No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nor does Al-Khalili think that, that's why he said "in some strange sense" first. To many people that strange sense is best conceptualized as the Moon being in superposition when no one is looking. It's infinitely spread out everywhere and nowhere at once, like a probability wave. And when you are looking at it, it is in a certain location and state.

I don't know how that could possibly work in a macro situation. The moon can't just move or spread out when someone stops looking at it.

Conflating macro with micro would a fallacy of equivocation. They must be qualified to their respective Framework and System [FS], e.g. macro [ Science-Newtonian FS] with micro [Science-QM FS or science-Chemistry FS].

Philosophically and in relation to the philosophy of science, we consider:
1. Philosophical Realism, scientific realism - absolute mind-independence
2. Empirical Realism - relative mind-independence

A philosophical realist would claim that the external world is absolutely mind-independent; I have argued this is a fundamentalistic ideology driven by an evolutionary default, thus the majority of humans are likely to be philosophical realists if they are philosophical.
In this case, a philosophical realist will claim the moon [or anything within reality] exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Philosophical realism as a fundamentalistic ideology had led to theism and other mind-independent realism which facilitates basic survival but has its associated evil.

Empirical Realism is the philosophy that recognizes the moon does exists if there are no humans but it is only relative to the human conditions.
As such, if no humans = "realization that recognizes the moon does exists if there are no humans".

The "No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon" is only thrown at dogmatic fundamentalistic philosophical realists who insist on the absolute claim that the 'moon exists regardless of whether there are humans or not'. From here they insist a mind-independent God exists plus leading to all sort of other evils and the hindering of moral progress [re Moral relativism and moral skepticism & nihilism]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Challenge to VA: Ask your AI who does your thinking for you what % scientists would say the Moon is not there when no one is looking at it and how many think it persists when not perceived. You'll find that a majority and not a small one would vote for persistence. This means ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN USE OF FSERCS that the more objective position is the realist one.

What???

So theism is true and really real? based on ad populum?

As I had argued, philosophical realism [its FSERC] is grounded on an illusion;
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

The credible and objective rating of the philosophical realism FSERC would be no different from that of the theistic FSERC which is also grounded on an illusion [an illusory God]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's a questions for those who believe the Moon does not persist when not looked at:
The Moon's core and far side are never and nearly never observed: do they not exist.
If no one is percieving someone's brain, does it exist? Or does it come into being during brain surgery and assassinations?
Does the oughtness not to kill not persist when no one is looking at it and when they are looking at it, what do they see?

No looker has ever seen a moon.

Think about that? What’s looking is the looked upon. The object known. The moon is a concept known. Not an object that’s ever been seen to exist separately or independently from the concept known. I think that’s what VA is pointing to, I’m not sure. Clarification is needed.

There are other nuances to the above to be considered:

Before the moon is conceptualized, known and described, it must first emerged and be realized as real.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

This emergence and realization of it is contingent upon a 13.7 physical history and 3.5 billion years of an organic history plus evolution.
As such this emergence and realization of reality is contingent upon the human conditions, i.e. "somehow" the human factor cannot be excluded in its consideration.

Such an idea is very counterintuitive so not easy for the majority to grasp it; for them to counter it would mean the triggering of painful cognitive dissonances.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's a questions for those who believe the Moon does not persist when not looked at:
The Moon's core and far side are never and nearly never observed: do they not exist.
If no one is percieving someone's brain, does it exist? Or does it come into being during brain surgery and assassinations?
Does the oughtness not to kill not persist when no one is looking at it and when they are looking at it, what do they see?

No 3 D object is ever seen.. Seeing is only evident within the known looked upon object..and is why conscious human beings know not to bump into each other while moving around as the known objects they are.
Objects are known to be 3D but never seen as 3D….because known objects have no access to what is absolutely whole. Every object is relative to the observer as the object is known conceptually.

You can extend the above to,
"Every object has to emerge from the "particle soup" in tandem with the "human self" to be realized then to be known conceptually and described by an observer within a human-based framework and system"

The "particle soup" is something [not exactly] like this:


However, note the said 'particle soup' is not absolutely mind-independent.

[Fairy]

Here's a questions for those who believe the Moon does not persist when not looked at:
The Moon's core and far side are never and nearly never observed: do they not exist.
If no one is percieving someone's brain, does it exist? Or does it come into being during brain surgery and assassinations?
Does the oughtness not to kill not persist when no one is looking at it and when they are looking at it, what do they see?

No looker has ever seen a moon.

Think about that? What’s looking is the looked upon. The object known. The moon is a concept known. Not an object that’s ever been seen to exist separately or independently from the concept known. I think that’s what VA is pointing to, I’m not sure. Clarification is needed.

There are other nuances to the above to be considered:

Before the moon is conceptualized, known and described, it must first emerged and be realized as real.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

This emergence and realization of it is contingent upon a 13.7 physical history and 3.5 billion years of an organic history plus evolution.
As such this emergence and realization of reality is contingent upon the human conditions, i.e. "somehow" the human factor cannot be excluded in its consideration.

Such an idea is very counterintuitive so not easy for the majority to grasp it; for them to counter it would mean the triggering of painful cognitive dissonances.

Thanks for clarifying.

I totally grasp this. Well put, it’s not easy to put this into words, but you manage to nail it.

[Fairy]

Here's a questions for those who believe the Moon does not persist when not looked at:
The Moon's core and far side are never and nearly never observed: do they not exist.
If no one is percieving someone's brain, does it exist? Or does it come into being during brain surgery and assassinations?
Does the oughtness not to kill not persist when no one is looking at it and when they are looking at it, what do they see?

No 3 D object is ever seen.. Seeing is only evident within the known looked upon object..and is why conscious human beings know not to bump into each other while moving around as the known objects they are.
Objects are known to be 3D but never seen as 3D….because known objects have no access to what is absolutely whole. Every object is relative to the observer as the object is known conceptually.

You can extend the above to,
"Every object has to emerge from the "particle soup" in tandem with the "human self" to be realized then to be known conceptually and described by an observer within a human-based framework and system"

The "particle soup" is something [not exactly] like this:


However, note the said 'particle soup' is not absolutely mind-independent.

Excellent

[Iwannaplato]

Nor does Al-Khalili think that, that's why he said "in some strange sense" first. To many people that strange sense is best conceptualized as the Moon being in superposition when no one is looking. It's infinitely spread out everywhere and nowhere at once, like a probability wave. And when you are looking at it, it is in a certain location and state.

I don't know how that could possibly work in a macro situation. The moon can't just move or spread out when someone stops looking at it.

Conflating macro with micro would a fallacy of equivocation.

Nope. It could be a category error. It could be a Fallacy of Division or Composition. It could be misapplying a principle outside its valid domain. I don't want to weigh in here on the complex issues related to macro vs micro on this issue, but it is clearly not an issue of equivocation. Now, you may see this as petty, but since we jousted over your accusations of strawman for a long time, it is just more evidence that there are very basic things about philosophy and having a discussion that you do not understand and until those basics are taken care of you won't be able to interact with people effectively, though confirmation bias may lead you to think you are 'winning' over a diverse set of people with a diverse set of experiences who do understand this kind of basic stuff.

[Iwannaplato]

Here's a questions for those who believe the Moon does not persist when not looked at:
The Moon's core and far side are never and nearly never observed: do they not exist.
If no one is percieving someone's brain, does it exist? Or does it come into being during brain surgery and assassinations?
Does the oughtness not to kill not persist when no one is looking at it and when they are looking at it, what do they see?

No looker has ever seen a moon.

Think about that? What’s looking is the looked upon. The object known. The moon is a concept known. Not an object that’s ever been seen to exist separately or independently from the concept known. I think that’s what VA is pointing to, I’m not sure. Clarification is needed.

There are other nuances to the above to be considered:

Before the moon is conceptualized, known and described, it must first emerged and be realized as real.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

This emergence and realization of it is contingent upon a 13.7 physical history and 3.5 billion years of an organic history plus evolution.
As such this emergence and realization of reality is contingent upon the human conditions, i.e. "somehow" the human factor cannot be excluded in its consideration.

Such an idea is very counterintuitive so not easy for the majority to grasp it; for them to counter it would mean the triggering of painful cognitive dissonances.

I notice you did not respond to my specific points, as usual.
My antirealism is even less connected to common sense than the one you are presenting, so please stop the condescening mindreading ad homs. I am trying to see if you can actually deal, on your own, with some of the issues that arise with your own beliefs, hence I ask questions and give examples to be wrestled with, which you did not do.

What you did do was present your ideas. Until you, one day, realize that this is not really a response, but rather a mere reaction.

Other people's posts elicit assertions on your part and more rarely arguments, but these are not in response to the specifics of what people write. Let's assume you actually can respond to specifics....which is being charitable. Now you need to realize that that is what makes for effective discussion.

Your terrible intuition and mind reading of other people does not lead to effective discussion.

[Atla]

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.

I am not an expert in QM [but quite familiar with it] but you an ultracrepidarian is trying to be an expert in QM.

Here's AI [wR]:

VA to AI
I believe Einstein's comment about 'spookiness' directly related to the concept of entanglement?

AI Wrote
Yes, Einstein's comment about "spooky action at a distance" is directly related to the concept of entanglement. In fact, it was his criticism of the implications of entanglement that led him to coin this phrase.  

While your interlocutor is correct that Einstein's critique was primarily aimed at the Copenhagen interpretation, it was specifically the entanglement aspect of the interpretation that he found most troubling. He believed that the idea of two particles being instantaneously connected, regardless of distance, violated the principle of locality, which states that physical influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light.  

Therefore, while Einstein's comment was a broader critique of the Copenhagen interpretation, it was the phenomenon of entanglement that he specifically identified as "spooky action at a distance."

This "spooky action at a distance" remark by Einstein is the same as "strange" by Khalili which by Khalili's time, this strangeness or spookiness is demonstrated to be true and winning the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.

How can you be entangled with something that doesn't exist? XD

Anyway your attempts to mindread and correct Khalili are disgusting at best. And a complete failure. Khalili knows a million times better than you that while entanglement is strange as hell (it rewrites everything we know), it's pretty well-established, not really an unknown. And it has both realist and antirealist interpretations naturally.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't know how that could possibly work in a macro situation. The moon can't just move or spread out when someone stops looking at it.

Conflating macro with micro would a fallacy of equivocation.

Nope. It could be a category error. It could be a Fallacy of Division or Composition. It could be misapplying a principle outside its valid domain. I don't want to weigh in here on the complex issues related to macro vs micro on this issue, but it is clearly not an issue of equivocation. Now, you may see this as petty, but since we jousted over your accusations of strawman for a long time, it is just more evidence that there are very basic things about philosophy and having a discussion that you do not understand and until those basics are taken care of you won't be able to interact with people effectively, though confirmation bias may lead you to think you are 'winning' over a diverse set of people with a diverse set of experiences who do understand this kind of basic stuff.

Here is an alternative view [30 seconds to get it];

AI Wrote:
Yes, equivocation can be committed when discussing the relationship between micro and macro scales, particularly in the context of Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics. Equivocation occurs when a word or phrase is used with multiple meanings in the same argument, leading to confusion and invalid conclusions.  

Here are some examples of how equivocation can arise in this context:

1. The Concept of "Particle":
Classical Mechanics: In Newtonian mechanics, a particle is often visualized as a tiny, solid object with a definite position and momentum.
Quantum Mechanics: In quantum mechanics, a particle can exhibit wave-like behavior and does not have a definite position or momentum until measured.  
If we carelessly use the term "particle" without considering its different meanings in these two contexts, we can easily fall into the trap of equivocation. For instance, we might mistakenly assume that the properties of a classical particle directly apply to a quantum particle.

2. The Notion of "Measurement":
Classical Mechanics: In classical mechanics, measurement is generally considered a passive process that does not significantly disturb the system being observed.  
Quantum Mechanics: In quantum mechanics, measurement can fundamentally alter the state of a quantum system, leading to the collapse of wave functions.  
Equivocation can arise if we use the term "measurement" without acknowledging its different implications in these two contexts. We might, for example, mistakenly assume that quantum measurements can be treated in the same way as classical measurements.

3. The Interpretation of Probability:
Classical Mechanics: In classical mechanics, probability is often interpreted as a measure of ignorance or uncertainty about the state of a system.
Quantum Mechanics: In quantum mechanics, probability can have a more fundamental interpretation, reflecting the inherent indeterminacy of the quantum world.
Equivocation can occur if we use the term "probability" without considering its different meanings in these two contexts. We might, for example, mistakenly assume that quantum probabilities can be interpreted in the same way as classical probabilities.

To avoid equivocation in discussions of micro and macro scales, it is crucial to be precise in our language and to carefully distinguish between the concepts and terms used in different contexts. By doing so, we can avoid making invalid inferences and gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between the quantum and classical worlds.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No looker has ever seen a moon.

Think about that? What’s looking is the looked upon. The object known. The moon is a concept known. Not an object that’s ever been seen to exist separately or independently from the concept known. I think that’s what VA is pointing to, I’m not sure. Clarification is needed.

There are other nuances to the above to be considered:

Before the moon is conceptualized, known and described, it must first emerged and be realized as real.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

This emergence and realization of it is contingent upon a 13.7 physical history and 3.5 billion years of an organic history plus evolution.
As such this emergence and realization of reality is contingent upon the human conditions, i.e. "somehow" the human factor cannot be excluded in its consideration.

Such an idea is very counterintuitive so not easy for the majority to grasp it; for them to counter it would mean the triggering of painful cognitive dissonances.

I notice you did not respond to my specific points, as usual.
My antirealism is even less connected to common sense than the one you are presenting, so please stop the condescening mindreading ad homs. I am trying to see if you can actually deal, on your own, with some of the issues that arise with your own beliefs, hence I ask questions and give examples to be wrestled with, which you did not do.

What you did do was present your ideas. Until you, one day, realize that this is not really a response, but rather a mere reaction.

Other people's posts elicit assertions on your part and more rarely arguments, but these are not in response to the specifics of what people write. Let's assume you actually can respond to specifics....which is being charitable. Now you need to realize that that is what makes for effective discussion.

Your terrible intuition and mind reading of other people does not lead to effective discussion.

I was not interested in your points at all.
The post was addressed to 'Fairy' and he agreed with the point discussed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I am not an expert in QM [but quite familiar with it] but you an ultracrepidarian is trying to be an expert in QM.

Here's AI [wR]:

VA to AI
I believe Einstein's comment about 'spookiness' directly related to the concept of entanglement?

AI Wrote
Yes, Einstein's comment about "spooky action at a distance" is directly related to the concept of entanglement. In fact, it was his criticism of the implications of entanglement that led him to coin this phrase.  

While your interlocutor is correct that Einstein's critique was primarily aimed at the Copenhagen interpretation, it was specifically the entanglement aspect of the interpretation that he found most troubling. He believed that the idea of two particles being instantaneously connected, regardless of distance, violated the principle of locality, which states that physical influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light.  

Therefore, while Einstein's comment was a broader critique of the Copenhagen interpretation, it was the phenomenon of entanglement that he specifically identified as "spooky action at a distance."

This "spooky action at a distance" remark by Einstein is the same as "strange" by Khalili which by Khalili's time, this strangeness or spookiness is demonstrated to be true and winning the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.

How can you be entangled with something that doesn't exist? XD

Anyway your attempts to mindread and correct Khalili are disgusting at best. And a complete failure. Khalili knows a million times better than you that while entanglement is strange as hell (it rewrites everything we know), it's pretty well-established, not really an unknown. And it has both realist and antirealist interpretations naturally.

While, "Khalili knows a million times better than you that while entanglement is strange as hell (it rewrites everything we know)" this is the first time he admitted [agnostically] the possibility "the moon does not exists when we do not look at it".
This 'change of mind' is why I brought in Khalili as an example.

It is the same with the 'if a sound in the forest .. no humans .. is there sound or not'?
Many are outright nihilists on the above but because of QM many have become agnostic about it and some become believers.

[Atla]

I am not an expert in QM [but quite familiar with it] but you an ultracrepidarian is trying to be an expert in QM.

Here's AI [wR]:






This "spooky action at a distance" remark by Einstein is the same as "strange" by Khalili which by Khalili's time, this strangeness or spookiness is demonstrated to be true and winning the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.

How can you be entangled with something that doesn't exist? XD

Anyway your attempts to mindread and correct Khalili are disgusting at best. And a complete failure. Khalili knows a million times better than you that while entanglement is strange as hell (it rewrites everything we know), it's pretty well-established, not really an unknown. And it has both realist and antirealist interpretations naturally.

While, "Khalili knows a million times better than you that while entanglement is strange as hell (it rewrites everything we know)" this is the first time he admitted [agnostically] the possibility "the moon does not exists when we do not look at it".
This 'change of mind' is why I brought in Khalili as an example.

It is the same with the 'if a sound in the forest .. no humans .. is there sound or not'?
Many are outright nihilists on the above but because of QM many have become agnostic about it and some become believers.

Mind reading, ad hom, insulting his intelligence, strawman, all in all an unbeliavable Dunning-Kruger word salad. In such a short comment. Congrats I think you just broke your own record.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How can you be entangled with something that doesn't exist? XD

Anyway your attempts to mindread and correct Khalili are disgusting at best. And a complete failure. Khalili knows a million times better than you that while entanglement is strange as hell (it rewrites everything we know), it's pretty well-established, not really an unknown. And it has both realist and antirealist interpretations naturally.

While, "Khalili knows a million times better than you that while entanglement is strange as hell (it rewrites everything we know)" this is the first time he admitted [agnostically] the possibility "the moon does not exists when we do not look at it".
This 'change of mind' is why I brought in Khalili as an example.

It is the same with the 'if a sound in the forest .. no humans .. is there sound or not'?
Many are outright nihilists on the above but because of QM many have become agnostic about it and some become believers.

Mind reading, ad hom, insulting his intelligence, strawman, all in all an unbeliavable Dunning-Kruger word salad. In such a short comment. Congrats I think you just broke your own record.

What are you blabbering??

I did not read his mind, he admitted himself on that point in the video while insisting on his philosophical realist's position.

[Atla]

While, "Khalili knows a million times better than you that while entanglement is strange as hell (it rewrites everything we know)" this is the first time he admitted [agnostically] the possibility "the moon does not exists when we do not look at it".
This 'change of mind' is why I brought in Khalili as an example.

It is the same with the 'if a sound in the forest .. no humans .. is there sound or not'?
Many are outright nihilists on the above but because of QM many have become agnostic about it and some become believers.

Mind reading, ad hom, insulting his intelligence, strawman, all in all an unbeliavable Dunning-Kruger word salad. In such a short comment. Congrats I think you just broke your own record.

What are you blabbering??

I did not read his mind, he admitted himself on that point in the video while insisting on his philosophical realist's position.

You said "this is the first time" he admitted the possibility. Do you know how fucked up that is? In fact we absolutely don't even need any QM for that possibility.