Even if we agree that such a thing as the "moon" exists in an observer independent fashion ( which is indeed the main premise of current science )

... that it is made of such and such atoms, in such and such space/time coordinates ( which btw, are all human made definitions ) it is still, IMO, does not imply anything

on how "reality" is ( or existence in general ). Our ancestors, running naked in the savannah had similar sensory input to us ( given our biology did not change that much in the last 10,000 years) when they looked up to the night sky and saw the thing we call "moon"...  had a completely different concept of it than us... they might have seen a god, or an omen etc.

What is the basis then to the claim that it was/is the "same" thing ? obviously it is very natural for us humans to think that the moon is the moon and that's all to it ( our life are much simpler without ambiguity...  ). The point is, that what there is in reality and what we see/believe are categorically not one and the same ( as a wise someone once said: "the hand that points to the moon is not the moon, or a better one: "The map is not the territory" ). Our sensory range is such that it ensures our survival first and foremost, rather than represents something in reality. The visible light spectrum or our auditory spectrum etc. are exactly such that they are useful to us. Nothing less , nothing more.

And "what is useful" is not "what there is".

Its worthwhile noting also that the structure of our ( human) perception is mostly such that it supports ( in a useful fashion :twisted: ) the existence of the universe in which we believe we are... and physicality is the least of it as this touches also on our social behaviour, moral values, and general beliefs about how the world is and how we are in it.

p.s.

zapped17, thanks for the references and the article, looks interesting.