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

[TheVat]

Tevat, why a ballerina? Of all the arts, I don't like two - ballet and jazz. Ballet bores me and acts as a sleeping pill.

My mistake. Maybe gymnastics? Even if one gets older and cannot physically compete, there are always mental gymnastics. Like understanding entropy or the arrow of time, or quantum decoherence.

What about chess? Do you play? Some Americans think of Russians as loving chess, but perhaps is stereotype.

 

[TheVat]

Tevat, what does time look like in a cross-section? One moment, an instant, a present without a past or a future - what does it look like? Well, at least mathematically?

Time is just a measurement of rate of change. It compares the rate of change in one thing to another very regular rate of change like the transitions of Cesium atoms in an atomic clock. It is change that is real, not the measurement unit (of time). So a cross section would just show one instant on a curve that shows rate of change.

If you can find The Order of Time, by Carlo Rovelli, in a Russian edition, it may be helpful in getting at some of the concepts.

 

[ольга]

It has frequencies of light that are absorbed and reflected. The Moon's colour is similar to that of ashphalt.

It is bathed in light, like every other object on the solar system except the sun itself.

It has sound transmitted through its materials. That is how we sense moonquakes. The fact that it has a virtually non-existent atmosphere, which does not transmit sound is but a detail.

I still don't know what you mean by quanta. (maybe you mean qualia?)

Time exists outside my head. It manifests throughout nature.

Te only correct tjing you;bve said so far is that math exists in my head.


Nonsense.


What is an 'intuitive'? A rock? A type of plant? A crystal?


That's a bit of a leap. Lots of things precede solar flares. I doubt any real study has been done one whether people react to events leading up to solar flares.
And the gravity is nonsense. Solar flares do not affect gravity.

Цвет "видит" только ваш мозг. Белый, серый, или серобуромалиновый. А как выглядит ваша волна? Можете изобразить?

Это ВЫ ощущаете звук, ваш мозг. И то, если только есть среда для его распространения.

Что такое кванты поинтересуйтесь у квантовой механики. Сможете изобразить квант?

Тогда задам вам тот же вопрос, что и Тевату: как выглядит время на срезе? Момент времени? Настоящее, без прошлого и будущего?

Может, на Западе и чепуха. У нас нет.

Интуиция - это ощущение, вполне себе физическое.

Да, вспышкам на Солнце предшествуют события в самом Солнце, которые и дают изменение гравитации.

 

[ольга]

My mistake. Maybe gymnastics? Even if one gets older and cannot physically compete, there are always mental gymnastics. Like understanding entropy or the arrow of time, or quantum decoherence.

What about chess? Do you play? Some Americans think of Russians as loving chess, but perhaps is stereotype.

Я гимнастикой в детстве занималась, с 5 лет. Сейчас только тренажёрный зал.

В шахматы играю тоже лет с 5, меня отец научил. Сейчас редко, времени не хватает. Иногда для развлечения обыгрываю кого-нибудь, считающего себя профессионалом.

 

[ольга]

Time is just a measurement of rate of change. It compares the rate of change in one thing to another very regular rate of change like the transitions of Cesium atoms in an atomic clock. It is change that is real, not the measurement unit (of time). So a cross section would just show one instant on a curve that shows rate of change.

If you can find The Order of Time, by Carlo Rovelli, in a Russian edition, it may be helpful in getting at some of the concepts.

Теват, но ведь вам для этого нужно сравнить два момента времени, два местоположения объекта, как минимум. При этом один из них неизменно окажется в прошлом - это раз, и вам нужно произвести анализ, что возможно сделать только сознанию - это два.

 

[DaveC426913]

Only your brain "sees" color. White, gray, or gray-brown-crimson. What does your wave look like? Can you draw it?

Like all things, colour occurs in our perception, yes. What does that have to do with the Moon?

It is YOU who senses the sound, your brain.

The vibrations occur even if I don't sense them.

And only if there is a medium for its propagation.

The medium, in this case, is the Moon's regolith.

What are quanta? Ask quantum mechanics. Can you draw a quantum?

You are using the word incorrectly.

Then I will ask you the same question as Tevatu: what does time look like in a cross-section? A moment in time? The present, without a past or a future?

This is abstract. There is no right/wrong answer here. It would require us agreeing on a model to analyze.

Maybe it's nonsense in the West, but not here.

Category error. It's not East/West, it's science/non-science. Russian science operates the same as Eurpoean science.

Intuition is a sensation, quite physical.

You are using the word ambiguously.

Yes, solar flares are preceded by events in the Sun itself,

Yes.

which cause a change in gravity.

No they don't.

 

[C C]

Dave, the moon has no color, no light, no sound. It's all in your head. Just like the quanta, math, and time. [...] Дэйв, у Луны нет ни цвета, ни света, ни звука. Всё это есть только в вашей голове. Так же, как и кванты, и математика, и время. [...]

The Moon as it exists independent of mental representations lacks "color" in the context of what the word originally meant (i.e., the qualitative experiences of our perceptions). But not with respect to the visible light range of the electromagnetic spectrum that also recruits color terms as labels for different frequencies.

And in the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, it was those properties that could be represented quantitatively (or mathematically) that got classified as mind independent.

• Primary–secondary quality distinction: According to the theory, primary qualities are measurable aspects of physical reality; secondary qualities are subjective.

This also intersects with the issue of naive or direct realism (exemplified by the Russell quote below).

That primary/secondary qualities dichotomy of Galileo and Locke is also a historic source of the mind/body problem. If qualia (as we'd tend to call secondary qualities today) were official properties of matter, then there might be less bewilderment as to how the brain could produce its experiences of them. That in turn, though, would potentially tumble into panpsychism or mitigated forms of it.

• Bertrand Russell: Physics assures us that the occurrences which we call "perceiving" objects, are not likely to resemble the objects except, at best, in certain very abstract ways. We all start from "naive realism," i. e., the doctrine that things are what they seem.
  
  We think that grass is green, that stones are hard, and that snow is cold. But physics assures us that the greenness of grass, the hardness of stones, and the coldness of snow are not the greenness, hardness, and coldness that we know in our experience, but something very different.
  
  The observer, when he seems to himself to be observing a stone, is really, if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of the stone upon himself. Thus science seems to be at war with itself: when it most means to be objective, it finds itself plunged into subjectivity against its will. Naive realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naive realism is false. Therefore naive realism, if true, is false; therefore it is false. --An Inquiry Into Meaning and Truth

 

[TheVat]

Tevat, but for this you need to compare two moments in time, two locations of the object, at least. In this case, one of them will invariably be in the past - that's one, and you need to make an analysis, which is only possible for consciousness - that's two.

Well, yes. But it is the analysis which requires consciousness, not the change itself. The concept that change is the real thing in the world goes back to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. I know you are driving around all the time, but sometime it would be useful to read Carlo Rovelli or someone else who can explain time concepts clearly. Maybe Brian Greene? I think the scientific understanding of time as a measurement can help in developing a philosophy of time.

 

[ольга]

The Moon as it exists independent of mental representations lacks "color" in the context of what the word originally meant (i.e., the qualitative experiences of our perceptions). But not with respect to the visible light range of the electromagnetic spectrum that also recruits color terms as labels for different frequencies.

And in the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, it was those properties that could be represented quantitatively (or mathematically) that got classified as mind independent.

• Primary–secondary quality distinction: According to the theory, primary qualities are measurable aspects of physical reality; secondary qualities are subjective.

This also intersects with the issue of naive or direct realism (exemplified by the Russell quote below).

That primary/secondary qualities dichotomy of Galileo and Locke is also a historic source of the mind/body problem. If qualia (as we'd tend to call secondary qualities today) were official properties of matter, then there might be less bewilderment as to how the brain could produce its experiences of them. That in turn, though, would potentially tumble into panpsychism or mitigated forms of it.

• Bertrand Russell: Physics assures us that the occurrences which we call "perceiving" objects, are not likely to resemble the objects except, at best, in certain very abstract ways. We all start from "naive realism," i. e., the doctrine that things are what they seem.
  
  We think that grass is green, that stones are hard, and that snow is cold. But physics assures us that the greenness of grass, the hardness of stones, and the coldness of snow are not the greenness, hardness, and coldness that we know in our experience, but something very different.
  
  The observer, when he seems to himself to be observing a stone, is really, if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of the stone upon himself. Thus science seems to be at war with itself: when it most means to be objective, it finds itself plunged into subjectivity against its will. Naive realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naive realism is false. Therefore naive realism, if true, is false; therefore it is false. --An Inquiry Into Meaning and Truth

Вообще, физика, сама того не понимая, поддерживает библейский взгляд на вещи: "земля(материя) была безвидна и пуста, и Дух Божий носился над волнами". Т.е. - ни цвета, ни звука, ни запаха, а одни лишь волны.

 

[ольга]

Well, yes. But it is the analysis which requires consciousness, not the change itself. The concept that change is the real thing in the world goes back to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. I know you are driving around all the time, but sometime it would be useful to read Carlo Rovelli or someone else who can explain time concepts clearly. Maybe Brian Greene? I think the scientific understanding of time as a measurement can help in developing a philosophy of time.

Теват, а Вы знаете, что если постоянно читать кого то, и ничего не предлагать самому, то ваше мышление незаметно для себя самого деградирует и не сможет мыслить самостоятельно, не сможет изобретать. Это простая эволюция - то, что не используется, то - атрофируется.

 

[C C]

In general, physics, without understanding it, supports the biblical view of things: "the earth (matter) was impregnable and empty, and the Spirit of God was rushing over the waves." That is, - no colors, no sound, no smell, but only waves. ...... Вообще, физика, сама того не понимая, поддерживает библейский взгляд на вещи: "земля(материя) была безвидна и пуста, и Дух Божий носился над волнами". Т.е. - ни цвета, ни звука, ни запаха, а одни лишь волны.

That is projecting one's ideological preconceptions (or a background theory belonging to a larger social group or enterprise) upon written material of different sources. Using the former as an interpretative apparatus to output a desired or non-neutral meaning for _X_. We all do that to some degree (especially in politics and other tribal differences), but some instances are more flagrant than others.
_

 

[ольга]

That is projecting one's ideological preconceptions (or a background theory belonging to a larger social group) upon written material of different sources -- using the former as an interpretative apparatus to output a desired or non-neutral meaning. We all do that to some degree (especially in politics and other tribal differences), but some instances are more flagrant than others.
_

Ну, иногда я так развлекаюсь, находя аналогии и взаимосвязи.

 

[geordief]

Я любопытна. Мне интересно - как выглядит Луна на самом деле? Цвета нет, звука нет, света нет, квантов нет... а что есть? Гравитация? Именно поэтому колонии бактерий, кристаллы, и интуиты реагируют на изменение гравитации?

"I'm curious. I wonder - what does the Moon really look like? There is no color, no sound, no light, no quanta... but what is there? Gravity? That's why bacterial colonies, crystals, and intuitives react to changes in gravity?"

Can a single object exist?

What does 'what it's made of' have to do with 'infinity'? They're two separate questions. Прямое отношение имеет. Считаете ли вы пространство дискретным или это один объект? Может ли пространство состоять из одной точки, движущейся с бесконечной скоростью?

www.sciforums.com

"(If you want to discuss with me ,please provide an english translation next to your post if possible.)"
.

 

[TheVat]

Tevat, do you know that if you constantly read someone and do not offer anything yourself, then your thinking will imperceptibly degrade and will not be able to think independently, will not be able to invent. This is simple evolution - what is not used, atrophies.

I agree with this. Was only suggested background reading to help provide fuel for your own creative thinking on the philosophical questions about time.

If I want to invent a new kind of engine, I don't want to spend most of my time reinventing the wheel and the gear because I never learned how they work.

By the way, does "Tevat" mean leak, in Russian? LOL.

 

[river]

Written Down History matters . What happened back in the Library of Alexandria , the destruction of that Library , the knowledge lost is a crime . Hence we reinvent the wheel .

 

[ольга]

I agree with this. Was only suggested background reading to help provide fuel for your own creative thinking on the philosophical questions about time.

If I want to invent a new kind of engine, I don't want to spend most of my time reinventing the wheel and the gear because I never learned how they work.

By the way, does "Tevat" mean leak, in Russian? LOL.

Нет, "Теват" по русски вообще ничего не обозначает, такого слова просто нет в русском языке. Это так у меня переводится - "Теват".

Главное вникнуть в суть. Иногда можно быстрее дойти до чего то самому, чем читать чьё то долгое объяснение. Я быстро соображаю, мне проще самой понять.

 

[river]

I agree with this. Was only suggested background reading to help provide fuel for your own creative thinking on the philosophical questions about time.

If I want to invent a new kind of engine, I don't want to spend most of my time reinventing the wheel and the gear because I never learned how they work.

By the way, does "Tevat" mean leak, in Russian? LOL.

To your second statement , the most important to me . Agreed .

 

[ольга]

The moon exists whether any life form exists in the first place . The Earth existed before any life form existed .

А как выглядела Земля до появления на ней жизни?

 

[river]

In the End the moon exists and has existed before anyone was looking at it .

 

[ольга]

In the End the moon exists and has existed before anyone was looking at it .

Ну, тогда давайте поступим проще - дайте определение самому понятию "существование".