RonLevy said:
... I came across a startling argument for the existence of God, (I am an agnostic.), which is that "If the Moon continues to exist when nobody looks at it, that this is because there is a conscious observer who is continuously observing the moon 24 hours a day."
The only thing startling about this argument is the idea that
anybody would actually use it. :-)
What are you being agnostic about? "God" is just a word that
has no particular verifiable meaning. People use it to 'account'
for anything and everything. It's a non-issue.
RonLevy said:
Naturally, I would like to see exactly where this follows logically from the science that yields the notion that "the moon does not exist if it is not observed by anyone."
There's no science that yields that notion.
RonLevy said:
If the moon-existence paradox, (MEP), is actually a kind of "non-issue," so that MEP follows from a metaphor that conveys the essence of the Copenhagen Interpretation, then that is one thing. However, if, as you have pointed out, it leads straight back to The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which has never failed an experimental test, that seems a lot stronger.
Yes, the (MEP) is a non-issue. It comes from a misinterpretation
of statements like "the photon doesn't exist until it's measured
or observed." The measurement or observation is a set of
instrumental operations, and (along with the mathematical
schemes that are used to organize and relate those operations
in a quantifiable, unambiguous form) this is what the photon
(or any particle or quantum) *is*.
Back in the day when quantum theory was being developed,
the developers (faced with experimental results that sometimes
seemed to imply wave phenomena and other times particulate
phenomena -- as with light, but now they were dealing with
matter) had the perplexing task of deciding just how they
were going to talk about all the new experimental results.
In the words of Heisenberg, "The solution of the difficulty
is that the two mental pictures which experiments lead us to
form -- the one of particles, the other of waves -- are both
incomplete and have only the validity of analogies which
are accurate only in limiting cases. It is a trite saying that
'analogies cannot be pushed too far,' yet they may be
justifiably used to describe things for which our language
has no words. Light and matter are both single entities,
and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our
language.
"It is not surprising that our language should be incapable
of describing the process occurring within the atoms, for,
as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the
experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes
involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore,
it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be
able to describe these atomic processes, for words can
only describe things of which we can form mental
pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily
experience. Fortunately, mathematics is not subject
to this limitation, and it has been possible to invent
a mathematical scheme -- the quantum theory -- which
seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic
processes; for visualization, however, we must content
ourselves with two incomplete analogies -- the wave
picture and the corpuscular picture. The simultaneous
applicability of both pictures is thus a natural criterion
to determine how far each analogy may be 'pushed'
and forms an obvious starting point for the critique
of the concepts which have entered atomic theories
in the course of their development, for, obviously,
uncritical deduction of consequences from both
will lead to contradictions. In this way one obtains
the limitations of the concepts of a particle by
considering the concept of a wave. As N. Bohr
has shown, this is the basis of a very simple
derivation of the uncertainty relations between
co-ordinate and momentum of a particle. In the
same manner one may derive the limitations of the
concept of a wave by comparison with the concept
of a particle."
At least that's what Heisenberg said. It pertains to
two pillars of orthodox quantum theory, complementarity
and the uncertainty relations.
(My personal feeling is that 'deep reality' is all about
waves.)
There are tons of papers about the uncertainty
relations. As you are (and I am) learning, this
is a fascinating subject to explore.
But, to bring it back to your consideration(s), may
I presume to make two suggestions:
1. Throw out the garbage and just be an atheist.
2. If you can see something, then don't worry
about it not existing when you're not looking at
it (assuming that you don't need medication
and aren't frequently under the influence of
mind-altering substances).