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

[Veritas Aequitas]

How very fascinating. The 3D mask illusion is most apropos. How do we know elephants exist and dragons don't?

Existence is not a predicate.
As such one cannot claim "X exists" by itself without the explicit or implicit predicate.
As such whatever exists & is real must be predicated or conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality[FSR].
As such whatever exists is scientific real is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

At present the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable thus the most realistic and objective on a conditional basis [not absolutely]; the scientific FSK is the standard to evaluate the objectivity of all other FSKs.

As such, when one claims 'elephants exist' we must establish the claim is based on what FSK. If that is claim upon the science-biology-FSK then we can a high confidence level that it is true. see,
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

If someone claim dragons exist, we have to establish what FSK is he relying upon. If it is a Harry Potter FSK, we know it is fiction and dragons don't exists as real in the scientific basis.
If someone insists dragons exist as real, then they have to subject their existence of dragons via the scientific FSK to achieve credibility and reliability for their claims.

Science is a good framework for ontology, broadly speaking metaphysics. Many things that confused pre-scientific cultures no longer bother the average person in the modern world. However, I've not encountered a scientific argument vis-à-vis the moon as relevant to the thread. I don't think the moon exists when we're not looking at it. Why should it?

In metaphysics, ontology is the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

I am not too comfortable with the term 'ontology' as it is commonly directed to the ontological God and Philosophical Realism.

I believe is sufficient to state, whatever the claim of existence, becoming, and reality, they must be conditioned to a specific FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable; which is used as a standard to evaluate all other FSKS.

We can still claim the "The Moon Does Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" BUT it must be qualified to the relevant FSK, e.g. the Newtonian, Einsteinian, other conventional FSK.
It cannot be an absolute, unqualified, unconditional claim.
This claim of reality is crude and not refined.

At a more refined level of reality, "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" but nevertheless it is conditioned upon the most refined scientific FSK at present, i.e. the science-QM-FSK.

When we accept the cruder reality such "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It", then we are opening up for the absolute claims of Philosophical Realism [mind-independent ontology] and theism [independent ontological God].

Philosophical Realism and the independent ontological God both hinder moral progress.

Philosophical Realists like Peter Holmes and gang insist all facts are mind-independent. Since morality is mind-dependent, objective moral facts do not exist.
Without objective facts, there is no objective moral facts to drive moral progress efficiently.

Theists believe there is the mind-independent ontological God which deliver immutable moral commands via its messenger, prophets or son. As such when these 'moral' commands are actually 'evil laden' they cannot be changed since they are immutable.

The scientific -QM reality [proven] that "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" means, whatever is reality, it is ultimately grounded to the human conditions.
Since reality is tied to the human conditions, there is loads of room for improvements given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, AI and various technologies to create a shared-reality.

[Iwannaplato]

I am not too comfortable with the term 'ontology' as it is commonly directed to the ontological God and Philosophical Realism.

IOW, for example, he is not a philosophical realist. Which, he doesn't seem to realize means he has a different ontological position. IOW he doesn't understand what ontology means.

[Peter Holmes]

Philosophical Realists like Peter Holmes and gang insist all facts are mind-independent. Since morality is mind-dependent, objective moral facts do not exist.
Without objective facts, there is no objective moral facts to drive moral progress efficiently.

To repeat - and to be ignored again - there's no evidence for the existence of the mind as a different, non-physical substance. So the expressions mind-dependence and mind-independence are incoherent. VA is straw-manning my argument.

And the claim that all facts are brain-dependent, including the existence of brains, is laughable gibberish.

[MagsJ]

_
Grown people stating that the moon does not exist, if/when not seen.

Unbelievable!


The 3D-Mask Illusion has zero correlation with this discussion, as that is a brain/optic dichotomy and not a thought-experiment one.

[seeds]

_
Grown people stating that the moon does not exist, if/when not seen.

Unbelievable!

Clearly, something associated with what we call "the moon" (something with mass circling the earth) exists. Otherwise, how would you explain the ocean tides?

I mean, does VA actually believe that if for an entire week, no conscious beings on earth looked out into space to see the moon, then there would not have been any high or low tides for 7 days?

The 3D-Mask Illusion has zero correlation with this discussion, as that is a brain/optic dichotomy and not a thought-experiment one.

Well, in coming to VA's defense (something I rarely do), it does seem to be related to the possible "observer effect" in quantum theory. Therefore, I wouldn't say it has "zero" correlation to the discussion.

That being said, what VA cannot seem to understand is that before you can have an illusion such as this...



...There needs to be the presence of some sort of pre-existing, highly organized substance (or system) in place from which the illusion can then manifest.

In other words, he seems to be implying that both the moon, and the illusion created by the rotating mask, spring-forth out of pure nothingness whenever we look.

And that is nonsense.

The only thing that the mask illusion actually does confirm is that a conscious observer is indeed required to explicate the illusion into existence, which is pretty much what I was getting at with my hologram analogy.

VA's thread is a prime example of the type of person to whom Neil Degrasse Tyson was referring to in the following quote:

“One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong.”

_______

[Iwannaplato]

I mean, does VA actually believe that if for an entire week, no conscious beings on earth looked out into space to see the moon, then there would not have been any high or low tides for 7 days?

We can't see the human brain (unless there's an operation or one is dead).
No human saw my brain or heart this week. And certainly not my adrenal glands or my DNA or my mitosis.

I'll let everyone fill in the steps to the problem this might create.

[CIN]

To repeat - and to be ignored again - there's no evidence for the existence of the mind as a different, non-physical substance. So the expressions mind-dependence and mind-independence are incoherent.

'MInd-dependent' and 'mind-independent' are simply philosopher-speak for 'imaginary' and 'real'. Nothing to do with whether the mind exists as a non-physical substance (though no-one has shown that it doesn't; Cartesian dualism has problems, but so does every other theory of consciousness).

QM has not shown that the Moon doesn't exist if no humans look at it. All it has shown is that the universe appears to change when we observe it, which we find surprising, and does so in ways we find even more surprising, not that the universe isn't there when we don't look. Our surprise at QM is a fact about us and our preconceived ideas, not about the universe.

[popeye1945]

The moon does not exist if biological consciousness does not look at it, that is not to say there is nothing there; there would perhaps be an energy field but it would not manifest as an object if not processed through biological consciousness. For just as there is no sound or color in the physical world there are no objects, it is the same process.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical Realists like Peter Holmes and gang insist all facts are mind-independent. Since morality is mind-dependent, objective moral facts do not exist.
Without objective facts, there is no objective moral facts to drive moral progress efficiently.

To repeat - and to be ignored again - there's no evidence for the existence of the mind as a different, non-physical substance. So the expressions mind-dependence and mind-independence are incoherent. VA is straw-manning my argument.

And the claim that all facts are brain-dependent, including the existence of brains, is laughable gibberish.

Noted, forgot about your specific and dogmatic meaning of "what is mind" re Descartes' dualism but note,
I had mentioned before, when I write 'mind-independent' it meant independent of the human conditions.

My claim is all facts [not your perverted definition of fact] are conditioned upon a specific FSK, i.e. a collective of humans.
As such all facts are entangled, linked, enjoin and the like with the human conditions.

There is no fact-in-itself, i.e. there is no God-eyes-view facts.

[popeye1945]

Facts are meanings; thus, they are subjective; the physical world is also subjective; we call this subjective world apparent reality. The subjective evaluations made by biological consciousness are the meanings of what is experienced by a conscious subject. The conscious subject is within a field of energy and how those energies alter the biology/body of a conscious subject is what is experienced as objects by a conscious subject. All meanings are experiences of the body due to the influences of the energies that surround the subject consciousness. So, everything of apparent reality or the physical world is the way it seems relative to its being experienced, the physical world/apparent reality is a biological readout, a readout of subjective experience, the only thing that can be said to be objective is the energies of the physical world and/or the cosmos. They are objective as energies processed through biology, they become subjective objects. This is assuming what is intended in the topic title facts are physical objects or states between objects in the physical world. Perhaps I need to underline, ultimate reality is not a world of objects or the relations between objects; it is but the relations between energies, there are only objects for biological/conscious subjects which is itself an energy field. The moon is energy.

[Agent Smith]

Existence is not a predicate.
As such one cannot claim "X exists" by itself without the explicit or implicit predicate.
As such whatever exists & is real must be predicated or conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality[FSR].
As such whatever exists is scientific real is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

At present the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable thus the most realistic and objective on a conditional basis [not absolutely]; the scientific FSK is the standard to evaluate the objectivity of all other FSKs.

As such, when one claims 'elephants exist' we must establish the claim is based on what FSK. If that is claim upon the science-biology-FSK then we can a high confidence level that it is true. see,
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

If someone claim dragons exist, we have to establish what FSK is he relying upon. If it is a Harry Potter FSK, we know it is fiction and dragons don't exists as real in the scientific basis.
If someone insists dragons exist as real, then they have to subject their existence of dragons via the scientific FSK to achieve credibility and reliability for their claims.

Science is a good framework for ontology, broadly speaking metaphysics. Many things that confused pre-scientific cultures no longer bother the average person in the modern world. However, I've not encountered a scientific argument vis-à-vis the moon as relevant to the thread. I don't think the moon exists when we're not looking at it. Why should it?

In metaphysics, ontology is the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

I am not too comfortable with the term 'ontology' as it is commonly directed to the ontological God and Philosophical Realism.

I believe is sufficient to state, whatever the claim of existence, becoming, and reality, they must be conditioned to a specific FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable; which is used as a standard to evaluate all other FSKS.

We can still claim the "The Moon Does Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" BUT it must be qualified to the relevant FSK, e.g. the Newtonian, Einsteinian, other conventional FSK.
It cannot be an absolute, unqualified, unconditional claim.
This claim of reality is crude and not refined.

At a more refined level of reality, "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" but nevertheless it is conditioned upon the most refined scientific FSK at present, i.e. the science-QM-FSK.

When we accept the cruder reality such "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It", then we are opening up for the absolute claims of Philosophical Realism [mind-independent ontology] and theism [independent ontological God].

Philosophical Realism and the independent ontological God both hinder moral progress.

Philosophical Realists like Peter Holmes and gang insist all facts are mind-independent. Since morality is mind-dependent, objective moral facts do not exist.
Without objective facts, there is no objective moral facts to drive moral progress efficiently.

Theists believe there is the mind-independent ontological God which deliver immutable moral commands via its messenger, prophets or son. As such when these 'moral' commands are actually 'evil laden' they cannot be changed since they are immutable.

The scientific -QM reality [proven] that "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" means, whatever is reality, it is ultimately grounded to the human conditions.
Since reality is tied to the human conditions, there is loads of room for improvements given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, AI and various technologies to create a shared-reality.

I see your point and while it'd be awesome to prove your opponents wrong, is it necessary, do you have to?

What about the Golden rule as stated by rabbi Hilel: do not do that which is hateful to you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I see your point and while it'd be awesome to prove your opponents wrong, is it necessary, do you have to?

What about the Golden rule as stated by rabbi Hilel: do not do that which is hateful to you?

The Golden Rule is a good principle but as a standalone maxim, it is not foolproof.

To Hitler, "loving Jews" or "loving one's enemies" would be a hateful idea which is against his ideology to him.
When Hitler follows the Golden Rule, he would never love the Jews nor love his enemies.
That is why he has no hesitation to kill Jews and his enemies which is evidently the case.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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."

While Professor Jim Al-Khalili as a QM Physicist accept this fact of the science-QM FSK, somewhere he stated he find it difficult to accept it intuitively, i.e. within the basic human-FSK e.g. his common sense.

[Agent Smith]

I see your point and while it'd be awesome to prove your opponents wrong, is it necessary, do you have to?

What about the Golden rule as stated by rabbi Hilel: do not do that which is hateful to you?

The Golden Rule is a good principle but as a standalone maxim, it is not foolproof.

To Hitler, "loving Jews" or "loving one's enemies" would be a hateful idea which is against his ideology to him.
When Hitler follows the Golden Rule, he would never love the Jews nor love his enemies.
That is why he has no hesitation to kill Jews and his enemies which is evidently the case.

You mean to say Hitler would've wanted the Jews to hate him?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I see your point and while it'd be awesome to prove your opponents wrong, is it necessary, do you have to?

What about the Golden rule as stated by rabbi Hilel: do not do that which is hateful to you?

The Golden Rule is a good principle but as a standalone maxim, it is not foolproof.

To Hitler, "loving Jews" or "loving one's enemies" would be a hateful idea which is against his ideology to him.
When Hitler follows the Golden Rule, he would never love the Jews nor love his enemies.
That is why he has no hesitation to kill Jews and his enemies which is evidently the case.

You mean to say Hitler would've wanted the Jews to hate him?

Not that.

I meant,
to suggest to Hitler "to love Jews" would be a hateful idea to Hitler.

Say, you suggest to Hitler,

You to Hitler: I suggest loving Jews would be a good idea.
Hitler to You: I hate that such a suggestion / idea. It is a hateful idea.