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

[Flannel Jesus]

Mind creates all meaning.

That doesn't sound like a statement about quantum mechanics, that sounds like a statement about meaning. I think I agree with this statement about meaning. Sure, all meaning is created by minds. I tentatively accept that.

[Skepdick]

That doesn't sound like a statement about quantum mechanics, that sounds like a statement about meaning.

I think I agree with this statement about meaning. Sure, all meaning is created by minds. I tentatively accept that.

Great!

What do you mean by "quantum mechanics", "reality", "existence", "the universe" and all the other terms being thrown around?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

In cognitive science and semantics, the symbol grounding problem concerns how it is that words (symbols in general) get their meanings, and hence is closely related to the problem of what meaning itself really is. The problem of meaning is in turn related to the problem of how it is that mental states are meaningful, hence to the problem of consciousness: what is the connection between certain physical systems and the contents of subjective experiences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The scientists’ findings show that the universe cannot be locally real, as particles lack definite spin-up or spin-down properties (quantum state) prior to their observation or measurement. Therefore, the simple act of observing a particle changes its state, contradicting the rules of local realism.
In other words,
the universe is “real,” but only when you’re looking at it.
Ibid
[/list]
The point is QM realism as above is not some kind of fantasy, but it is translated to high intensity utilities for humanity.

Another article [out of the hundreds] supporting the above;

• The quantum experiment that could prove reality doesn't exist
  We like to think that things are there even when we aren't looking at them. But that belief might soon be overturned thanks to a new test designed to tell us if quantum weirdness persists in macroscopic objects
  Link

Btw, there is mind-independent reality within common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics, but these [which is so obvious] are crude & lower level realism with lower degree of objectivity and they is not as realistic as QM realism.

There's a mind-independent reality in qm too. The idea that qm has anything to do with the mind is a very fringe belief.

It's just that that mind independent reality looks much different from the sorts of things we, as human beings, are used to thinking about, and "local realism", which is the naive view of how the stuff we call "material" works at the lowest level of reality, isn't actually how it works.

But "local realism isn't true" shouldn't be taken to mean NOTHING is real.

I wrote somewhere all living things up to human beings have been programmed with the default, there is a mind independent reality - which has been adaptive and optimal for 4 billion years.

There is an evolution in mind-independent reality within common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics,
BUT there is a significant paradigm shift with QM.
However such a paradigm shift of reality is not new, the Eastern philosophers had been postulation such a thesis >2500 years ago, i.e. Buddhism and some philosophies in the Vedas.
This was how Bohr got some of his ideas of complementarity from the Yin-Yang principles of Taoism.

With this paradigm shift from the default of mind-independence, there is no mind-independence in QM at all.

The whole of all Macro-objects are comprised of fundamental particles.
ALL Fundamental particles obeyed the principles of QM, i.e. mind-interdependence.
Therefore, macro-objects are grounded in QM mind-interdependence.

Like the Necker Cube, one has to shift perspective where relevant, but QM realism as the ground is the most realistic.

But the problem with the ignorant dogmatic and stubborn is they insist theirs [mind-independent reality] is the only true reality; any thing else is meaningless and nonsense even if such a thesis that won a Nobel Prize of Physics will never ever initiate a further look within them.
This resistance is purely a psychological problem rather than philosophy which encourage greater critical thinking.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

"The universe is not real" expresses a subjective judgment!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... munication.)

I bet you don't even understand the difference in meaning between "The universe is not real" and "the universe is not locally real".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality

Clearly you do not, which is why I gave you the link. It's essentially the same thing anyway. If something isn't 'locally real' then is it 'real'??

[Flannel Jesus]

With this paradigm shift from the default of mind-independence, there is no mind-independence in QM at all.

The irony in this point of view is, if there was nothing mind in independent, then what does it even mean to "discover" that qm is "true"?

Qm is built on experiments and equations that describe and predict the results of those experiments. We can verify, experimentally, that qm models of the world accurately predict what happens.

How could we discover something new about the world that we didn't already know, if there wasn't something there independent of our minds to be discovered?

You're certainly free to interpret it that way if you want, but it is not the exclusive - or even common - way experts in the field interpret QM, quantum physics, and all the experiments and discoveries and equations surrounding it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

With this paradigm shift from the default of mind-independence, there is no mind-independence in QM at all.

The irony in this point of view is, if there was nothing mind in independent, then what does it even mean to "discover" that qm is "true"?

Qm is built on experiments and equations that describe and predict the results of those experiments. We can verify, experimentally, that qm models of the world accurately predict what happens.

How could we discover something new about the world that we didn't already know, if there wasn't something there independent of our minds to be discovered?

You're certainly free to interpret it that way if you want, but it is not the exclusive - or even common - way experts in the field interpret QM, quantum physics, and all the experiments and discoveries and equations surrounding it.

Why do think think it causes so much consternation?

[Flannel Jesus]

Why do think think it causes so much consternation?

Qm is the most counter intuitive thing we've ever discovered to actually be true. It's more strange than anybody prior to it's discovery could have possibly predicted, and the early interpretations of what both the equations and the experiments were saying about the nature of reality were largely unsatisfying and left so much room to the imagination.

And people have taken the opportunity to use their imagination in this space as much as possible.

Tbh even the least imaginative approach to qm is still imaginative - our world is weird. If you accept the science of qm, there's really not any way around that. The question is I suppose what flavor of weirdness you would like to accept.

[Iwannaplato]

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

Well, let's look at the implications: obviously this wouldn't just be true for the Moon. It would also be true for the sun and the earth.

So, did humans arise on a planet with a sun already in place?
or
Did the sun and earth arise simultaneously as the birth of the first human?

I think VA may be spreading an argument that might point to a deity.

Let's fill in the steps.

[Skepdick]

Clearly you do not, which is why I gave you the link. It's essentially the same thing anyway. If something isn't 'locally real' then is it 'real'??

Do you mean "real" in the way scientists use it; or "real" in the way philosophers use it?

[Skepdick]

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

Well, let's look at the implications: obviously this wouldn't just be true for the Moon. It would also be true for the sun and the earth.

So, did humans arise on a planet with a sun already in place?
or
Did the sun and earth arise simultaneously as the birth of the first human?

I think VA may be spreading an argument that might point to a deity.

Let's fill in the steps.

You don't need a deity. All you need is semantic holism. Ontologicaly what exists is everything. It's a veeeery big "everything".

What or where is that which isolates a small part of the whole (e.g Moons, Stars, Planets, ) from the whole and brings it into focus; while it takes everything else out of focus? What is that which talks about The Moon as a unit, instead of talking about all the atoms; or particles which comprise it?
That's the epitome of abstraction. Not to mention that if "The Moon" wasn't there - we wouldn't be here to observe it.

What or where is that which chops up nature into "things", "phenomena" and "existents"?

Oh, that's right. We, humans, do that.

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! --Richard Feynman

[Iwannaplato]

You don't need a deity.

I agree. But it's one solution.

All you need is semantic holism. Ontologicaly what exists is everything. It's a veeeery big "everything".

What or where is that which isolates a small part of the whole (e.g Moons, Stars, Planets, ) from the whole and brings it into focus; while it takes everything else out of focus? What is that which talks about The Moon as a unit, instead of talking about all the atoms; or particles which comprise it?
That's the epitome of abstraction. Not to mention that if "The Moon" wasn't there - we wouldn't be here to observe it.

What or where is that which chops up nature into "things", "phenomena" and "existents"?

Oh, that's right. We, humans, do that.

This is what VA is saying? If it is, or it fits with what he is saying, could you integrate your way of talking about it with his way?

[Skepdick]

You don't need a deity.

I agree. But it's one solution.

All you need is semantic holism. Ontologicaly what exists is everything. It's a veeeery big "everything".

What or where is that which isolates a small part of the whole (e.g Moons, Stars, Planets, ) from the whole and brings it into focus; while it takes everything else out of focus? What is that which talks about The Moon as a unit, instead of talking about all the atoms; or particles which comprise it?
That's the epitome of abstraction. Not to mention that if "The Moon" wasn't there - we wouldn't be here to observe it.

What or where is that which chops up nature into "things", "phenomena" and "existents"?

Oh, that's right. We, humans, do that.

This is what VA is saying? If it is, or it fits with what he is saying, could you integrate your way of talking about it with his way?

It hardly matters what he's saying. It has no implications either way.

Sure I can integrate into his vocabulary. I agree - the Moon doesn't exist if no humans look at it.

So what? We are still talking about the non-existing Moon even if neither of us is currently looking at it.

Once we use the phrase "The Moon" to denote something ontological the "exist" or "doesn't exist" qualifier loses its significance. At best the phrase "The moon doesn't exist" could be viewed as a request to remove "The Moon" from our shared ontology/vocabulary; to remove it from the domain of discourse.

OK. It's gone! You won't hear me speak of "The Moon" again! Now what do you want to talk about?

It's just ontological engineering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_engineering

[Iwannaplato]

It hardly matters what he's saying.

Perhaps not to you.

Sure I can integrate into his vocabulary. I agree - the Moon doesn't exist if no humans look at it.

OK, can you expand on how semantic holism explains your position or contributes to it.

So what? We are still talking about the non-existing Moon even if neither of us is currently looking at it.

How about the issue of when the Moon arose and then also the phenomena or experiences we associate with the Moon. Were our preverbal ancestors more active on nights with what we would now call a full moon, even if they had no word for moon. Or did those phenomena arise when we got the word?

Once we use the phrase "The Moon" to denote something ontological the "exist" or "doesn't exist" qualifier loses its significance. At best the phrase "The moon doesn't exist" could be viewed as a request to remove "The Moon" from our shared ontology/vocabulary; to remove it from the domain of discourse.

So, VA is saying that we should remove The Moon from our vocabulary when we aren't looking at it?

OK. It's gone! You won't hear me speak of "The Moon" again! Now what do you want to talk about?

It's just ontological engineering.

We often talk about, perhaps even usually, things we are not directly perceiving. Then, also, how is 'it' just ontological engineering? And whats the it?

[Skepdick]

It hardly matters what he's saying.

Perhaps not to you.

Sure I can integrate into his vocabulary. I agree - the Moon doesn't exist if no humans look at it.

OK, can you expand on how semantic holism explains your position or contributes to it.

No story or account of reality is ever complete. Give or take a Moon. What difference does it make when you take the entire universe into account?

How about the issue of when the Moon arose and then also the phenomena or experiences we associate with the Moon. Were our preverbal ancestors more active on nights with what we would now call a full moon, even if they had no word for moon. Or did those phenomena arise when we got the word?

Why is that relevant or useful? In what context? You can theorize about it, but to what end?

So, VA is saying that we should remove The Moon from our vocabulary when we aren't looking at it?

Or maybe he's saying "Nobody is looking at the moon right now - lets not talk about it as if it doesn't exist. It's not the focus of our observation".

We often talk about, perhaps even usually, things we are not directly perceiving. Then, also, how is 'it' just ontological engineering? And whats the it?

What it? The one we just removed from the ontology? Do you want to bring it back in now?

OK... lets bring it back in. At what level of abstraction do you want to conceptualise it? A single object? A complex entity made up of parts which we erroneously perceive as a single object? A part of a bigger system of interactions? The Earth-Moon interaction? The Solar system/moon interaction? The galaxy-moon interaction?

What's the domain of discourse and why are we talking about it?

[Iwannaplato]

No story or account of reality is ever complete. Give or take a Moon. What difference does it make when you take the entire universe into account?

Do you mean something like 'in the big picture the Moon is less than a grain of sand' or something like that? What does that have to do with semantic holism if that is what you mean or related to what you mean if it is something else?

How about the issue of when the Moon arose and then also the phenomena or experiences we associate with the Moon. Were our preverbal ancestors more active on nights with what we would now call a full moon, even if they had no word for moon. Or did those phenomena arise when we got the word?

Why is that relevant or useful? In what context? You can theorize about it, but to what end?

Well, I'm guessing that VA means something more like nothing exists that is not being currently perceived by humans, no less. I suppose that might have some use in relation to the future. Hard to know, I'd have to mull. But then I'd be curious about what this entails. As I asked in my earlier post 'Does this mean that the earth and the sun appeared when we appeared? I'm not sure if the Big Bang is a useful concept or not. Probably nowhere near as useful as some medical treatment. Or maybe later it will save all lives understanding earlier phases of the universe. I don't know.

If VA believes that things only exist when perceived by humans, has he thought about what this means for things like the fossil record, the geological history of the earth. I think it might be interesting to mull what it means about each other. I suppose we keep ourselves in existence since we experience ourselves. So, Greenland perhaps did not come into existence until the Inuit arrived there. It's an interesting view and interestingly relates rather well with a Piaget stage when children come to understand (or is it hallucinate?) object permanence - the conceptual category. IOW before they realize (or hallucinate) this they were generally considered to have less ontological understanding. But perhaps they really had it right and the object permanence addition is a useful fallacy.

So, VA is saying that we should remove The Moon from our vocabulary when we aren't looking at it?

Or maybe he's saying "Nobody is looking at the moon right now - lets not talk about it as if it doesn't exist. It's not the focus of our observation".

So, only if we know nobody is looking at it. Not just when we aren't looking at it. And the dark side of the Moon is not something to talk about most of the time.

We often talk about, perhaps even usually, things we are not directly perceiving. Then, also, how is 'it' just ontological engineering? And whats the it?

What it?

The it in the second sentence I quoted. It is just ontological engineering.

The one we just removed from the ontology? Do you want to bring it back in now?

No I wanted to know what the 'it' was referring to. And then more about how ontological engineering relates.

OK... lets bring it back in. At what level of abstraction do you want to conceptualise it? A single object? A complex entity made up of parts which we erroneously perceive as a single object? A part of a bigger system of interactions? The Earth-Moon interaction? The Solar system/moon interaction? The galaxy-moon interaction?

What's the domain of discourse and why are we talking about it?

I don't know why you are. How does ontological engineering come in. You mentioned it. I hadn't heard of it. I looked it up, but didn't put in enough energy to see how it might connect. So, right now your sentence is something like 'It's just X.' I wondered how and in what way. How did the ideas of ontological engineering affect your understanding of these issues?