2 Answers

  1. The question, of course, makes sense – you know what it's about, right? This is meaningfulness.

    First, the obvious-the moon. We see the moon. There must be a reason for our perception. We can assume that mysterious villains put our brain in a jar and broadcast an image of the moon into it. And we can assume that the moon is actually there. The latter assumption is much simpler, more economical, and more plausible.

    Now for the less obvious. Einstein's question is not about the moon. This is a metaphor for an argument about quantum mechanics and its interpretations. Einstein took the position that the wave function is a mathematical abstraction and there must be hidden parameters that control the behavior of particles, making it non – random. Unfortunately, experiments with Bell's inequalities have greatly weakened this position, so it is possible that elementary particles really do not exist when no one is looking at them.

    Now let's go so far away that we'll go back to the beginning. The position that our theories say nothing about the world, but are just tools that work is called instrumentalism. The problem with instrumentalism is that it leaves us with the question: why do our theories work? I find that the answer “because they describe the real world-at least in some approximation” is the simplest and does not need any extra entities. We really see the world. We see it more and more clearly. So our old theories become part of new theories that describe more and more authentic reality. We may not get to the final theory, but we can get closer to it. And if we can't, how do we explain that our theories work?

  2. Is it possible to ask the question, what is the world “really”like? Does Einstein's question about the existence of the moon make sense?

    I often think about it myself. I don't think we'll get an answer any time soon. Many metaphysical speculations on this subject have been written.�

    Something that can be stated with a certain obviousness is “SOMETHING IS”. The world definitely exists. And we can describe it. We can describe it with a certain degree of confidence. This confidence is different when describing the obvious and the not-so-obvious to us. In relation to the” obvious, “we often say”actually.” If something is equally obvious to us, it indicates consensus and mutual understanding. If something is not equally obvious to several subjects, then it is not “really” there, it remains the object of dispute, for example. And it will acquire the status of “actually” only as it becomes obvious to these several subjects.�

    By the way, the question is about the essence and the phenomenon. “Actually” is an entity. A phenomenon is what we see and describe. The phenomenon hides the essence from us under the cover of our experience of contact with the essence based on our sensations, which are not perfect. But we have physical devices (sensors, meters, etc.) that are extensions of our senses and allow us to see a little deeper, but not infinitely deep, again. Thus, there is a distance (filter) between the real essence and what is given to us in descriptions or sensations, which can never be completely overcome, because the boundary of the unknown is pushed back as we learn.�

    In this sense, “actually” becomes non-permanent, depending on the conditions of description, experience, and many other factors, as well as its obviousness. � �

    Einstein spoke of the moon in a certain context. It seems in connection with the interpretation of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. Like if we interfere as observers of a quantum entangled system, we modify its state. I think that the moon exists both before and after we observe it. And macro-objects should be very different in their properties from the quantum micro-systems that form them.

Leave a Reply