Absolutely. Maybe the way to say it is “in the case of this eclipse under discussion,” and then specify the coordinates from which it would be viewed in order to be “this eclipse”. The main point I’d want to establish is that “would be viewed” doesn’t imply “must be viewed.” The eclipse under discussion will happen regardless.
1 Like
I am out but avoiding the light, as it may be harmful to the eyes. I do feel in a really wierd mood, but unsure to what extent this is my own psychological response to the eclipse. What I see to be the significant question is what impact the eclipse has on human beings and I am not sure that it is possible to measure clearly.
I am out writing philosophy sites indoors,amidst the eclipse. It is hard to know how signifcant this is in life, especially as human beings are lifeforms in the wider universe and cosmos.
The rarer the event, the more dependent it is on the human mind. Because without witnesses, if we imagine Iceland in 2195, where (for some reason) there’s no internet or archives, then generations later it becomes a tale, like “my grandfather said that his grandfather, as a child, saw his grandfather, who said that one day it got dark.”
Physically, the Moon’s shadow certainly passed. But the “eclipse” as an event we’re talking about is a purely human product. Without us, it simply doesn’t exist in the form we experience it.
So realism is a bit flawed. It’s claimed that the eclipse phenomenon occurred independently of consciousness, but consciousness is still required to record it. If the physical phenomenon occurred, but no one witnessed it, then no one will know it happened.
That fails to distinguish between.
(1) They are real in the sense of non-local, informational superposition. They exist in quantum reality, unobserved. They are part of the structure of an uncollapsed wavefunction.
(2) They exist as a classical reality from the perspective of a conscious observer.
(1) is true. (2) is false.
Eclipses are real, even for people who don’t experience them. They are configurations of objects in the universe, and that configuration is real regardless of where an observer is.
Yes. During a solar eclipse, the Moon’s shadow passes over the surface of the Earth. This is true regardless of whether or not you can personally see it (or are standing inside it).
1 Like
The relevant point is that eclipses involve three bodies, not two. Three BODIES. Not two bodies and an observer.
Assuming that realism is true, yes. Which is why this discussion is rather useless. Its “argument” against anti-realist views already presupposes realism.
Now I’ve thought about it, no there can be no eclipse without perspective. An eclipse occurs — can ONLY occur, when three things are co-linear: the two items concerned, and our point of observation.
1 Like
According to Cromwell’s rule, we can’t assign empirical events with probabilities 0 and 1. The best we can say is that we’re 99.999% confident that the solar eclipse of 12 Aug 2026 occurred. You can add more 9’s if you like but no 99.99…% which is 100% or 1.
1 Like
Well, take the eclipse as an event that has a very high probability of happening. Furthermore, we could even state that it will occur for sure, sooner or later.
Yes, a very high probability. Hence 99.999% chance. Is it sure to occur at some point in time? I don’t know. People were 100% about many things.
We do not have evidence of the opposite: expecting an eclipse to occur, and then not happening in the end.
As I said, I don’t know. I’m not an astronomer. I wonder how astronomers make these predictions. What would be a precise astronomical statement for an eclipse? “An eclipse will occur on 21 August 2026” is for layfolk.
This depends on one’s definition of ‘exist’ and ‘real’, and almost all definitions I encounter depend on observation, probably human observation.
@PatternChaser points this out.
In common language use, most would not say that a solar eclipse exists. They say it is something that happens, kind of like the birth of a T-Rex is something that happens, but most would say that a T-Rex doesn’t exist, implication being ‘doesn’t currently exist’, which is of course very observer dependent since a T-Rex would disagree.
Oh boy, somebody actually gets into this. 1 seems to reference counterfactual defiiteness, but still presumes the wavefunction is real despite lack of observation.
As for 2, classical nature of our universe has been disproven, but it seems classical to an observer so long as one doesn’t look too close. 1) being true is opinion dependent.
OK, but I would disagree. They’re relatively real, but objective is going too far IMO. I mean, there isn’t one going on now, so any definition along the lines of ‘currently real’ would make the above false.
This is just a re-statement of the first premise, not a conclusion.
About every 5 months actually, and maybe 3-4 years apart at any given location. Total eclipses occur about every 1.5 years. My son bought a house right in the path of the prior one, and you know where I was that day. Not the best weather, but spectacular nonetheless. Pictures don’t capture it.
I think they meant total, and 170 years from now is quick since the average is twice that.
Still definition dependent, but most would agree with this. I’m not a realist, so I the phrase ‘X exists’ has no meaning to me, only ‘X exists relative to Y’ is a meaningful statement. It’s my best attempt at an actual observer independent definition.
Don’t follow. Is night time an eclipse? I mean, you’re in the shadow of the Earth. But the surface of the moon is the only place that ‘blocks the sun for 2 weeks out of every 4’. It’s the length of the lunar day.
A solar eclipse is defined as the shadow of the moon (penumbra at least) passing over Earth, which isn’t perspective dependent, but totality being viewable from the ground is dependent on which ground, since the umbra is small, if present at all. So the view of one is perhaps a phenomena, but the eclipse itself is just a physical occurrence.
On Jupiter, solar eclipses are common, pretty much daily. The vast majority of them are total since the umbra is dominant with only a sliver of penumbra.
Note that this is true regarless of anybody on Jupiter observing these eclipses. It isn’t a moon blocking view of the sun, it’s defined as a moon blocking the light of the sun. So Venus occasionally eclipses the sun on Earth, meaning the shadow of Venus passes over us. Nobody notices since the shadow is so faint.
Eventually? I mean, the moon would have a dark side, sure, but what does it even mean for two bodies to be distinctly aligned vs. not?
All 3 make no sense. Alignment is a property of 3 or more bodies. The term is meaningless in a 2 body system.
Not frame. A PoV perhaps, but that would constitute a point in spacetime, something that a frame does not. Yes, given that 3rd event (an observer in this case), the term ‘aligned’ has meaning.
I don’t think the definition of eclipse depends on realism at all. No mention is made of it. I agree with Geoff. It’s not really an eclipse if it’s just night time.
Shadow of moon passing over Earth happens regardless of where a perspective is.
@noAxioms Correct me if I’m wrong, please.
Cromwell does say that, yes. I don’t see the point of adding more 9s. I mean, if I only learned of it from the internet, I would put the probability far lower since the fact to fiction ratio on it is under 10%.
I could have false memories, despite the fact that I saw the eclipse myself (maybe 3% covered). I was near the edge of the penumbra.
Your post stating that didn’t respond to anybody in particular, so not sure what the point was of bringing Cromwell into this.
1 Like
If I’m the blue guy floating in space I can see an eclipse from that angle. Might take me a little while moving closer or further away from the Moon to align it right, but it will happen.
Any time the Moon isn’t between “waxing gibbous” and “waning gibbous”, there’s some location in space that I can float and see the Moon eclipsing the Sun. In those cases I can instead see the Earth eclipsing the Sun.
Did the eclipse occur? is what the OP rests on. The Pr(eclipse occured) \ne 1/0. Knowing astronomers and their methods I would assign a high value to Pr(eclipse occurred) but even they wouldn’t go so far as to say Pr(eclipse occurred/will occur) = 1 or 0 for that matter. Also the shadow of the moon is small and doesn’t cover the entire globe; some parts like Iceland won’t see the eclipse. 
I wonder what a formal astronomical statement for an eclipse looks like. Pr(eclipse|(condition A, condition B,etc.)?
That it occurred is a different question than ‘does it exist?’. Yes, it occurred, barring strange views like BiV or solipsism or eclipses actually being a left-wing conspiracy put out by whale huggers.
If the blue guy is in the same orbital path as the moon, and is at the distance where the moon appears barely larger than the sun, that puts him at the lunar L4 lagrange point, and he’ll see eclipses with the same frequency and duration as somebody on the surface of Earth (total eclipse every 4 centuries).
If however you want him to spend 2 weeks at a time in the umbra and then 2 weeks in the light, he can either expend copious fuel to follow that umbra-tip path (careful not to collide with Earth), or he can just park his butt on the lunar surface.
1 Like
Yes, that’s the point. At any point in time I can position myself somewhere and see something like this. It might not be the Moon blocking the Sun, but still.
