is the moon there when we are not looking.

[jackles]

The seqence of events would be.the moon existed then i existed relative to the moon then the moon existed.or i existed then the moon existed in my existance then i existed.dependent on which existed first me or the moon.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The seqence of events would be.the moon existed then i existed relative to the moon then the moon existed.or i existed then the moon existed in my existance then i existed.dependent on which existed first me or the moon.

There is a reason they call it "lunacy".

[jackles]

No not at all its very reasonable.either one of two things is correct.if theres a god.we as in our consciousnesses pre existed the moon.or if the case is there is no god and then in that case the moon prexisted us humans.i know my self there is a god who prexisted the moon.our consciousness is a saterlite of that god.so in terms of consciousness we prexisted the moon.its that simple.it the truth has to be one of the two opptions.the unmoving mover that moves all things existed allways..

[Hobbes' Choice]

No not at all its very reasonable

.either one of two things is correct.if theres a god.we as in our consciousnesses pre existed the moon.

or if the case is there is no god and then in that case the moon prexisted us humans.

i know my self there is a god who prexisted the moon.our consciousness is a saterlite of that god.so in terms of consciousness we prexisted the moon.its that simple.it the truth has to be one of the two opptions.the unmoving mover that moves all things existed allways..

This is madness.
God has nothing to do with this.

[jackles]

Did god nonlocal create the four fundermental local forces which created the moon.if the answer is yes then our consciousness as an observers has the moon in it.and that consciousness would have prexisted the moon.

[HexHammer]

Irrelevant topoic!

[jackles]

Irrealevent. means - i real event

[Hobbes' Choice]

Did god nonlocal create the four fundermental local forces which created the moon.if the answer is yes then our consciousness as an observers has the moon in it.and that consciousness would have prexisted the moon.

The moon was not created.

The moon was no caused by "4 fundermental (sic) forces".

Despite the answer being incorrect it is STILL true that our consciousness has the moon in it - at least when we can see it. It does not and never can mean that consciousness pre-exist the moon.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think I will un-bookmark now.

[jackles]

It could if cosciousness is nonlocal.nonlocal prexisted local.
Cause and created is the samething
.locality came or was caused by nonlocality.so the four forces which are local created the local moon.its location is orbiting the earth.location is always relative.

[James Markham]

When an object is under observation, it reveals itself to us by virtue of the effects it has on our senses, this is only ever in an indirect manner, through the medium of the forces, conveying information, which are in themselves only conditions that govern the behaviour of energy, and this partly sets the parameters for the way an object is able to convey influence.

Another consideration is that the information carried can only influence by means of the senses, which further limits the information according to ability for it to be received. Once this process is complete, the brain then begins its job of creating meaning, and presenting that meaning in a form which is coherent in real time, and of a form most intelligible for our conscious consideration, which is therefore only representative of what is actually there.

So in reality we are divorced from the actual object, by several intermediary processes, and have no clear window on what is actually in existence, and if we attempt to decipher what is there when these processes are not occurring, it becomes hard to explain using the concepts that have become natural to the human brain.

So the first step would have to be, the identification of what is purely conceptual, and therefore created mentally, and what phenomena those concepts are created around. We can then see how they differ, and what things can be said to be real.

So if we take an object, such as a rock, and hold it in our hands, one of its qualities is what we call mass, it feels solid, and it has weight. Now if we are to determine that it would still be solid without the judgement of our mind, then we need to understand what it means to be solid. In our mind, this concept is built around the belief that an object is able to be touched, and by the contact of hand and object, resist any further progress. But even if we disregard the evidence to the contrary that is provided by particle physics, we can use our reasoning to show this as false.

When two things approach each other, there must always be a space between them, to denote where one ends, and the other begins. And at whatever degree of magnification, this separation is a necessary feature of two objects, if the space between was to be closed, then the two objects would actually become one. So logically, for the two objects to retain their status as individual, they must in fact remain separated by some fraction of space. To illustrate what I mean, if we imagine two objects that appear to be touching, one red, one blue, then there is a point at which the blue ends, and the red begins, so if we now assign a coordinate to this position, we have a position in which both the red and blue object exist, but have not defined the edge of either, as either edge is necessarily at some fraction of our coordinates, this becomes an infinite operation, and no coordinates can account for the edge of either object unless we assume some fraction of space exists between them.

So it follows that no two things classed as being individual, can ever make actual contact, and that the whole idea is a concept build around the reality of resisting force, not the actual reality of independent objects. So the whole idea of physical matter, is in fact only created by our minds detection, and interpretation of forces that are not physical in form, but intangible, and are influential by virtue of exchanging value, and as which can only be understood in terms of changes in potential.

So in reality, the universe has no physical form, and the ideas we have of substance and object, are born out of our sensory interpretations. The same is true of its illumination, in reality the universe has no visual existence, image is a concept, which only exists within the mind of the perceiver, or interpreter, and that which is interpreted is the changing state of an event potential. We witness these changes, and our brains substitute light, sound, smell and texture in their place, from which we infer the existence of an independent reality, which we interpret as being spatial, temporal and physical.

So does the moon exist when we're not looking? Well it's image certainly doesn't, and it's physicality, although not dependent on sight, is certainly dependent on its interpretation as such. So due to the fact our perception of the moon, is what differentiates it from the rest of the potential events, I'd say no, without being looked at, all that exists, is the potential for it to appear.

Energy is the potential for events to occur, but without a mental interpretation, all that happens is that the potential for an event to occur changes.

[surreptitious57]

So if the existence of an object is conditional up on our observation of it then it would logically follow that when not being observed it does not exist. But as that does apply to any object any way then such a hypothesis is false and absolutely so too. For if it were true in an absolute sense then one would not actually exist because one would have to be aware of the process which brought one in to existence in the first place Given one does not have knowledge or memory before one is born that would not be possible. And would also violate the law of causality which states that no event can proceed its cause.
In other words time travel from the present to the past [ although as to why time should be uni directional is not all that clear given that only one other major law is time specific and that is the Second Law Of Thermo dynamics. And time travel is only applicable at the classical level. Now some sub atomic particles can manipulate this simply by changing direction though the actual time period in question is infinitesimal. If an object existed at the sub atomic level it might be impossible to observe given how that very act would cause it to alter direction. This may be because subtle changes in atmosphere cause quantum fluctuations. Although this is not actually known for a fact

[jackles]

Nothing dosnt need to travel in time.nothing prexisted something.time is the warped nothing that prexisted something.something is energy in warped nothing time space.but nothing is the existance that caused something to be in it.nothing is therefor tenseless existance causing the tense for something to happen in.

[surreptitious57]

One should make the distinction between nothing and absolute nothing and so nothing is defined as the absence of matter and exists as a vacuum
Though absolute nothing does not exist for it violates the Uncertainty Principle. Quantum fluctuations at the sub atonic level are proof of this. As
regards time it is supposed to have come into existence at the Big Bang. But it is the only dimension that is not conditional up on the existence
of anything else. That is because it is temporal and not special. In a Universe devoid of matter it could not be measured though it could still
exist. It is important therefore not to confuse time with the measurement of time

[jackles]

So can you please define nonlocality in terms of nothing.like your saying time exist or can exist on its own.that on its own state of time is existance .or put another way its time that hasnt been localised to an event.so nonlocality is unlocalised time