Does a tree exist if no one is there to observe it?

[WaveJumper]

I'm not good at physics, but is there a tree that exists in superpositional state?, or you mean an imaginary tree?

No, not just a tree or a bush. The whole of reality is depicted by wavefunctions, describing probability amplitudes of localising 'particles'. What those wavefunctions represent is the core of the argument - If a tree falls in the...

There are good reasons to believe they aren't real and are just a mathematical tool(objective reality does not exist), but there are also reasons to believe there is more going on than mathematics before a measurement(debate is still ongoing). Otherwise, the tree exists as a probability wavefunction that sort of maps out around the tree(soaks into the space around the tree - a sort of blurred image of a tree if you need a mental image).

The wavefunction accounts for everything that we can measure, so it is obviously linked to what we call 'physical reality'. How else could QM be relevant for physical properties and phenomena?

An unbiased treatment of the problem of objective reality in the 20th and 21st century, requires that it is treated by physics as a hypothesis that needs to be proved.

Also I think the measurement/observation depends the observer. When you touch a tree that you're looking at, you still observing the same tree but from different perspectives. The same situation applies if you use infrared camera. The perspectives can change but the dimensional knowledge obtained is the same.

I don't see what you are saying here.

 

[SDetection]

I don't see what you are saying here.

I mean, the mechanism, that you use for the observation, also determines your final perception of the observed. There can be different perspectives of the same thing, like when you use your eyes, and when using an infrared camera. This is of course from classical point of view...

 

[SDetection]

Of course not. It wouldn't make a sound inside any one's head.

But of course nature would hear it, in its own mysterious way .

 

[baywax]

Existence is relative to the observer? If the tree doesn't exist because you don't see it nor measure it etc... then the dust mites in your eye lashes don't exist either. This seems a bit egocentric to believe. Why not step out of the box and allow for phenomena to exist without your permission?

 

[WaveJumper]

Existence is relative to the observer? If the tree doesn't exist because you don't see it nor measure it etc... then the dust mites in your eye lashes don't exist either. This seems a bit egocentric to believe. Why not step out of the box and allow for phenomena to exist without your permission?

Every physicist asks this question sooner or later. Some are asking themselves to their dying day, some consider it only as a passing thought and dismiss it as an issue that cannot be resolved. Others are afraid to even look in that direction and will frantically move onto the next topic.

I believe a problem should be approached without bias. The biggest missing link towards having a better understanding of reality, imo, currently resides in the notion of Time(on top of other foundational problems). We have different concepts of time in classical mechanics, in GR and in QM and time is a fundamental ingredient in what we call 'reality'. Without some new insight into its nature, this 'reality' may remain unknowable for quite some time. If time is strictly a macroscopic phenomenon, then we have no basis to insist on space being objectively real either. There is likely something 'wrong' with our perception of the notions - matter, time and space and the hypothetical TOE will supposedly adjust these 'misunderstandings'. Afterall, the theory of evolution doesn't claim our senses evolved for the purpose of verifying quantum mechanics, so we can't blame our senses for being too coarse to discern how reality operates at its fundamental level.

To wrap this up, there are good reasons to believe that the notion of "real" and "reality" needs re-adjusting in a moderate or a rather radical way. Those reasons all come from cosmology, quantum theory and GR. The only field from physics that supports all our naive assumptions about reality, is classical Newtonian physics where it appears the environment had wired our brains to operate within that domain.

I don't see a reason to believe that either matter, or space might have a fundamental status. Both those concepts are securely tied to the dynamical background of GR. There doesn't appear to be a way to uphold the naive assumptions of our perception. What we term reality is either a limited, special case of what exists out there, or likely it's only just perception(with all the philosophical implications arising from this).

 

[baywax]

Every physicist asks this question sooner or later. Some are asking themselves to their dying day, some consider it only as a passing thought and dismiss it as an issue that cannot be resolved. Others are afraid to even look in that direction and will frantically move onto the next topic.

I believe a problem should be approached without bias. The biggest missing link towards having a better understanding of reality, imo, currently resides in the notion of Time(on top of other foundational problems). We have different concepts of time in classical mechanics, in GR and in QM and time is a fundamental ingredient in what we call 'reality'. Without some new insight into its nature, this 'reality' may remain unknowable for quite some time. If time is strictly a macroscopic phenomenon, then we have no basis to insist on space being objectively real either. There is likely something 'wrong' with our perception of the notions - matter, time and space and the hypothetical TOE will supposedly adjust these 'misunderstandings'. Afterall, the theory of evolution doesn't claim our senses evolved for the purpose of verifying quantum mechanics, so we can't blame our senses for being too coarse to discern how reality operates at its fundamental level.

To wrap this up, there are good reasons to believe that the notion of "real" and "reality" needs re-adjusting in a moderate or a rather radical way. Those reasons all come from cosmology, quantum theory and GR. The only field from physics that supports all our naive assumptions about reality, is classical Newtonian physics where it appears the environment had wired our brains to operate within that domain.

I don't see a reason to believe that either matter, or space might have a fundamental status. Both those concepts are securely tied to the dynamical background of GR. There doesn't appear to be a way to uphold the naive assumptions of our perception. What we term reality is either a limited, special case of what exists out there, or likely it's only just perception(with all the philosophical implications arising from this).

Nice look at the way people either believe the tree exists when they aren't looking or not... etc...

Personally I believe that forewarned is forearmed or whatever the saying is. That way, even if you don't see the tree you are aware that it may be falling on you, and that the results can be crippling or deadly.

The whole "purpose" of our senses for the last 6 million years has been to keep us alive... in a macroscopic world. The senses are honed to that function by evolution and natural selection down through the generations of us. No wonder we're confused when we start catching glimpses of the microscopic. When we are able to discern a cause and effect going on between the two, with the accuracy found in the function of our senses here, in the macroscopic, perhaps things will become clearer. For now, though, I'll remind you that nothing is only a part of everything!

 

[WaveJumper]

Have the experiments of Benjamin Libet on how unconscious electrical impulses predate conscious volitional acts been repeated or refuted? If not, it might, from a certain perspective, be interpreted as support for the primacy of mind over brain.

 

[SDetection]

Have the experiments of Benjamin Libet on how unconscious electrical impulses predate conscious volitional acts been repeated or refuted? If not, it might, from a certain perspective, be interpreted as support for the primacy of mind over brain.

Here is a definition of consciousness that doesn't make us special: An entity that is involuntary/unconsciously recalling an aspect, of its prior state, which it involuntary/unconsciously memorized, is conscious in regard to this aspect.

This means that, not because one is unconscious, one can't memorize anything, but one is unconscious because one hasn't just memorized anything to recall. What do you do if you want to wake someone up?
There is, of course, degree of consciousness, which is characterized by the levels of the dimensional knowledge that the observer can abstract from the stimuli, like when someone abstracts speech from sounds, or emotions from faces...

 

[WaveJumper]

Here is a definition of consciousness that doesn't make us special: An entity that is involuntary/unconsciously recalling an aspect, of its prior state, which it involuntary/unconsciously memorized, is conscious in regard to this aspect.

This doesn't say what consciousness is or if it's 'special'(whatever that means). It's simply a characteristic/feature of consciousness.

This means that, not because one is unconscious, one can't memorize anything, but one is unconscious because one hasn't just memorized anything to recall. What do you do if you want to wake someone up?
There is, of course, degree of consciousness, which is characterized by the levels of the dimensional knowledge that the observer can abstract from the stimuli, like when someone abstracts speech from sound, or emotions from faces...

What is the 'observer' that you seem to take for granted? This is a core issue and i am attempting to validate the assumptions being made, before proceeding to account for macro-scale phenomena. One of the basic assumptions is that matter is real and fundamental. I disagree with the latter and i am doubtful about the former. A thourough look at the nature of matter, space and time doesn't hold up to our pre-conceived notions. In this connection, i said earlier:

I don't see a reason to believe that either matter, or space might have a fundamental status. Both those concepts are securely tied to the dynamical background of GR. There doesn't appear to be a way to uphold the naive assumptions of our perception. What we term reality is either a limited, special case of what exists out there, or likely it's only just perception(with all the philosophical implications arising from this).

 

[magpies]

Ok so my definition of consciousness...

Consciousness: Being aware. <-- How good is this?

If I had my choice I would say consciousness is consciousness and leave it at that but that's not allowed it seems.

 

[Dmitry67]

All definitions of consciousness are pure blah blah unless they help to solve the
so called hard problem of Consciousness.

 

[WaveJumper]

The real question is what is 'woods' in the 'If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around...'?

It's an unmeasured supperposition of states that we mistake for woods. The Uncertainty principle does not state that two complementary properties cannot exist together; it merely states that we cannot know the two complementary properties simultaneously.

The uncertainty in the behaviour of particles is an extremely important feature of the nature. The form in which objects are manifested to us is the creation of our brain.

I cannot make a definite statement about the physical state of any entity until I make an observation to determine the actual state of that entity. This forces me to keep all the possibilities open and the best I can do is calculate the probability of finding a specific physical state when I make an observation. Schrodinger's equation allows me to calculate these probabilities, but the fact that a measurement/observation is required to 'collapse' the eigenstates to single outcomes is the core of the measurement problem. It's a powerful insight into the nature of reality and our role in it. If one takes modern physics seriously and assumes that human logic is valid and the right tool to describe reality(incredibly important assumption), then we are living in a relational universe.

 

[baywax]

The real question is what is 'woods' in the 'If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around...'?

It's an unmeasured supperposition of states that we mistake for woods. The Uncertainty principle does not state that two complementary properties cannot exist together; it merely states that we cannot know the two complementary properties simultaneously.

The uncertainty in the behaviour of particles is an extremely important feature of the nature. The form in which objects are manifested to us is the creation of our brain.

I cannot make a definite statement about the physical state of any entity until I make an observation to determine the actual state of that entity. This forces me to keep all the possibilities open and the best I can do is calculate the probability of finding a specific physical state when I make an observation. Schrodinger's equation allows me to calculate these probabilities, but the fact that a measurement/observation is required to 'collapse' the eigenstates to single outcomes is the core of the measurement problem. It's a powerful insight into the nature of reality and our role in it. If one takes modern physics seriously and assumes that human logic is valid and the right tool to describe reality(incredibly important assumption), then we are living in a relational universe.

Hi Wavejumper, perhaps the macro physical state is too course to "experience" the micro quantum or atomic/electro/magnetic states. Being unaware of a state does in no way prove that one or the other state does or does not exist.

Consciousness is a really bad way of saying "awareness". Somehow its been hijacked by the whoo hoos of the world and is now something you pay money to attain. What it may be trying to convey is the idea that when one is aware of process, causes and effects and the overall picture, they reach a conscious-awareness that is supported by experience and existing, stored knowledge. This way one's experiential awareness is bolstered by a consciousness of facts that add to the experience of the phenomenon. Who knows!?

 

[WaveJumper]

Hi Wavejumper, perhaps the macro physical state is too course to "experience" the micro quantum or atomic/electro/magnetic states. Being unaware of a state does in no way prove that one or the other state does or does not exist.

Hi Baywax,

My stance is not that the quantum doesn't exist, but that the macro scale impression of how matter, time and space exist is either wrong or incomplete. It must have felt similar in the 16th century when Coprnicus tried to get across the message that the hardwired and very intuitive notion of a flat Earth was wrong. The concept of a flat Earth was so intuitive for the primitive human perception that there are today vocal proponents of the flat Earth nonsense.

Consciousness is a really bad way of saying "awareness". Somehow its been hijacked by the whoo hoos of the world and is now something you pay money to attain. What it may be trying to convey is the idea that when one is aware of process, causes and effects and the overall picture, they reach a conscious-awareness that is supported by experience and existing, stored knowledge. This way one's experiential awareness is bolstered by a consciousness of facts that add to the experience of the phenomenon. Who knows!?

Maybe it's because we have zero knowledge of the important fundamental concepts. I'd stay away from naive models of reality, though.

 

[baywax]

Hi Baywax,

My stance is not that the quantum doesn't exist, but that the macro scale impression of how matter, time and space exist is either wrong or incomplete. It must have felt similar in the 16th century when Coprnicus tried to get across the message that the hardwired and very intuitive notion of a flat Earth was wrong. The concept of a flat Earth was so intuitive for the primitive human perception that there are today vocal proponents of the flat Earth nonsense.

Hi WaveyGravy! I have a feeling that if the emergent phenomenon you're calling a macro scale impression of matter didn't exist, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. The other thing about your statement is... is it wrong or right... its neither. When you see green as red its neither wrong or right... its either a trick of simultaneous colour contrast or a trick of the light. There are always mechanisms creating impressions and illusions and they are the subject of our fun inquiries. There's a lot of top physicists who think the universe is flat. That would make Earth pretty flat too.

 

[WaveJumper]

Hi WaveyGravy! I have a feeling that if the emergent phenomenon you're calling a macro scale impression of matter didn't exist, we wouldn't be talking about it right now.

Yes, it probably exists but the fact that we are talking about a consensus event does not mean that the event exists outside our conscious perception in the way it is manifested to us.

The other thing about your statement is... is it wrong or right... its neither. When you see green as red its neither wrong or right... its either a trick of simultaneous colour contrast or a trick of the light. There are always mechanisms creating impressions and illusions and they are the subject of our fun inquiries. There's a lot of top physicists who think the universe is flat. That would make Earth pretty flat too.

Sorry, i don't see your point.

 

[disregardthat]

A little off-topic, but...

WaveJumper, I have a question for you since you obviously knows quite a lot of quantum mechanics. What are your views on the classical interpretations of QM like the "Many-worlds theory" and the "copenhagen interpretation"?

 

[baywax]

Yes, it probably exists but the fact that we are talking about a consensus event does not mean that the event exists outside our conscious perception in the way it is manifested to us.

That's all we have to go on. This is no indication that the event is not as we perceive it to be. There are countless accounts of artifacts and phenomenon being misinterpreted. Take the canals on Mars for example. There's millions of examples. But, all its taken is advances in technology (in this case telescoping) and concentrated effort to prove a phenomenon is what we think it is or that its something else.

Sorry, i don't see your point.

That doesn't mean it is non-existent...
I think I was trying to point out that what you see is not always what you get... but that is neither wrong or right nor does it point to the non-existence of a phenomenon.

 

[WaveJumper]

What are your views on the classical interpretations of QM like the "Many-worlds theory" and the "copenhagen interpretation"?

I have not seen an interpretation that i would embrace as true. There is something fundamentally missing from our knowledge of reality and all these interpretational efforts are kind of premature and incomplete(bordeing on religion). We need a theory of QG and new insights into the nature of space and time, before an interpretation starts to fit the greater picture more convincingly, IMO.

 

[WaveJumper]

That's all we have to go on. This is no indication that the event is not as we perceive it to be. There are countless accounts of artifacts and phenomenon being misinterpreted. Take the canals on Mars for example. There's millions of examples. But, all its taken is advances in technology (in this case telescoping) and concentrated effort to prove a phenomenon is what we think it is or that its something else.






That doesn't mean it is non-existent...
I think I was trying to point out that what you see is not always what you get... but that is neither wrong or right nor does it point to the non-existence of a phenomenon.

This is how science works - making conclusions(often wrong) from incomplete evidence. You could say this is what gives us an edge over other animals and let's us predict phenomena and make progress.

 

[disregardthat]

I have not seen an interpretation that i would embrace as true. There is something fundamentally missing from our knowledge of reality and all these interpretational efforts are kind of premature and incomplete(bordeing on religion). We need a theory of QG and new insights into the nature of space and time, before an interpretation starts to fit the greater picture more convincingly, IMO.

I can agree with you on the Many-worlds theory, but I find the Copenhagen Interpretation to be a rational view.

 

[Dmitry67]

I can agree with you on the Many-worlds theory, but I find the Copenhagen Interpretation to be a rational view.

Copenhagen? The abandoned one? Ha ha!

 

[baywax]

This is how science works - making conclusions(often wrong) from incomplete evidence. You could say this is what gives us an edge over other animals and let's us predict phenomena and make progress.

I don't know. Animals make predictions about the kinds of phenomena that might be on the other side of a log before they jump over it. Then they deal with the reality once they hit the other side. They wouldn't be making the leap if they didn't have a fairly good calculation and prediction of what they were jumping into. (We are still in the philosophy section, right?!)

In fact sometimes we could learn methods of prediction from animals. Here's one possibility.

Earthquake Prediction by Animals: Evolution and Sensory Perception

Joseph L. Kirschvink
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences
California Institute of Technology 170-25
Pasadena, California 91125
kirschvink@caltech.edu

Manuscript received 13 July 1998.

Animals living within seismically active regions are subjected episodically to intense ground shaking that can kill individuals through burrow collapse, egg destruction, and tsunami action. Although anecdotal and retrospective reports of animal behavior suggest that although many organisms may be able to detect an impending seismic event, no plausible scenario has been presented yet through which accounts for the evolution of such behaviors. The evolutionary mechanism of exaptation can do this in a two-step process. The first step is to evolve a vibration-triggered early warning response which would act in the short time interval between the arrival of P and S waves. Anecdotal evidence suggests this response already exists. Then if precursory stimuli also exist, similar evolutionary processes can link an animal's perception of these stimuli to its P-wave triggered response, yielding an earthquake predictive behavior. A population-genetic model indicates that such a seismic-escape response system can be maintained against random mutations as a result of episodic selection that operates with time scales comparable to that of strong seismic events. Hence, additional understanding of possible earthquake precursors that are presently outside the realm of seismology might be gleaned from the study of animal behavior, sensory physiology, and genetics. A brief review of possible seismic precursors suggests that tilt, hygroreception (humidity), electric, and magnetic sensory systems in animals could be linked into a seismic escape behavioral system. Several testable predictions of this analysis are discussed, and it is recommended that additional magnetic, electrical, tilt, and hygro-sensors be incorporated into dense monitoring networks in seismically active regions.

http://bssa.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/2/312

 

[disregardthat]

Copenhagen? The abandoned one? Ha ha!

"abandoned"?

 

[Dmitry67]

Yes. MWI is now the #1.
Recently there was a good thread in this forum... damn, I don't remember the title about the CI... nobody here is seriously defending the CI. Anybody, what was the thread title?

 

[WaveJumper]

I can agree with you on the Many-worlds theory, but I find the Copenhagen Interpretation to be a rational view.

I think the problem with establishing what reality is, lies elsewhere and deeper. If it's about personal beliefs, I think matter, space, and time are as real as the colour 'red' and the solidity of matter, i.e. they are wrong/misleading interpretations of something greater and much different than we've been able to account for so far. Because all the interpretation of the 'outside' reality happens somehow in the brain, and we have no way to directly verify how true and correct that interpretation is(though its consensual), and experiments have been proving time and again that the interpretational mechanism in what is perceived as 'brain' is often flawed, it is necessary to put to test everything that is 'automatically' interpreted as true. The concepts of matter, space and time have failed to stand to the test of our perception so far.

I'd say that I believe only fields exist and some kind of awareness that turns those dynamical fields into an interpreted classical reality - the netbook i hold in my lap, the room i am in, the planet we are on, ... it's all interpretation in my head. Wrong at that. My perspective is that we shouldn't ascribe too much importance to automatic interpretations. It is the task of science to establish the truthfulness of the perceptions and the interpretations. So far, there have been far too many experiments that contradict our in-built interpretations of what exists out there, to continue to hold onto what is termed 'realism'. What interests me most is what lies behind the interpretation of matter, space and time. What are the fields, what are they made from and what is the awareness that generates for me the often contradictory reality we perceive as classical?

We won't account for consciousness with a flawed version/interpretation of what's out there. Ever. And this consciousness/awareness being the interpretor of the supposed outside reality of fields, is IMO a contributor to the paradoxes and a possible solution to foundational problems in physics - time running only in one direction, time flowing, distance between objects(locality vs non-locality), localised objects, all the weirdness of QM, somethings out of nothings, etc. i think are flaws of our interpretation of what's out there. The macro world of fixed, immutable objects in space is a mirage, a phantasm created by awareness that we seem to be. This is somewhat inline with Wheeler's participatory universe, but it deviates on some other important points.

 

[disregardthat]

The copenhagen interpretion is not a realist view at all. It is actually quite similar to an instrumentalist view (purely pragmatic). It says only about how we should/can interpret the information given, not what the information says about some external world. One of its main points is the focus on how our consciousness can comprehend the world and understand observations. Of course the interpretation is not definite, it is a view under constant change, but it's main points are somewhat like I can agree with. The changes of it are for the better I think. It is very similar to a Kantian perspective.

The many-worlds theory is a realist and deterministic view however, and I don't find it appealing at all.

It doesn't matter what most scientists subscribe to That the many-worlds theory is the most popular one is irrelevant. It is not at all "abandoned", many scientists still subscribe to CI.

 

[WaveJumper]

In 20, 50 or 100 years the people who believe in realism(objects having definite existence in space) will be able to cramp into a mid-size car.

 

[disregardthat]

In 20, 50 or 100 years the people who believe in realism(objects having definite existence in space) will be able to cramp into a mid-size car.

What?

 

[WaveJumper]

What?

How many people can board a mid-size car?

 

[disregardthat]

How many people can board a mid-size car?

I won't participate in your games

 

[WaveJumper]

In 20, 50 or 100 years the people who believe in realism(objects having definite existence in space) will be able to cramp into a mid-size car.

...is the same as saying:

"In 20, 50 or 100 years the people who believe in realism(objects having definite existence in space) will be 4 or 5", i.e. they will fit into a mid-size car.

 

[disregardthat]

...is the same as saying:

"In 20, 50 or 100 years the people who believe in realism(objects having definite existence in space) will be 4 or 5", i.e. they will fit into a mid-size car.

I doubt it. Realism is a persistent view.

You said something like "matter, space and time is a real as the color red". I don't agree with this. It is not that matter, space and time are "things" beyond human recognition, but that they are fundamental to human experience. Kant argued that we cannot transcend the notion of time and space in our experience, not even in our concepts. Hence a copenhagen-like perspective. I'm not talking about an external reality (which we cannot speak of), but the basis of human conception and perception. The color red differs from the concepts of space and time because color is not a necessary form in which perception and conception must take.

 

[WaveJumper]

I doubt it. Realism is a persistent view.

You said something like "matter, space and time is a real as the color red". I don't agree with this. It is not that matter, space and time are "things" beyond human recognition, but that they are fundamental to human experience. Kant argued that we cannot transcend the notion of time and space in our experience, not even in our concepts. Hence a copenhagen-like perspective. I'm not talking about an external reality (which we cannot speak of), but the basis of human conception and perception. The color red differs from the concepts of space and time because color is not a necessary form in which perception and conception must take.

I didn't say colour red was matter or space. I meant that their reality is comparable, i.e. they are interpretations of the inteactions of quantum fields(as best as we can tell) by the interpreting mechanism inside your head.

 

[disregardthat]

I didn't say colour red was matter or space. I meant that their reality is comparable, i.e. they are interpretations of the inteactions of quantum fields(as best as we can tell) by the interpreting mechanism inside your head.

That's not what I meant. Red differs in essence form time and space is perhaps wording myself better. The point is the time and space are forms in which experience and conception must take, whereas color isn't. They differ in this way, not in terms of equality. Time and space are also interpretations (and forms of conception) in our brain, but this doesn't mean they don't function as parts of the fundamental structure conception and interpretation of experience must have.

 

[baywax]

I doubt it. Realism is a persistent view.

You said something like "matter, space and time is a real as the color red". I don't agree with this. It is not that matter, space and time are "things" beyond human recognition, but that they are fundamental to human experience. Kant argued that we cannot transcend the notion of time and space in our experience, not even in our concepts. Hence a copenhagen-like perspective. I'm not talking about an external reality (which we cannot speak of), but the basis of human conception and perception. The color red differs from the concepts of space and time because color is not a necessary form in which perception and conception must take.

It is possible that realism, abstraction and conceptualism along with the rest of the schools of thought exist... that is, actually exist, along side each other. In this way "many worlds" would make sense.

If we didn't have a concept like matter, air, organisms etc... we would not have concepts and so we would not be discussing any of the differences between wave function and solid matter.

Briefly about red... without the colour red plants would simply grow indefinitely. Its the red spectrum of the sun that triggers the reproductive cycle in many plants and we get flowers and something to harvest out of this.

It seems to me that people are too busy looking for one component to existence instead of taking all the components and using them to construct a congruent and interconnected model of reality... or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Entropee]

Things are only real because we tell ourselves they are. The world is always as it should be because we instigate it with life by talking to ourselves.

 

[disregardthat]

It is possible that realism, abstraction and conceptualism along with the rest of the schools of thought exist... that is, actually exist, along side each other. In this way "many worlds" would make sense.

If we didn't have a concept like matter, air, organisms etc... we would not have concepts and so we would not be discussing any of the differences between wave function and solid matter.

Briefly about red... without the colour red plants would simply grow indefinitely. Its the red spectrum of the sun that triggers the reproductive cycle in many plants and we get flowers and something to harvest out of this.

It seems to me that people are too busy looking for one component to existence instead of taking all the components and using them to construct a congruent and interconnected model of reality... or whatever you want to call it.

Yes, realism might be true. But it is no reason to assume such an absurd thing when we know that our brains structures perception. Realism is not a necessary view.

I think what wavejumper meant about red was the subjective interpretation of the wavelength which we correspond to the color red, not the photons themselves.

 

[baywax]

Yes, realism might be true. But it is no reason to assume such an absurd thing when we know that our brains structures perception. Realism is not a necessary view.

If what you're saying here is true... and real... then you're not really being real and why would anyone believe what you say.

This makes realism real in the sense that it has to be true in order to make a statement like that in the first place.

 

[disregardthat]

If what you're saying here is true... and real... then you're not really being real and why would anyone believe what you say.

This makes realism real in the sense that it has to be true in order to make a statement like that in the first place.

Not in any way.

 

[baywax]

Not in any way.

Is that a real defense or a product of your deluded senses?

 

[disregardthat]

Is that a real defense or a product of your deluded senses?

Am I supposed to defend against this:

"If what you're saying here is true... and real... then you're not really being real and why would anyone believe what you say."
?

That's nonsense.

 

[baywax]

Am I supposed to defend against this:

"If what you're saying here is true... and real... then you're not really being real and why would anyone believe what you say."
?

That's nonsense.

When you deny realism exists everything is nonsense.

 

[disregardthat]

That's just not true.

 

[Galteeth]

To bring this back down to Earth a bit:

Does the tree make a sound? No, a sound is a perception of the brain that in absence of a brain does not occur (let's assume for the sake of agument there are no birds or other brains to hear the sound)

Does the falling tree produce sound waves? Yes, and these will have an effect on the surrouding environment that in principle could be measured.

What about all this quantum business? From my understanding, if the tree does in fact fall in the forest, the odds of it not producing sound waves are so astronomically low that you don't really have to worry about that. This system is going to be descripable classcally.

 

[baywax]

To bring this back down to Earth a bit:

Does the tree make a sound? No, a sound is a perception of the brain that in absence of a brain does not occur (let's assume for the sake of agument there are no birds or other brains to hear the sound)

Does the falling tree produce sound waves? Yes, and these will have an effect on the surrouding environment that in principle could be measured.

What about all this quantum business? From my understanding, if the tree does in fact fall in the forest, the odds of it not producing sound waves are so astronomically low that you don't really have to worry about that. This system is going to be descripable classcally.

Are sound waves an emergent phenomenon of a quantum state? Is a sound wave a macro or micro event?

 

[Descartz2000]

and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?...

my real question is, does the tree even exist if no one is around? and what qualifies an "observer". do wave functions collapse only in the presence of humans? why can't schroedinger's cat tell if it is dead?

I guess I'm asking for a general overview so that I can contribute CORRECT information the next time conversation of this type starts. Nothing worse than asserting incorrect facts about physics, or anything for that matter.

Technically yes the tree does exist if no one is around. But, it is insignificant as it takes a conscious observer to identify the tree as separate from its surroundings, It exists all along, but it is meaningless without an observer. An observer can make sense of it after, but prior to being observed there is no one to label and determine that it is even a tree. To separate an object from its surroundings is a conceptualization that requires a brain and its processes of identification. But yes, technically it does exist in the general sense.

 

[ValenceE]

Hello all,

baywax, you ask;

Are sound waves an emergent phenomenon of a quantum state? Is a sound wave a macro or micro event?

Of course a sound wave is macro from micro… it’s source is the resultant of all micro interactions between the external energetic shell of the tree’s bark, making its way between the surrounding air molecules, with every external energetic shell of any and all ‘things’ that it will interact with as it falls down.

The complexity and amplitude of the wave front strengthens as the falling tree interacts more and more until it comes to a standstill.

No sense of hearing around to hear it… no sound, just a bunch of energetic interactions.

There is a sense of hearing around to hear it… then the macro becomes micro again through the vibrating eardrum which, in turn, triggers the entire resolution/recognition process that makes it a ‘sound’.

Regards,

VE

 

[baywax]

Hello all,

baywax, you ask;




Of course a sound wave is macro from micro… it’s source is the resultant of all micro interactions between the external energetic shell of the tree’s bark, making its way between the surrounding air molecules, with every external energetic shell of any and all ‘things’ that it will interact with as it falls down.

The complexity and amplitude of the wave front strengthens as the falling tree interacts more and more until it comes to a standstill.

No sense of hearing around to hear it… no sound, just a bunch of energetic interactions.

There is a sense of hearing around to hear it… then the macro becomes micro again through the vibrating eardrum which, in turn, triggers the entire resolution/recognition process that makes it a ‘sound’.

Regards,

VE

Many thanks valence ... how does neuronal interaction with the stipes and hammer of the ear make the sound wave micro?

 

[baywax]

Technically yes the tree does exist if no one is around. But, it is insignificant as it takes a conscious observer to identify the tree as separate from its surroundings, It exists all along, but it is meaningless without an observer. An observer can make sense of it after, but prior to being observed there is no one to label and determine that it is even a tree. To separate an object from its surroundings is a conceptualization that requires a brain and its processes of identification. But yes, technically it does exist in the general sense.

Perhaps the observer needs the tree and the sound to be considered existent. Perhaps the observer is "meaningless" without interaction of some sort.

Please define "meaningless"/