If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,

To the non-realists ------------- Your spouses or significant others have it made, because they can cheat on you and if you don't SEE it with your own eyes - well - it didn't happen!!

This non-realist recommends that when you get to college, don't pursue a career in analysis.

And this realist recommends when you get to college, don't pursue a career in common sense.

To the non-realists ------------- Your spouses or significant others have it made, because they can cheat on you and if you don't SEE it with your own eyes - well - it didn't happen!!

The above statements are very impulsive and do not represent reasonable critical thinking. I had implied in my first statement in post, it is a matter of which perspective and what games of truth one is playing in the appropriate situation.


The 'non-realists' can change to any of the several 'hats' he has, whenever and wherever it is necessary in accordance to the circumstances. If a person who is a 'non-realists' in the philosophical perspective, need to reacts and responds outside the philosophical perspective, then the 'non-realist' as a human being can use scientific, technology, artistics common sense, intuitive means or any means to achieve optimal results. For example, a scientist could be a father/mother, or son/daughter, a part-time stand-up comedian, and many other roles at the same time in life. The scientist would have to change the scientist 'hat' and switch to the stand-up comedian 'hat' if he is to play that role.


When one (is philosophical realist or non-realists in the philosophical perspective) wants to see where one's eyes cannot reach to see, one will have to step into the common-sense/ordinary or scientific perspective where one can always use scientific-technological instruments, employ or get the help of others to see and produce the relevant information.

I am with the non-realists, i.e. in the philosophical perspective (NOT common sense or scientific) there is no sound when a tree fall in a forest and there is no person to hear it.

Just to make it clear. 'When in Rome do what the Romans do.' The above quote imply that when I am in the philosophical perspective (NOT common sense or scientific), then there is no sound when a tree fall in a forest and there is no person to hear it. When I shift to the common sense or scientific perspective (not the philosophical perspective) then, there is sound when a tree fall in a forest and there is no person to hear it and acts accordingly.

As with multi-tasking, one can have multi-perspectives at almost * the same time or at more varying time. *Not in contravening the law of contradiction's same instantaneous time.

To the non-realists ------------- Your spouses or significant others have it made, because they can cheat on you and if you don't SEE it with your own eyes - well - it didn't happen!!

It did happen because both people involved in the affair experienced it.

To the non-realists ------------- Your spouses or significant others have it made, because they can cheat on you and if you don't SEE it with your own eyes - well - it didn't happen!!

It did happen because both people involved in the affair experienced it.

Good point.

So when I close my eyes there is no light? There is no world, no universe?

Put a recorder in the home where a tv or radio is playing while no one is home, and you can prove there is sound while no one is there to hear it.

Let me try to explain this by using the results of the "double slit experiment," something that I believe lies at the very heart of some of the arguments in this thread.

I am sure that most of you are aware of the experiment, however, let me take just a few moments to refresh our memories.

In the double slit experiment, you have a device that can fire a single photon of light (a particle of "reality") at a wall with two slits in it.

Once the photon is fired from the device, it appears to spread out into a wave that passes through both slits at the same time creating multiple wave fronts that interfere with each other on the other side of the wall.

It is theorized that while the photon exists in the context of this waving interference pattern, it no longer possesses any dynamic attributes that can be called "real."

Instead it takes on a context that Heisenberg referred to as "potentia" or potential reality (mentioned in post 163).

Only when the photon is discovered as an impact point on a "measuring device" some distance away from the double slit wall (in this case a phosphorescent screen), is it then considered to be something "real" again.

And no matter how hard we want to believe that the photon still exists as a familiar piece of reality, knocking about within the interference pattern, the fact that it can spread out into a wave that can pass through two slits simultaneously, suggests otherwise.

(It is very important to note that this same phenomenon also applies to all particles of reality -- electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.; Everything that we think of as being solid and real is composed of something that can spread out into waves of something not so real.)

The phosphorescent screen is considered to be a "measuring device" that measures the photon for its "position" in space; whereas just prior to this measurement, the photon only exists as a "probable reality" somewhere within the varying amplitudes of the wave function.

What that means is that the "measuring device" itself is what causes the collapse of the photon's wave function and literally "promotes" or "explicates" the photon back into reality (a spot on the screen) from the waves of potentia.

Now, imagine what would happen to the photon if you remove the screen (the "measuring device") and allow the waving interference pattern to propagate in isolation.

Logic dictates that with nothing to cause the collapse of the photon's wave function, then the photon can never become "real" again.

Now, the point to which I am leading is that our eyes are considered to be the equivalent of the "measuring device," and that the very act of looking causes the collapse of the photon's wave function as it strikes our retinas, thus promoting it back into reality like the phosphorescent screen.

And therein lies the heart of the matter and a tacit answer to Xris' question -- "...So when I close my eyes there is no light?..."

Without the presence of a "measuring device" (in this case our open eyes, or a dog's open eyes, or a mouse's open eyes) to cause the collapse of the quantum wave function, then light does not take on the form that we collectively refer to as "reality."

Therefore, in that particular context, the answer is no. There is no light when we close our eyes.

It doesn't mean that there isn't "something" out there when we close our eyes, it just means that whatever this "something" is, it doesn't behave in a way that we assume it "should" behave when we are not looking.

Now, the ultimate point is that quantum theory "suggests" that because all physical reality is composed of a substance that possesses the same "particle/wave" duality as light, then...

...(theoretically)...

...everything must exist in its waveform context when it is not being "measured" by something capable of collapsing the quantum-wave function (with "measured" meaning observed, felt, heard, smelled, or tasted).

For example, a dead human body with its eyes taped open would not be considered as something that can collapse the quantum waves of light and matter (or sound) forming its surroundings.

(Misty, that also applies to an inanimate tape recorder.)

That's because the particles forming the dead body (or the tape recorder) would be considered as just another aspect of the overall wave-function composing the totality of the setting.

The quantum waves forming the body (and recorder) would be spread-out and phase-entangled with the waves forming its surroundings because there would be nothing present to "promote" any aspect of the overall scene into "reality."

Therefore, it is thus theorized that only "consciousness" itself can be considered as being the end point where the collapse of the quantum wave function is achieved and realized.

And that, my dear fellow philosophers, is why a "tree falling in the forest" can be considered as making no sound if consciousness is not present to promote the sound into reality from the waves of potentia.

(Let me make a point of clarification, at least as far as Misty's running tape recorder is concerned:

"Something" would indeed be happening within the context of the quantum waves that corresponds with capturing information on the recorder {or the motion and sound of a tree falling in a forest, for that matter}.

However, the revelation of what actually exists on the tape can only be realized after a consciousness "explicates" the recorder into "reality" by looking, touching, and listening.

Before that occurs, only waves of "potential reality" exist.)

(Of course, everyone is free to scoff at and deny the counter-intuitive implications of the ideas emerging from quantum mechanics. That's what "ordinary" human consciousness tends to do.

However, not to include in our overall assessment of reality, the theories emerging from a discipline that has brought us radios, televisions, cell phones, computers, satellites, the internet, space travel, laser technology, nuclear technology, etc., etc., seems ridiculous to me.)

(sorry for such a long post )

seeds

To the non-realists ------------- Your spouses or significant others have it made, because they can cheat on you and if you don't SEE it with your own eyes - well - it didn't happen!!

It did happen because both people involved in the affair experienced it.

Not if they keep it to themselves and never tell anyone.

Let me try to explain this by using the results of the "double slit experiment," something that I believe lies at the very heart of some of the arguments in this thread. ... "Something" would indeed be happening within the context of the quantum waves that corresponds with capturing information on the recorder {or the motion and sound of a tree falling in a forest, for that matter}. .... However, the revelation of what actually exists on the tape can only be realized after a consciousness "explicates" the recorder into "reality" by looking, touching, and listening.

Before that occurs, only waves of "potential reality" exist.) seeds

I think the above view is reasonable. However, it is from a perspective that is a subset to Science in the scheme of reality amongst the followng perspectives, i.e.


1. Common sense, ordinary and conventional

2. Scientific

1. Realist (non-QM)
2. QM - non-realist

3. Philosophical

1. Realist
2. Non-Realist

There are other relevant perspectives besides the above.

The double split experiment in my opinion is flawed it assumes particles or waves. What if it was neither a particle or wave? What are you looking at then? The quantum world lives on concepts. We live in a reality where objects do not change by looking at them. We might as well refer to dreams and convince ourselves there is no real reality to relate to. A tree is not dependant on an observer. There are no experiments indicating that sound is dependant on human ear.

I'm not sure about the tree, but "a lie gets half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on".

A tree is not dependant on an observer.

Yes it is. Otherwise it is merely its base quanta, undifferentiated from any other quanta; such differentiation that would objectify the tree being the result of interaction with sensorial (observational) apparata.

There are no experiments indicating that sound is dependant on human ear.

That's the point really. Experiments constitute observation so would record sound by the simple definition of what an experiment is.

Sorry but an 800 year old oak tree falling is not going to recognise your deafness. It comes down to the fact that through observations a tree falling will make a noise. Now if you can prove by any means possible a certain tree will not then I am happy to accept your argument. Semantics nonsense to imagine that a human ear is required to appreciate any noise.

It comes down to the fact that through observations a tree falling will make a noise.

That's correct: through observations. I'm glad you concur with me.

Now if you can prove by any means possible a certain tree will not then I am happy to accept your argument.

Sorry, but you're the one claiming the factual existence of an unheard noise, so the burden of proof is on you: Go ahead and prove to me that a tree makes a sound in the absence of aural observation, be it by ear or recorder. I'll listen.

Semantics nonsense to imagine that a human ear is required to appreciate any noise.

No, it's called philosophy.

Semantics nonsense to imagine that a human ear is required to appreciate any noise.

A human ear is necessary, but not a compulsory requirement, rather what is critical is a brain/mind with a body ,i.e. someone that is necessary to hear the sound re OP.


Btw, an ear is not imperative for hearing sound. Note, Bone conduction auditory brainstem response (wiki)

Vibration of the skull results in auditory sensation. This is a way to somewhat bypass the outer and middle ears to stimulate the cochlea.

From the philosophical perspective and from Locke principles of secondary properties, there is no sound, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it.

Secondary qualities [wiki] are thought to be properties that produce sensations in observers, such as color, taste, smell, and sound. They can be described as the effect things have on certain people. Knowledge that comes from secondary qualities does not provide objective facts about things.

If we observe a million trees falling and can record the sound then it is reasonable to assume that when a tree falls it makes a noise. If we maintained the same illogical reasoning that it did not make a noise because no one was there to hear it we would still be chipping flints in mud huts. Our conscious ability has to accept and learn from our observations. If we extend this reasoning to everything then nothing exists or has ever existed without the ability to comprehend it. Is this really philosophy, to ponder on irrational thoughts that have no value?

If we observe a million trees falling and can record the sound then it is reasonable to assume that when a tree falls it makes a noise. If we maintained the same illogical reasoning that it did not make a noise because no one was there to hear it we would still be chipping flints in mud huts. Our conscious ability has to accept and learn from our observations. If we extend this reasoning to everything then nothing exists or has ever existed without the ability to comprehend it.

True and agree, this is what conventional and the Science (realist) perspective accept. No one is disputing this point within these perspectives.

Is this really philosophy, to ponder on irrational thoughts that have no value?

Wait a minute. How do you know that is irrational and have no value from the philosophy perspective? One cannot force the conventional and scientific perspective upon the philosophical perspective as they each encompass different specific framework. Btw, Hume insisted (with his philosophical justifications), no matter how many millions times the Sun had risen every morning, there is no guarantee it will rise tomorrow, i.e. the problem of induction. Philosophers had been engaged in this issue for thousands of years and you need to have some sense of its fundamentals before condemning the 'no sound' view as irrational and of no value from presumably a non-philosophical perspective. If you think your conclusions are philosophical, where are the philosophical (not conventional or scientific) justifications.