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

[seeds]

I'm not sure why this is in the "Ethical Theory" subforum, but this is a good thread topic, one in which Veritas is finally steering his philosophical inquiries in the right direction.

That being said, I nevertheless disagree with what is stated in the thread title. For surely the moon is still there when we're not looking.

Speaking metaphorically, I suggest that it is still there similar to how the chess pieces in this laser hologram...



...would still be there if you turn off the laser.

Not as fully explicated, three-dimensional objects suspended in a spatial dimension,...

(the metaphorical equivalent of "local" reality)

...but as highly correlated patterns of information encoded in a photographic emulsion on a piece of film,...

...(the metaphorical equivalent of "non-local" reality)

Similarly, when the moon (or any other object, for that matter) is not being observed, the moon exists as a pattern of information encoded in the universe's ("non-local") quantum underpinning.

And thus, just as it is the conjoined relationship between the laser light and the patterns of information encoded on the holographic film that produces the 3-D phenomena of the chess pieces,...

...likewise, it is the conjoined relationship between consciousness (observers) and the quantum underpinning of the universe that then allows for the explication of the universe's 3-D features from its underlying fields of information - information that delineates precisely how those features will appear to us when we do look.
_______

I don't think that is the case. If you look away from the moon then 'your' moon ceases to exist.

I'm not implying that I can't be wrong, but as per my hologram analogy, the only thing that would cease to exist when you look away is your three-dimensional explication of the moon, but not the underlying field of information that delineates the moon's 3-D features.

Otherwise, how would you explain the steadfast consistency of the moon's reappearance whenever you look back in the direction you looked away from 10 seconds earlier?

"Something" of a fixed and permanent nature is always there regardless of whether we are looking or not looking. And therefore, all I am suggesting is that the "something" is a field of information that seems to be "holographic-like" in nature.

There might be other people looking at it, but that's 'their' verson of the moon.

Sure, but that's only a situation of other people viewing the same field of information from a different angle, which simply explicates the features of the same moon from a vantage point that is offset from my vantage point.
_______

[seeds]

I don't think that is the case. If you look away from the moon then 'your' moon ceases to exist.
There might be other people looking at it, but that's 'their' version of the moon.
I read that it's similar to video games, where only the part of the 'world' that you are observing at any given time 'exists', while the rest of it is just pixels or whatever term computer geeks use, that only become 'something' when you focus on them.

Wow, wow, wow..
Agree.

What are you agreeing with?

If it's the part you bolded, then see my response to vegetariantaxidermy in my post just prior to this one.

Donald Hoffman in his book covered every angle from any skeptic on 'the moon [reality] is not there when no one is looking* at it'.

*It is not mere "looking" but it involved the whole system of cognition and the human realization of 'reality' adapted from 4 billion years of evolution and adaptation.

Is Reality an Illusion? - Professor Donald Hoffman, PhD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhGYsUitgNk

Oh, come on now Veritas, for decades now, I've been asserting that the so-called "reality" of this universe is indeed an illusion. What the heck do you think I am implying with the hologram metaphor?

Hoffman, whose fundamental premise I pretty much agree with, is simply using a different approach to the issue. And that's good, because the more inroads we have to this type of thinking, the better.
_______

[seeds]

I personally tend towards panentheism myself.

If you define 'pan' as meaning 'universe' as matter, for example, in some dualist conception with stuff that is transcendent, then I'd be a kind of panentheist (and also panpsychist). But I think of pan as referring to everything, whatever its substance, regardless of whether I am in some kind of dualist or monist mode.

I'm not sure what you mean, but to be clear, I define panentheism according to its standard definition in that the totality of the material aspect of this particular universe is contained within the makeup of a higher Being to whom the universe belongs.

In other words, the type of panentheism that I subscribe to refers to a living consciousness whose "I Am-ness" is above the material substances from which the suns and planets are created, yet subsumes it all within itself as per this standard depiction...

As a panentheist are you a dualist?

I am a dualist in the sense that I see a distinct difference between the essence of mind and that of the essence through-which mind expresses itself.

What I mean is that I see a difference between mind and matter.

I am also a dualist especially in the sense that I see a distinct difference (or separation) between individual minds.

However, perhaps instead of pantheism, you meant "panpsychism"?

Well, that too.

If not, then please explain how pantheism somehow saturates the "all" with observations?

Well, if God is everywhere, there is no place that does not have a subjective element. Observations are everywhere in every direction. It shares this with many theisms which have a kind of all seeing deity: Yet not a single sparrow falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge.

Pantheism does not imply a "seeing deity," nor does it imply a "Father."

No, it simply refers to the universe as "God" (as seen in the illustration above).

However, it is a God (in name only) with no identifiable locus or personal will. Indeed, it is more or less just another name for "nature" (as per Spinozan philosophy).

What I am getting at is that aside from many other problems, pantheism's God possesses no means by which to "observe" anything, thus it does not offer an explanation for how the wavefunction might collapse, which is the necessary means by which three-dimensional phenomena (such as moons) become three-dimensional phenomena.

My pantheism is also an animism. IOW I think there are individual parts that are, in one way, individuals, and in another way parts of the whole thing that is a whole consciousness.

I agree with you in a certain sense, but I prefer to think that the suns and planets (and rocks, and trees, and oceans, etc.) are not in themselves conscious in any way, yet they are indeed alive because they are saturated with the life essence of the higher Being to whom the universe belongs.

And that would be in precisely the same way our own thoughts and dreams are not in themselves conscious in any way, but are also alive in that they are saturated with our own life essence.

The bottom line is that you and I are not that far apart when it comes to acknowledging the complete and total "aliveness" of the universe. However, where we seem to differ is in our definition of the word "God."
_______

[Iwannaplato]

I'm not sure what you mean, but to be clear, I define panentheism according to its standard definition in that the totality of the material aspect of this particular universe is contained within the makeup of a higher Being to whom the universe belongs.

Well, I define it that way too, and thus the higher being transcends the universe. This usually implies two substances, matter and spirit, for example as you say later.

I am also a dualist especially in the sense that I see a distinct difference (or separation) between individual minds.

Ok, I hadn't heard of that as a type of dualism. It seems like monists often see minds as separate.

Pantheism does not imply a "seeing deity," nor does it imply a "Father."

That was a quote from the Bible, where God doesn't miss anything. And it was, as stated, an example of another type of theism

It shares this with many theisms which have a kind of all seeing deity: Yet not a single sparrow falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge.

If there is a subject in every part of the universe, that is aware of everything, as most theisms include as a quality, they everything observed.

However, it is a God (in name only) with no identifiable locus or personal will. Indeed, it is more or less just another name for "nature" (as per Spinozan philosophy).

What I am getting at is that aside from many other problems, pantheism's God possesses no means by which to "observe" anything, thus it does not offer an explanation for how the wavefunction might collapse, which is the necessary means by which three-dimensional phenomena (such as moons) become three-dimensional phenomena.

There are a number of pantheisms, including parts of Hinduism, for example. Some have everything as merely divine, some have the whole deity that is in some sense personal
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/#Pers
also from the same article...

A distinction may be drawn between distributive pantheism, the view that each thing in the cosmos is divine, and collective pantheism, the view that the cosmos as a whole is divine (Oppy, 1994).

I think these terms cover a variety of related beliefs

I agree with you in a certain sense, but I prefer to think that the suns and planets (and rocks, and trees, and oceans, etc.) are not in themselves conscious in any way, yet they are indeed alive because they are saturated with the life essence of the higher Being to whom the universe belongs.

OK

And that would be in precisely the same way our own thoughts and dreams are not in themselves conscious in any way, but are also alive in that they are saturated with our own life essence.

OK

The bottom line is that you and I are not that far apart when it comes to acknowledging the complete and total "aliveness" of the universe. However, where we seem to differ is in our definition of the word "God."

Sounds like it.

[Skepdick]

'Hans, go shoot that Jewish family.'

So how's your desire to have more lights (and knowing what to do) any different from Hans' desire for less Jews (and he knows what to do) ?

Could answer the other parts?

As far as your question:
I don't know if Hans has a desire to kill Jews. Whoever told him to may have that. Or they may have a desire to please their superior officer. There are a lot of physical differences between the situations. People will have a wide range of different reactions to the situations.

When you analyse it at the individual level you will always be able to be a contraian. You can always reframe the words - there's counter examples to your counter examples ad infinitum.

That's why philosophy is a waste of time. What does philosophical contrarianism achieve exactly?

From where I am looking that kind of philosophising (which ultimately concludes in moral relativism) is just as terrible as Hans following through with his orders. For whatever reason.

What is it VA look at/measure/observe that let's him know this oughtness is the one use as a base for developing character traits?
And what is he seeing?

What is it that you look at/measuyre/observe that lets you know that oughts require a base?

Isn't that the foundationalist dream? It's just another ought. It implicitly says "we ought to have foundations". Do we?

I don't think he's seeing imperative statements. He's never used that line, I don't think. In fact, I think it's an ill fit with his approach.

He doesn't have to use "that line" verbatim. This desire to be explicit is just another one of them philosophical quirks.

Imperative. Ought. Normative. However you phrase it - it means the same thing.

[Iwannaplato]

When you analyse it at the individual level you will always be able to be a contraian. You can always reframe the words - there's counter examples to your counter examples ad infinitum.

That's fine if there are counterexamples to my counterexamples. I am responding to a rule-based person, VA.

That's why philosophy is a waste of time. What does philosophical contrarianism achieve exactly?

What's it achieving for you?

From where I am looking that kind of philosophising (which ultimately concludes in moral relativism) is just as terrible as Hans following through with his orders. For whatever reason.

I am responding to VA. VA is a transhumanist who has including implanting chips in people's brains and other transhumanist solutions to controlling the development everybody's brains. He has solutions I dislike and he shares, I think, a naivte about technological solutions and control. A naivte I see in technocrats. Amongst other traits and goals he has put forward for years. So, I push against him and his ideas because I don't like them, especially in the context of the full range of his ideas, the transhumanism just a part.

If you support his ideas or they don't bother you, that may be why you defend some of his ideas or criticise the ideas of people who criticise him.

I can certainly imagine many moral realists having a problem with VA's whole program. We'd be allies around that.

What is it VA look at/measure/observe that let's him know this oughtness is the one use as a base for developing character traits?
And what is he seeing?

What is it that you look at/measuyre/observe that lets you know that oughts require a base?

I'm responding to VA who thinks they do.

Isn't that the foundationalist dream? It's just another ought. It implicitly says "we ought to have foundations". Do we?

He seems to think so.

I don't think he's seeing imperative statements. He's never used that line, I don't think. In fact, I think it's an ill fit with his approach.

He doesn't have to use "that line" verbatim. This desire to be explicit is just another one of them philosophical quirks.

Imperative. Ought. Normative. However you phrase it - it means the same thing.

Certainly in some formulation, but I think he's tried to specifically go against imperatives. Distinguished his approach from imperative approaches and repeatedly done this.

Skepdick. I think this is a waste of my time for two reasons.
1) you start angle of critique on my responses to VA and then just drop them. It seems when they aren't going well. Could be wrong about that, but it sure seems like a convenient silence. And hey, I put in some effort to answer your questions or respond to your points made. So, there's a time wasting facet to this, for me.
2) you don't treat my posts as things in context.

So, I am not finding the discussion between us that starts with your reaction to my responses to VA useful.

We'll meet somewhere else, no doubt. But I'm going to ignore you in this context of my reactions to VA.

[Skepdick]

When you analyse it at the individual level you will always be able to be a contraian. You can always reframe the words - there's counter examples to your counter examples ad infinitum.

That's fine if there are counterexamples to my counterexamples. I am responding to a rule-based person, VA.

The only response required is Wittgenstein's rule-following paradox.

This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule

That's why philosophy is a waste of time. What does philosophical contrarianism achieve exactly?

What's it achieving for you?

Nothing. I don't practice philosophy. I reject the entire establishment with all of its normatives/imperatives.

I am vehemently anti-Philosophical. Is why I am using the tradition's own tricks to attack it.

I am responding to VA. VA is a transhumanist who has including implanting chips in people's brains and other transhumanist solutions to controlling the development everybody's brains.

As a society we are alredy fully committed to developmental control. It's but a matter of degree and invasiveness.

And Philosophy has no small part to play in it. The intellectual sphere is all about peddling normatives. If you tilt your head a little you should be able to see that all ideas are a form of mind-control.

He has solutions I dislike and he shares, I think, a naivte about technological solutions and control. A naivte I see in technocrats. Amongst other traits and goals he has put forward for years. So, I push against him and his ideas because I don't like them, especially in the context of the full range of his ideas, the transhumanism just a part.

Ceteris paribus - the only thing technocrats do differently from the rest of humanity is that they have better and faster feedback loops.

They adapt faster to change than humans without technology. They can do this because they become aware of change faster than the rest.
Technology enables faster tracking/detection/automated reasoning and all the usual perks of management science.

As with all ideas it can have a positive and a negative effect on society. Depending on how we integrate it into society.

With all of that said - VA is no technocrat. He is just another dumb Philosopher/theorist. He probably doesn't even posess the technical know-how to build a kettle, never mind a device which integrates with people's brains.

He's spitballing without having any practical understanding of the technology; or how it integrates with humans.

If you support his ideas or they don't bother you, that may be why you defend some of his ideas or criticise the ideas of people who criticise him.

All ideas bothere me if taken to their logical conclusions.
All ideas delight me if taken to a reasonable conclusion.

Philosophy bothers me. Which is why I criticise it

What is it that you look at/measuyre/observe that lets you know that oughts require a base?

I'm responding to VA who thinks they do.

Isn't that the foundationalist dream? It's just another ought. It implicitly says "we ought to have foundations". Do we?

He seems to think so.

But in your response you've tacitly agreed with his premises. So it seems like you are on the same team despite your interrogation.

Certainly in some formulation, but I think he's tried to specifically go against imperatives. Distinguished his approach from imperative approaches and repeatedly done this.

That's hardly his fault. Philosophers have been peddling imperatives/normatives as descriptives for millenia.

Such is the tradition - this is how it indoctrinates people. Theories are seen as descriptive (of reality) rather than prescriptive (on thought).

Your ancestor's imperatives are your "common sense".

It's a cute sleight of hand.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

QM reality is conditioned upon the acts of humans, e.g. observations and measurements and activities within the scientific-QM framework and system.
The emphasis here is scientific-QM framework and system not mere observations and measurements.
Thus QM reality is grounded on the human conditions, i.e. no human activities no QM reality.

Quantum mechanics is the study of how particles at the atomic and subatomic level interact with each other and their environment. The observer effect is the phenomenon in which the act of observation alters the behavior of the particles being observed. This effect is due to the wave-like nature of matter, which means that particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously. When an observer measures a particular property of a particle, they are effectively collapsing the wave-function of that particle, causing it to assume a definite state.

When you observe something in the world—a tree, a bird or anything else—you know that regardless of where and when you observe the object, it will always remain the same. However, what if I told you that the time and manner you looked at a particular bird would affect its appearance? It sounds quite absurd, but absurdity is normal when it comes to the bizarre laws of the quantum realm. The laws of quantum mechanics work very differently than the physics of the regular-sized world.
https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-science ... anics.html

Those who argued against the above, i.e. insisting QM reality has nothing to do with measurements, observations nor humans are likely to hold the Philosophical Realism stance, which I have argued is not tenable.

Philosophical realism is .... about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind.
Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.

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

Einstein stance is that of Philosophical Realism; all over the internet in the present, it is highlighted Einstein was wrong!

[Flannel Jesus]

There's two conversations you're trying to conflate:

1. What does Quantum mechanics specifically and explicitly say, as a theory?

2. Separately, philosophical, should "scientific facts" in general be taken to be statements about reality?

Your answer to 1 is that it says the moon doesn't exist when we don't look.

Your answer to 2 is no, scientific facts shouldn't be interpreted to be statements about reality.

Now, of course, your answer to 2 negates your answer to 1. In other words, even if quantum mechanics DID say that.... Well, who cares? Science, according to you, doesn't say anything about reality, so it doesn't matter if qm says that.

But, it's also the case that qm does not unambiguously and explicitly say anything like what you're saying. I have provided words from both John Bell, creator of Bells Theorem, and by Feynman, to give context on why exactly I'm so sure qm doesn't say that. You have not actually responded to those words.

Let's focus on question 1, please: does qm actually say what you're saying it says, OR can measurement be a phenomenon, according to qm experts, that can happen without a measurer?

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Looking", or "measuring", in quantum physics may not require any conscious observer at all. It's good you hooked into that word, because it's centrally important.

Just Google "quantum mechanics does measurement require a conscious observer".

First result says

Crucially, the theory does not need observers or measurements or a non-material consciousness. Neither do so-called collapse theories, which argue that wavefunctions collapse randomly: the more the number of particles in the quantum system, the more likely the collapse. Observers merely discover the outcome.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... %20outcome.

And here's a Wikipedia article on the subject:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observe ... _(physics)

The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.

Wikipedia gives sources for that.

"Measurement" can be as simple as one particle being affected by the state of another particle.

In other words, the material of the planet earth, just the raw inert matter on it, is constantly "measuring" the moon by being affected by it. The moon's gravity pulls the water in our oceans, reflects light down onto the surface, etc. If "measurement" is as simple as physical things interacting, then the earth itself can measure the moon constantly.

"then the earth itself can measure the moon constantly" ???
That is rhetoric taken to the extreme.

Note the supporting reference re the WIKI article;

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being;
but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137

The point whatever the measurement and observer, it ultimately fall back to the human conditions.

The stance is nothing can exists objectively by itself as a thing-in-itself which the philosophical realist like Einstein is claiming,
rather, whatever exists as real is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.

Note I highlighted 'look' in '..." within the OP title,
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
which meant it does not mean simply looking and observing but rather the whole human conditions [the science-QM framework and system] is involved.

[Flannel Jesus]

So it sounds like you're distancing the statement about the moon from being a statement supported by qm, to being a statement philosophically about FSKs and human knowledge etc.

Good, I think you should do that. "The moon does not exist when no one is looking" is not a statement that qm explicitly and unambiguously supports, but it is something supported by your own take on FSKs and what relationship human knowledge can have with reality.

I think you're right to distance the statement from qm.

[Peter Holmes]

So it sounds like you're distancing the statement about the moon from being a statement supported by qm, to being a statement philosophically about FSKs and human knowledge etc.

Good, I think you should do that. "The moon does not exist when no one is looking" is not a statement that qm explicitly and unambiguously supports, but it is something your own take on FSKs and what relationship human knowledge can have with reality.

I think you're right to distance the statement from qm.

Agreed. But I think the point Heisenberg makes doesn't support VA's interpretation anyway. Does the observer create the effect, or just register it?

And as for philosophy, and specifically epistemology, the fact that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions demolishes all of VA's attempts to establish moral objectivity, including this latest excursion into quantum mechanics.

[Flannel Jesus]

So it sounds like you're distancing the statement about the moon from being a statement supported by qm, to being a statement philosophically about FSKs and human knowledge etc.

Good, I think you should do that. "The moon does not exist when no one is looking" is not a statement that qm explicitly and unambiguously supports, but it is something your own take on FSKs and what relationship human knowledge can have with reality.

I think you're right to distance the statement from qm.

Agreed. But I think the point Heisenberg makes doesn't support VA's interpretation anyway. Does the observer create the effect, or just register it?

And as for philosophy, and specifically epistemology, the fact that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions demolishes all of VA's attempts to establish moral objectivity, including this latest excursion into quantum mechanics.

In my participation in this thread, I'm not really engaging with moral implications per se. I don't know what they would be.

I'm here mainly because my history with qm has left me ultra sensitive to misinformation about quantum physics, which many parts of popular science journalism spin into what can only be called Quantum mysticism. The general public has literally more misinformation about all this quantum stuff, than they have actual good information.

[Skepdick]

So it sounds like you're distancing the statement about the moon from being a statement supported by qm, to being a statement philosophically about FSKs and human knowledge etc.

So it sounds like the statement above presupposes realism in its assertions.

Good, I think you should do that. "The moon does not exist when no one is looking" is not a statement that qm explicitly and unambiguously supports, but it is something supported by your own take on FSKs and what relationship human knowledge can have with reality.

But it does precisely that.

In QM there's only the result of the measurement. At the instance the measurement is being performed. That is the only instant in time we are dealing with definites; and not probability distributions.

I think you're right to distance the statement from qm.

I think you are merely justifying the position you've arbitrarily chosen to defend.

[Skepdick]

In my participation in this thread, I'm not really engaging with moral implications per se. I don't know what they would be.

I'm here mainly because my history with qm has left me ultra sensitive to misinformation about quantum physics, which many parts of popular science journalism spin into what can only be called Quantum mysticism. The general public has literally more misinformation about all this quantum stuff, than they have actual good information.

ROFL. And now he appeals to "information".

Which information are you appealing to? Quantum or classical? Are you in Shannon or Von Neumann's paradigm?

It is precisely the process of "measurement" which transforms quantum information into classical information.
It's precisely the process of "measurement" which transforms the probability distribution of a entity's existence at a particular location into a definite answer about its actual location.

Is the entity actually there before we actaully measure it? That is a non-sensical question in QM!

It sure seems you are part of the QM misinformation campaign...