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

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

All facts, knowledge and truths are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
ALL FSKs are managed and sustained by humans [mentally, i.e. mind].
All QM facts are conditioned to the science-QM FSK.
Thus, all QM truths are mind-interdependent, not mind-independent.

The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable FSK [comparing the best of each respective FSK].
Other than the mathematics FSK which other FSK is more credible than the scientific FSK.
Thus, the truths of QM is credible.

In this case, that particular QM thesis [relatively counter-intuitive] was proven and translated into practices [technologies] that are likely to benefit greatly to human progress, that is the confidence level of the truth of this QM thesis.

Well this sounds like your personal theory, not the theory of actual physicists. I have never heard a physicist use the term fsk. Which just goes to show what I was saying before: this is not the standard view.

Nope, 'framework' [necessitate a system] is a very common concept and generic fundamental requirement within ALL fields of knowledge.

Note Science and its basic Scientific Method [a framework] within the larger scientific FSK.

Note this for example re Physics;
Richard Feyman on the need for a Framework in Physics;
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96

With reference to Mathematics;

A mathematical theory is a mathematical model of a branch of mathematics that is based on a set of axioms. It can also simultaneously be a body of knowledge (e.g., based on known axioms and definitions), and so in this sense can refer to an area of mathematical research within the established framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_theory#:

Still don't get it?

[Flannel Jesus]

Not a single word Feynman said in that video necessarily implied that any of that stuff *isn't really happening outside of humans understanding it happening*. Most of what he says in that video revolves around electrical and magnetic attraction and repulsion.

What if we asked Feynman, "Do you think these phenomena happen, in any sense, outside of our awareness of them? Did we discover these phenomena or did we invent them? Did they happen before we had words for it? Will they continue to happen even if all of humanity is extinct"?

What do you think he would say?

I think he would say, of course electrical attraction and repulsion happens outside of human awareness of it. It isn't CALLED electrical attraction, the symbols we use to model it aren't in any real sense the real symbols that the deep down reality uses, but the thing itself is "happening" in some real sense, and has been long before humanity existed, sure.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not a single word Feynman said in that video necessarily implied that any of that stuff *isn't really happening outside of humans understanding it happening*. Most of what he says in that video revolves around electrical and magnetic attraction and repulsion.

What if we asked Feynman, "Do you think these phenomena happen, in any sense, outside of our awareness of them? Did we discover these phenomena or did we invent them? Did they happen before we had words for it? Will they continue to happen even if all of humanity is extinct"?

What do you think he would say?

I think he would say, of course electrical attraction and repulsion happens outside of human awareness of it. It isn't CALLED electrical attraction, the symbols we use to model it aren't in any real sense the real symbols that the deep down reality uses, but the thing itself is "happening" in some real sense, and has been long before humanity existed, sure.

The video at 1:40 was merely to support the point that Physicists do speak of framework which you doubted earlier.

It was not mean to relate to the OP at all.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, they can use the word "framework". That, on it's own, is not something I would dispute.

[Skepdick]

Not a single word Feynman said in that video necessarily implied that any of that stuff *isn't really happening outside of humans understanding it happening*. Most of what he says in that video revolves around electrical and magnetic attraction and repulsion.

What if we asked Feynman, "Do you think these phenomena happen, in any sense, outside of our awareness of them? Did we discover these phenomena or did we invent them? Did they happen before we had words for it? Will they continue to happen even if all of humanity is extinct"?

What do you think he would say?

I think he would say, of course electrical attraction and repulsion happens outside of human awareness of it. It isn't CALLED electrical attraction, the symbols we use to model it aren't in any real sense the real symbols that the deep down reality uses, but the thing itself is "happening" in some real sense, and has been long before humanity existed, sure.

What I think Feynman would say is...

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!

And so it goes if you chop up nature into different phenomena.

I also think that Feynman would laugh at your question and say. "Suppose none of the stuff we describe is happening in any real sense outside of our awareness. How would our experience of it be any different?"

In short: Feynman would ask if the difference is testable in practice; or if it's just a matter of speaking differently. Feynman would check whether you are drawing a philosophical distinction without a practical difference.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In any case, I reject all that.

I reject the idea, presented without evidence, that scientists and physicists aren't interested in probing into how real, objective, mind-independent reality works. I reject the idea, presented without evidence, that quantum physics is taken by most relevant scientists to only be some sort of "mind dependent fact" rather than it touching on things that happen in reality even when no one is looking.

Most quantum physicists definitely think this stuff happens even when no one is looking.

It is very counter intuitive to many quantum physicists and personally they may have reservations but that their intuition and faith.
But at present, no one has refuted the thesis [been there for the last 50 years] that won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics that support the OP.
Besides this thesis has been applied in practice to many quantum based technologies.

If you have such a strong conviction why don't you gather your group of physicists to challenge the thesis that won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, then you can share the Nobel Prize with them.

The most famous physicists who opposed the thesis that won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was Einstein and many who had supported Einstein had admitted defeat.

Einstein was wrong: Why 'normal' physics can't explain reality
The most ambitious experiments yet show that the quantum weirdness Einstein famously hated rules the roost – not just here, but across the entire universe
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... n-reality/

If you are still skeptical, show evidence with references why the thesis that won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics is false?

[Flannel Jesus]

The people that won the 2022 Nobel prize were largely focused on bells theorem. Bells theorem is not about human consciousness creating reality. You are interpreting what you want to believe into everything you can.

I don't dispute bells theorem. Bells theorem plays a central role in my own understanding of qm. I LOVE bells theorem, I think it's brilliant, because I understand exactly why it's so important.

Bells theorem does not say human beings looking at things makes them real. It's easy enough to just claim that your beliefs are unanimously supported in science, but I'm scientifically literate enough to know that's not the case.

[Flannel Jesus]

The experiments around bells theorem, by the way, are experiments whose results are taken to *say something about objective reality* - or at the very least, say something about how a piece of objective reality decidedly does not work. It's about reality.

[Skepdick]

The experiments around bells theorem, by the way, are experiments whose results are taken to *say something about objective reality* - or at the very least, say something about how a piece of objective reality decidedly does not work. It's about reality.

Dumb philosopher.

Confusing the QM ontology for reality.

For as long the ontology is synthesized/inferred via abductive reasoning ontology is still epistemology!

So no, you are never talking about reality. Even when you've deluded yourself to believe that you are doing so.

[Flannel Jesus]

I've added skepdick to my ignore list for the time being, so I don't have to read insults with no substance any more. There's no good reason for that.

[Skepdick]

I've added skepdick to my ignore list for the time being, so I don't have to read insults with no substance any more. There's no good reason for that.

But you weren't reading insults with no substance? You were reading insults with substance!

You can't even tell the difference! Exactly like you can't tell the difference between the theoretical QM ontology and reality.

It's precisely your inability to tell the difference which is the substance for my insults.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The people that won the 2022 Nobel prize were largely focused on bells theorem. Bells theorem is not about human consciousness creating reality. You are interpreting what you want to believe into everything you can.

I don't dispute bells theorem. Bells theorem plays a central role in my own understanding of qm. I LOVE bells theorem, I think it's brilliant, because I understand exactly why it's so important.

Bells theorem does not say human beings looking at things makes them real. It's easy enough to just claim that your beliefs are unanimously supported in science, but I'm scientifically literate enough to know that's not the case.

Don't get the idea the thesis of the the 2022 Nobel prize is about human consciousness creating reality.
The central idea is that there is no objective that is absolutely independent of any human conditions.
Rather, on the contrary, whatever reality is emerging, it is linked to the human conditions.

Re Feyman, a quickie search indicate Feyman is not grabbing a reality that is absolute mind-independent,

This perspective which derives from Wheeler also clearly conforms to the more recent proposal
of Hawking and Mlodinow in their book The Grand design:
The histories that contribute to the Feynman sum don’t have an independent
existence, but depend on what is being measured.
We create history by our observations, rather than history creating us.

The Myth of Mind-Independent Reality & the Metaphysics of
Nondual Epiontic Quantum Mindnature
Graham P. Smetham*
file:///C:/Users/LC/Downloads/The_Myth_of_Mind-Independent_Reality_the_Metaphysi.pdf

This is not exactly, but the Rotating Mask Illusion will give you a clue how reality emerged upon your looking at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORoTCBrCKIQ&t=45s

[Flannel Jesus]

Don't get the idea the thesis of the the 2022 Nobel prize is about human consciousness creating reality.

Yes, that's what I said. It is not about that at all.

The central idea is that there is no objective that is absolutely independent of any human conditions.
Rather, on the contrary, whatever reality is emerging, it is linked to the human conditions.

Bells theorem as far as I know it makes no reference to humans whatsoever

[Skepdick]

Bells theorem as far as I know it makes no reference to humans whatsoever

Just look at the crazy anthropomorphism! The theorem doesn't reference (or DO) anything! It's just squiggles on paper - meaningless symbols which require human interpretation.

The theorem wouldn't exist if John Stewart Bell didn't express it into existence.

[Iwannaplato]

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

Is that statement true or false?

Can anyone reading this thread say whether the OP statement is true or false.

Thanks in advance.

I think the citation marks he has around 'look' have to be explained. Who knows what that means that those are there. Does it mean any perceiving, not just via the eyes? Does it include thinking about the Moon? (skepdick seemed to interpret it or separately claimed that it has to do with if something is in discourse). Perhaps there are other nuances or entirely different meanings those citation marks indicate.

But it does sound like a hard assertion to test, regardless.

This would also make humans incredibly exceptional. Lions can die out, and many things are appearing and disappearing from existence, but in general the universe continues. Humans die out and...there is nothing.

A sun can supernova and scatter its parts. The universe goes on. Our sun supernovas killing us
and galaxies far away
no longer exist.