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

[Skepdick]

I think the citation marks he has around 'look' have to be explained.

Do the citation marks around 'measurement' have to be explained?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

Look/measure/observe/take a reading.... treat them as synonymous.

Whatever the "explanation" a measurement necessitates simultaneous global wave collapse. The world of possibilities manifesting as a concrete reading/measurement.

This instantaneous resolve from the possible to the actual requires an absolute "now".

[Flannel Jesus]

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

Is that statement true or false?

Can anyone reading this thread say whether the OP statement is true or false.

Thanks in advance.

I think the citation marks he has around 'look' have to be explained. Who knows what that means that those are there. Does it mean any perceiving, not just via the eyes? Does it include thinking about the Moon? (skepdick seemed to interpret it or separately claimed that it has to do with if something is in discourse). Perhaps there are other nuances or entirely different meanings those citation marks indicate.

"Looking", or "measuring", in quantum physics may not require any conscious observer at all. It's good you hooked into that word, because it's centrally important.

Just Google "quantum mechanics does measurement require a conscious observer".

First result says

Crucially, the theory does not need observers or measurements or a non-material consciousness. Neither do so-called collapse theories, which argue that wavefunctions collapse randomly: the more the number of particles in the quantum system, the more likely the collapse. Observers merely discover the outcome.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... %20outcome.

And here's a Wikipedia article on the subject:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observe ... _(physics)

The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.

Wikipedia gives sources for that.

"Measurement" can be as simple as one particle being affected by the state of another particle.

In other words, the material of the planet earth, just the raw inert matter on it, is constantly "measuring" the moon by being affected by it. The moon's gravity pulls the water in our oceans, reflects light down onto the surface, etc. If "measurement" is as simple as physical things interacting, then the earth itself can measure the moon constantly.

[Iwannaplato]

I think the citation marks he has around 'look' have to be explained.

Do the citation marks around 'measurement' have to be explained?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

Look/measure/observe/take a reading.... treat them as synonymous.

Whatever the "explanation" a measurement necessitates simultaneous global wave collapse. The world of possibilities manifesting as a concrete reading/measurement.

This instantaneous resolve from the possible to the actual requires an absolute "now".

What citation marks around the word 'measurement'?

So, why were citation marks used here in this context? What do they mean in his title? Does the linked article on the measurement problem use citation marks around the word 'measurement' or explain why one should use them or what one means when one does?

Do you mean that when a word can have synonyms we should use citation marks?

[Iwannaplato]

And if anyone's game, could they explain....

Note the fact that living entities were programmed with attention on the external since 4 billion years ago till the present, which is the default for the majority of humans.

[Skepdick]

Observers merely discover the outcome.

"Measurement" can be as simple as one particle being affected by the state of another particle.
[/quote]
So by that definition every particle in the system's evolution is an observer.

All interactions are measurements.

Congratulations!

In other words, the material of the planet earth, just the raw inert matter on it, is constantly "measuring" the moon by being affected by it. The moon's gravity pulls the water in our oceans, reflects light down onto the surface, etc. If "measurement" is as simple as physical things interacting, then the earth itself can measure the moon constantly.

You confused clown. There's no such thing as a "Moon". There's a huge difference in scale.

There's just wave functions interacting.

[Flannel Jesus]

Also of note in that Wikipedia article I posted above, in the sources for my quote:

CITATION
Close
[6] According to standard quantum mechanics, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or instead leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process (Bell, John (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780521523387.). The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not." (Feynman, Richard (2015). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III. Ch 3.2: Basic Books. ISBN 9780465040834.).

We have quotes from John Bell, the inventor of bells theorem which VA is using to support his views, and Feynman, whose words were also used to support VA's views, both saying that the rules of quantum mechanics do not care if a human being is looking.

All this is to say, not that VAs view is necessarily wrong, but the idea that his view is the one clear unambiguous truth that quantum physics definitely clearly supports, is simply not the case. Neither quantum physics as a whole, nor bells theorem, specifically and unambiguously support the idea presented by the op.

[Skepdick]

Also of note in that Wikipedia article I posted above, in the sources for my quote:

CITATION
Close
[6] According to standard quantum mechanics, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or instead leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process (Bell, John (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780521523387.). The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not." (Feynman, Richard (2015). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III. Ch 3.2: Basic Books. ISBN 9780465040834.).

We have quotes from John Bell, the inventor of bells theorem which VA is using to support his views, and Feynman, whose words were also used to support VA's views, both saying that the rules of quantum mechanics do not care if a human being is looking.

All this is to say, not that VAs view is necessarily wrong, but the idea that it is the one clear unambiguous truth that quantum physics definitely clearly supports, is simply not the case. Neither quantum physics as a whole, nor bells theorem, specifically and unambiguously support the idea presented by the op.

Holllyyyy fuuck! Dumb philosophers are dumb!

The phrase "apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process" perfectly supports any and all claims. It leads to a contradiction because two different notions of time are being used in the exact same sense, so anything follows thereafter.

Bell is conflating the microscopic (quantum) paradigm with the macroscopic (classical) paradigm, but these two paradigm use an incompatible notion of "time" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time ).

Any classical system measuring a quantum system necessarily results in some incoherent nonsense because ther's no way to translate time across paradigms.

So we are back to the very human question: What is time; does it exist and how does it behave independent of minds?

[Iwannaplato]

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

So, what are we looking at when we see the oughtness not to kill?

[Skepdick]

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

So, what are we looking at when we see the oughtness not to kill?

What are you looking at when you look at any imperative statement?

What are we looking at wehen we see the oughtness to turn on the kitchen lights?

"Alexa, turn on the kitchen lights."

It's a statement which corresponds to the future state of affairs.

[Iwannaplato]

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

So, what are we looking at when we see the oughtness not to kill?

What are you looking at when you look at any imperative statement?

An imperative statement.
OK, VA believes we should be developing character traits. So, do we gather all the imperative statements and develop character traits related to them?

What are we looking at wehen we see the oughtness to turn on the kitchen lights?

I don't see the oughtness to turn on the kitchen lights.

I feel a desire to have more light and I know what to do.

"Alexa, turn on the kitchen lights."

It's a statement which corresponds to the future state of affairs.

'Hans, go shoot that Jewish family.'

[Skepdick]

'Hans, go shoot that Jewish family.'

So how's your desire to have more lights (and knowing what to do) any different from Hans' desire for less Jews (and he knows what to do) ?

[Iwannaplato]

'Hans, go shoot that Jewish family.'

So how's your desire to have more lights (and knowing what to do) any different from Hans' desire for less Jews (and he knows what to do) ?

Could answer the other parts?

As far as your question:
I don't know if Hans has a desire to kill Jews. Whoever told him to may have that. Or they may have a desire to please their superior officer. There are a lot of physical differences between the situations. People will have a wide range of different reactions to the situations.

What is it VA look at/measure/observe that let's him know this oughtness is the one use as a base for developing character traits?
And what is he seeing?

I don't think he's seeing imperative statements. He's never used that line, I don't think. In fact, I think it's an ill fit with his approach.

[seeds]

...likewise, it is the conjoined relationship between consciousness (observers) and the quantum underpinning of the universe that then allows for the explication of the universe's 3-D features from its underlying fields of information - information that delineates precisely how those features will appear to us when we do look.

I tend towards pantheism. So, I think it's all saturated with observations.

I personally tend towards panentheism myself.

However, perhaps instead of pantheism, you meant "panpsychism"?

Panpsychism
noun
1. a theory that all matter has some form of consciousness.

If not, then please explain how pantheism...

Pantheism
noun
1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods.

...somehow saturates the "all" with observations?
_______

[Iwannaplato]

I personally tend towards panentheism myself.

If you define 'pan' as meaning 'universe' as matter, for example, in some dualist conception with stuff that is transcendent, then I'd be a kind of panentheist (and also panpsychist). But I think of pan as referring to everything, whatever its substance, regardless of whether I am in some kind of dualist or monist mode.

As a panentheist are you a dualist?

However, perhaps instead of pantheism, you meant "panpsychism"?

Well, that too.

Panpsychism
noun
1. a theory that all matter has some form of consciousness.

If not, then please explain how pantheism...

Pantheism
noun
1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods.

...somehow saturates the "all" with observations?

Well, if God is everywhere, there is no place that does not have a subjective element. Observations are everywhere in every direction. It shares this with many theisms which have a kind of all seeing deity: Yet not a single sparrow falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge.

My pantheism is also an animism. IOW I think there are individual parts that are, in one way, individuals, and in another way parts of the whole thing that is a whole consciousness.

[seeds]

_______



_______