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

[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"/

 

[ValenceE]

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

Please baywax, you know better than ask me that question…


VE

 

[baywax]

Please baywax, you know better than ask me that question…VE

Well, I don't think it would return to any micro state just because of a few neurotransmitters translating vibration as a sound.

Sound is defined as "vibrations that travel through the air or another medium". So, when the tree falls... and perhaps here we can think of it as its own observer when you consider the research showing the response ability of plants to any kind of vibration or photo stimulus...

ABSTRACT
The effects of sound and music on plant growth have been an intriguing subject and
the fascination of many a horticulturist over the years . Many have claimed the effects of
talking or the playing of classical music to the plants . Surprisingly, this has some scientific
basis, according to research done mainly by the scientists from China and Japan .

http://sps.nus.edu.sg/~tanshenm/2171.pdf

And I think we have all seen plants react to directional light and the various spectrums that come with it.

In this sense we can say that the tree is its own observer and that it is not only going to react to and sense its trunk splitting or keeling over, it is also going to sense hitting the ground. So, in this instance we can say that when a tree falls in the forest... it is able to sense the whole affair and there is no need for any other participants in the event to prove, qualify or otherwise confirm that the event has taken place.

 

[ValenceE]

Dear baywax,

I was referring to ‘sound’ as it is related to the human sense of hearing, so yes, yes, agreed that, if within their ‘reach’, the vibrations made by the falling tree will be perceived by a multitude of entities (including the tree) that have the capability of such ‘perception’, each to their degree, and no human is needed for that to happen.

As for returning to the micro state, well, I consider the recognition of this sound, while telling myself, “hey, there’s a tree falling”, as an end result belonging to the micro/quantum realm.

Regards,

VE

 

[Descartz2000]

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"/

It is meaningless because there is no point in discussing the event without an interaction between the observer and this event. It becomes null and void without someone present to experience it. When we reflect back on it, we can conclude, 'yes, it did in fact occur. It always was in existence, but it had no value when not observed'. We give it the conceptual qualities (distinction, conceptualization of existing over time, separation from other objects around it, etc).

 

[DrClapeyron]

The tree falling question is a good example to show humans are extremely conceited. Why would anything's existence be dependent upon our observation?

 

[DaveC426913]

The tree falling question is a good example to show humans are extremely conceited. Why would anything's existence be dependent upon our observation?

Who said anything about humans - other than you? Now that's kind of conceited.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Who said anything about humans - other than you? Now that's kind of conceited.

I like your humor but silly questions always warrant silly responses.

 

[DaveC426913]

I like your humor but silly questions always warrant silly responses.

The humour is to be found in the fact that my statement should be so obvious as to go without saying.

What makes you think we're talking about humans? Do squirrels hear the sound? Of course they do. If the tree fell and there were no squirrels, would it make a sound? Same question.

Before humans walked the Earth, sounds still existed.


The philosophical question of whether a tree makes a sound is perfectly valid while having absolutely nothing to do with human conceit.

So - what was your contribution again?

 

[DrClapeyron]

The humour is to be found in the fact that my statement should be so obvious as to go without saying.

What makes you think we're talking about humans? Do squirrels hear the sound? Of course they do. If the tree fell and there were no squirrels, would it make a sound? Same question.

Before humans walked the Earth, sounds still existed.


The philosophical question of whether a tree makes a sound is perfectly valid while having absolutely nothing to do with human conceit.

So - what was your contribution again?

The question was asked on an internet forum directed at humans. You aren't going to say squirrels check up on their emails daily and then visit physicsforum?

 

[DaveC426913]

The question was asked on an internet forum directed at humans. You aren't going to say squirrels check up on their emails daily and then visit physicsforum?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[DrClapeyron]

What does that have to do with anything?

The tree was certainly around when it fell, why wouldn't the tree count as an observer?

 

[DaveC426913]

The tree was certainly around when it fell, why wouldn't the tree count as an observer?

You did not answer my question. Why do you think this question presumes the conceit of humans?

I contend that the question is perfectly valid without any reference to humans' participation, so why are you presuming anyone thinks humans must be involved, and thus assuming our conceit?

Please explain.

 

[DrClapeyron]

You did not answer my question. Why do you think this question presumes the conceit of humans?

I contend that the question is perfectly valid without any reference to humans' participation, so why are you presuming anyone thinks humans must be involved, and thus assuming our conceit?

Please explain.

So does one refer to something other than a human? Let's look at the setting: the woods. Woods implies something away from human construction, society and presence. We are lead to believe that there is no one in the woods. Apparently the animals and plants and the tree itself never count as one or an observer.

 

[kote]

So does one refer to something other than a human? Let's look at the setting: the woods. Woods implies something away from human construction, society and presence. We are lead to believe that there is no one in the woods. Apparently the animals and plants and the tree itself never count as one or an observer.

We use humans and sounds as an example because we are familiar with being human and perceiving sounds. We could just as easily have asked if the sensation of the echolocation of a bear entering a cave is present when there are no bats around to sense the bear entering.

But that would make for a pretty awful example wouldn't it? We have no idea what the sensation of echolocation is like. I'm pretty sure none of us know what it's like to be a bat.

Do bats perceive the sensation of sound in the same way we do? If not, we have to stick for humans for this example.

I suggest reading the posts earlier in this thread explaining the question with qualia. You can also look up qualia on the net. "What is it Like to be a Bat?" is a famous philosophy paper by Thomas Nagel that talks about this question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia.

 

[DaveC426913]

So does one refer to something other than a human? Let's look at the setting: the woods. Woods implies something away from human construction, society and presence. We are lead to believe that there is no one in the woods. Apparently the animals and plants and the tree itself never count as one or an observer.

Yes. That is a perfectly valid line of argument.

Rather than following the line of argument, you instead chose to simply damn all of human society with the judgement that they are conceited. This is a discussion-closer. (Note additionally, that you seem to be the only one who holds this judgement. No one else seems to struggle with the idea that the question is not human-centric.)

So, I'll rephrase your comment as a discussion-continuer:

Q: What about non-human observers? There are surely animals in the forest. (I thought maybe trees could count, but then I realize how silly that is, since trees don't have any hearing mechanisms.) If there are animals in the forest, does the tree make a sound?
A: Yes. Animals will hear the sound. The question is not human-centric. Consider the question to be: if a tree falls in the forest and no creatures are around, does it make a sound?

Now the question is getting to the nitty-gritty. What is "sound"?

 

[DaveC426913]

We have no idea what the sensation of echolocation is like. I'm pretty sure none of us know what it's like to be a bat.

I've got some ideas for a demo of that. All I need is some funding...

 

[disregardthat]

That it is a tree, or what sound is is irrelevant. The riddle is supposed to make us focus on the link between the concepts of perception and existence.

Does it make sense to consider the existence of an object independent of perception? I say no; the object is a purely a product of our sensory apparatus. It is a construction of the mind - an interpretation of a formless "external world". Forms (properties like shape, color etc..) are entirely created by the conscious mind.

Some of these forms might be necessary for human experience. Kant argues that for example, all objects must have spatial and temporal qualities; because these concepts are necessary components of all perception.

 

[DaveC426913]

That it is a tree, or what sound is is irrelevant. The riddle is supposed to make us focus on the link between the concepts of perception and existence.

Does it make sense to consider the existence of an object independent of perception? I say no; the object is a purely a product of our sensory apparatus. It is a construction of the mind - an interpretation of a formless "external world".

The pressure waves exist independent of any person or animal around to perceive them. This does not involve sensory apparati or perception. Is it still "sound"?

 

[disregardthat]

The pressure waves exist independent of any person or animal around to perceive them.

Pressure waves are concepts created by the mind as any other concept. Pressure waves are also a construction of the mind. They do not exist independently of the perceiver.

 

[DaveC426913]

Pressure waves are concepts created by the mind as any other concept. Pressure waves are also a construction of the mind. They do not exist independently of the perceiver.

This is completely false. Why would you say such a thing?

Are you saying that when the tree hits the ground, the air around the tree is not moved? Does it not propagate these movements in a spherical front radiating out from the tree at the speed of sound?