Does the moon exist when no one is looking at it?

ольга said:
Pin, Dave meant that at high speeds, close to the speed of light, the proton is filled mainly with gluons, and there are significantly fewer quarks and antiquarks in it.
Click to expand...
What? No. I meant nothing of the sort. That's weird. You think that, at a high relative speed to me, a proton changes its makeup??
 
ольга said:
I wrote - "gravitates".
Click to expand...
I know what you wrote. The sentence is non-sensical because of the problematic word "simply".

You say "the Moon simply gravitates" - as if it does nothing else.

"When I am not online with Olga, she simply eats." - as if you are a simple object that only has a single property.

No, the Moon does everything in our absence that it does in our presence.


Note that nocturnal critters have been around for hundreds of millions of years, surviving by moonlight. The Moon's existence, appearance and properties have been around since Earth's childhood, no matter what New Age pseudo-science you want to spin.

If you are trying to argue this as philosophy, you're going to have to do a better job. I'm afraid "the Moon doesn't exist and can't be seen without consciousness - and besides, the Bible says so" is just not cutting it.
 
Last edited:
Whenever people claim that consciousness is required for something to exist, I have to wonder how they test that hypothesis?

Just like when they claim that an observer is required. Do they test it by not observing??? How do they check the results?
 
DaveC426913 said:
What?

I suspect you meant to say "proton densities", but that is not a sentence, and therefore I cannot deduce what you mean by it in relation to quarks, gluons and relative velocities.
Click to expand...
In particle physics parton model is a model of hadrons, such as protons and neutrons, proposed by Richard Feynman.
 
gmilam said:
Whenever people claim that consciousness is required for something to exist, I have to wonder how they test that hypothesis?

Just like when they claim that an observer is required. Do they test it by not observing??? How do they check the results?
Click to expand...
Луна "светится" только для вас, потому что у вас есть глаза и мозги. Без них она просто гравитирует.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I know what you wrote. The sentence is non-sensical because of the problematic word "simply".

You say "the Moon simply gravitates" - as if it does nothing else.

"When I am not online with Olga, she simply eats." - as if you are a simple object that only has a single property.

No, the Moon does everything in our absence that it does in our presence.


Note that nocturnal critters have been around for hundreds of millions of years, surviving by moonlight. The Moon's existence, appearance and properties have been around since Earth's childhood, no matter what New Age pseudo-science you want to spin.

If you are trying to argue this as philosophy, you're going to have to do a better job. I'm afraid "the Moon doesn't exist and can't be seen without consciousness - and besides, the Bible says so" is just not cutting it.
Click to expand...
У ночных животных есть глаза и мозг, поэтому они и выживают. К тому же выживать можно и вовсе без света, как это делают некоторые животные, не обладающие зрением.
 
gmilam said:
Whenever people claim that consciousness is required for something to exist, I have to wonder how they test that hypothesis?
Click to expand...
I have to wonder how they thought the world got along for the first 13.79 billion years without us.
 
ольга said:
Nocturnal animals have eyes and a brain, so they survive. In addition, it is possible to survive without light at all, as some animals do that do not have vision.
Click to expand...
Only some do. Som simply have light/dark photereceptors.

Many species of plants close their petals at night. They have neither eyes nor a brain.

ольга said:
The moon "shines" only for you because you have eyes and a brain. Without them, it just gravitates.
Click to expand...
This is just one more way of saying light/dark is perceived in the mind.
It does not mean the Moon stops reflecting light when I'm not looking at it.

This is simply a matter of semantics, like the "colour" of an apple and the "sound" of a falling tree are formulated in my mind.
They do not mean apples don't reflect red light or that falling trees don't make the ground an air vibrate.

I don't know why we need to belabour this triviality. Surely, philosophy is just a little more interesting than mere semantical definitions...
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
This is just one more way of saying light/dark is perceived in the mind.
It does not mean the Moon stops reflecting light when I'm not looking at it.

This is simply a matter of semantics, like the "colour" of an apple and the "sound" of a falling tree are formulated in my mind.
They do not mean apples don't reflect red light or that falling trees don't make the ground an air vibrate.

I don't know why we need to belabour this triviality. Surely, philosophy is just a little more interesting than mere semantical definitions...
Click to expand...
Вибрации тоже должен кто то воспринимать. Речь не о том, что объекты существовали, речь о том, в каком виде они существуют на самом деле, а не моделируются нашим сознанием.
 
ольга said:
Vibrations must also be perceived by someone.
Click to expand...
This is straight up false.

Vibrations do not require perception.

You're just making unsubstantiated claims. This is not a discussion.

"2+2=5!"
"Apples are square!"


ольга said:
It is not about the fact that objects existed, it is about the form in which they actually exist.
Click to expand...
OK, so the Moon actually existed - largely in the form in which we perceive it now - for the last 4 billion years.

This is boring. You say a Deepity*, I correct it and disambiguate it.

*a comment that seems super deep and meaningful but is, when examined, not deep at all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top