No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon

[Impenitent]

the unobserved leaping cow doesn't exist either...

-Imp

[Flannel Jesus]

Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

This violates the Conservation of Energy.

If the moon ceases to exist when you look away, then that is a sudden unaccountable change in the amount of energy in the universe.

It should also be noted that he's almost certainly speaking poetically. He kinda hints at that when he says "in some strange sense". He's not saying, "in a completely normal sense of the words 'moon' and 'exist', this is true", it's only true in a strange sense. VA just latches onto that because he has nothing better to do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA… I have another question to ask you.

Do you have any thoughts about the concept of Nonduality?

Would you agree that true reality is Nondual, and that the mind made conceptual duality is only a false representation of the true reality?

I see "the true reality" could lead to dualism in some ways.
However if we view reality is all-there-is where humans are intricately a part of it, that would be non-dual in the relative sense.

If one claim non-dual in the absolute sense, then there is a sort of hidden and implied duality.

My principle is:
Whatever-is-reality is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective at present, thus the gold standard.

I believe the Buddhist Two-Truths Doctrine is very pragmatic in this case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

The two truths doctrine states that there is:

Provisional or conventional truth (Sanskrit saṁvṛti-satya, Pāli sammuti sacca, Tibetan kun-rdzob bden-pa), which describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and
Ultimate truth (Sanskrit paramārtha-satya, Pāli paramattha sacca, Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa), which describes the ultimate reality as sunyata, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

Thanks.
I totally resonate with this knowledge as a truth.

I’d also like to add my own principle: which is another truth: maybe an overlooked truth: and which is a non-truth.
What is a non- truth? It’s a truth that cannot be spoken of. If you can say it. IT is not the truth.

I think that correlates with this subject topic you have started. Maybe !

In "It’s a truth that cannot be spoken of."
Not sure if is your intention or not, but in the above there is still an object-predicate scenario, "its[object] and "truth that cannot be spoken of" [predicate] as such, dualism.

Note Kant's noumenon.
The noumenon [object] in one perspective is unknowable [predicate].
But ultimately the unknowable noumenon is an illusion if hypostatized or reified as real.

Thus the moment the mind aimed for something ultimate, it is an illusion, albeit could be a useful illusion for various mental purposes.

Btw, dualism is critically necessary for basic survival at the relative level, i.e. where there are humans.
However, there is no metaphysical absolute ultimate thing in such dualism, to insist so is delusional.

This is why,
"In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
This is skepticism with reference to an ultimate thing that exists regardless of humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

This violates the Conservation of Energy.

If the moon ceases to exist when you look away, then that is a sudden unaccountable change in the amount of energy in the universe.

Note I wrote above in relation to the above question:

VA… I have a couple of questions..
Are you saying the moon only exists when there is a human mind to conceptualise it? And, is the mentally constructed concept the truth or is the constructed concept an illusion?

It is more of a negative focus than a positive one.

The philosophical realists insist the moon exists [prior, present and future] regardless of whether there are humans or not, i.e. in the absolute sense.
This sort of thinking has led to all sorts of philosophical issues and problem plus also leading to evil acts committed by evil people grounding on such ideology.
Philosophical realism is an ideology adopted from an evolutionary default of a necessary mind-independence to facilitate basic survival, thus a belief of the majority.

Because philosophical realism is problematic and has evil potential, the more evolved humans [minority] opposed and rejected the ideology of philosophical realism and they propose the anti-philosophical_realism views, i.e. philosophical antirealism.
There are many types of philosophical antirealism, mine is that of Kantianism.

Philosophical antirealists would not claim directly and positive in the manner "the moon only exists when there is a human mind to conceptualise it" but rather,
the moon cannot exists without being somehow related to the human conditions.

We also need to avoid 'the existence of the moon is dependent on humans' which can be very misleading.

The point is:

• Reality is all-there-is
  all there is comprised of Humans
  Therefore reality cannot be apart from humans or
  Therefore Humans are somehow a part of reality.
  Since the moon [or any thing] is part of reality
  The moon [or anything] cannot be absolutely independent of humans.

The moon [or anything] is only relatively human/mind-independent. Note the term 'relatively' to humans is critical

As such the philosophical antirealists' claim is valid.
The question is to explain the 'somehow' to make it sound.

The "somehow" requires very detailed and extensive explanations and justifications and I will not be going into its details here.
But at least for the moment the philosophical antirealists argument is valid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

This violates the Conservation of Energy.

If the moon ceases to exist when you look away, then that is a sudden unaccountable change in the amount of energy in the universe.

It should also be noted that he's almost certainly speaking poetically. He kinda hints at that when he says "in some strange sense". He's not saying, "in a completely normal sense of the words 'moon' and 'exist', this is true", it's only true in a strange sense. VA just latches onto that because he has nothing better to do.

You are just ignorant of more advanced knowledge.
Khalili problem is he lacked the understanding of that 'strange sense' which in fact is true.

It is the same with Einstein's "spooky" sense but it later turned out to be true:

Quantum Entanglement Isn’t All That Spooky After All
The way we teach quantum theory conveys a spookiness that isn’t actually there
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... fter-all1/

Quantum entanglement is a complex phenomenon in physics that is usually poorly described as an invisible link between distant quantum objects that allows one to instantly affect the other. Albert Einstein famously dismissed this idea of entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.” In reality, entanglement is better understood as information, but that’s admittedly bland. So nowadays, every news article, explainer, opinion piece and artistic interpretation of quantum entanglement equates the phenomenon with Einstein’s spookiness. The situation has only worsened with the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics going to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger for quantum entanglement experiments.

But it’s time to cut this adjective loose.
Calling entanglement spooky completely misrepresents how it actually works and hinders our ability to make sense of it.

Khalili is a philosophical realists like Einstein and like all philosophical realists clinging on to absolutely mind independence are hindered psychologically to accept the truth of the theory.

[Atla]

This violates the Conservation of Energy.

If the moon ceases to exist when you look away, then that is a sudden unaccountable change in the amount of energy in the universe.

It should also be noted that he's almost certainly speaking poetically. He kinda hints at that when he says "in some strange sense". He's not saying, "in a completely normal sense of the words 'moon' and 'exist', this is true", it's only true in a strange sense. VA just latches onto that because he has nothing better to do.

You are just ignorant of more advanced knowledge.
Khalili problem is he lacked the understanding of that 'strange sense' which in fact is true.

It is the same with Einstein's "spooky" sense but it later turned out to be true:

Quantum Entanglement Isn’t All That Spooky After All
The way we teach quantum theory conveys a spookiness that isn’t actually there
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... fter-all1/

Quantum entanglement is a complex phenomenon in physics that is usually poorly described as an invisible link between distant quantum objects that allows one to instantly affect the other. Albert Einstein famously dismissed this idea of entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.” In reality, entanglement is better understood as information, but that’s admittedly bland. So nowadays, every news article, explainer, opinion piece and artistic interpretation of quantum entanglement equates the phenomenon with Einstein’s spookiness. The situation has only worsened with the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics going to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger for quantum entanglement experiments.

But it’s time to cut this adjective loose.
Calling entanglement spooky completely misrepresents how it actually works and hinders our ability to make sense of it.

Khalili is a philosophical realists like Einstein and like all philosophical realists clinging on to absolutely mind independence are hindered psychologically to accept the truth of the theory.

If you had any idea what you're talking about then you would know that Khalili's Moon comment and entanglement aren't really the same issue at all, they can be vaguely related sometimes. You would also know that being a realist on "information" is about as mysterious as being a realist on "spooky actions at the distance", that pretty much solves nothing, nor does it necessarily have anything to do with antirealism. You would also know that Khalili didn't lack the understanding of the facts, and you don't know better than him, because there are no facts at all, no one knows what's going on.

[Flannel Jesus]

This violates the Conservation of Energy.

If the moon ceases to exist when you look away, then that is a sudden unaccountable change in the amount of energy in the universe.

It should also be noted that he's almost certainly speaking poetically. He kinda hints at that when he says "in some strange sense". He's not saying, "in a completely normal sense of the words 'moon' and 'exist', this is true", it's only true in a strange sense. VA just latches onto that because he has nothing better to do.

You are just ignorant of more advanced knowledge.

It's real easy to say that. You don't even have to have any advanced knowledge to say that. You parrotting this shit over and over again doesn't actually fool anyone into thinking you have advanced knowledge. The fact that you think you have more advanced knowledge about physics than actual physicists demonstrates to most people that you're an ignorant overconfident moron.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It should also be noted that he's almost certainly speaking poetically. He kinda hints at that when he says "in some strange sense". He's not saying, "in a completely normal sense of the words 'moon' and 'exist', this is true", it's only true in a strange sense. VA just latches onto that because he has nothing better to do.

You are just ignorant of more advanced knowledge.
Khalili problem is he lacked the understanding of that 'strange sense' which in fact is true.

It is the same with Einstein's "spooky" sense but it later turned out to be true:

Quantum Entanglement Isn’t All That Spooky After All
The way we teach quantum theory conveys a spookiness that isn’t actually there
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... fter-all1/

Quantum entanglement is a complex phenomenon in physics that is usually poorly described as an invisible link between distant quantum objects that allows one to instantly affect the other. Albert Einstein famously dismissed this idea of entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.” In reality, entanglement is better understood as information, but that’s admittedly bland. So nowadays, every news article, explainer, opinion piece and artistic interpretation of quantum entanglement equates the phenomenon with Einstein’s spookiness. The situation has only worsened with the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics going to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger for quantum entanglement experiments.

But it’s time to cut this adjective loose.
Calling entanglement spooky completely misrepresents how it actually works and hinders our ability to make sense of it.

Khalili is a philosophical realists like Einstein and like all philosophical realists clinging on to absolutely mind independence are hindered psychologically to accept the truth of the theory.

If you had any idea what you're talking about then you would know that Khalili's Moon comment and entanglement aren't really the same issue at all, they can be vaguely related sometimes. You would also know that being a realist on "information" is about as mysterious as being a realist on "spooky actions at the distance", that pretty much solves nothing, nor does it necessarily have anything to do with antirealism. You would also know that Khalili didn't lack the understanding of the facts, and you don't know better than him, because there are no facts at all, no one knows what's going on.

Khalili is well aware of the facts from the Quantum FSK which is accepted by his peers.
What is strange with Khalili is his ignorance of his own psychological state with the cognitive dissonance and his preference for his instinct.
The theory and experiments prove to be true, but his common sense tells him otherwise, so he believe his common sense more than what the theory and experiments tell him.

It is the same with "it was absurd to think that an appearance could exist without something to appear" - common sense
which is merely logically true but not ontologically true as Kant demonstrated in detail.

[Flannel Jesus]

Is there a more prolific dunning kreuger on this forum than VA? I doubt it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you had any idea what you're talking about then you would know that Khalili's Moon comment and entanglement aren't really the same issue at all, they can be vaguely related sometimes. You would also know that being a realist on "information" is about as mysterious as being a realist on "spooky actions at the distance", that pretty much solves nothing, nor does it necessarily have anything to do with antirealism. You would also know that Khalili didn't lack the understanding of the facts, and you don't know better than him, because there are no facts at all, no one knows what's going on.

I ask AI:

VA to AI
It the above related to QM entanglement in some sense which is reducible to philosophical realism versus philosophical antirealism?

AI Responded:

AI Wrote
Yes, the statement by Professor Jim Al-Khalili at 54:37 is indeed related to quantum entanglement and the philosophical debate between realism and anti-realism.

Quantum Entanglement and the Moon Paradox:
Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where two particles become inextricably linked, regardless of the distance between them. Measuring the properties of one particle instantly affects the properties of the other, even if they are light-years apart. This instantaneous connection seems to defy the laws of classical physics, leading to the question of whether the properties of these particles exist before they are measured.

The "moon paradox" is a thought experiment that highlights this conundrum. If the moon only exists when we observe it, then what does it mean for it to exist when no one is looking? This question challenges our intuitive understanding of reality and raises profound philosophical questions about the nature of existence.

Realism vs. Anti-Realism:
Realism: This philosophical view holds that objects and properties exist independently of our observation or measurement. In the context of quantum mechanics, realism suggests that the properties of entangled particles exist in a definite state, even before they are measured.

[bAnti-realism:][/b] This view argues that the properties of objects only exist when they are measured or observed. In the quantum realm, anti-realism suggests that the properties of entangled particles are indeterminate until they are measured, and the act of measurement brings them into existence.
The Copenhagen Interpretation:

The Copenhagen interpretation, one of the most widely accepted interpretations of quantum mechanics, leans towards anti-realism. It suggests that the properties of quantum systems are inherently probabilistic and only become definite upon measurement. This interpretation aligns with the idea that the moon might not exist in a definite state when we're not looking at it.

[Age]

1. The 'thing' that is some times called, and referred to as, 'the moon' exists where the 'things' some times called, and referred to as, you human beings exist or do not exist.

2. There are NO human minds, NOR even a human mind.

The Fact that these two statements and claims here cannot be refuted is all that needs to be said and pointed out, here.

[Atla]

Is there a more prolific dunning kreuger on this forum than VA? I doubt it.

Or on the planet..

[Atla]

If you had any idea what you're talking about then you would know that Khalili's Moon comment and entanglement aren't really the same issue at all, they can be vaguely related sometimes. You would also know that being a realist on "information" is about as mysterious as being a realist on "spooky actions at the distance", that pretty much solves nothing, nor does it necessarily have anything to do with antirealism. You would also know that Khalili didn't lack the understanding of the facts, and you don't know better than him, because there are no facts at all, no one knows what's going on.

I ask AI:

VA to AI
It the above related to QM entanglement in some sense which is reducible to philosophical realism versus philosophical antirealism?

AI Responded:

AI Wrote
Yes, the statement by Professor Jim Al-Khalili at 54:37 is indeed related to quantum entanglement and the philosophical debate between realism and anti-realism.

Quantum Entanglement and the Moon Paradox:
Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where two particles become inextricably linked, regardless of the distance between them. Measuring the properties of one particle instantly affects the properties of the other, even if they are light-years apart. This instantaneous connection seems to defy the laws of classical physics, leading to the question of whether the properties of these particles exist before they are measured.

The "moon paradox" is a thought experiment that highlights this conundrum. If the moon only exists when we observe it, then what does it mean for it to exist when no one is looking? This question challenges our intuitive understanding of reality and raises profound philosophical questions about the nature of existence.

Realism vs. Anti-Realism:
Realism: This philosophical view holds that objects and properties exist independently of our observation or measurement. In the context of quantum mechanics, realism suggests that the properties of entangled particles exist in a definite state, even before they are measured.

[bAnti-realism:][/b] This view argues that the properties of objects only exist when they are measured or observed. In the quantum realm, anti-realism suggests that the properties of entangled particles are indeterminate until they are measured, and the act of measurement brings them into existence.
The Copenhagen Interpretation:

The Copenhagen interpretation, one of the most widely accepted interpretations of quantum mechanics, leans towards anti-realism. It suggests that the properties of quantum systems are inherently probabilistic and only become definite upon measurement. This interpretation aligns with the idea that the moon might not exist in a definite state when we're not looking at it.

You got the wrong answer from the AI or deceived it (you asked whether it's related, well it can be), Einstein's comment is about the Copenhagen interpretation, not entanglement itself.

And the above realism vs anti-realism issue isn't your philosophical realism vs anti-realism issue, but I doubt you can read.

[Fairy]

I see "the true reality" could lead to dualism in some ways.
However if we view reality is all-there-is where humans are intricately a part of it, that would be non-dual in the relative sense.

If one claim non-dual in the absolute sense, then there is a sort of hidden and implied duality.

My principle is:
Whatever-is-reality is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective at present, thus the gold standard.

I believe the Buddhist Two-Truths Doctrine is very pragmatic in this case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

The two truths doctrine states that there is:

Provisional or conventional truth (Sanskrit saṁvṛti-satya, Pāli sammuti sacca, Tibetan kun-rdzob bden-pa), which describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and
Ultimate truth (Sanskrit paramārtha-satya, Pāli paramattha sacca, Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa), which describes the ultimate reality as sunyata, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

Thanks.
I totally resonate with this knowledge as a truth.

I’d also like to add my own principle: which is another truth: maybe an overlooked truth: and which is a non-truth.
What is a non- truth? It’s a truth that cannot be spoken of. If you can say it. IT is not the truth.

I think that correlates with this subject topic you have started. Maybe !

In "It’s a truth that cannot be spoken of."
Not sure if is your intention or not, but in the above there is still an object-predicate scenario, "its[object] and "truth that cannot be spoken of" [predicate] as such, dualism.

Note Kant's noumenon.
The noumenon [object] in one perspective is unknowable [predicate].
But ultimately the unknowable noumenon is an illusion if hypostatized or reified as real.

Thus the moment the mind aimed for something ultimate, it is an illusion, albeit could be a useful illusion for various mental purposes.

Btw, dualism is critically necessary for basic survival at the relative level, i.e. where there are humans.
However, there is no metaphysical absolute ultimate thing in such dualism, to insist so is delusional.

This is why,
"In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
This is skepticism with reference to an ultimate thing that exists regardless of humans.

I agree with your viewpoint on this.

Also this is still Reification at play.

To take an abstract concept (or any concept) as having material or “real” existence.

Good posting VA

Thanks.

[Fairy]

Zero-energy universe hypothesis
The idea that the total amount of energy in the universe is zero, because the positive energy of matter is canceled out by the negative energy of gravity

Irrelevant to the Conservation of Energy. The total energy of the universe may be zero but the energy of the moon is not zero.

There is no moon, except in this conception. No human - No moon. Fact.

All concepts are known and yet that which is known knows nothing. All concepts are born of thought and thought is Antropomorphic. To take an abstract concept (or any concept) as having material or “real” existence.

While there’s no denying that the external objective world is there before humans were here, that’s obviously true, else if there was no world to come to then humans wouldn’t be here at all. But that’s not what is being pointed to. The material universe of objects are not known to exist until there is an observer conceptualising these objects into KNOWLEDGE.

ALL knowledge does is point the human mind to the illusory nature of reality, in that it only exists as information.

BTW, all known concepts have zero value, energy, or charge. The entire contents of the universe weighs zero.