If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to here it....

[Pella]

Right now thousands of trees are asking themselves questions about us and debating our worthiness to walk this planet.

 

REMEMBER THE ENTS!!!

 

c4 :cyclops:

 

If a person falls in the city and there is no tree around to hear, does it make a noise?

[GorunNova]

Yep, often a varient on 'Ow', but frequently things that can only be politely written in the form of a combination of the characters %, #, !, @, and $.

[jester12414]

If there's noone to hear it are you sure it fell? Maybe someone should go check....

 

mike

[Pella]

Yep' date=' often a varient on 'Ow', but frequently things that can only be politely written in the form of a combination of the characters %, #, !, @, and $.[/quote']

 

PML :p

 

But what about from the tree's point of view?

[GorunNova]

... oh, are you now asking, "Do trees ever belly-laugh"? ;)

[coolcat13]

now for the strictly religous view .since all things come from God and God is all knowing if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it God still hears it so yes it makes a noise

[GhostShadow]

Does the world cease to exist when I am asleep, and comes back together just as I am about to wake up?

 

=Han=

 

lol, how would we know. mabe we all have our oun reality and it starts and stops when we sleep and wake up. B/c you can only tell the passage of time through the active consiouness of th e brain. It might kinda be like tha matix too....

 

Wow this thread is getting deep.... :thinking:

[starcrunch]

I'll just say yes, and leave it at that.

[Guest c4evap]

now for the strictly religous view .since all things come from God and God is all knowing if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it God still hears it so yes it makes a noise

 

Yes...but if God falls and no one is around to hear that...well, you get my drift...

 

c4 :thinking:

[Vektram]

The oldest one in the book' date=' but since someone asked about a flat or round earth, we might as well question the full nature of reality [i']or what we percieve as reality[/i]

 

So if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

*goes technical*

 

The key word being no *body* so... we put a microphoe next to a tree about to fall over because of woodworm, set it to record and come back a few days later. Ultimate.

B)

[Pella]

The oldest one in the book' date=' but since someone asked about a flat or round earth, we might as well question the full nature of reality [i']or what we percieve as reality[/i]

 

So if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

*goes technical*

 

The key word being no *body* so... we put a microphoe next to a tree about to fall over because of woodworm, set it to record and come back a few days later. Ultimate.

B)

 

Some posted this idea acouple of pages back, so I'll you seek the answer. The point is if you left a recording device, there would be a witness to the event and there somebody would still be around

 

But let us counter your argument by saying that bug/recording device left either breaks down due to moisture levels in said forest - hey, it's rainy spring or the battery runs out before the tree falls

[howiepoohs]

Of all the questions the colour one is the easiest to answer. I pick what I consider to be an orange pencil up. I ask you what colour you think the pencil is (assuming you don't lie), you answer orange. Then we can define what orange looks like. If you answer green, then one of us is colourblind/mad/lying/percieves reality in a different way and a third party is needed to resolve the question (and so on until we have a majority opinion on the colour of the colour).

 

Therefore established reality is dependent on consensual agreement of those who observe and interact with it.

 

or we all one sandwich short of a picnic.

 

I'm in favour of the later - G'nite

 

I think you missed my point. What I see as the colour orange, is what I was told it was called, sam with you. Yet your orange seen through my eyes may appear to me to be blue. Yet seen through our own eyes we call it orange, because we were told that is its name. As I cant actually see what your brain has decoded from your optic nerve, this cant be proved either way.

[Pella]

Of all the questions the colour one is the easiest to answer. I pick what I consider to be an orange pencil up. I ask you what colour you think the pencil is (assuming you don't lie), you answer orange. Then we can define what orange looks like. If you answer green, then one of us is colourblind/mad/lying/percieves reality in a different way and a third party is needed to resolve the question (and so on until we have a majority opinion on the colour of the colour).

 

Therefore established reality is dependent on consensual agreement of those who observe and interact with it.

 

or we all one sandwich short of a picnic.

 

I'm in favour of the later - G'nite

 

I think you missed my point. What I see as the colour orange, is what I was told it was called, sam with you. Yet your orange seen through my eyes may appear to me to be blue. Yet seen through our own eyes we call it orange, because we were told that is its name. As I cant actually see what your brain has decoded from your optic nerve, this cant be proved either way.

 

Whilst you can't see through someone else's optic nerve. You can still use the above example to determine if both see the same colour. An independent person picks out an orange pencil. Without confering we both write down what colour we think it is. If we both say orange, we both see the colour, you see? It might actually be blue. But we both indepently arrive at the conclussion it is orange then that becomes the reality of the situation.

[GorunNova]

Simple solution... measure the wavelength(s) of the light reflected from the pencil, look at the number, and nod.

 

This Page has a nifty chart showing the wavelength range of visible light and the colours that fit into it.

[Pella]

Simple solution... measure the wavelength(s) of the light reflected from the pencil, look at the number, and nod.

 

This Page has a nifty chart showing the wavelength range of visible light and the colours that fit into it.

 

This a scary thought. Are we actually agreeing on something? That's not the GorunNova, I like to argue with - lol :D

[Vektram]

Of all the questions the colour one is the easiest to answer. I pick what I consider to be an orange pencil up. I ask you what colour you think the pencil is (assuming you don't lie), you answer orange. Then we can define what orange looks like. If you answer green, then one of us is colourblind/mad/lying/percieves reality in a different way and a third party is needed to resolve the question (and so on until we have a majority opinion on the colour of the colour).

 

Therefore established reality is dependent on consensual agreement of those who observe and interact with it.

 

or we all one sandwich short of a picnic.

 

I'm in favour of the later - G'nite

 

I think you missed my point. What I see as the colour orange, is what I was told it was called, sam with you. Yet your orange seen through my eyes may appear to me to be blue. Yet seen through our own eyes we call it orange, because we were told that is its name. As I cant actually see what your brain has decoded from your optic nerve, this cant be proved either way.

 

Whilst you can't see through someone else's optic nerve. You can still use the above example to determine if both see the same colour. An independent person picks out an orange pencil. Without confering we both write down what colour we think it is. If we both say orange, we both see the colour, you see? It might actually be blue. But we both indepently arrive at the conclussion it is orange then that becomes the reality of the situation.

 

The eye reacts in a different way for every different color it sees, something to do with the wavelengths, so if the two people were being retina-scanned (or something) while this experiment was taking place it could be found out if they were actually seeing the same color, not just what they called "orange".

[GorunNova]

This a scary thought. Are we actually agreeing on something? That's not the GorunNova, I like to argue with - lol :D

 

Hey, I only disagree with something when I happen to ... well, not agree with it! ^^

[Vektram]

Well, sound is caused by the vibration of certain things, for example, if I am playing the drums and hit a cymbal with the drumstick the cymbal vibrates and creates a ringing noise.

 

Sound can also be created by miniscule vibrations, such as the ones that occur in my vocal chords when I speak, or when I open a bag of chips. It may seem like the pulling causes the sound, but the pulling causes vibration which then creates sound.

 

If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is around the sound will not be percieved, but it will still be created, as the trunk hits the ground and both the trunk and the ground vibrate. Branches and leaves and undergrowth get crushed, and this all contributes to the noise of the tree falling over. The waves are sent out, and even if they disappear before anyone can hear them they still existed.

 

I'm sure that someone can explain this better than me, and I may have got a few things wrong, but there you go.

 

Saying that, apparently plants and trees can percieve sound in some way, as it affects thier growth, so if you count those plants and trees then sound is always heard (or percieved.) ;)

[elderbear]

Of all the questions the colour one is the easiest to answer. I pick what I consider to be an orange pencil up. I ask you what colour you think the pencil is (assuming you don't lie), you answer orange. Then we can define what orange looks like. If you answer green, then one of us is colourblind/mad/lying/percieves reality in a different way and a third party is needed to resolve the question (and so on until we have a majority opinion on the colour of the colour).

 

Therefore established reality is dependent on consensual agreement of those who observe and interact with it.

 

or we all one sandwich short of a picnic.

 

I'm in favour of the later - G'nite

 

I think you missed my point. What I see as the colour orange, is what I was told it was called, sam with you. Yet your orange seen through my eyes may appear to me to be blue. Yet seen through our own eyes we call it orange, because we were told that is its name. As I cant actually see what your brain has decoded from your optic nerve, this cant be proved either way.

 

Whilst you can't see through someone else's optic nerve. You can still use the above example to determine if both see the same colour. An independent person picks out an orange pencil. Without confering we both write down what colour we think it is. If we both say orange, we both see the colour, you see? It might actually be blue. But we both indepently arrive at the conclussion it is orange then that becomes the reality of the situation.

 

I think not.

 

8)

 

It becomes a working shared description of the situation. This would have been much more interesting if the example had been green. If I recall correctly, humans break down into three major populations for green-spectrum light sensitivity. My wife and her mother were not the same. With acqua/turquoise/blue-greenish colors, the Mrs. would run with green every time, and the Mom-in-law would go with blue. It was quite funny to watch. Our son is partially color blind, so he saw grey or brown if the colors were pastel. I saw blue-green.

 

No consensual description.

 

Observations - even repeatable ones that are shared - do not prove a "Reality" they merely make it possible for us to act as if one exists.

 

What if "Reality" is actually "Maya," illusion? Then this illusion is so self-consistent that by making observations we can deduce a set of laws that predict the behavior of this illusional system. These laws are the laws of science - only now they describe not "Reality," but a self-consistent system of illusion which becomes impossible to distinguish from "Reality" from within that system.

 

If science can successfully describe the universe, then whether it is "Reality" or some illusion (or a brain-in-a-bottle) doesn't matter. They become practially the same thing.

 

But what about events in the absence of an observer (either immediate or remote)? Without an observer, there is no perception of "sound," but the vibrations are still produced. Implying a lack of object permanence - that things stop working "normally" as soon as your back is turned is either silly or reminiscent of Douglas Adams (or both).

 

The more interesting questions lie at the level of quantum mechanics. Does Schroedinger's Cat die if nobody's around to open the box? If you leave him in the box a very long time and he doesn't die, are you stupid to open the box to find out? If there's nobody around to witness him clawing your eyes out, are you really screaming in pain?

[howiepoohs]

Whilst you can't see through someone else's optic nerve. You can still use the above example to determine if both see the same colour. An independent person picks out an orange pencil. Without confering we both write down what colour we think it is. If we both say orange, we both see the colour, you see? It might actually be blue. But we both indepently arrive at the conclussion it is orange then that becomes the reality of the situation.

 

My point is thus: Something that is orange, we as a race of human beings universally accept this to be orange. For example, some of us would not call an orange tree a blue tree, we all call it an orange tree, because we are told this is so. What i am saying is, is colour subjective? Do we universally see the "actual" same colour? Could this be why some people perfer one colour to another. On the subject of colour, there was this composer who could see the music as colour, cant remember his name, but he thought that everyone was the same, and could see sounds as colour and would say to see orchistra "too much blue" and things of that ilk.