A lot of good concepts here. I would like to think about everything that was said and perhaps make an attempt at a solution to the dilemma. The solution will have to have in its explanation the mechanics of how the mind and consciousness function in the physical realm. In order to do this the origin of human consciousness will have to be included. This will require some discussion of spiritual components. Hopefully this is okay. Its a philosophical opinion. Testimonial evidence will be given to a limited extent. The goal is to get to the truth. I assume that for any problem there is always some answer. So the answer to whether the moon exists as independent object from our observation should have a definite answer. Either it does exist independent of our conscious observation or does not exist or some how both cases are true in some sort of duality solution.

Well if one agrees with Einstein that objective reality is the way the Universe works and he is correct in his mind experiment concerning the moon. I think that many people if not most people would agree that in fact the moon does exist when it is not observed. So far we have only seen evidence that it exists whether we observe it or not.
The only way to prove that the moon really has the capability of suddenly not being there and drops out of existence when we stop looking at it is to see a sudden disappearance of its gravitational effect. That has never happened. The moon's gravity has always been there and has never vanished therefore the moon has always been there since its creation. The possibility that the moon would not be there simply based on its not being observed is not even a possible outcome.
If that turns out to be correct then Quantum Mechanics has a problem with its interpretation of how physical reality works. The moon even though it is a macroscopic object, is itself composed entirely of sub-atomic and atomic microscopic objects. Therefore if the moon is an element that exists independent of our observation then all the atomic objects inherit from this fact that they now have observable paths and velocities as a whole because the moon has an observable velocity and path. All of those un-observable microscopic objects are now elements of physical reality. That might be a bit of a stretch but I can't seem to find away to defeat Einstein's simple argument. It seems now that in reality even though the mathematics of QM works very well it can't really be relied upon to explain why or how things happen. This is becoming quite a conundrum.

I am okay with the following statements you make.

Definition of "prove" - Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
Proposition - The existence of physical phenomena can not be proven without physical evidence, i.e. argument in the absence of evidence is not good enough.
Definition of "evidence" - Facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Proposition - Physical facts and information are only obtainable by direct or indirect perception. — T Clark

I don't I agree with the "Assumption- we cannot perceive the moon directly or indirectly" Maybe I am not understanding you. Please give an example. I am of the opinion that an individual can perceive the moon directly and indirectly.

I am also not sure if Bohr meant indirect observation as well. If I were forced to guess I would bet he was thinking in terms of Schrodinger's Cat as in making a direct observation as to whether the cat is alive or dead which cannot be done unless you make a direct observation That is why I used the word "directly".

Proof for the existence of the moon.
1. The moon's tides are an excellent indirect measurement that can be reliably made to confirm the existence of the moon. That was the first thing that came to mind.
2. I can use astronomical charts and computations to predict where in the sky the moon will be. I can then go outside and look up at the sky and confirm that the location of the moon matches the charts and computations. We can use mathematical models to predict the position of the moon.
3. We physically had astronauts land on the moon and take pictures of the earth from the moon. The astronauts photographed the moon as well. Millions of people all agree that evidence is real and valid.
4. The astronauts also brought back hard physical evidence in the form of moon rocks.

I see a lot of hard evidence that proves the existence of the moon. I believe that we recognize and perceive evidence of reality via our consciousness. So reality is not not defined by our consciousness it is only recognized using the tools of our senses and the mind. I cannot think of any evidence that supports Bohr's idea that the moon cannot be proved or disproved.

Thank you for your reply. Okay, if the answer might be the truth about the existence of something cannot be determined as having a yes or no answer then that belief / assumption must be thoroughly examined to see if it is true. So the question is now why can't we prove or disprove the existence of the moon? In this case Bohr says that the existence of the moon cannot be determined. On what logic and, or evidence is he basing that assumption? I think that it is fairly easy to prove that the moon exists without directly observing it.

My concern now is if Bohr is correct all of science and the scientific method is called into question. If a single observation in time by multiple observers is not considered as evidence of existence then we have a problem. The problem happens whenever we don't do the experiment. If we choose to not continually observe the results of an experiment the second we stop the experiment, the experimental result becomes instantaneously meaningless. Whatever it is we were measuring returns to an unknown state as soon as we stop observing it. If we truly believe that is true the study of the Universe becomes pointless. I do agree with what you say as it is very useful and sensible that the world exists when we are not watching.

What is the Topic of this other discussion? I would love to observe that discussion