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

[Veritas Aequitas]

Energy = MC2 is a Einsteinian theory which is from the Einsteinian FSK.

You are totally bonkers.

You are insulting your intelligence with your blabbering.
Show me some credible references to support why I am wrong?

[Flannel Jesus]

Anybody who still thinks quantum mechanics for some reason grants some kind of magical importance to conscious observation, please read this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observe ... m_physics)

There's no magical spot in qm for consciousness. There are a couple interpretations of qm where consciousness is central, but they aren't qm itself, and their popularity among people who actually know the science is rather low. That doesn't mean they aren't correct, but it does mean it's worth distinguishing that idea from qm itself, something va here doesn't do

Not sure what is interpreted as 'consciousness' in the above article.

So, so many parts of it. There are three quotes from quantum scientists in the main part of the article, and each one addresses the question of consciousness using a different term.

One says "human beings". One makes a distinction between subjective and objective. One makes reference to both of those concepts.

And they are all saying the same thing: the model of qm is not about conscious observers, or human beings, making measurements (or at the very least, it doesn't have to be).

[Harbal]

You are insulting your intelligence with your blabbering.

No I'm not; you got there first.

Show me some credible references to support why I am wrong?

Are you saying my word isn't good enough?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anybody who still thinks quantum mechanics for some reason grants some kind of magical importance to conscious observation, please read this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observe ... m_physics)

There's no magical spot in qm for consciousness. There are a couple interpretations of qm where consciousness is central, but they aren't qm itself, and their popularity among people who actually know the science is rather low. That doesn't mean they aren't correct, but it does mean it's worth distinguishing that idea from qm itself, something va here doesn't do

Not sure what is interpreted as 'consciousness' in the above article.

So, so many parts of it. There are three quotes from quantum scientists in the main part of the article, and each one addresses the question of consciousness using a different term.

One says "human beings". One makes a distinction between subjective and objective. One makes reference to both of those concepts.

And they are all saying the same thing: the model of qm is not about conscious observers, or human beings, making measurements (or at the very least, it doesn't have to be).

The basic point is whether it relates to an objective reality that is independent of the human conditions [Philosophical Realism] or not [anti-realism].

The article refer to "a" individual which is obviously subjective and not objective.
No science will rest on "a" individual.

And they are all saying the same thing: the model of qm is not about conscious observers, or human beings, making measurements (or at the very least, it doesn't have to be).

Bohr being the anti-realist opposing Einstein [realist] would not agree to the above i.e. implied as independent from the human conditions.

Note this;

The objective of this article is to demonstrate how the historical debate between materialism and idealism, in the field of Philosophy, extends, in new clothes, to the field of Quantum Physics characterized by realism and anti-realism.
For this, we opted for a debate, also historical, between the realism of Albert Einstein, for whom reality exists regardless of the existence of the knowing subject, and Niels Bohr, for whom we do not have access to the ultimate reality of the matter, unless conditioning it to the existence of an observer endowed with rationality, position adopted in the Interpretation of Complementarity (1927) – posture that was expanded in 1935 when Bohr assumed a “relationalist” conception, according to which the quantum state is defined by the relationship between the quantum object and the entire measuring device.
https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5766/576666994022/html/

I have not read the whole article except to highlight the anti-realist position held by Bohr in contrast to Einstein's realism.

[Dontaskme]

Not sure what is interpreted as 'consciousness' in the above article.

When I mentioned 'consciousness' it is in opposite to 'unconsciousness' as in a person in a coma.
It is wakefulness in a person that enable to person to perform 'measurement'.

Consciousness:
a. : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... sciousness

No object/thing can interpret ''Consciousness'' because the very 'thing' interpreting Consciousness... is Consciousness, assumed to be a 'THING'.

Consciousness therefore, is Never Not Consciousness.

The moon is an object in subject, the moon is the observed in the observer, both the observer and observed cannot be two separate things.

The object is always interdependent, or dependently arising. That does not mean it is nothingness, but it is emptiness. It is the is-ness, or the suchness, of that thing. The reality of it.

[Flannel Jesus]

Bohr being the anti-realist opposing Einstein [realist] would not agree to the above i.e. implied as independent from the human conditions.

Bohr himself is the source of one of the quotes. He used the phrase "perfectly objective".

[popeye1945]

For any 'thing' to be known at all, the 'thing' must already exist.

Therefore, when 'one thing' is known - 'every-thing' is known.

Since everything is dependently arising, nothing has any true independent existence.
Put another way, nothing that appears to exist actually exists autonomously, as a single entity.

Therefore, implying the 'moon' is absent when not observed is absurd. Why, because subject and object are ONE ..not two.

Yes, subject and object stand or fall together, Modern science, however, now tells us that matter is not made of matter, it is all energy. The physical world is cause to all reactionary organisms; this is the principle of evolutionary adaptation. You are quite right, there is no such thing as independent existence, the physical world as a support system draws a thick red line beneath that statement. The moon is an object to us, but in reality, it is an energy form or field, and like all perceived objects they are objects only to us or to biological consciousness. It was Spinoza that stated that the way we come to know the outside world is through the alterations that the physical world/objects make to our bodies. He was a seventeenth-century philosopher, and he believed in appearance as reality; but even Plato warned us, not to be fooled into thinking appearance is reality. Just as sound or the energy waves in and of themselves are not sound, it is the effect upon our biology, the eardrum that gives the emergent sound to a biological subject. This sound, however, is a melody only the subject hears, for it is a self-simulation or biological readout. Sound is a biological effect and the same is true of what we call objects, the whole of apparent reality is simply an emergent biological readout of the energies that surround us. This conclusion I find unavoidable, knowing that matter is not made of matter but energy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Bohr being the anti-realist opposing Einstein [realist] would not agree to the above i.e. implied as independent from the human conditions.

Bohr himself is the source of one of the quotes. He used the phrase "perfectly objective".

How can that be when Bohr's position is as follows'

... and Niels Bohr, for whom we do not have access to the ultimate reality of the matter, unless conditioning it to the existence of an observer endowed with rationality, position adopted in the Interpretation of Complementarity (1927) – posture that was expanded in 1935 when Bohr assumed a “relationalist” conception, according to which the quantum state is defined by the relationship between the quantum object and the entire measuring device.
https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5766/576666994022/html/

I have not denied objectivity, in this case Bohr is reference to scientific objectivity, definitely not on the objective reality of the realist.

Objectivity is intersubjective consensus as opposed to the opinion of ONE subject.
QM's conclusions are not merely Bohr alone but by the consensus of all his peers, thus objective in that sense.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you're reading much more into your quote than you are justified in reading into it

[Dontaskme]

For any 'thing' to be known at all, the 'thing' must already exist.

Therefore, when 'one thing' is known - 'every-thing' is known.

Since everything is dependently arising, nothing has any true independent existence.
Put another way, nothing that appears to exist actually exists autonomously, as a single entity.

Therefore, implying the 'moon' is absent when not observed is absurd. Why, because subject and object are ONE ..not two.

Yes, subject and object stand or fall together, Modern science, however, now tells us that matter is not made of matter, it is all energy. The physical world is cause to all reactionary organisms; this is the principle of evolutionary adaptation. You are quite right, there is no such thing as independent existence, the physical world as a support system draws a thick red line beneath that statement. The moon is an object to us, but in reality, it is an energy form or field, and like all perceived objects they are objects only to us or to biological consciousness. It was Spinoza that stated that the way we come to know the outside world is through the alterations that the physical world/objects make to our bodies. He was a seventeenth-century philosopher, and he believed in appearance as reality; but even Plato warned us, not to be fooled into thinking appearance is reality. Just as sound or the energy waves in and of themselves are not sound, it is the effect upon our biology, the eardrum that gives the emergent sound to a biological subject. This sound, however, is a melody only the subject hears, for it is a self-simulation or biological readout. Sound is a biological effect and the same is true of what we call objects, the whole of apparent reality is simply an emergent biological readout of the energies that surround us. This conclusion I find unavoidable, knowing that matter is not made of matter but energy.

Thank-you popeye,aka, eye popped aware for your impeccably put comments..

I agree with your fundamental take on this subject.

[Flannel Jesus]

... and Niels Bohr, for whom we do not have access to the ultimate reality of the matter, unless conditioning it to the existence of an observer endowed with rationality, position adopted in the Interpretation of Complementarity (1927) – posture that was expanded in 1935 when Bohr assumed a “relationalist” conception, according to which the quantum state is defined by the relationship between the quantum object and the entire measuring device.
https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5766/576666994022/html/

To be more clear, more specific, I think bohr saying "human beings, in general, don't have direct unfettered access to raw universal truths" is (a) a statement about his personal philosophy - which I agree with! believe it or not - and not about quantum mechanics, or the necessary philosophy one must come up with if one accepts quantum mechanics, and (b) cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean "in quantum mechanics, conscious observation plays a fundamental role in our models". I think you're stretching, FAR, to read that into his quote.

I also don't think "I share a philosophical outlook with an early proponent of quantum physics" is any reasonable proof that quantum physics itself requires that outlook, especially given all the quantum physicists I've pointed out who don't share that outlook and yet still think quantum physics is valid.

In fact if anything, Sean Carroll's interpretation of quantum mechanics is arguably the most literal interpretation of quantum mechanics there is - he argues as much.

Quantum physics doesn't outlaw all realism, nor does bells theorem - but it DOES outlaw (arguably, I'm using that term loosely) a very specific vision of realism, one which Einstein clung to but which Carroll, and myself, do not. The folly here is a failure to recognize that difference

[popeye1945]

For any 'thing' to be known at all, the 'thing' must already exist.

Therefore, when 'one thing' is known - 'every-thing' is known.

Since everything is dependently arising, nothing has any true independent existence.
Put another way, nothing that appears to exist actually exists autonomously, as a single entity.

Therefore, implying the 'moon' is absent when not observed is absurd. Why, because subject and object are ONE ..not two.

Yes, subject and object stand or fall together, Modern science, however, now tells us that matter is not made of matter, it is all energy. The physical world is cause to all reactionary organisms; this is the principle of evolutionary adaptation. You are quite right, there is no such thing as independent existence, the physical world as a support system draws a thick red line beneath that statement. The moon is an object to us, but in reality, it is an energy form or field, and like all perceived objects they are objects only to us or to biological consciousness. It was Spinoza that stated that the way we come to know the outside world is through the alterations that the physical world/objects make to our bodies. He was a seventeenth-century philosopher, and he believed in appearance as reality; but even Plato warned us, not to be fooled into thinking appearance is reality. Just as sound or the energy waves in and of themselves are not sound, it is the effect upon our biology, the eardrum that gives the emergent sound to a biological subject. This sound, however, is a melody only the subject hears, for it is a self-simulation or biological readout. Sound is a biological effect and the same is true of what we call objects, the whole of apparent reality is simply an emergent biological readout of the energies that surround us. This conclusion I find unavoidable, knowing that matter is not made of matter but energy.

Thank-you popeye,aka, eye popped aware for your impeccably put comments..

I agree with your fundamental take on this subject.

Dontaskme,

Well thank you so much Dontaskme, it feels good to get such a positive response.

[Veritas Aequitas]

... and Niels Bohr, for whom we do not have access to the ultimate reality of the matter, unless conditioning it to the existence of an observer endowed with rationality, position adopted in the Interpretation of Complementarity (1927) – posture that was expanded in 1935 when Bohr assumed a “relationalist” conception, according to which the quantum state is defined by the relationship between the quantum object and the entire measuring device.
https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5766/576666994022/html/

To be more clear, more specific, I think bohr saying "human beings, in general, don't have direct unfettered access to raw universal truths" is (a) a statement about his personal philosophy - which I agree with! believe it or not - and not about quantum mechanics, or the necessary philosophy one must come up with if one accepts quantum mechanics, and (b) cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean "in quantum mechanics, conscious observation plays a fundamental role in our models". I think you're stretching, FAR, to read that into his quote.

Note this
"unless conditioning it to the existence of an observer endowed with rationality"
This is obviously anti-Philosophical_Realism.

On the other hand, Einstein's position is that of the Philosophical Realist, which I believe you are Carroll are.

I also don't think "I share a philosophical outlook with an early proponent of quantum physics" is any reasonable proof that quantum physics itself requires that outlook, especially given all the quantum physicists I've pointed out who don't share that outlook and yet still think quantum physics is valid.

In fact if anything, Sean Carroll's interpretation of quantum mechanics is arguably the most literal interpretation of quantum mechanics there is - he argues as much.

Quantum physics doesn't outlaw all realism, nor does bells theorem - but it DOES outlaw (arguably, I'm using that term loosely) a very specific vision of realism, one which Einstein clung to but which Carroll, and myself, do not. The folly here is a failure to recognize that difference

I had stated all philosophical issues [pragmatism* aside] are reducible to the Philosophical Realism vs the anti-Philosophical_Realism dichotomy.
* It is contentious but I believe pragmatism is also anti-Philosophical_Realist, however I do not have sufficient stuff to justify for it at present.

Einstein's position is that of the Philosophical Realist, which I believe you are Carroll are.
Show me how is you realism different from that of Philosophical Realism;

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

Sub-topic

Scientific realism in physics
Realism in physics (especially quantum mechanics) is the claim that the world is in some sense mind-independent: that even if the results of a possible measurement do not pre-exist the act of measurement, that does not require that they are the creation of the observer (contrary to the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation of quantum mechanics). That interpretation of quantum mechanics, on the other hand, states that the wave function is already the full description of reality. The different possible realities described by the wave function are equally true.
The observer collapses the wave function into their own reality.
One's reality can be mind-dependent under this interpretation of quantum mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... in_physics

The central theme of Philosophical Realism in all its form is 'mind-independent' in the ultimate sense.
In contrast anti-Philosophical Realism is the opposite, i.e. reality is ultimately interdependent on the human conditions [mind, consciousness and whole human self].

Show me how is yours and Carroll's realism different from Einstein's.

[Flannel Jesus]

I had stated all philosophical issues [pragmatism* aside] are reducible to the Philosophical Realism vs the anti-Philosophical_Realism dichotomy.
* It is contentious but I believe pragmatism is also anti-Philosophical_Realist, however I do not have sufficient stuff to justify for it at present.

Einstein's position is that of the Philosophical Realist, which I believe you are Carroll are.
Show me how is you realism different from that of Philosophical Realism;

Gladly. I'm not just going to show how it's different, I'm going to focus on how the specific difference is actually the focus of bells theorem.

First, we'll start where many layman's research starts on any topic: on Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

I'm so pleased that the internet has aligned such that my central point is in the first sentence:

Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories given some basic assumptions about the nature of measurement.

LOCAL HIDDEN VARIABLES

That's specifically what Einstein believed in. That's specifically his point of contention with quantum mechanics, and that's specifically the flavour of realism disproved by bells theorem.

So, what does local hidden variables mean? Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't do a great job of specifying it, but it generally means this (and be prepared for a bit of dejavu, because we've been here before):

Local hidden variables is the idea, in quantum mechanics, that when you measure a property of a quantum entity (I love this word choice of yours and I've adopted it, thank you for that), that you are simply finding out something about the entity that was true the whole time, as opposed to standard quantum mechanics which says prior to measurement, the property did not have a single definite value.

As discussed many pages back, the focus here is on PROPERTIES, rather than the existence of things.

If I open up an envelope and find a red letter inside, it's natural for me to assume that there was a red letter inside that envelope all the way back in time to the point where the person who sent me the envelope put the red letter in. When I open the letter, I'm finding out something that was always true about the contents of the envelope.

Quantum mechanics says that quantum particles are not like envelopes in this way. When you measure, say, the spin of a photon as up and the spin of its entangled sister photon as down, you cannot say "this property we are just finding out about now, but the spin for each particle had that value the whole time."

Einstein believed in local hidden variables. Sean Carroll does not. I do not.

Of note is this paragraph on the Wikipedia page:

Copenhagen-type interpretations generally take the violation of Bell inequalities as grounds to reject the assumption often called counterfactual definiteness or "realism", which is not necessarily the same as abandoning realism in a broader philosophical sense.[77][78] For example, Roland Omnès argues for the rejection of hidden variables and concludes that "quantum mechanics is probably as realistic as any theory of its scope and maturity ever will be."[79]: 531 

[Veritas Aequitas]

I had stated all philosophical issues [pragmatism* aside] are reducible to the Philosophical Realism vs the anti-Philosophical_Realism dichotomy.
* It is contentious but I believe pragmatism is also anti-Philosophical_Realist, however I do not have sufficient stuff to justify for it at present.

Einstein's position is that of the Philosophical Realist, which I believe you are Carroll are.
Show me how is you realism different from that of Philosophical Realism;

Gladly. I'm not just going to show how it's different, I'm going to focus on how the specific difference is actually the focus of bells theorem.

First, we'll start where many layman's research starts on any topic: on Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

I'm so pleased that the internet has aligned such that my central point is in the first sentence:

Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories given some basic assumptions about the nature of measurement.

LOCAL HIDDEN VARIABLES

That's specifically what Einstein believed in. That's specifically his point of contention with quantum mechanics, and that's specifically the flavour of realism disproved by bells theorem.

So, what does local hidden variables mean? Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't do a great job of specifying it, but it generally means this (and be prepared for a bit of dejavu, because we've been here before):

Local hidden variables is the idea, in quantum mechanics, that when you measure a property of a quantum entity (I love this word choice of yours and I've adopted it, thank you for that), that you are simply finding out something about the entity that was true the whole time, as opposed to standard quantum mechanics which says prior to measurement, the property did not have a single definite value.

As discussed many pages back, the focus here is on PROPERTIES, rather than the existence of things.

If I open up an envelope and find a red letter inside, it's natural for me to assume that there was a red letter inside that envelope all the way back in time to the point where the person who sent me the envelope put the red letter in. When I open the letter, I'm finding out something that was always true about the contents of the envelope.

Quantum mechanics says that quantum particles are not like envelopes in this way. When you measure, say, the spin of a photon as up and the spin of its entangled sister photon as down, you cannot say "this property we are just finding out about now, but the spin for each particle had that value the whole time."

Einstein believed in local hidden variables. Sean Carroll does not. I do not.

Of note is this paragraph on the Wikipedia page:

Copenhagen-type interpretations generally take the violation of Bell inequalities as grounds to reject the assumption often called counterfactual definiteness or "realism", which is not necessarily the same as abandoning realism in a broader philosophical sense.[77][78] For example, Roland Omnès argues for the rejection of hidden variables and concludes that "quantum mechanics is probably as realistic as any theory of its scope and maturity ever will be."[79]: 531 

I like to highlight my OP in this case is ultimately to support my anti-realist position within the realist vs anti-realist debate.
From there to support my human-based-FSK, thus human-based-moral-FSK and so, moral facts which are Objective, therefore, Morality is Objective.

I think I quoted this somewhere;

" Given this contrast, one might expect Carroll and Smolin to emphasize very different things in their books.
Yet the books mirror each other, down to chapters that present the same quantum demonstrations and the same quantum parables.
Carroll and Smolin both agree on the facts of quantum theory, and both gesture toward the same historical signposts.
Both [Carroll and Smolin] consider themselves realists, in the tradition of Albert Einstein."
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicat ... e-universe

Even though Carroll may reject hidden variables, Carroll fundamental belief is still that of realism, i.e. Philosophical Realism, which is the same as held by Einstein.

On the other hand, Bohr's fundamental belief is that of anti-realism, i.e. anti-Philosophical Realism;

The objective of this article is to demonstrate how the historical debate between materialism and idealism, in the field of Philosophy, extends, in new clothes, to the field of Quantum Physics characterized by realism and anti-realism.

For this, we opted for a debate, also historical,
between the realism of Albert Einstein, for whom reality exists regardless of the existence of the knowing subject,
and [anti-realism] Niels Bohr, for whom we do not have access to the ultimate reality of the matter, unless conditioning it to the existence of an observer endowed with rationality, position adopted in the Interpretation of Complementarity (1927) – posture that was expanded in 1935 when Bohr assumed a “relationalist” conception, according to which the quantum state is defined by the relationship between the quantum object and the entire measuring device.
https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5766/576666994022/html/

From the above,
Those who believe in Philosophical Realism like you and Carroll will insist that Objective Reality exists independent of the human conditions as applicable to QM matters.

On the other hand, re QM matters, the Anti-Philosophical_Realists like Bohr and myself believe that reality is interdependent with the human conditions.
This meant that QM principles are conditioned to the human-based-QM-FSK.

My basic principle is this;
All facts, truths and reality are conditioned upon a specific human-based-FSK.
Thus QM facts, truths and reality are conditioned upon a specific human-based-QM-FSK.
This is the anti-Philosophical_Realism view.

In contrast, the Philosophical Realist like Carroll and you [not Einstein] would believe the following;
All facts, truths and reality are NOT conditioned upon a specific human-based-FSK, i.e. they are independent of the human conditions.
Thus QM facts, truths and reality [even though obey the Wave Collapse Function] ultimately are NOT conditioned upon a specific human-based-QM-FSK.

Within the P_Realist vs Anti-P_Realist debate;
I content that the P_Realist view [Bottom-Up] is grounded on an illusion and infected with a Reality-Gap that by default cannot be closed at all.
The basic reference to this is Kant's assertion of the illusory noumenon and thing-in-itself.
The reason for the creation of this Reality-Gap is due to psychology arising from an existential crisis.

Meanwhile the Anti-P_Realist is most realistic from the Top-Down [Kant's Copernican Revolution], i.e. empirically based plus philosophical-rational reasonings.

I suggest you get more familiar with the fundamentals of the P_Realist vs Anti-P_Realist debate, else we will be talking pass each other all the time.