If a tree falls and no one is around...

[ImmortalFlame]

All claims of the whole requires someone to make the claim. Start there and then explain how that works including humans, but not just humans.
Don't start by excluding humans, because to claim you can exclude humans contradicts that excluding requires a human.

I don't know what any of that has to do with my answer to your question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know what any of that has to do with my answer to your question.

You use words that require humans, but claim you can in effect exclude humans.

You are in effect doing a self-reference, but claim that you can avoid that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You use words that require humans, but claim you can in effect exclude humans.

No, I didn't.

You are in effect doing a self-reference, but claim that you can avoid that.

Again, no I didn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I didn't.


Again, no I didn't.

Okay, so you are in the universe as a part of the universe and you and the rest is the whole. Is that a correct version of how you understand that the whole?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Okay, so you are in the universe as a part of the universe and you and the rest is the whole. Is that a correct version of how you understand that the whole?

Yes. You can both be part of something and exist within something. These are not contradictory or exclusive statements. A brick can be said to be a part of a wall, but if you were to ask me "where is the brick?" and I answered "the brick is in the wall", the statement is accurate. Both "the brick is part of the wall" and "the brick is located in the wall" are true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. You can both be part of something and exist within something. These are not contradictory or exclusive statements. A brick can be said to be a part of a wall, but if you were to ask me "where is the brick?" and I answered "the brick is in the wall", the statement is accurate. Both "the brick is part of the wall" and "the brick is located in the wall" are true.

Sorry of misunderstanding you and thank you for your patience.

 

[Nimos]

If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? I know it's an old question.

The answer is yes. Because sound has nothing to do with whether someone can hear it or not

Also, this can be demonstrated fairly easy, by using a deaf person and none deaf person and there is no reason to assume that this logic shouldn't apply everywhere, at least in my opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The answer is yes. Because sound has nothing to do with whether someone can hear it or not

Also, this can be demonstrated fairly easy, by using a deaf person and none deaf person and there is no reason to assume that this logic shouldn't apply everywhere, at least in my opinion.

That depends on how you understand sound.

 

[Nimos]

That depends on how you understand sound.

Are there different ways to understand it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are there different ways to understand it?

Yes. It depends on how we understand humans and the rest of the whole. And we, as you and I do that differently.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What are your guy's thoughts on the theory?

What is material and what is immaterial, what is existence and what is non-existence, is difficult to understand. Basically, it is as if energy fluctuating at all points in space. "Universe is not unitary but isometric." It is on this principle that three physicists got Nobel prize this year. I am not a scientist but the following gives some idea of what the universe is like:

"Physicists keep probabilities and amplitudes in line by tracking how the quantum state of a particle moves around in Hilbert space — an abstract space representing all possible states available to the particle. The particle’s amplitudes correspond to its coordinates in Hilbert space, and physicists capture changes to the particle with mathematical objects called matrices, which transform its coordinates. Unitarity dictates that a physically allowed change must correspond to a special “unitary” matrix that rotates the particle’s state in Hilbert space without changing that the sum of the squares of its coordinates equals 1."
https://www.quantamagazine.org/phys...rule-that-clashes-with-our-universe-20220926/

Quantum fluctuations (Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia)

It's unscientific. An axiom of science is that the universe is real. Any hypothesis denying that is not scientific.

Heyo, friend. There is no such axiom in science.

 

[Polymath257]

I dislike it when people who obviously don't understand quantum mechanics try to use QM for their woo ideas.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I dislike it when people who obviously don't understand quantum mechanics try to use QM for their woo ideas.

The part in bold being everybody, right?

 

[PureX]

If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? I know it's an old question.

When I was 19 I read a book called Biocentrism. It asserts that it does not in fact make a sound absent of an observer.

Biocentrism says that consciousness and biological creatures are a key component in the existence of the universe, or something like that. It attempts to use quantum mechanics and the entanglement experiment to support the logic.

Here is an article written by the author where he talks about his theory.

‘Biocentrism’: How life creates the universe

Excerpt from the article.

Take the seemingly undeniable logic that your kitchen is always present, its contents assuming all their familiar shapes and colors whether or not you are in it. But consider: The shapes, colors, and forms known as your kitchen are seen as they are solely because photons of light from the overhead bulb bounce off the various objects and then interact with your brain through a complex set of retinal and neural intermediaries. But on its own, light doesn’t have any color, nor any brightness, nor any visual characteristics at all. It’s merely an electrical and magnetic phenomenon. So while you may think that the kitchen as you remember it was “there” in your absence, the unquestionable reality is that nothing remotely resembling what you can imagine could be present when a consciousness is not interacting.

Quantum physics comes to a similar conclusion. At night you click off the lights and leave for the bedroom. Of course the kitchen is there, unseen, all through the night. Right? But, in fact, the refrigerator, stove and everything else are composed of a shimmering swarm of matter/energy. The results of quantum physics, such as the two-slit experiment, tell us that not a single one of those subatomic particles actually occupies a definite place. Rather, they exist as a range of possibilities — as waves of probability — as the German physicist Max Born demonstrated back in 1926. They are statistical predictions — nothing but a likely outcome. In fact, outside of that idea, nothing is there! If they are not being observed, they cannot be thought of as having any real existence — either duration or a position in space. It is only in the presence of an observer — that is, when you go back in to get a drink of water — that the mind sets the scaffolding of these particles in place. Until it actually lays down the threads (somewhere in the haze of probabilities that represent the object’s range of possible values) they cannot be thought of as being either here or there, or having an actual position, a physical reality.

What are your guy's thoughts on the theory?

Trying to use science to resolve a philosophical question tends to just create more confusion. Here is a very simple way of resolving the problem; the word "sound" refers to an audible experience. Not to the physics that are responsible for the audible experience. So there is no "sound" being heard if no one is around to hear it. If we were being asked if the physical phenomena that our ears experience as "sound" is being produced when the tree falls as we are not there to hear is, the answer 'we presume so'.

As with most of these kinds of supposed conundrums, the solution is easily recognized once we clearly articulate the question.

Like the word "sound", the word "reality" also refers to a conceptualized experience. Not to the physical phenomena that we experience and conceptualize as "reality". The physical phenomena that we experience as "real" is properly called "physicality". But physicality exists both within and beyond the human experience called "reality", so we can only presume that to be the case, because we are not experiencing it to know that it's so.

So, does "reality" exist beyond the human experience of it? No. Does physicality exist beyond the human experience of it? We suppose so, but we can't know so.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Quantum theory is only applicable to the microscopically small.
It does not function in the macroscopic real world
It has nothing to say about trees falling.

 

[PureX]

I dislike it when people who obviously don't understand quantum mechanics try to use QM for their woo ideas.

No one understands quantum mechanics.

 

[Revoltingest]

A thought experiment....
A tree falls in a forest.
Bob is there, & he hears it.
Sally is there, but she's deaf, so she doesn't hear it.
Is there simultaneously sound and no sound?

 

[Revoltingest]

No one understands quantum mechanics.

That Feynman quote needs explanation.
What did Richard Feynman mean when he said 'No one understands quantum mechanics'? - Quora
Excerpted...
The quote comes from Feynman's book The Character of Physical Law, which is based on his Messenger Lectures at Cornell. If you look at the quote in context, it is very clear exactly what Feynman meant: He meant that quantum mechanical phenomena cannot be understood using concepts or models from our ordinary experience. They cannot be understood by analogy with anything familiar. But, of course, physicists do understand very well the mathematical formalism and how to apply it to physical systems and make predictions about the results of experiments.

 

[Polymath257]

The part in bold being everybody, right?

Some people fail to understand more completely.

Hint: if someone has never solved a differential equation, they do not understand *anything* about quantum mechanics outside of some popular accounts.

 

[PureX]

A thought experiment....
A tree falls in a forest.
Bob is there, & he hears it.
Sally is there, but she's deaf, so she doesn't hear it.
Is there simultaneously sound and no sound?

Yes. Truth is paradoxical via the human perspective.