterminate position prior to measurement

We have quantum mathematics, which do operations on these quantum particles prior to measurement to calculate their wave functions, where they might exist, prior to measurement.

We have this idea that quantum entities are spread out prior to measurement.

All in all, I see no requirement whatsoever in the actual science of it all that we have to accept your conclusion that things don't exist when nobody is looking. As far as I can tell, quantum mechanics just says the properties are in flux, in a probability cloud, are indeterminate, prior to measurement. And I don't think "the photons properties are indeterminate" is synonymous to "the photon doesn't exist".

That's a philosophical leap you choose to make, and you are arguing as though it's a leap that the science of qm requires us all to make, or else we're rejecting qm. That's not the case, and there's enough here to show that's not the case. Sean Carroll even says it's the classic qm position that your interpretation is not the case.

You can make the philosophical leap yourself, if you want to, but you're not justified in thinking it's scientifically, intellectually required for everyone else to make the same leap
You don't trust Einstein's views in this regard at all?

As quoted by David Mermin;
https://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/~maltoni/PHY ... n_moon.pdf
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.”
I believe David Mermin is correct when he rephrased Einstein's [in the most charitable manner] question as,

Is the moon there when nobody looks?

This mean that Einstein believed the moon is still there when nobody looks as per is Philosophical Realist stance.

Now that Einstein's view challenge is proven wrong, one can infer the contrary, i.e.
'the moon is not there when nobody look'.

Why is the above inference wrong?

Note as I had stated, the above view support the views of the ancient views that there is no objective reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
-The Hindu view of Maya
-The Buddhist 'Two truths' and 'Tetralemma'
-Protagoras' Man is the measure of all things.
-Kant's Copernican Revolution
-Nietzsche' perspectivism

As 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."

Point is if you are able to shift beyond common and conventional sense, you will be able to grasp the truth of it. This is like the ability to see the other cube in a Necker Cube.
However, in this case of a Eureka moment, one will feel some sense of cognitive dissonance and one's system will drive one to seek consonance which is the default common sense.

Actually Professor Jim Al-Khalili still felt very uneasy and had some doubts, and believed somehow there is still in independent objective out there.

Kant highlighted this cognitive dissonance;
Kant wrote:Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR B397
This is illusion is with reference to the dogmatic clingingness that there is an objective reality existing out there independent of the human conditions.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2575
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 11:07 am You don't trust Einstein's views in this regard at all?
A. You and I both agree that Einstein was wrong about a lot of things qm-related, so... No.

B. I still maintain you're reading too much into Einstein's poetic language. So in this case about the moon existing, it's not that he's wrong (about his interpretation of qm) so much as that he's using hyperbolic wording that you're taking too literally.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:07 am As quoted by David Mermin;
https://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/~maltoni/PHY ... n_moon.pdf
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.”
It's about properties of things, not the existence of things. The whole moon thing is poetic language. The mathematics of quantum mechanics, the basic formulations of quantum mechanics, never say things like photons stop existing per se. It's poetic language, what the actual science says is about properties, period. Even your favourite nobel prize winners, who did experiments for bells theorem - their experiments were about properties of things, not the existence of things
I believe David Mermin is correct when he rephrased Einstein's [in the most charitable manner] question as,

Is the moon there when nobody looks?

This mean that Einstein believed the moon is still there when nobody looks as per is Philosophical Realist stance.

Now that Einstein's view challenge is proven wrong, one can infer the contrary, i.e.
'the moon is not there when nobody look'.

Why is the above inference wrong?
Because it's taking poetic colloquial wording and confusing it with the rigorous science itself.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:07 am Note as I had stated, the above view support the views of the ancient views that there is no objective reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
-The Hindu view of Maya
-The Buddhist 'Two truths' and 'Tetralemma'
-Protagoras' Man is the measure of all things.
-Kant's Copernican Revolution
-Nietzsche' perspectivism

As 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."

Point is if you are able to shift beyond common and conventional sense, you will be able to grasp the truth of it. This is like the ability to see the other cube in a Necker Cube.
However, in this case of a Eureka moment, one will feel some sense of cognitive dissonance and one's system will drive one to seek consonance which is the default common sense.
I'm entirely unsurprised that you want to tie it into Eastern mysticism. There is nothing in the actual science that forces that relationship though, and I don't take that seriously

It's also worth noting that the language in question here, the words spoken, were in a very peculiar context: the extremely early history of qm. The ideas were only just being fleshed out. They hadn't dreamed of bells theorem at this point. They hadn't dreamed of decoherence. The ideas of qm were just babies at the time.

So to rest all of it on Einstein's wording, when Einstein was only ever introduced to the baby version of qm, and he turned out to have a lot of wrong opinions about qm anyway, and he was in my opinion also just using poetic hyperbole anyway... you're putting way too much weight into those words given all that context.
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: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:07 am You don't trust Einstein's views in this regard at all?
A. You and I both agree that Einstein was wrong about a lot of things qm-related, so... No.

B. I still maintain you're reading too much into Einstein's poetic language. So in this case about the moon existing, it's not that he's wrong (about his interpretation of qm) so much as that he's using hyperbolic wording that you're taking too literally.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:07 am As quoted by David Mermin;
https://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/~maltoni/PHY ... n_moon.pdf
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.”
It's about properties of things, not the existence of things. The whole moon thing is poetic language. The mathematics of quantum mechanics, the basic formulations of quantum mechanics, never say things like photons stop existing per se. It's poetic language, what the actual science says is about properties, period. Even your favourite nobel prize winners, who did experiments for bells theorem - their experiments were about properties of things, not the existence of things
I believe David Mermin is correct when he rephrased Einstein's [in the most charitable manner] question as,

Is the moon there when nobody looks?

This mean that Einstein believed the moon is still there when nobody looks as per is Philosophical Realist stance.

Now that Einstein's view challenge is proven wrong, one can infer the contrary, i.e.
'the moon is not there when nobody look'.

Why is the above inference wrong?
Because it's taking poetic colloquial wording and confusing it with the rigorous science itself.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:07 am Note as I had stated, the above view support the views of the ancient views that there is no objective reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
-The Hindu view of Maya
-The Buddhist 'Two truths' and 'Tetralemma'
-Protagoras' Man is the measure of all things.
-Kant's Copernican Revolution
-Nietzsche' perspectivism

As 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."

Point is if you are able to shift beyond common and conventional sense, you will be able to grasp the truth of it. This is like the ability to see the other cube in a Necker Cube.
However, in this case of a Eureka moment, one will feel some sense of cognitive dissonance and one's system will drive one to seek consonance which is the default common sense.
I'm entirely unsurprised that you want to tie it into Eastern mysticism. There is nothing in the actual science that forces that relationship though, and I don't take that seriously

It's also worth noting that the language in question here, the words spoken, were in a very peculiar context: the extremely early history of qm. The ideas were only just being fleshed out. They hadn't dreamed of bells theorem at this point. They hadn't dreamed of decoherence. The ideas of qm were just babies at the time.

So to rest all of it on Einstein's wording, when Einstein was only ever introduced to the baby version of qm, and he turned out to have a lot of wrong opinions about qm anyway, and he was in my opinion also just using poetic hyperbole anyway... you're putting way too much weight into those words given all that context.
At the mentioned of Hinduism and Buddhism, you linked it to Mysticism?
That exposed your level of ignorance of the complexity and intricacy of philosophy-proper from the above two philosophies.
Suggest you research more into them.

Here is a clue;
Thomas McEvilley on Ancient Greek and Indian philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBygl-ox5Q&t=8s

Hindu Philosophy [from the Vedas] has a 10,000 years history in comparison to Greek's which started around 600 BCE.
Greek philosophy is influenced by Hindu Philosophy and also Buddhist philosophy.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2575
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 feel no need to get mystical about it all. People 150 years ago had no idea what qm was, people 10,000 years ago certainly didn't.
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: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:53 am I feel no need to get mystical about it all. People 150 years ago had no idea what qm was, people 10,000 years ago certainly didn't.
I forget to mention Eastern Chinese Philosophy.

Note Bohr's Coat of Arms;

Image
"Since Niels Bohr did not have a coat-of-arms, he designed one himself around the Tai-Chi (yin-yang symbol) which he envisioned as a striking traditional representation of the principle of complementarity on which he based his views of the fundamental laws of physics."
https://www.numericana.com/arms/bohr.htm#:~

Then 10,000 years ago upward, the ancients already had an intuitive grasp of QM but the later modern QM is more systematic and organized.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
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: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:59 am
Then 10,000 years ago upward, the ancients already had an intuitive grasp of QM
:roll:
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
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: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:59 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:53 am I feel no need to get mystical about it all. People 150 years ago had no idea what qm was, people 10,000 years ago certainly didn't.
I forget to mention Eastern Chinese Philosophy.

Note Bohr's Coat of Arms;

Image
"Since Niels Bohr did not have a coat-of-arms, he designed one himself around the Tai-Chi (yin-yang symbol) which he envisioned as a striking traditional representation of the principle of complementarity on which he based his views of the fundamental laws of physics."
https://www.numericana.com/arms/bohr.htm#:~

Then 10,000 years ago upward, the ancients already had an intuitive grasp of QM but the later modern QM is more systematic and organized.
Wait till you figure out that Sanskrit is Turing complete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E ... ini#Legacy

http://doc.gold.ac.uk/aisb50/AISB50-S13 ... -paper.pdf
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: 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
If not, what is your basic philosophical view?

If you are a philosophical realist as above, you are actually engaging in mysticism without knowing it. I'll justify why if you are a philosophical realist.
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: Wed Mar 29, 2023 1:21 pm Wait till you figure out that Sanskrit is Turing complete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E ... ini#Legacy
http://doc.gold.ac.uk/aisb50/AISB50-S13 ... -paper.pdf
Noted, was not aware of the above.

I believe there are lots more of advanced knowledge from the East.
The limitation is these knowledge are confine to a very small minority and they are not systematically organized and more rigoristic like what we have at present, e.g. Kantian, Scientific FSK, and the likes.

Note re Logic from the East:
The development of Indian logic dates back to the anviksiki of Medhatithi Gautama (c. 6th century BCE); the Sanskrit grammar rules of Pāṇini (c. 5th century BCE); the Vaisheshika school's analysis of atomism (c. 6th century BCE to 2nd century BCE); the analysis of inference by Gotama (c. 6th century BC to 2nd century CE), founder of the Nyaya school of Hindu philosophy; and the tetralemma of Nagarjuna (c. 2nd century CE).

Indian logic stands as one of the three original traditions of logic, alongside the Greek and the Chinese logic. The Indian tradition continued to develop through early to modern times, in the form of the Navya-Nyāya school of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_logic
It is true there a lot of snake-oil salesmen from the East [like anywhere else] but is an insult to oneself to jump into fallacy of generalization.
It is very typical of Westerners [with superiority complex] to condemn any mention of Eastern philosophies as mysticism and woo woo due to their being ignorant of their ignorance.
Post Reply