If a tree falls in a forest...

[Someone here]

And no one is around it to hear it... Does it make a sound? 

 

No. Sound is the brain's perception of air molecules vibrating across a distance and for a duration. Yes, the tree still moves all those air molecules when it falls, but it makes no sound because there is nobody around to translate those vibrating molecules into sound.

Edited June 20, 2021 by Someone here

[RendHeaven]

lol

[Zigzag Idiot]

I’ll be devils advocate and say yes.
A squirrel or a rabbit may hear it. Maybe a deer or some coyotes or some crows. If no mammals or birds are around then most likely at least some insects will feel the vibrations as the tree hits the ground.

Edited June 20, 2021 by Zigzag Idiot
Misspelled hear

[Chris365]

If you don't perceive the tree, not only it doesn't make a sound if it falls, but it doesn't even exist...

Edited June 20, 2021 by Chris365
Typo

[kai0]

hahaha

so mere semantics ought to solve this puzzle   
so very cute

[Tim R]

“There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that a tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:

"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.”

[Someone here]

@Zigzag Idiot lol. It means no conscious observation at all. No humans and no animals etc. To illustrate that consciousness is fundamental. 

[Zigzag Idiot]

@Someone here Ok, We’re talking about a forest in which there are no mammals or birds or insects to detect the crash of the fallen tree? Pretty unlikely I’d say.
But if that’s the case, then wouldn’t God hear it anyway? Since we live in a conscious universe?

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, Zigzag Idiot said:

@Someone here Ok, We’re talking about a forest in which there are no mammals or birds or insects to detect the crash of the fallen tree? Pretty unlikely I’d say.
But if that’s the case, then wouldn’t God hear it anyway? Since we live in a conscious universe?

What do you mean by "God" and by  "conscious universe"? 

[Pacific Sage]

12 minutes ago, Zigzag Idiot said:

@Someone here Ok, We’re talking about a forest in which there are no mammals or birds or insects to detect the crash of the fallen tree? Pretty unlikely I’d say.
But if that’s the case, then wouldn’t God hear it anyway? Since we live in a conscious universe?

This triggered the double slit experiment thought in me.

 

If God is omnipresent then why does the particle behave differently when there is a human observer from wave to particle. I do not have the answer to the question but this is something to ponder on.

 

[Zigzag Idiot]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

What do you mean by "God" and by  "conscious universe"? 

That God is the whole of the universe whereby humans are something akin to atoms in the molecules (solar systems) of the cells (galaxies) in the tissue (galaxy clusters) in the body of God. I don’t KNOW, know it viserally or in a gnostic way, but hold it in the ‘as if’ category conceptually until a better idea comes along,,,, So I reason that if God is that big, then God has a vast consciousness and really big ears. 

This would kind of go along with Leo’s video on Holons.

 

As well as Rupert Sheldrake’s arguments about panpsychism.

 

[kinesin]

@Someone here  You already know the answer to the question - though this question wasn't intended to be answered, it's supposed to prompt a person to imagine reality without a conscious observer so that they can begin to transcend the lens of the ego.

In terms of answering it - we have to split 'sound' into its 2 components.  There's the raw material aspect which as you say is simply a wave moving through a medium, then there's the subjective experience of sound which is called qualia.  Does the sound wave exist if nobody is around to observe it?  Sure.  Does the sound qualia exist if nobody is around to observe it? No.

2 hours ago, Pacific Sage said:

This triggered the double slit experiment thought in me.

Not to rain on anyone's parade here, but let me repost a correction I made a previous time on this forum when the double slit experiment was mentioned, hopefully to clear up any misunderstandings about what it is.

Quote

A common misconception.  The layman interpretation of the double slit experiment is that reality somehow 'knows' that it's being watched and changes its behaviour accordingly, kind of like a shy person.  This is misleading though, as the word 'observation' in science refers to measurement.  When the light is observed, it behaves differently because to measure (or observe) the path of photons requires interaction with the photon, which affects its behaviour.  This is the point of the Schrodinger's cat analogy - you can't see the state of the thing to confirm it, because the act of looking affects the system.

Imagine you're tasked with mapping out the 3-dimensional shape of a ripple on water, only the only measurement tool you have is your finger.  You dip your finger in to feel the ripple, hoping to be able to feel its dimensions... only the moment your finger touches the surface, the ripple changes in response to your finger and you can no longer measure its previous state.  This is the way in which the double-slit experiment is puzzling, not because of any sneaky intelligence on behalf of the light.

 

[mandyjw]

If you silently read to yourself the word "CRASH!", does it make a sound? 

[lmfao]

1 hour ago, kinesin said:

@Someone here A common misconception. The layman interpretation of the double slit experiment is that reality somehow 'knows' that it's being watched and changes its behaviour accordingly, kind of like a shy person. This is misleading though, as the word 'observation' in science refers to measurement. When the light is observed, it behaves differently because to measure (or observe) the path of photons requires interaction with the photon, which affects its behaviour. This is the point of the Schrodinger's cat analogy - you can't see the state of the thing to confirm it, because the act of looking affects the system.

Imagine you're tasked with mapping out the 3-dimensional shape of a ripple on water, only the only measurement tool you have is your finger. You dip your finger in to feel the ripple, hoping to be able to feel its dimensions... only the moment your finger touches the surface, the ripple changes in response to your finger and you can no longer measure its previous state. This is the way in which the double-slit experiment is puzzling, not because of any sneaky intelligence on behalf of the light.

Your analogy and interpretation is misleading to me since you're implying theres a known physical mechanism/interaction by which the light collapses. Its misleading since you're still giving the intuition of determinism, as if it's not observation as an abstracted quality itself causing collapse, but it's that we're physically messing with it in some way.

A very good demonstration of not physically messing with it is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. [And stacked on top of that is some backwards in time shenanigans] 

Even if you are right, it's unknown and unproven, and you're giving one interpretation [maybe this lol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory] 

Edited June 20, 2021 by lmfao

[Willie]

Every tree that has ever fallen with people near enough to hear it has made a sound. No people means no perception of sound from the tree falling, but it doesn’t mean no sound is made.

[snowyowl]

If you're a realist the answer is yes, the tree exists objectively and makes vibrations in the air (sound can mean both air vibrations & the heard qualia in the mind). 

If you're an idealist, then the answer is 'mu', because without any consciousness to observe it, the tree doesn't exist anyway so there is no forest or air at all.

Hang on a minute, what if the whole material universe is consciousness (two sides of the same coin), then the tree could ask the same question of you - do humans exist if I'm not there to sense them - don't be speciesist  

Edited June 20, 2021 by snowyowl

[Pacific Sage]

@kinesin

15 hours ago, kinesin said:

15 hours ago, kinesin said:

A common misconception.  The layman interpretation of the double slit experiment is that reality somehow 'knows' that it's being watched and changes its behaviour accordingly, kind of like a shy person.  This is misleading though, as the word 'observation' in science refers to measurement.  When the light is observed, it behaves differently because to measure (or observe) the path of photons requires interaction with the photon, which affects its behaviour.  This is the point of the Schrodinger's cat analogy - you can't see the state of the thing to confirm it, because the act of looking affects the system.

Imagine you're tasked with mapping out the 3-dimensional shape of a ripple on water, only the only measurement tool you have is your finger.  You dip your finger in to feel the ripple, hoping to be able to feel its dimensions... only the moment your finger touches the surface, the ripple changes in response to your finger and you can no longer measure its previous state.  This is the way in which the double-slit experiment is puzzling, not because of any sneaky intelligence on behalf of the light.

I feel what you are saying, observation here is referring to measurement rather than an actual observer. Thank you for clarifying this, I shall look into this a little more.

 

[r0ckyreed]

I answered yes because the question already assumes realism to be true in that the question assumes a tree and a forest exist without being seen. If this is true, then a sound can exist without being heard.

 

[Someone here]

2 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

I answered yes because the question already assumes realism to be true in that the question assumes a tree and a forest exist without being seen. If this is true, then a sound can exist without being heard.

Clever! 

 

On 6/20/2021 at 6:45 PM, Willie said:

Every tree that has ever fallen with people near enough to hear it has made a sound. No people means no perception of sound from the tree falling, but it doesn’t mean no sound is made.

Sound is the brain's interpretation of the vibrations. 

[RMQualtrough]

@Pacific Sage Isn't it any act of observation at all even if performed by a robot?