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

[MikeF]

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'

Does it only have to be a presumption that pressure waves are created? Can we not set up instrumentation that can detect the pressure waves and record that information even though there is no biological ear there to verify?

Is it only a presumption to conclude that a tree of sufficient height and mass falling on the earths surface, in earths atmosphere, will always create pressure waves in the earths atmosphere, or is it a fact?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does it only have to be a presumption that pressure waves are created? Can we not set up instrumentation that can detect the pressure waves and record that information even though there is no biological ear there to verify?

Is it only a presumption to conclude that a tree of sufficient height and mass falling on the earths surface, in earths atmosphere, will always create pressure waves in the earths atmosphere, or is it a fact?

That ends in a biological brain that says there was a sound. You haven't removed the human part.

 

[MikeF]

That ends in a biological brain that says there was a sound. You haven't removed the human part.

Without the human part, who cares? Or rather, with no existing humans, there would be no one to care. Well, other animals that rely on sound I suppose. My point would be that phenomena do not require human observation to exist or be real. If a tree falls in a forest, it cannot help but create pressure waves in the surrounding atmosphere whether someone is there to hear those pressure waves or not.

Back to the OP, my kitchen exists whether I am in it with the light on, or 5 miles away and the lights shut off.

 

[Revoltingest]

Does it only have to be a presumption that pressure waves are created? Can we not set up instrumentation that can detect the pressure waves and record that information even though there is no biological ear there to verify?

Is it only a presumption to conclude that a tree of sufficient height and mass falling on the earths surface, in earths atmosphere, will always create pressure waves in the earths atmosphere, or is it a fact?

Unless the laws of physics are suspended
when no one watches or listens.

 

[MikeF]

Unless the laws of physics are suspended
when no one watches or listens.

Unless that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Without the human part, who cares? Or rather, with no existing humans, there would be no one to care. Well, other animals that rely on sound I suppose. My point would be that phenomena do not require human observation to exist or be real. If a tree falls in a forest, it cannot help but create pressure waves in the surrounding atmosphere whether someone is there to hear those pressure waves or not.

Back to the OP, my kitchen exists whether I am in it with the light on, or 5 miles away and the lights shut off.

Phenomena requeues observation. But you can't observe God, real or exist. They are all in the mind.
Try this - explain the world without humans in it. You can't. Objective is a relationship between brains and that which is not brains in the short dirty version.

You are still conflating philosophy and methodological naturalism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unless the laws of physics are suspended
when no one watches or listens.

Correct or you could be in a Boltzmann Brain universe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Correct or you could be in a Boltzmann Brain universe.

Even there, it seems implausible that laws of
physics are suspended when not observed.

 

[Nimos]

To say sounds is X requires a human to make that claim and to explain if it is objective or subjective. That is where the fun starts.

But are there any humans who would define sound in a different way?
And I'm not talking about the random person, who might think that sound is a deep cosmic feeling, energy or a spiritual experience.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Even there, it seems implausible that laws of
physics are suspended when not observed.

Well, you have no way to tell what the laws of physics is, so you can¨t establish a probability. It is not even 50/50, it is unknown.

That the world is natural or physical is an useful assumption, not a fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But are there any humans who would define sound in a different way?
And I'm not talking about the random person, who might think that sound is a deep cosmic feeling, energy or a spiritual experience.

Sound is the effect in your mind and the physical process. The paradox plays on that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you have no way to tell what the laws of physics is, so you can¨t establish a probability. It is not even 50/50, it is unknown.

If the brain is disconnected from its environment,
& has no way to tell, then discussion is moot.
That doesn't seem to be Boltzman's intent.

 

[MikeF]

Phenomena requeues (requires?) observation.

I am not interested in getting tied up in silly wordplay. Is it your position that nothing happens, that nothing occurs unless it is observed in some way by a human being? If that is your assertion, then I quite disagree.

But you can't observe God, real or exist. They are all in the mind.
Try this - explain the world without humans in it. You can't. Objective is a relationship between brains and that which is not brains in the short dirty version.

It would be my contention that everywhere else in the Cosmos outside of our solar system is as it would be if human beings never existed. Not sure what you are getting at. As to earth, I think we have a pretty good idea as to the impact human beings have had and an understanding of how things would be different with our absence.

You are still conflating philosophy and methodological naturalism.

I don't know what methodological naturalism means to you or anyone else. It is not a term I use, nor one that I ascribe to myself.

Perhaps you are saying that I am improperly addressing a question in a scientific manner, that, in your mind, should only be addressed by Philosophy, whatever that means to you. If that is the case, I disagree and reject your premises.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yeah, but sound have 2 meanings and to choose one over another is an subjective act.

Sound waves are simply a wave form in a medium.
Hearing is a means of detecting them, sound waves of sufficient amplitude can also be detected by sight and touch.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

They also say in space, no one can hear you scream.

 

[Nimos]

Sound is the effect in your mind and the physical process. The paradox plays on that.

Sound is a very physical thing, even if you are deaf you would still be able to feel the effect of sound if it is loud enough, but that is pure because you can feel the vibrations from it.

But still you haven't offered another definition than the normal one, and why a tree sound wouldn't necessarily make a sound just because no one is around to hear it.

 

[Polymath257]

That ends in a biological brain that says there was a sound. You haven't removed the human part.

That is only required if you want a human to know about it. It is not required for the phenomenon itself.

If, instead, it ends up recorded in a computer disk, it can still influence what happens, maybe even what happens to a human.

Also, there is no requirement that some human thinks it is a sound. For example, someone looking at an image from an ultrasound machine sees an image and does not hear a sound. But, in fact, there *was* a sound and that sound was processed by a machine to make an image.

Phenomena requeues observation.

I disagree. KNOWLEDGE of a phenomenon requires observation that is somehow connected to that phenomenon. But there is a difference between whether a phenomenon exists at all and whether it was detected by a brain.

But you can't observe God, real or exist. They are all in the mind.
Try this - explain the world without humans in it. You can't.

Of course you can. Look at any description of how the Earth was during the time of the dinosaurs. No humans were around at that time, yet it can be described.

Objective is a relationship between brains and that which is not brains in the short dirty version.

I disagree. Objective is that which exists even if no brains observe it.

Now, brains can only *know* about things if observed. And when the brains agree it is ore likely that what they agree about it objective, especially if the brains disagree about other things.

You are still conflating philosophy and methodological naturalism.

?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, you have no way to tell what the laws of physics is, so you can¨t establish a probability. It is not even 50/50, it is unknown.

Not true. We can certainly say what the physical laws are NOT because we can actually test them through observation. For example, we know that the phlogiston theory of heat is wrong.

That the world is natural or physical is an useful assumption, not a fact.

What does it even mean to be physical? It just means that it has phenomena that can be detected and tested. And yes, that is a good basis for determining facts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not interested in getting tied up in silly wordplay. Is it your position that nothing happens, that nothing occurs unless it is observed in some way by a human being? If that is your assertion, then I quite disagree.
...

Something happens if certain assumptions hold about objective reality, but in one sense of the word there is not sound, because there is no human present.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sound waves are simply a wave form in a medium.
Hearing is a means of detecting them, sound waves of sufficient amplitude can also be detected by sight and touch.

There is the physical aspects and the human ones. 2 set of factors.