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

[Agent Smith]

Clearly, I need a proper/?better definition of "bread" because what the local bakery sold me as bread isn't really bread.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Clearly, I need a proper/?better definition of "bread" because what the local bakery sold me as bread isn't really bread.

Contexts and perspectives are critical to facilitate survival and well-being.
Note my response to your thread;
Is it true that ...
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39717

Within the common sense and conventional sense, "bread" is what bread is as defined within the typical dictionary.

However, in a more refined sense [obviously more realistic];
a loaf of bread is;
1. a cluster of x number of C6H12O6 molecules plus molecules of other ingredient.
2. a cluster of x number of atoms [different types]
3. a cluster of x number of electrons and protons
4. a cluster of x number of fundamental particles
5. a bundle of x Joule (J) of energy

The above are all true depending on context and more realistic from 1 to 5.

But for practical and survival at the fundamental level, a "bread" is a bread as understood within the specific community.

[Iwannaplato]

Clearly, I need a proper/?better definition of "bread" because what the local bakery sold me as bread isn't really bread.

What was it? What about it let you know it wasn't really bread?

[Agent Smith]

Clearly, I need a proper/?better definition of "bread" because what the local bakery sold me as bread isn't really bread.

What was it? What about it let you know it wasn't really bread?

It wasn't bread, it couldn't have been bread. That is all I know.

[Iwannaplato]

Clearly, I need a proper/?better definition of "bread" because what the local bakery sold me as bread isn't really bread.

What was it? What about it let you know it wasn't really bread?

It wasn't bread, it couldn't have been bread. That is all I know.

Well, you're not looking at it now, so it isn't anything at all.

[Agent Smith]

What was it? What about it let you know it wasn't really bread?

It wasn't bread, it couldn't have been bread. That is all I know.

Well, you're not looking at it now, so it isn't anything at all.

The man sat next to him and said "this isn't bread" and handed him a loaf of ... bread. John was baffled by this, but he was too polite and nodded in agreement. Samantha reached for the jam while Timmy eyed the three with a twinkle in his eyes. Woof!

[popeye1945]

The world of energy plays upon biological consciousness as its instrument, and the melody the instrument plays is apparent reality; but only biological consciousness, read the instrument, can hear the melody that is played. If biological consciousness does not subject itself to that particular field of energy called the moon, then the melody played does not include that note one calls the moon. One knows apparent reality through the body and the alteration made to the body by the energies that surround us affecting sensations, experience/knowledge; and this is the world of objects. We, however, know more about the sensations than the object or energies that cause those sensations; for the energies that cause for us these objects are in fact the thing in itself, or rather the energies that play us.

[Iwannaplato]

The world of energy plays upon biological consciousness as its instrument, and the melody the instrument plays is apparent reality; but only biological consciousness, read the instrument, can hear the melody that is played. If biological consciousness does not subject itself to that particular field of energy called the moon

Why do the tides continue? What's the difference between the indirect effects of photons on our retinas and the indirect effects of the photons from incoming tidal waters on our retinas?

[Agent Smith]

We're in the same spot we were exactly 450 years ago.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Questions for VA.

Do you think there was no [universe / existence / reality / nature] before the evolution of human beings, and that there won't be when we're gone?

If so, do you have scientific, empirical evidence for that claim?

Never mind the bollocks about emergence, entanglement and intersubjective consensus opinion. Answer those damn questions.

It is an insult to your own intelligence [exposing that your skull is so thick] that you have to raise the question again after I have answered your repeated questions a '1000' times.

First, in terms of the FSKs of common sense, classical, Einsteinian physics, [which assume Time is real] and on hindsight and present evidence there was a universe from the Big Bang before the evolution of humans beings.
But note, there is no certainty the universe will still be there if humans has gone extinct - there are no humans to confirm whatever the case.

However within the FSK of QM,
there was no universe before the emergence of human beings within evolution.
QM do not assume Time is real, thus 'before' or 'after' humans emerged or are gone has no truth-value.

If so, do you have scientific, empirical evidence for that claim?

Note this thread which thesis won the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics.
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
Therefore the Universe does not exists if no humans 'cognize' it.

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."

You think Professor Jim Al-Khalili is very stupid to make the following statements?

Make it a point to register with the above answer and don't raise such damm questions again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I disagree. 'Take away the subject and the world as object' would carry on just as it did before conscious subjects turned up, would have carried on had no conscious subjects turned up, and will carry on when conscious subjects are gone. I think yours is another version of VA's peculiar anthropocentric theory.

Think of humans as just a little more developed and intelligent apes - which is what we are - and this subject-object myth fades away. We're not embodied souls or minds or consciousnesses.

The only way you know apparent reality is on a subjective level.

To say we perceive, know and describe reality in a human way is not to say reality is what we perceive, know and describe. But that's what the 'no subject = no object' idea implies.

Your everyday reality is a subjective property. In subjective consciousness's absence, necessarily that subjective world no longer exists.

But so what? That doesn't mean that what we call reality disappears or doesn't exist if we're not experiencing it - or if it's not being perceived. That is Berkeley's barmy idealism - empiricist skepticism at its dreadful work.

Berkeley proved that primary and secondary qualities are not independent entities but linked to the human conditions.
Do you deny this?
Berkeley got it half right, what is wrong with his view is where he claimed it still exists because a God is perceiving it.

The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
The principles therein won the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics.

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."

You have ignored the above point and had not countered it at all?
If you can refute the above, then you should be entitled to the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics or at least has it withdrawn from the current winners.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

[Flannel Jesus]

Fantastic video. It doesn't say anything to support your op, it's a pretty middle of the road educational video. At no point does it say "things don't exist when we don't look at them". It does say specific properties of things are indeterminate, in a wave, before measurement, and then he defines measurement in, funnily enough, a very similar way to how I said measurement could be defined before I got roasted about it in this thread.

So yeah, all in all, fantastic video, it's a good basic introduction

[Veritas Aequitas]

Fantastic video. It doesn't say anything to support your op, it's a pretty middle of the road educational video. At no point does it say "things don't exist when we don't look at them". It does say specific properties of things are indeterminate, in a wave, before measurement, and then he defines measurement in, funnily enough, a very similar way to how I said measurement could be defined before I got roasted about it in this thread.

So yeah, all in all, fantastic video, it's a good basic introduction

He did not make the specific point,
"things don't exist when we don't look at them"
but it is implied in,
things are realized upon measurement [human intervention].

If you were to listen to other similar videos [..I have listened to lots of them], the point is more explicit;
Note these example;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txlCvCSefYQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1h0T7LAEBQ

The debate point;
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"
was raised by Einstein himself who claimed;
"The Moon Does Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"

but this was countered by Bohr and gang, which is the opposite;
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"

Since we are aware Bohr's view prevailed, therefore,
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"

The point is we must not claimed the above in the absolute sense but rather the various points are true when conditioned upon their respective FSK.
The problem with PH & gang is they claim there is only ONE absolute standpoint, i.e.
"The Moon Does Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" eternally as if they are an omniscient God.

[Flannel Jesus]

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.