If a tree falls in a forest...

[Nirvana-Eld]

This topic relates to the age old question: If a tree falls in a forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound? Now so as to better explain myself, let me expose the conflict as I see it.

Position 1) No, because for anything to exist it must be percieved, or observed.

Position 2) Yes, because everything exists objectively to our own, or anyone's perception.

Also simply for the sake of not starting a new thread, Here is something relatively related.

From World Philosophy on the subject of Knowledge and Reality

We tend to assume that the world, as we experience it, is set out before us like a building site or archaeological remains. Objects exist in relation to one another in ways that we can measure. I assume that space 'exists', because I percieve the relationship between parts of these remains. I assume time 'exists', since there would once have been a thriving city in this, now silent place.

But do space and time actually exist? Are they out there to be discovered, or are they simply the way our mind handles experience? And if the latter is the case, then what does that say about those things we intend to infer from experience, like the existence of selves or God? Are these also in the mind, rather than 'out there' in the objective world?

The question I want to draw from this passage is the one presented in it. "Does space and time actually exist? Are they out there to be discovered, or are they simply the way our mind handles experience?"

You decide.

[QED]

First to the question of the tree. When a tree falls it impacts the ground. This sends out pressure waves through the ground and the air. Anything and everything within a non-elastic connection will experience these waves and experience a change their state prior to the event. Such state changes have the potential to leave a lasting impression be it in the memory of a living creature or a simple displacement of position or energy level in a non-living entity. Thus a sound is "heard" by everything in the vicinity and in principle we can interrogate everything after the event and expect to recover evidence that the falling tree made a sound. So other than falling in free space, we can be confident that a sound is always produced even if no person is there to hear it.

The question I want to draw from this passage is the one presented in it. "Does space and time actually exist? Are they out there to be discovered, or are they simply the way our mind handles experience?"

Now we get to the interesting stuff. First I would point out that the world is not made out of objects but of processes. The idea of describing static structures arranged within a static spacetime is an outmoded concept. Relativity is everything. I can heartily recommend you a book by Lee Smolin titled Three Roads to Quantum Gravity which discusses the nature of space and time. There's so much that can be said about this subject that it's impossible to know where to start. As a taster it looks certain that both space and time are discrete and at their smallest scales are indivisible.

I wonder what you might be thinking when you ask your question about the way our minds handle these concepts. We know for sure from general relativity that the world is not the same for all observers; the finite speed of light imposes restrictions on what can be known and it depends on the relative positions of the observers. Maybe I'm getting blasé about this, but it seems pretty obvious that we are all subject to an illusion of sorts. But none of this seems mysterious in itself. What would be mysterious is if there were inconsistencies -- but that does not seem to be the case, the world appears to run unerringly to a rigid set of rules such that the illusion is consistent.

[harvey1]

First I would point out that the world is not made out of objects but of processes.

Perhaps we can discuss this in another thread, but why do you consider this a fact where there is little scientific evidence to determine whether it is true or not, yet you firmly reject the existence of God where there is a large body of evidence to suggest that God does indeed exist? It seems as if you are being inconsistent with your treatment of evidence.

[Curious]

First to the question of the tree. When a tree falls it impacts the ground. This sends out pressure waves through the ground and the air. Anything and everything within a non-elastic connection will experience these waves and experience a change their state prior to the event. Such state changes have the potential to leave a lasting impression be it in the memory of a living creature or a simple displacement of position or energy level in a non-living entity. Thus a sound is "heard" by everything in the vicinity and in principle we can interrogate everything after the event and expect to recover evidence that the falling tree made a sound. So other than falling in free space, we can be confident that a sound is always produced even if no person is there to hear it.

Oh dear! A tree falling in a forest makes absolutely NO SOUND. Sound is the interpretation of the pressure waves. Sound is purely an interpretation of physical stimulus. If no observer is there, the falling tree creates a blast wave, not a sound.

[Curious]

First I would point out that the world is not made out of objects but of processes.

Perhaps we can discuss this in another thread, but why do you consider this a fact where there is little scientific evidence to determine whether it is true or not, yet you firmly reject the existence of God where there is a large body of evidence to suggest that God does indeed exist? It seems as if you are being inconsistent with your treatment of evidence.

More to the point, explain how a process can create a result without at least referencing an object.

[Nirvana-Eld]

First to the question of the tree. When a tree falls it impacts the ground. This sends out pressure waves through the ground and the air. Anything and everything within a non-elastic connection will experience these waves and experience a change their state prior to the event. Such state changes have the potential to leave a lasting impression be it in the memory of a living creature or a simple displacement of position or energy level in a non-living entity. Thus a sound is "heard" by everything in the vicinity and in principle we can interrogate everything after the event and expect to recover evidence that the falling tree made a sound. So other than falling in free space, we can be confident that a sound is always produced even if no person is there to hear it.

I merely meant for the tree allegory as to expose the conflict in perception. Whether or not a perciever or observer is a necesity for existence. I undertand totally the problem with that specific "tree" circumstance, it was just an example.

But again the two positions as I see them are:

Position 1) No, because for anything to exist it must be percieved, or observed.

Position 2) Yes, because everything exists objectively to our own, or anyone's perception.

And if there is something wrong here then please let me know.

My second topic's purpose was to expose a new conflict. Whether or not space and time are concrete things distinct from the mind, or that they are the mind's way of processing things in relation to other things. An example:

If an alien with a mind unknown to us humans came to earth, would things run at the same time within their mind and would things have the same spatial properties in their mind? Simply, do space and time exist independately of the mind, or are they a part of the mind as a way to interpret existence.

[Bugmaster]

Isn't this basically the question, "is solipsism true ?" Sure, it might be true, but in practical terms, it doesn't matter. Every object or phenomenon or whatnot that we observe behaves as though there's an objective reality that it is a part of. Sure, that doesn't mean that this objective reality actually exists, but, by Occam's Razor, we're justified in assuming that it does, until we amass some serious evidence to the contrary.

So: if a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it, then it most probably makes a sound, and we're going to assume that it does, until proven otherwise.

[ST88]

First, we must define what "sound" is, mustn't we? If it's the interpretation of vibration waves, then there is no sound, because there is no interpretation. However, if we define it as the vibrations themselves, then of course it makes a sound. As Bugmaster says, the solipsism argument expands here, because even if there is only one observer, the interpretation definition says that there is a sound to only one observer, and we can only be exposed to the information of the sound through that observer's report, which could be wrong. But by deduction, if we see a felled tree, the vibration definition states that we can assume that at one point in did make a sound when it fell, even if we weren't there to hear it.

[QED]

Just to mention that I split-off an interesting digression from this discussion into a new Philosophy debate titled:"Is the world made of objects or processes?"

[Curious]

But by deduction, if we see a felled tree, the vibration definition states that we can assume that at one point in did make a sound when it fell, even if we weren't there to hear it.

You can deduce anything if you don't care about the accuracy of the initial assumptions ( not you personally, I realise you did mention interpretation). Sound is interpretation. A tree falling makes no sound even with observers present. The observer's faculties create the sound from the stimulus. You could be in a room that is perfectly silent to you but which could be filled with vibrations audible to a dog or blue whale. Even in humans, the sound of a voice differs between listeners. Damage to the brain or the ear can greatly alter the perception of sound but that sound is still the sound that the listener hears.