We call them Republicans.

... will look back on our present day science with the same kind of attitude we have toward the science of 500 years ago. In other words, they will say of us "How could they have believed such nonsense?"

I do think they will hold a jaundiced view of our barbarism and our contempt for the future, but our view of science will be held, assuming the is no descent into mystical anarchy in the period between now and then, will be held up as a great achievement.

also evolves. It just takes a bit more time.

If anything it definitely altered my perception of reality and the truth surrounding non-linear time.

If anyone thinks there is an independent physical World “out there”, they need to listen to descriptions by truthful witnesses of a “Straightforward“ event, as no two accounts are ever the same.

Albert Einstein according to a conversation reported by Abraham Pais, claimed that the moon exists.

I rather agree with Einstein, if not exactly his position in the context of the reported conversation.

... does not require consciousness.

Something as large as the Moon will be constantly "observed" by photons and all kinds of particles.

Even Schrödinger's cat will definitely be alive or dead as the interior of the box and other unseen particles interact with something so massive compared to subatomic particles. The cat was used as a thought experiment, not in a practical manner for QM.

A wall will likewise "observe" the results of a double-slit experiment regardless of a human observer.

The weirdness of QM comes into play in the world of the extremely small.

Isn't the level of Quantum Mechanics fundamental to what we call material reality? Even on the atomic level, when we examine closely enough, the objects we perceive are actually comprised of space with a extremely small amount of matter/energy.

Don't observations rely on perception. i.e., an observer? What do you mean by a wall observing? At best there are relative relationships you are describing and fundamentally, those are merely quanta determined by measurement. The qualia we experience is another matter. For instance, there are no red, blue or green photons so color is an interpretation of frequencies in the perceiving mind/senses.

The question is about perceptions as veridcal in relation to observed phenomena, here. Local realism asserts that both localism and realism are true. There are experiments, (Bell) that contradict local realism. Noncontextual realism is now what is being brought into question.

For instance, The physicist Chris Fields discards noncontextual realism on different grounds. He shows that if no observer sees all of reality at once, and if observing takes energy, then noncontextual realism must be false.

This also relates to the Hard Problem concerning consciousness itself. A paradigm shift can challenge our ideas about reality and how even how we experience and interpret it.

Small things have traits that are probabilistic until observed/measured, and the energy used in that interaction will then make the wave function for that small thing collapse to definite values.

That has nothing to do with the reality of the Moon when it's not observed by conscious beings. That's all I'm saying. I've come across that kind of nonsense in the past and the summary for this article seems to be implying it.

We're dependent on energy to observe anything, and similar energy will make any wave function for the freakin' huge Moon collapse constantly.

Language influences color perception because color perception among the great apes is an ugly kludge.

Long ago our mammal ancestors lost the excellent color perception birds and many reptiles still enjoy.

As small animals scurrying around at night, color perception wasn't as important to our mammal ancestors as night vision. Mammals lost two of the four color receptors their ancestors started out with.

Color vision was useful to the ancestors of the great apes. It re-evolved when the red/green color receptor bifurcated, leaving one receptor slightly more sensitive to red, the other more to green. Alas mammals had lost significant autonomous color processing systems as well, so these functions were re-established in the same general purpose areas of the brain that process language, etc.. That's why language has such a strong influence on human color perception.

Personally, as a mad scientist, I don't think quantum physics has anything to do with the human perception of "reality." The universe goes on as it always has whether or not any humans are watching.

Where humans go wrong in our "belief system" is in our perception of time. Time is not this funny fourth dimension that only goes in one direction. It is in fact an intrinsic property of energy. Photons don't see time at all. They have no mass. As more energy is pumped into a system particles begin to exhibit mass. Mass and time are intrinsically related. In "reality" we are all energy patterns written in light. We have trouble seeing this because seeing this hasn't mattered to any of our ancestors, all of whom managed to survive and reproduce going all the way back to the beginning of life on earth and perhaps further. It's difficult to imagine something so vast, and ourselves so small.

For some of us we'd rather believe some small god made humans out of clay to wander around on a flat earth where time moves in one direction; our lives following an arc like an arrow from birth to death.

The Newtonian view of the universe is somewhat larger, the relativistic view larger yet, the quantum/relativistic still larger, but I doubt we're anywhere close to seeing the full depth of this reality and it's likely we never will within the limited processing power of the human mind.