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

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.
_______

We may agree the universe is an illusion from a higher perspective of reality,
But the beef with you is, you insist God exists while I don't.

[Skepdick]

We may agree the universe is an illusion from a higher perspective of reality,

"Higher perspective of reality"?

What sort of entity might have access to the universe from such a "higher perspective"?

But the beef with you is, you insist God exists while I don't.

But the "higher perspective of reality" is God's perspective! Who else would have access to such a "higher perspective"?

You literally just invented the "higher perspective" where God resides, but now you are objecting to the existence of the observer occupying that perspective ?!?

Silly philosopher.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We may agree the universe is an illusion from a higher perspective of reality,

"Higher perspective of reality"?

What sort of entity might have access to the universe from such a higher perspective?

But the beef with you is, you insist God exists while I don't.

But the "higher perspective of reality" is God's perspective! Who else would have access to such a perspective?

You literally just invented the perspective where God resides, but now you are objecting to the existence of the observer at that perspective ?!?

Silly philosopher.

In Physics, there are the following perspectives [humans] in terms of low to higher [more precise];

1. Natural Philosophy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
2. Newtonian Physics
3. Einsteinian Physics
4. QM Physics.

[Skepdick]

In Physics, there are the following perspectives [humans] in terms of low to higher [more precise];

1. Natural Philosophy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
2. Newtonian Physics
3. Einsteinian Physics
4. QM Physics.

Eh? You are going the wrong way! You are conflating precision with level of abstraction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_layer

QM may be more precise but it's in no sense a "higher perspective". In so far as it's going right into the trenches and looking at tiny parts of reality (e.g quantum systems) at very high resolution, it's actually a very very very low-level perspective. Very low level of abstraction.

General Relativity, in so far as it's looking at the reality at large scale (cosmology, black holes, gravity etc), it's actually a very very high-level perspective. Very high level of abstraction.

Humans have no intuitions whatsoever about quantum systems - we've never experienced any of those. We are way too large (as objects) to relate to the quantum realm.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In Physics, there are the following perspectives [humans] in terms of low to higher [more precise];

1. Natural Philosophy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
2. Newtonian Physics
3. Einsteinian Physics
4. QM Physics.

Eh? You are going the wrong way! You are conflating precision with level of abstraction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_layer

QM may be more precise but it's in no sense a "higher perspective". In so far as it's going right into the trenches and looking at tiny parts of reality (e.g quantum systems) at very high resolution, it's actually a very very very low-level perspective. Very low level of abstraction.

General Relativity, in so far as it's looking at the reality at large scale (cosmology, black holes, gravity etc), it's actually a very very high-level perspective. Very high level of abstraction.

You are referring to narrower vs wider perspective.

'Higher' can means something better than the previous generally or in terms of specific criteria, micro details in this case.

[Skepdick]

In Physics, there are the following perspectives [humans] in terms of low to higher [more precise];

1. Natural Philosophy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
2. Newtonian Physics
3. Einsteinian Physics
4. QM Physics.

Eh? You are going the wrong way! You are conflating precision with level of abstraction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_layer

QM may be more precise but it's in no sense a "higher perspective". In so far as it's going right into the trenches and looking at tiny parts of reality (e.g quantum systems) at very high resolution, it's actually a very very very low-level perspective. Very low level of abstraction.

General Relativity, in so far as it's looking at the reality at large scale (cosmology, black holes, gravity etc), it's actually a very very high-level perspective. Very high level of abstraction.

You are referring to narrower vs wider perspective.

'Higher' can means something better than the previous generally or in terms of specific criteria, micro details in this case.

Define "better".

What makes QM "better" than General relativity?

If you want a "higher" perspective why are micro details "better" than macro details?

Surely macro is better for a higher (more general) perspective; and micro is better for a lower (less general) perspective?
Surely a theory which unifies QM and GR such that the unification theory is scale-invariant is better than either theory on its own?

[Sculptor]

The above issue is raised very often re my discussion with objective moral facts, so I am raising it here in this moral section.

There is a difference between a fact and on objective fact. You launch your argument with the strawman "there are not objective facts". By which you mean to ridicule those that argue with your confusing of the two things. You argue as if a fact is the same, and you laugh at your own confusion because you do not know the difference.
Your problem is that you confuse the two things.
If they were the same things then the word "objective" would be redundant.

The moon exists. That is a fact. It is objective when we can all agree what we mean by "Moon exists". Well something is circling the earth every month. But some will not agree that it is the same thing.
Ideas intrude upon the most basic truth.

When it comes to pure ideas, there is very little scope for applying the term "objective" since no two thoughts can be the same in different minds. The moon, whatever we might conceive it to be rock or goddess, still exists in some way or other, but ideas can only exist as part of a mental framewirk built upon denotations and connotations in an infinite series of meanings.

If you do not understand that, then maybe you think that the ideas about morality that you hold onto in your mind are absolute.
QED you think you are god.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Eh? You are going the wrong way! You are conflating precision with level of abstraction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_layer

QM may be more precise but it's in no sense a "higher perspective". In so far as it's going right into the trenches and looking at tiny parts of reality (e.g quantum systems) at very high resolution, it's actually a very very very low-level perspective. Very low level of abstraction.

General Relativity, in so far as it's looking at the reality at large scale (cosmology, black holes, gravity etc), it's actually a very very high-level perspective. Very high level of abstraction.

You are referring to narrower vs wider perspective.

'Higher' can means something better than the previous generally or in terms of specific criteria, micro details in this case.

Define "better".

What makes QM "better" than General relativity?

If you want a "higher" perspective why are micro details "better" than macro details?

Surely macro is better for a higher (more general) perspective; and micro is better for a lower (less general) perspective?
Surely a theory which unifies QM and GR such that the unification theory is scale-invariant is better than either theory on its own?

Better = contribution to the well being of individuals and humanity.

Einstein's Relativity deals with the macro like proving there are 'blackholes', gravitational forces, and the likes.

Whereas QM dig into the "smaller-holes" enabling load of Quantum [this, that, X] which can be adapted to advanced-technologies that contribute directly to the well-being of the individual[s] and humanity. Note nuclear energy, possibility of fusion energy, quantum computing, quantum biology, etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above issue is raised very often re my discussion with objective moral facts, so I am raising it here in this moral section.

There is a difference between a fact and on objective fact. You launch your argument with the strawman "there are not objective facts". By which you mean to ridicule those that argue with your confusing of the two things. You argue as if a fact is the same, and you laugh at your own confusion because you do not know the difference.
Your problem is that you confuse the two things.
If they were the same things then the word "objective" would be redundant.

The moon exists. That is a fact. It is objective when we can all agree what we mean by "Moon exists". Well something is circling the earth every month. But some will not agree that it is the same thing.
Ideas intrude upon the most basic truth.

When it comes to pure ideas, there is very little scope for applying the term "objective" since no two thoughts can be the same in different minds. The moon, whatever we might conceive it to be rock or goddess, still exists in some way or other, but ideas can only exist as part of a mental framewirk built upon denotations and connotations in an infinite series of meanings.

If you do not understand that, then maybe you think that the ideas about morality that you hold onto in your mind are absolute.
QED you think you are god.

Strawman.
Nah you are off target.

My argument:
Whatever is termed 'fact' is always conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge or Reality. Note 'reality'.
Whatever is conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR], i.e. collective or community of people, is objective*.
Objectivity in this case comes in degrees dependent on the credibility and reliability of the FSK.

*in contrast, subjective is merely confined to the opinions, beliefs or judgment of an individual[s], i.e. not in any collective or community organization.

E.g. scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
At present, the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable, thus has a high degree of objectivity. As such scientific facts are objective [independent of any individual's views].

Since a fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK,
a moral fact is conditioned upon a moral FSK.
Since a FSK by definition is objective, there are objective moral facts.
The question is how credible are the objective moral facts, but its existence cannot be denied.

PH and gang claimed facts are features of reality and they are independent of the human conditions.
PH's fact is, the moon exists objectively and independently regardless of whether there are humans.
But QM refutes' PH's definition of fact,
QM claim as in the OP,
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
note 'look' is within '...' not in a literal sense but imply the entanglement of the human conditions in the emergence of 'the moon'.

[Skepdick]

You are referring to narrower vs wider perspective.

'Higher' can means something better than the previous generally or in terms of specific criteria, micro details in this case.

Define "better".

What makes QM "better" than General relativity?

If you want a "higher" perspective why are micro details "better" than macro details?

Surely macro is better for a higher (more general) perspective; and micro is better for a lower (less general) perspective?
Surely a theory which unifies QM and GR such that the unification theory is scale-invariant is better than either theory on its own?

Better = contribution to the well being of individuals and humanity.

Einstein's Relativity deals with the macro like proving there are 'blackholes', gravitational forces, and the likes.

And GPS sttelites that are in your very pocket right now and a bunch o

Whereas QM dig into the "smaller-holes" enabling load of Quantum [this, that, X] which can be adapted to advanced-technologies that contribute directly to the well-being of the individual[s] and humanity. Note nuclear energy, possibility of fusion energy, quantum computing, quantum biology, etc.

You know that I know that you are bullshitting right now, right?

Both QM and GR are benefficial and instrumental to society in various and different ways.

There's literally no need to pit them against each other, unless you have some sort of inherent bias; or a desire for a universal theory.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Define "better".

What makes QM "better" than General relativity?

If you want a "higher" perspective why are micro details "better" than macro details?

Surely macro is better for a higher (more general) perspective; and micro is better for a lower (less general) perspective?
Surely a theory which unifies QM and GR such that the unification theory is scale-invariant is better than either theory on its own?

Better = contribution to the well being of individuals and humanity.

Einstein's Relativity deals with the macro like proving there are 'blackholes', gravitational forces, and the likes.

And GPS sttelites that are in your very pocket right now and a bunch o

Whereas QM dig into the "smaller-holes" enabling load of Quantum [this, that, X] which can be adapted to advanced-technologies that contribute directly to the well-being of the individual[s] and humanity. Note nuclear energy, possibility of fusion energy, quantum computing, quantum biology, etc.

You know that I know that you are bullshitting right now, right?

Both QM and GR are benefficial and instrumental to society in various and different ways.

There's literally no need to pit them against each other, unless you have some sort of inherent bias; or a desire for a universal theory.

I don't have the full facts but in this case it is based on my intuition and best guess and note,

• Through Quantum Mechanics, how a GPS can locate where you are can be explained. 12000 miles above earth, 30 orbiting satellites can be found surrounding the earth, each one circling the earth twice a day, in one of six orbits.
  link

The point is whatever the macro, there is more to it i.e. its micro which has greater potential than the macro.
Note how it is "better" that we discover the micro, i.e. germs, bacteria, viruses, atoms, electrons, quarks, genes, DNA codes, etc. It is the same with QM and it focus on the micro.

[Skepdick]

I don't have the full facts but in this case it is based on my intuition and best guess and note,

Through Quantum Mechanics, how a GPS can locate where you are can be explained. 12000 miles above earth, 30 orbiting satellites can be found surrounding the earth, each one circling the earth twice a day, in one of six orbits.
link

The point is whatever the macro, there is more to it i.e. its micro which has greater potential than the macro.
Note how it is "better" that we discover the micro, i.e. germs, bacteria, viruses, atoms, electrons, quarks, genes, DNA codes, etc. It is the same with QM and it focus on the micro.

I think you are just bullshitting again.

You simply seem to favour reductionism over holism. For whatever reason.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't have the full facts but in this case it is based on my intuition and best guess and note,

Through Quantum Mechanics, how a GPS can locate where you are can be explained. 12000 miles above earth, 30 orbiting satellites can be found surrounding the earth, each one circling the earth twice a day, in one of six orbits.
link

The point is whatever the macro, there is more to it i.e. its micro which has greater potential than the macro.
Note how it is "better" that we discover the micro, i.e. germs, bacteria, viruses, atoms, electrons, quarks, genes, DNA codes, etc. It is the same with QM and it focus on the micro.

I think you are just bullshitting again.
Macro/micro - it's just different level of abstraction.
If you want "high level" view of the world - you need macro. Humans are macro-objects.

What happen to your brain and memory?
I had defined higher level = better = greater contribution to the well being of individuals and humanity.

[Skepdick]

What happen to your brain and memory?

They are working a few orders of magnitude better than yours.

I had defined higher level = better = greater contribution to the well being of individuals and humanity.

Is that really a definition?

You've just defined "better" in terms of "greater contribution" and "well-being"

But you haven't defined "greater contribution"; or "well-being"

[Sculptor]

The above issue is raised very often re my discussion with objective moral facts, so I am raising it here in this moral section.

There is a difference between a fact and on objective fact. You launch your argument with the strawman "there are not objective facts". By which you mean to ridicule those that argue with your confusing of the two things. You argue as if a fact is the same, and you laugh at your own confusion because you do not know the difference.
Your problem is that you confuse the two things.
If they were the same things then the word "objective" would be redundant.

The moon exists. That is a fact. It is objective when we can all agree what we mean by "Moon exists". Well something is circling the earth every month. But some will not agree that it is the same thing.
Ideas intrude upon the most basic truth.

When it comes to pure ideas, there is very little scope for applying the term "objective" since no two thoughts can be the same in different minds. The moon, whatever we might conceive it to be rock or goddess, still exists in some way or other, but ideas can only exist as part of a mental framewirk built upon denotations and connotations in an infinite series of meanings.

If you do not understand that, then maybe you think that the ideas about morality that you hold onto in your mind are absolute.
QED you think you are god.

Strawman.
Nah you are off target.

My argument:
Whatever is termed 'fact' is always conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge or Reality. Note 'reality'.
Whatever is conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR], i.e. collective or community of people, is objective*.
Objectivity in this case comes in degrees dependent on the credibility and reliability of the FSK.

*in contrast, subjective is merely confined to the opinions, beliefs or judgment of an individual[s], i.e. not in any collective or community organization.

E.g. scientific facts are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
At present, the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable, thus has a high degree of objectivity. As such scientific facts are objective [independent of any individual's views].

Since a fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK,
a moral fact is conditioned upon a moral FSK.
Since a FSK by definition is objective, there are objective moral facts.
The question is how credible are the objective moral facts, but its existence cannot be denied.

PH and gang claimed facts are features of reality and they are independent of the human conditions.
PH's fact is, the moon exists objectively and independently regardless of whether there are humans.
But QM refutes' PH's definition of fact,
QM claim as in the OP,
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
note 'look' is within '...' not in a literal sense but imply the entanglement of the human conditions in the emergence of 'the moon'.

Please address the argument given, not the argument you want me to have given.