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

[Dontaskme]

So then after a long contemplation, I've decided that the moon does indeed exist whether it is being observed or not, because the moon is a known concept in this conception.

The object known as MOON exists as objective reality. And once a concept is known, it becomes fixed, and cannot not exist or become unknown or unseen.

The Observer knows/sees objective reality, but, the objective reality does not know/see the observer.

It's the same for both the observer and the object observed in the unitary action/experience of observing.. The observer exists whether there is any object to observe or not. And so too does the observed object exist, whether it is being observed or not, because both observer and observed are one and the same indivisible reality.

[Iwannaplato]

Is the Moon real when you look at it or when the photons bounced off it, the ones that reach your retinas?

In other words does my seeing it now bring the Moon into existence in the recent past (1.3 second ago). So, does this mean that my looking now made the Moon in the past and this released the photons that I am now seeing?

And given how indirect this all is, shouldn't my looking at the waves on the beach which are affected by the Moon's gravitational field, bring the moon into existence?

Or my looking at other people, since everyone I look at it, at least minutely, affected by the effects of the Moon?

[seeds]

Is the Moon real when you look at it or when the photons bounced off it, the ones that reach your retinas?

In other words does my seeing it now bring the Moon into existence in the recent past (1.3 second ago). So, does this mean that my looking now made the Moon in the past and this released the photons that I am now seeing?

Well, technically, you'd be more correct in asking if you're bringing the sun into existence (8 minutes ago), seeing how those are the sun's photons.

Or, even more technically, you're bringing photons into existence, seeing how just prior to observing them, they allegedly existed as superpositioned waves of probabilities. And thus, by looking at them, you performed an act of "measurement" that collapsed the wavefunction in which they were entangled.

And given how indirect this all is, shouldn't my looking at the waves on the beach which are affected by the Moon's gravitational field, bring the moon into existence?

Good point. The moon is brought into existence by implication of its effect on something else.

However, according to the holographic approach, at that particular moment, the metaphorical "lasers" of your eyes and peripheral vision (and consciousness) are narrowly focused on only explicating the 3-D features of the waves (and beach) into existence from the quantum informational field.

Look away, and they too (or at least their "3-D-ness") will vanish, because you are now shining your pervy lasers in the opposite direction on some gorgeous babe entering a changing room.
_______

[Iwannaplato]

Well, technically, you'd be more correct in asking if you're bringing the sun into existence (8 minutes ago), seeing how those are the sun's photons.

The Sun also, sure. But my seeing of the Moons is via those photons (and some tiny, tiny minority from other stars. But in any case my seeing is dependent on those photons, whatever their path before bouncing off the Moon.

Or, even more technically, you're bringing photons into existence, seeing how just prior to observing them, they allegedly existed as superpositioned waves of probabilities. And thus, by looking at them, you performed an act of "measurement" that collapsed the wavefunction in which they were entangled.

Sure, that too.

And given how indirect this all is, shouldn't my looking at the waves on the beach which are affected by the Moon's gravitational field, bring the moon into existence?

Good point. The moon is brought into existence by implication of its effect on something else.

Yes, in the first scenario on the photons from the Sun, in the second on other things. There are always intermediaries in looking/measuring/observing.

However, according to the holographic approach, at that particular moment, the metaphorical "lasers" of your eyes and peripheral vision (and consciousness) are narrowly focused on only explicating the 3-D features of the waves (and beach) into existence from the quantum informational field.

Look away, and they too (or at least their "3-D-ness") will vanish, because you are now shining your pervy lasers in the opposite direction on some gorgeous babe entering a changing room.

I don't see it as lasers (coming out). But that said, right now I am interesting in time and observing. My looking now collapses the wave some seconds or minutes before (Moon and Sun respectively).

And then also the issue of: if a conscious subject was necessary to collapse, the a portion of the universe arose when the first human or animals or something started perceiving.

So, we had this sort of island chunk of a universe, with no past, or a diffuse past with no forms, suddenly becoming what looking back in times seems like one part of a coherent universe, without the rest of that universe, and a chunk that seems to have had a past before it that was concrete and collapses. So, when life arose or consciousness not only did the present moment start the universe, in one local chunk, but it started creating a past to that moment.

[seeds]

However, according to the holographic approach, at that particular moment, the metaphorical "lasers" of your eyes and peripheral vision (and consciousness) are narrowly focused on only explicating the 3-D features of the waves (and beach) into existence from the quantum informational field.

Look away, and they too (or at least their "3-D-ness") will vanish, because you are now shining your pervy lasers in the opposite direction on some gorgeous babe entering a changing room.

I don't see it as lasers (coming out).

Right. Nor should you.

The laser hologram analogy is simply meant to be a loose way of helping us to visualize the illusory nature of the three-dimensional features of the universe relative to their informational underpinning, and is not meant to be seen literally as lasers projecting outward from our eyes and minds.

I personally think that whatever the mechanism is that allows us to see and experience the multi-sensory features of our dreams when we direct our consciousness inward while sleeping, is the same mechanism that allows us to see and experience the multi-sensory features of the universe when we direct our consciousness outward while awake.

In other words, all of reality is "mind-like" in nature, and the notion of collapsing wavefunctions is just a clunky (materialistic) way of visualizing something that no doubt has a much better (mind-based) explanation.

And then also the issue of: if a conscious subject was necessary to collapse, the a portion of the universe arose when the first human or animals or something started perceiving.

So, we had this sort of island chunk of a universe, with no past, or a diffuse past with no forms, suddenly becoming what looking back in times seems like one part of a coherent universe, without the rest of that universe, and a chunk that seems to have had a past before it that was concrete and collapses. So, when life arose or consciousness not only did the present moment start the universe, in one local chunk, but it started creating a past to that moment.

Yes, that is indeed a problem.

However, that's where the difference between your belief in pantheism and my belief in panentheism comes into play.

Panentheism implies the pre-existence of a living conscious Creator that preceded the emergence of the minds that inhabit the inner-realm of the material universe, thus offering a logical explanation as to how the early features of the universe were "designed" to evolve into the absolute perfect setting upon which humans could then be awakened into existence,...

...as opposed to imagining that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of the blind and mindless meanderings of chance, as is implied in pantheism.
_______

[Iwannaplato]

Right. Nor should you.

OK, good. I mean, I have seen some modern defenses of this old model that I find interesting, but in this context, where we have some supposedly on the science team people putting forward a model based on qm, I think it's better they get faced with something more in line with current scientific models. Just for practical purposes.

I personally think that whatever the mechanism is that allows us to see and experience the multi-sensory features of our dreams when we direct our consciousness inward while sleeping, is the same mechanism that allows us to see and experience the multi-sensory features of the universe when we direct our consciousness outward while awake.

Though it's generally more monosensory. Vision, generally, and even if we 'hear' things in dreams, generally it's not the same as waking hearing. It's more like the idea of hearing. Smell, taste and touch are also marginalized (though I have experienced these, usually also in a watered down sort of abstract way).

In other words, all of reality is "mind-like" in nature, and the notion of collapsing wavefunctions is just a clunky (materialistic) way of visualizing something that no doubt has a much better (mind-based) explanation.

I suspect that the universe is more complex than we realize and also vastly more flexible. Flexible a bit like Sheldrake's habit view of laws, but also flexible in that it can accomodate itself to different worldviews simultaneously.

However, that's where the difference between your belief in pantheism and my belief in panentheism comes into play.

Panentheism implies the pre-existence of a living conscious Creator that preceded the emergence of the minds that inhabit the inner-realm of the material universe, thus offering a logical explanation as to how the early features of the universe were "designed" to evolve into the absolute perfect setting upon which humans could then be awakened into existence,...

...as opposed to imagining that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of the blind and mindless meanderings of chance, as is implied in pantheism.
_______

Oh, I still think either panentheism or pantheism can solve it - and other theisms, and yes panpsychism - but it's a problem for those who have a consciousness exceptionalism model AND an only an observation collapses the wave function model combined.

They end up a bit like the fundamentalist Christian theist, who has the deity that for some reason makes fossils and a geological record that seems to imply the earth is older than it is in the Bible.

Metaphorically like that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Sculptor: "The moon exists. That is a fact."
I did not bother with your sense of fact because that is an illusion,
see:
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Therein and in the above,
I presented what are real facts which can be known and described via a FSK, of which the science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.

[Peter Holmes]

If all facts are 'entangled with the human conditions', why are natural science knowledge and descriptions the most credible? Of what is empirical evidence evidence?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If all facts are 'entangled with the human conditions', why are natural science knowledge and descriptions the most credible? Of what is empirical evidence evidence?

Despite having its limitation and weaknesses, scientific facts, truths and knowledge from the scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible and reliable.
Besides the comparable Mathematics FSK, what other Framework and System of Knowledge is more credible and reliable than the scientific FSK?

The credibility and reliability of the scientific FSK is grounded on empirical evidences and its processes and implied constitution.

Whatever is scientific facts they are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK emerged from human activities and is managed and sustained by human activities and intersubjective consensus.
Thus whatever are scientific facts, they are entangled with and not independent of the human conditions of the collective.

Scientific facts are conditioned to the collective, thus, independent of any individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments, so, by definition is Objective.

What is known and the description of scientific facts, truths or knowledge is not the critical issue here.

Here is the relevant point;
Reality is ALL-there-is.
At one fundamental level of reality, all are merely a 'soup' of fundamental particles without differentiation into separate things or objects.
Even at present when things are observed as independent things from one another and from humans, the fundamental reality is all these separate things are in a common soup of particles with no differentiation except they are of different density.

While you are conscious you are Peter Holmes, at present you are exchanging molecules, atoms, quarks within that soup of reality.
As such, within a few years what you are made of now would have been replaced by new particles from outside or even from other people.

Now when you are facing say supposedly an apple on the table, in a more precise perspective of reality this state of affairs is merely the interaction of two bundles of fundamental particles, i.e. you [as a bundle of particles] connected to the apple [the other particles].
This is a real experience which you are not conscious of.
Surely you cannot deny this is a state of reality and experienced?
This state of reality is a matter of fact but it can only be a scientific FSK conditioned fact because only the scientific FSK can frame the concepts of fundamental particles.

With reference to "the moon" and you;
at the most fundamental human conditioned FSK, there are only two dense clusters of fundamental particles, i.e. you and the other bundle of particles which are not separated but in a continuum within the soup of reality.

That the moon only exists when you "look" at it is because of the interaction of your current human nature as originated from 4 billion years of evolution.
When a bat look at 'the moon' the bat do not cognize the same image as you see 'the moon'.

Within humanity there are different FSKs, an amazonian primitive with its specific human FSK will realized a different 'fact-of-the-moon' from one who is conditioned upon a scientific FSK.

This is what I meant there is no real moon as a fact that is independent of the human conditions because at the most fundamental level of reality, everything is interconnected with each other and whatever the fact, it emerged as conditioned to a human FSK, as such cannot be independent from the human conditions.

As such, as explained above, all facts are entangled with the human conditions.
Not sure you understand [not necessary agree with] the above?

You need to understand [not necessary agree with] the above before you make any critique else it will be the usual strawmen from you.

Why you cannot understand or if understand, cannot agree, is due to psychology driven by an inherent existential angst.

[Sculptor]

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.

Sculptor: "The moon exists. That is a fact."
I did not bother with your sense of fact because that is an illusion,
see:
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Therein and in the above,
I presented what are real facts which can be known and described via a FSK, of which the science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.

"REAL " facts???

[Peter Holmes]

If all facts are 'entangled with the human conditions', why are natural science knowledge and descriptions the most credible? Of what is empirical evidence evidence?

Despite having its limitation and weaknesses, scientific facts, truths and knowledge from the scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible and reliable.
Besides the comparable Mathematics FSK, what other Framework and System of Knowledge is more credible and reliable than the scientific FSK?

The credibility and reliability of the scientific FSK is grounded on empirical evidences and its processes and implied constitution.

Whatever is scientific facts they are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK emerged from human activities and is managed and sustained by human activities and intersubjective consensus.
Thus whatever are scientific facts, they are entangled with and not independent of the human conditions of the collective.

Scientific facts are conditioned to the collective, thus, independent of any individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments, so, by definition is Objective.

What is known and the description of scientific facts, truths or knowledge is not the critical issue here.

Here is the relevant point;
Reality is ALL-there-is.
At one fundamental level of reality, all are merely a 'soup' of fundamental particles without differentiation into separate things or objects.
Even at present when things are observed as independent things from one another and from humans, the fundamental reality is all these separate things are in a common soup of particles with no differentiation except they are of different density.

While you are conscious you are Peter Holmes, at present you are exchanging molecules, atoms, quarks within that soup of reality.
As such, within a few years what you are made of now would have been replaced by new particles from outside or even from other people.

Now when you are facing say supposedly an apple on the table, in a more precise perspective of reality this state of affairs is merely the interaction of two bundles of fundamental particles, i.e. you [as a bundle of particles] connected to the apple [the other particles].
This is a real experience which you are not conscious of.
Surely you cannot deny this is a state of reality and experienced?
This state of reality is a matter of fact but it can only be a scientific FSK conditioned fact because only the scientific FSK can frame the concepts of fundamental particles.

With reference to "the moon" and you;
at the most fundamental human conditioned FSK, there are only two dense clusters of fundamental particles, i.e. you and the other bundle of particles which are not separated but in a continuum within the soup of reality.

That the moon only exists when you "look" at it is because of the interaction of your current human nature as originated from 4 billion years of evolution.
When a bat look at 'the moon' the bat do not cognize the same image as you see 'the moon'.

Within humanity there are different FSKs, an amazonian primitive with its specific human FSK will realized a different 'fact-of-the-moon' from one who is conditioned upon a scientific FSK.

This is what I meant there is no real moon as a fact that is independent of the human conditions because at the most fundamental level of reality, everything is interconnected with each other and whatever the fact, it emerged as conditioned to a human FSK, as such cannot be independent from the human conditions.

As such, as explained above, all facts are entangled with the human conditions.
Not sure you understand [not necessary agree with] the above?

You need to understand [not necessary agree with] the above before you make any critique else it will be the usual strawmen from you.

Why you cannot understand or if understand, cannot agree, is due to psychology driven by an inherent existential angst.

None of this answers my question.

[seeds]

I personally think that whatever the mechanism is that allows us to see and experience the multi-sensory features of our dreams when we direct our consciousness inward while sleeping, is the same mechanism that allows us to see and experience the multi-sensory features of the universe when we direct our consciousness outward while awake.

Though it's generally more monosensory.

Not the point.

The point was that there is no doubt a better (more natural and mind-based) explanation for how the three-dimensional features of the universe are explicated (decoded) from nebulous fields of quantum information - something better than the "collapse" model - something more akin to how the eye of our mind decodes the informational fields of our own thoughts and dreams.

Besides, you say dreaming is "monosensory," yet you then go on to explain that you yourself have experienced the involvement of all five of your senses during a dream - hence, dreams can be a "multi-sensory" experience, regardless of them not being quite as real as this outer reality.

The ultimate point is that our senses are rooted in our minds, which means that our material eyes (vision), skin (touch), ears (hearing), tongue (taste), nose (smell), are but mere "windows" through which our five corresponding inner-senses can reach out and experience what I suggest is the extremely advanced (highly ordered) mental holography of the higher (Berkeleyan-ish) Being implied in the concept of panentheism, as is metaphorically depicted in one of my illustrations...

Panentheism implies the pre-existence of a living conscious Creator that preceded the emergence of the minds that inhabit the inner-realm of the material universe, thus offering a logical explanation as to how the early features of the universe were "designed" to evolve into the absolute perfect setting upon which humans could then be awakened into existence,...

...as opposed to imagining that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of the blind and mindless meanderings of chance, as is implied in pantheism.

Oh, I still think... pantheism can solve it...

How?

I'm not meaning to be overly critical of your take on reality because I agree with much of it. However, I am truly interested in hearing you explain what (cognitive?) aspect of pantheism not only grabbed hold of the fabric of reality and shaped it into this unthinkably stable setting...



...but also equipped that setting with every possible ingredient necessary to awaken us into existence.
_______

[Iwannaplato]

Besides, you say dreaming is "mononsensory," yet you then go on to explain that you yourself have experienced the involvement of all five of your senses during a dream - hence, dreams can be a "multi-sensory" experience, regardless of them not being quite as real as this outer reality.

Just that it does not feel like the same parts of the self/mind/brain experiencing. I think brain scans support that it's different parts of the brain, but I don't necessarily prioritize that kind of verification. My own experience says it is some other kind of process. Yes, it might be similar.

You said 'same mechanism' and I don't think it's the same one or dreams would not be so different from waking.

I have a complicated sense of dreams. I don't think they are always about us relating to our days or ourselves. I even think some dreams have to do with what is outside us. Other people, things at a distance. And even some kind of real sensory experiencing.

But even those dreams are not phenomenologically like waking experience, that's all.

And in extrema, yes, I have had five senses at some time. I don't think every in a single dreams, yet I have all five in every meal I eat. And the ones rarer in dreams at full strength during that meal.

[Toppsy Kretts]

this has more of the "Schrodinger's cat" theory. if something is not gazed upon aka-perceived, then it cannot be reality. id never believe the sky was blue if i always looked down and never saw an upward facing reflection

[MagsJ]

All that exists, exists.