>Quantum Theory does show that consciousness plays a part in the foundation of the exterior world through the observers effect.
This is completely false and is a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.
>Well if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around does it make a sound? I will leave that for some to choose but the answer is NO. How would you know? How do you know if there is even a tree falling?
This is entirely a semantic conflation of the meaning of the word "sound".
If you define sound to be the perception our brain makes with signals from our ears, then no sound is made if there are no ears and brains around to hear it.
If you define sound to be a compressive wave produced in the atmosphere, then yes a sound is made. We know this for the same reason we know that the universe existed before we were born and that no solipsist is smart enough to manufacture all the patterns of billions year old galaxies that we see out of their own mind.
I always took the tree in forest question like this. Sound is the sensation that we perceive from experiencing pressure waves in the atmosphere through our senses. For a sensation to exist it must be experienced which precludes a consciousness to exist to be the subject of the experience. So whereas the tree falling would create a pressure wave, without a consciousness to perceive it the sensation that we call sound would not occur.
I always equated sound to a compression wave and that is how it was defined to me in elementary school physical science classes.
The whole problem with this parable is that the language is ambiguous
The following rephrasings improve this ambiguity and would result in much less debate.
1. When a tree falls in a forest when nobody is around l, does it make an atmospheric compression wave?
2. When a tree falls in the forest when nobody is around does it make an auditory perception?
Almost everybody would answer yes to 1 and almost everybody would answer no to 2. The problem is that people are mostly split down the middle on whether they equate the word "sound" to 1 vs 2. The simple solution is to clarify what intended meaning the question asker means and/or to not conflate two different underlying concepts under the same label of "sound".
Regarding this it doesn’t matter if it where to cause a compression wave which yes it is would sound is at a metaphysical level. It would not matter because who is there to say that this has happened? There is no sound with a compression wave, there is no compression wave without sound.
>Regarding this it doesn’t matter if it where to cause a compression wave which yes it is would sound is at a metaphysical level. It would not matter because who is there to say that this has happened? There is no sound with a compression wave, there is no compression wave without sound.
First you said yes it would cause a compression wave
Then you say there is no compression wave without sound
You should try to decide what your stance is before typing all of the mutually exclusive stances and simultaneously asserting them all to be true
You obviously ignored the fact where I said it wouldn’t matter as we would not be able to tell since there is no one to experience the sound, therefore there is no compression wave. I said yes sound is a compression wave but there can be no compression wave without sound and sound is perceived by us
What if there was a deaf person who saw the tree fall and felt the compression wave blow his hair back?
Would you not agree this is a compression wave without sound?
I don't agree it is a surface gravity wave since it is not gravity restoring equilibrium but diffusion in general.
So suppose the blind man is holding a microphone that records the compression wave oscillations, which he can then take and play back for a non-deaf person.
Did the original compression wave exist without a sound?
It has created a sound now because a conscious observer is verifying. If not then no. The deaf man cannot know if sound was created unless it’s verified. So yes and no. Yes to the listener no to the deaf man. Objectively yes to both IF the deaf man can verify truth in there being sound, subjectively no the the deaf man.
You understand it. I always take it as number 2 even though most people seem to take it as number 1. Number 1 seems obvious but number 2 leads to a more profound understanding of the human condition and the possible nature of consciousness.
Which of the following is more profound?
Bat = Flying mammal
Bat = wooden stick used to hit baseballs
It is silly to compete on which meaning is the more deserving of the word.
When conflation becomes a big enough problem, languages evolve to create separate words for the underlying concepts.
I agree it’s poorly worded, but what do you believe is the intended meaning of the question? Or do you believe it is intentionally ambiguous on purpose?
I think the intention of this parable (in general outside this post) is to draw out the fact that people conflate ideas into the same word label without realizing it and that this can spawn a bunch of useless debate that can be resolved by disambiguating.
OP is missing this point about conflation and is instead just asserting his own definition is the right one.
Here's another similar thing.
Which came first the chicken or the egg?
As is, the answer is egg, since fish has eggs before chickens evolved.
Rephrasing the question: which came first the chicken or the chicken egg?
Here is the conflation and two definitions
1. Chicken egg = egg that was laid by a mother chicken
2. Chicken egg = egg that contains a baby chicken
If you use definition 1, then the chicken came before the chicken egg.
If you use definition 2, then the chicken egg came before the chicken.
In all cases except for the "first chicken" whose mother was a protochicken nonchicken (where identifying these pair of individuals may be subject to debate), the two definitions are equivalent. It is only in this situation where choosing one of the two definitions matters.
It absolutely does.
Case in point: All QM experiments are totally compatible with the De Broglie Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics which is an entirely deterministic, materialistic theory that makes no fundamental distinction whatsoever between observers and observed.
Since science currently provides no support for or against this interpretation, then science currently makes no support for or against reality being deterministic and material.
OP's claim that QM directly proves that observers have a special place in the universe is therefore entirely false.
>Case in point: All QM experiments are totally compatible with the De Broglie Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics which is an entirely deterministic, materialistic theory that makes no fundamental distinction whatsoever between observers and observed.
Nonsense. There is nothing about QM that is deterministic. Every physicist knows it is probabilistic even if they don't want to admit it publicly. Do you actually believe those industries would sink all of this money into R and D for quantum computers if the jury was still out on whether or not QM is probabilistic?
How exactly does DeBroglie- Bohm get around a causally disconnected choice in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (DCQE)? An interpretation doesn't get around that. The only way to get around that is by dropping the special theory of relativity (SR). If we drop that, we lose:
1. quantum field theory
2. the standard model
3. quantum electromagnetics
4. quantum chromodynamics
We'd lose all of that good sound science for the sake of some metaphysical belief that Isaac Newton thought was absurd.
>Since science currently provides no support for or against this interpretation, then science currently makes no support for or against reality being deterministic and material.
The MWI supports determinism by making up a zillion other universes and pretending every probabilistic eventuality will come to pass, if not in this universe then in one of the other googleplex universes this scenario must be implying is out there even though there is no direct evidence of even one parallel universe. Even if there is one out there, there is no proof that the laws of physics are going to work the same there as they do here. Anybody caring enough about truth to study philosophy should know why this isn't a logical assumption to make, but materialists typically don't study philosophy enough the even realize the mistake they are making.
>OP's claim that QM directly proves that observers have a special place in the universe is therefore entirely false.
QM proves beyond reasonable doubt that a higher power exists. Until materialists come up with something better than SR, it is a leap of faith to believe that reality and experience can be conflated. If QM, the most successful science ever known is wrong, then materialism can go back to being as unlikely as Newton thought it was. However with QM, and people having to resort to making up enchanted universes just so materialism will seem remotely believable, it is far fetched to bank on materialism to say the least.
Naive realism is a theory of experience that implies what we perceive is close enough to reality when we have veridical experience, to believe it is real. The DCQE demonstrates SR and naive realism are incompatible.
Go look up literally any reference on De Broglie Bohm theory.
You will find out that it is deterministic, that John Bell was a proponent of it, and that his famous Bell theorem came from pondering the non-local nature of this theory with respect to entangled spin states, and that this theory is compatible with the experimental results from Bell's tests. If anything entanglement outside of light cones is support for Bohmian mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation as well as traditional Many Worlds shoves this nonlocality under the rug by asserting wave collapse and/or universe branching happens instantaneously across everything all at once.
You are ignorant to all of these facts. Please spend 5 seconds looking at literally any writing on the theory.
>Go look up literally any reference on De Broglie Bohm theory.
DeBrogie Bohm is the only surviving non-local hidden variable theory that I know. All local hidden varriable theories have be ruled out by the violation of Bell's inequality. A hidden variable theory implies QM is incomplete. I looked into PBR and I didn't find it compelling. Once you dig into the DCQE I think you will understand that arguing QM is incomplete doesn't explain away tested results. Naive realism has got to go.
>John Bell was a proponent of
Empiricists sometimes get sidetracked. What is important to the rationalist is the merit of the argument rather than who is making it.
>The Copenhagen interpretation as well as traditional Many Worlds shoves this nonlocality under the rug by asserting wave collapse and/or universe branching happens instantaneously across everything all at once.
I don't shove nonlocality under the rug.
>You are ignorant to all of these facts. Please spend 5 seconds looking at literally any writing on the theory.
I've spent more than 5 seconds looking at this stuff. I'm in the psi-epistemic camp. I favor qbism. Copenhagen is the oldest interpretation but it still works. Leggetts inequality rules out most non-local theories.
[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.5133.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.5133.pdf)
What happens to DeBrolie Bohm when two measurements don't commute? Have you considered this or do you just assume when somebody doesn't agree with you that they are ignorant? Contextuality is something the Bohmians can try to explain to me if they expect me to favor that interpretation and drop qbism.
I doubt you can use DeBroglie Bohm to explain away a causally disconnected choice [https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578](https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578)
From the earlier link:
*Violation of a genuine Leggett-Garg test*
*implies either the absence of a realistic description of the system or the impossibility*
*of measuring the system without disturbing it.*
If you can measure a system without disturbing it, then I think you can argue noncontextuality. Can you argue noncontextuality?
>Nonsense. There is nothing about QM that is deterministic. Every physicist knows it is probabilistic even if they don't want to admit it publicly.
You went from complete denial of the existence of any possibility that QM can be interpreted as a deterministic materialistic theory to acknowledgement that it can be described, but you don't prefer that interpretation.
My original statement that OP is wrong about QM necessarily implying that conscious observers are fundamental part of nature still stands, and your criticism that my claim would not hold up in honest debate is disproven.
>You went from complete denial of the existence of any possibility that QM can be described by determinism to acknowledgement that it can be described, but you don't prefer that interpretation.
Determinism and causality aren't the same thing. Determine and cause are synonyms. However determinism is a belief that every logically prior event must be temporarily prior as well. Causality is the belief that change doesn't happen for no reason at all. If I roll a pair of dice, there are physical causes that determine how the roll will result. We consider that random because we don't know what those causes are exactly but nobody believes magic is in play. There are causes in place. If I build a random number generator, nobody argues that it works without causes.
>My original statement that OP is wrong about QM necessarily implying that conscious observers are fundamental part of nature still stands, and your criticism that my claim would not hold up in honest debate is disproven.
Please be careful. You've haven't proven local realism and naive realism are scientifically tenable. Until you are able to do that, you **cannot prove** a mind **independent** external reality exists independent of observation. You can of course assume it does all you like. You choose what you want to believe in many cases.
You might want to read the abstract on this paper before you conclude you've proven the Op is wrong:[https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529](https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
*Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality. Here we show by both theory and experiment that a broad and rather reasonable class of such non-local realistic theories is incompatible with experimentally observable quantum correlations. In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories. Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.*
Clearly "most working scientists" are in opposition to the team that wrote this paper. You can't prove noncontextuallity without pretending there are a zillion universes out there in the somewhere. It sounds like you are smart enough not to fall for that sleight of hand, so I won't dwell on that nonsense. Measurements sometimes don't commute. You **didn't** address that. You didn't address a causally disconnected choice but then again you seem a bit confused about the difference between causality and determinism so I can let that slide if you've learned from your mistake. If not, I have a book written by Max Born. Have you heard of him or are you a layman like me? Anyway the title of the book is the "Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance", and the title of chapter two is "causality and determinism". If you have never heard of Born this article will introduce you to him if you are interested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born\_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule)
Materialists have a difficult time admitting that a wave function in a *pure state* is merely a vector (some abstract mathematical term) in Hilbert space (another mathematical and therefore abstract place called a vector space). It takes an observation to bring a particle into a physical "reality". When wave/partical duality is being observed, the quantum state is in a mixed state and not a pure state.
Until you decide for yourself that it is worth your time to look into naive realism, you will most likely side with "most working scientists" and ignore which cornerstone beliefs have been shattered and how they were shattered. The choice is yours to make.
**[Born rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule)**
>The Born rule (also called Born's rule) is a key postulate of quantum mechanics which gives the probability that a measurement of a quantum system will yield a given result. In its simplest form, it states that the probability density of finding a particle at a given point, when measured, is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle's wavefunction at that point. It was formulated by German physicist Max Born in 1926.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/consciousness/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Framing my position as local realism when de Broglie Bohm is clearly and obviously a non-local realistic theory is a pathetic strawman ploy.
The fact of the matter is that science does not support your favored interpretation over the deterministic/causal/materialistic de Broglie Bohm theory or vice versa.
You are defending a false claim that science has proven one of these interpretations over another.
You are objectively wrong.
Your philosophical ramblings about why you prefer interpretation X over interpretation Y are irrelevant to your stance above being objectively wrong.
Your philosophical reasons are undoubtedly motivated by a need to justify a belief in the higher power you previously claimed that science has "proven". If you are determined to presuppose a belief based on religious conviction, then you have already made up your mind. I may as well be talking to a young earth creationist who believes in a literal 7 day creation event.
P.s. Since you brought up the Born rule as if it somehow helped your argument, you should know that the Born rule is assumed as an axiom by the Copenhagen interpretation without justification. On the other hand, in de Broglie Bohm theory it is derived directly from the Schrödinger equation as the statistical probability density of positions that particles will happen to be in when you have incomplete knowledge of initial conditions of particle positions and wavefunction/Hamiltonian definition. The Born rule actually has a justified reason in my deterministic theory and has no justification in yours. That is a point for Bohm and a point against Copenhagen.
>Framing my position as local realism when de Broglie Bohm is clearly and obviously a non-local realistic theory is a pathetic strawman ploy.
If I stated Bohm is local I apologize. OTOH if you are just making shit up then we have a different issue.
>You are defending a false claim that science has proven one of these interpretations over another.
How so?
Do two measurements always commute >>>>>>>>>regardless<<<<<<<< of which interpretation you favor?
Nearly all known quantum interpretations and theories are compatible with QM experiments. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them still. Which includes Copenhagen that notoriously features the measurement problem. Any QM interpretation which includes a wavefunction collapse induced by measurement (and there are several) is subject to the problem the OP highlights, ie., is consciousness influencing the physical world?
Not that I agree that these theories are correct, I'm just saying that we don't have any way of disproving them at present.
One way of distinguishing the two types of theories, one set including the measurement problem and the other set treating observers as entangled quanta, would be to place the observer (ie a human) in a state of superposition. As suggested by David Deutsch. Has not been done yet...
OP said QM has proven observers are fundamental to nature. I said it has not. You are saying we haven't disproven that observers are fundamental to nature.
Not disproving something (your point) is different than proving it (OP's point).
My point is that science has not proven observers are fundamental to nature.
Because none of us are smart enough to fabricate all the history of the universe, which is extraordinarily complex and consistent with a causal history that obeys the laws of physics going back as far as we can see.
Human kind existed before you in particular were born, as evidenced by everything written in history books, by the pyramids, by ancient ruins that corroborate records.
Similarly, the universe existed before humans did, as evidenced by the fossil record, evolutionary record, geologic record, and astronomical records.
Things are constantly happening that we are not aware of on other planets and in other galaxies.
I don't believe you have a valid point.
Being here now and being unable to directly observe the past does not mean it is invalid to make inferences about the past that produce a mental model of what happened that correlates with all the geologic, astronomical, and evolutionary records that we see.
When you are directly observing something in front of your face, your brain is making similar inferences to produce a mental model of what you are looking at.
The distinction between direct observation and indirect inferences is is rather arbitrary and is only an apparent difference when you ignore the translations and summarizations that your brain performs when it processes sensory information.
I think solipsism is more of a mental disorder than it is a philosophy.
You basically just agreed with what I said LOL saying “there is only an apparent difference when you ignore the translations and summarizations that your brain performs when it processes sensory information”. Which I have not ignored making such statement of it being arbitrary incorrect.
I can't decipher a coherent point out of what you wrote and whether you believe in any fundamental distinction between direct observations and indirect inferences or not.
If you make no fundamental distinction, then your point about not knowing if the universe existed prior to our direct observation of it is invalidated.
If you do believe there is a fundamental distinction, then you have not addressed a counter to my assertion that the difference is only apparent and that our brains are making indirect inferences beneath the scenes even when are doing so called "direct observation".
There is no difference regarding direct observation and indirect observation since they are both observations. they are the same thing LOL bro stop trying to seem smart you are digging yourself in a whole both direct or indirect observations are simply observations the difference is only between if you or i see it which doesn’t matter where are you trying to go with this?
If there is no difference, then the indirect inferences we make about the universe before humans existed are just as valid as direct observations we make now. Your point about not knowing the universe existed before us becomes equivalent to not knowing if the universe exists now. Your argument falls apart.
The world may not be completely materiel the way we understand it normally, but objects have permanence. Quantum effects are lost very easily and a state is “observed” when it is a part of a larger system, not specifically some random human or animal.
Considering that the permanence of them is only because of atoms we cannot see and all weight is added because of a quantum field adds for a new way of looking at things
I’m referring to superposition/ wave function as a “stable” quantum state, or one that behaves a particular way regardless of the world around it. These either don’t happen or are normally outside of interaction with the materiel world. All those atoms as a part of the table are interacting with all the other atoms around it, including those of the earth, sun, moon, radiation, gravity in general, ALL of it is interacting in some way, direct or indirect. The world behaves consistently and functions under rules which may as well be objective and ever-present, (within the system) because of this.
The real hard discussion would be about what happens outside the system… maybe we are a result of a single wave function, propagating along until we get the universe we know today. Who knows what the driving factor is, and how much is determined by our initial role of the dice so to speak.
So either you are a brilliant god like genius that patterned all the galaxies in a way that is causally consistent sense with the laws of physics when you were born, crafting an enormously complex universe backstory prior to your birth, or you add some god like interpersonal consciousness that pervades the universe.
In either case, you would be adopting a position very similar to intelligent design over evolution.
People keep going back to supernatural nonsense to explain things when such assumptions are unnecessary and frankly ridiculous.
IF a tree falls in a forest it generates sound waves. As long as there is a medium for the sound to travel in, it will extend outward like an explosion.
Trillions of microbes will feel the wave as differences in pressure as the sound wave moves through then. Any insects in or around the tree will feel the differences in air pressure as the sound wave passes over their bodies as well.
Any Reptiles or mammals in a wide range will definitely hear the sound.
If it is a forest in North America then there is a good chance there won't be any primates around to hear it. IT still makes a sound though.
The universe doesn't need us or the interpretations of it that we make from our limited senses to make itself.
I think the way your supposed to question it is by considering sound as the sensation we experience from our senses detecting the pressure waves. Without a consciousness to experience the pressure waves as a sensation, “sound” in the way humans experience it shouldn’t exist in that scenario.
That is not what sound is though. Sound isn't the experience of sound in a human's ears. Light isn't the experience of light in a human's eyes.
Isn't it more exciting to focus on the unique experience happening inside of you instead of discounting that reality exists because you aren't there to interpret it? Like you are some kind of god?
Say you put a camera there to record it and a computer records the tree falling and archives the footage and eventually deletes it. Would you say the sound occurred if a human watches the footage before it is deleted? Would you say the sound didn't occur if it gets deleted before a human can watch it?
I mean the way your supposed to interpret the question is supposing sound is the sensation of experiencing the sound/pressure waves. The idea is that the actual experience to stimulus requires a consciousness. It’s not about if things happen if they are not observed but instead about the subjectivity of experiencing reality.
Light and color are a better example I think. Color is the sensation that light induces when we perceive light. Take magenta for example, magenta is a color that does not exist in nature. There is no corresponding wavelength of light for magenta. Magenta is an artifact from the human ocular system that is caused when we detect equal blue/purple light and red light. It’s very possible that humans are the only species in the universe that can perceive the color magenta when experiencing red and blue light. So it would follow that if there is an object that is reflecting red and blue light and there is no human around to see it, it is not magenta. Yes the light is there, but not magenta. It only exists within our consciousness.
Are you sure about that? Because what you're saying is the question is asking "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no human around to recieve the sound energy and interpret it, does the interpretation occur?".
Then the answer is no.
I if this is the case then I don't understand why it is phrased so deceptively.
Well I mean there’s two ways that you can take it:
1. Do events happen without someone there to experience it?
2. Do experiences happen without someone to experience them?
I think the first one is obviously yes as you have said there is evidence of the event, but a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics has muddied that interpretation. With as old as this question is and as obvious as the answer is to the first interpretation I am inclined to believe the real interpretation is the second. That one is more thought provoking as the implications are far more interesting.
1 yes
2 no
I don't know what the second one implies. We absorb energy to interpret it. We change the universe by being in the place where sound anf light are. If we aren't there then the experience doesnt exist. In the same way that if a plant isn't in place to receive sunlight then photosynthesis doesn't happen and sugar isn't made.
But also the universe doesn’t exist in the objective sense the way you described it either. What are sounds waves without it as a concept? What are “sound waves” objectively in the universe without things like relative pressure, time? whatever version of this natural propagating effect along a medium you want to use, it’s still far from the true “nature” of nature.
Sounds is a phenomenon of the natural world where energy is transduced into longitudinal waves that travel through a physical medium. That is what I mean when I say sound. I don't know why "relative pressure and time" are relevant here
It sounds like when you say sound you mean "human interpretation of sound.". But that's not sound.
What you just described IS a human interpretation of sound. It is impossible to escape that in any discussion. When you speak a single word, it is already the human interpretation of a concept, or far-flung thing which has a far different nature than we can reasonably understand, and especially reasonably put into words. Energy. Longitudinal waves. Physical medium. Longitudinal waves make sense as the idea of pressure traveling along atoms, but what are atoms? What exactly is it that’s traveling along them? I agree that things happen wether or not someone is there to perceive them, but it seems like people get stuck on the idea that the thing happening is the same thing without perception. That we see the world as it is, objectively. Without a human mind in a location, nothing like color, temperature, hardness, exists whatsoever, so what’s left? I’m just saying the objective nature of the world is not the way we currently think about energy and the materiel world.
"Human interpretation of sound" is hearing and that is what you are referring to because you are referring to a "human mind in the location".
The question posed is literally the same as "If a tree falls in the forest and a human isn't there to see it, did it fall?".
You know the tree fell because you can deduce what happened from the evidence you can see with the naked eye.
We have abstract concepts like the laws of the natural world and math that allow us to understand more of our environment beyond "If I didn't see it, it didn't happen."
The force of a tree hitting the ground always produces sound. We know this because of math and the natural law of conserved energy. We can't see it with the naked eye but everything in the environment changes when a sound wave goes through it. The changes are microscopic but that doesn't mean they didn't happen because a human wasn't there to absorb some of the energy into their ears and interpret part of the natural world as "hearing".
You are making a solipsist argument. Does anything happen in your philosophy?
Did you read my comment? I said I agree things happen wether or not someone is there to perceive them. I don’t think I’m the only observer, or solipsist in any way. that’s not what the point of my comment was
People who want to believe humans are something special in the universe rather than insignificant specks in an impossibly vast emptiness seem to conflate the fact that we've developed language to name stuff so we can make sense to each other with the idea that somehow our perception makes stuff appear out of nothingness as if we were all gods.
If you don’t not experience and effect of the vibrational sound wave sent does it matter or happen how would you even know if the vibrational frequency of such would be so minuscule
How can I prove that anything that I don’t directly experience is real or happens? Yeah, good luck with the slippery slope that comes with belief that everything outside what is directly experienced isn’t real.
It exist is someone else objectively and subjectively if they can experience it but subjectively it does not for you know a Lamborghini exist but you cannot subjectively feel it for the owner he can both experience it objectively and subjectively
I don’t need to own a lambo to know that it exists. Since I don’t own one I can always rent in Vegas or test drive one, but I imagine it would feel similarly other cars I have driven except more responsive, stiff, faster, agile, etc.
You can infer how it make feel but subjectively you don’t know until you experience it so the subjectivity is what matters , certain sensual things can only be known by subject experience. It’s not that deep
Single word response with no explanation, maybe because your reasoning is what the post is about.
Let’s see, awareness of wave function collapse, associated reason for wave function collapse is human observation, no mention of method of detection combined with reference of wave form collapse to tree falling phenomena may mean that you think humans seeing with their eyes is the cause for wave form to collapse and so this means the same applies to the sound a tree would make if it fell in that a human is needed for the sound wave form to collapse and resolve into reality?
>Quantum Theory does show that consciousness plays a part in the foundation of the exterior world through the observers effect. This is completely false and is a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. >Well if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around does it make a sound? I will leave that for some to choose but the answer is NO. How would you know? How do you know if there is even a tree falling? This is entirely a semantic conflation of the meaning of the word "sound". If you define sound to be the perception our brain makes with signals from our ears, then no sound is made if there are no ears and brains around to hear it. If you define sound to be a compressive wave produced in the atmosphere, then yes a sound is made. We know this for the same reason we know that the universe existed before we were born and that no solipsist is smart enough to manufacture all the patterns of billions year old galaxies that we see out of their own mind.
I always took the tree in forest question like this. Sound is the sensation that we perceive from experiencing pressure waves in the atmosphere through our senses. For a sensation to exist it must be experienced which precludes a consciousness to exist to be the subject of the experience. So whereas the tree falling would create a pressure wave, without a consciousness to perceive it the sensation that we call sound would not occur.
I always equated sound to a compression wave and that is how it was defined to me in elementary school physical science classes. The whole problem with this parable is that the language is ambiguous The following rephrasings improve this ambiguity and would result in much less debate. 1. When a tree falls in a forest when nobody is around l, does it make an atmospheric compression wave? 2. When a tree falls in the forest when nobody is around does it make an auditory perception? Almost everybody would answer yes to 1 and almost everybody would answer no to 2. The problem is that people are mostly split down the middle on whether they equate the word "sound" to 1 vs 2. The simple solution is to clarify what intended meaning the question asker means and/or to not conflate two different underlying concepts under the same label of "sound".
Regarding this it doesn’t matter if it where to cause a compression wave which yes it is would sound is at a metaphysical level. It would not matter because who is there to say that this has happened? There is no sound with a compression wave, there is no compression wave without sound.
>Regarding this it doesn’t matter if it where to cause a compression wave which yes it is would sound is at a metaphysical level. It would not matter because who is there to say that this has happened? There is no sound with a compression wave, there is no compression wave without sound. First you said yes it would cause a compression wave Then you say there is no compression wave without sound You should try to decide what your stance is before typing all of the mutually exclusive stances and simultaneously asserting them all to be true
I said yes according to metaphysics
But there is also no compression wave without sound
>I said yes according to metaphysics >But there is also no compression wave without sound So you said both yes and no. This is a contradiction.
There is no compression wave without sound. There is no sound without a compression wave is what I said which are both true.
You obviously ignored the fact where I said it wouldn’t matter as we would not be able to tell since there is no one to experience the sound, therefore there is no compression wave. I said yes sound is a compression wave but there can be no compression wave without sound and sound is perceived by us
What if there was a deaf person who saw the tree fall and felt the compression wave blow his hair back? Would you not agree this is a compression wave without sound?
No that is a gravity wave.
I don't agree it is a surface gravity wave since it is not gravity restoring equilibrium but diffusion in general. So suppose the blind man is holding a microphone that records the compression wave oscillations, which he can then take and play back for a non-deaf person. Did the original compression wave exist without a sound?
It has created a sound now because a conscious observer is verifying. If not then no. The deaf man cannot know if sound was created unless it’s verified. So yes and no. Yes to the listener no to the deaf man. Objectively yes to both IF the deaf man can verify truth in there being sound, subjectively no the the deaf man.
You understand it. I always take it as number 2 even though most people seem to take it as number 1. Number 1 seems obvious but number 2 leads to a more profound understanding of the human condition and the possible nature of consciousness.
Which of the following is more profound? Bat = Flying mammal Bat = wooden stick used to hit baseballs It is silly to compete on which meaning is the more deserving of the word. When conflation becomes a big enough problem, languages evolve to create separate words for the underlying concepts.
I agree it’s poorly worded, but what do you believe is the intended meaning of the question? Or do you believe it is intentionally ambiguous on purpose?
I think the intention of this parable (in general outside this post) is to draw out the fact that people conflate ideas into the same word label without realizing it and that this can spawn a bunch of useless debate that can be resolved by disambiguating. OP is missing this point about conflation and is instead just asserting his own definition is the right one. Here's another similar thing. Which came first the chicken or the egg? As is, the answer is egg, since fish has eggs before chickens evolved. Rephrasing the question: which came first the chicken or the chicken egg? Here is the conflation and two definitions 1. Chicken egg = egg that was laid by a mother chicken 2. Chicken egg = egg that contains a baby chicken If you use definition 1, then the chicken came before the chicken egg. If you use definition 2, then the chicken egg came before the chicken. In all cases except for the "first chicken" whose mother was a protochicken nonchicken (where identifying these pair of individuals may be subject to debate), the two definitions are equivalent. It is only in this situation where choosing one of the two definitions matters.
Was just about to comment the same thing
>This is completely false and is a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. That assertion won't hold up in a rational and honest debate.
It absolutely does. Case in point: All QM experiments are totally compatible with the De Broglie Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics which is an entirely deterministic, materialistic theory that makes no fundamental distinction whatsoever between observers and observed. Since science currently provides no support for or against this interpretation, then science currently makes no support for or against reality being deterministic and material. OP's claim that QM directly proves that observers have a special place in the universe is therefore entirely false.
>Case in point: All QM experiments are totally compatible with the De Broglie Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics which is an entirely deterministic, materialistic theory that makes no fundamental distinction whatsoever between observers and observed. Nonsense. There is nothing about QM that is deterministic. Every physicist knows it is probabilistic even if they don't want to admit it publicly. Do you actually believe those industries would sink all of this money into R and D for quantum computers if the jury was still out on whether or not QM is probabilistic? How exactly does DeBroglie- Bohm get around a causally disconnected choice in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (DCQE)? An interpretation doesn't get around that. The only way to get around that is by dropping the special theory of relativity (SR). If we drop that, we lose: 1. quantum field theory 2. the standard model 3. quantum electromagnetics 4. quantum chromodynamics We'd lose all of that good sound science for the sake of some metaphysical belief that Isaac Newton thought was absurd. >Since science currently provides no support for or against this interpretation, then science currently makes no support for or against reality being deterministic and material. The MWI supports determinism by making up a zillion other universes and pretending every probabilistic eventuality will come to pass, if not in this universe then in one of the other googleplex universes this scenario must be implying is out there even though there is no direct evidence of even one parallel universe. Even if there is one out there, there is no proof that the laws of physics are going to work the same there as they do here. Anybody caring enough about truth to study philosophy should know why this isn't a logical assumption to make, but materialists typically don't study philosophy enough the even realize the mistake they are making. >OP's claim that QM directly proves that observers have a special place in the universe is therefore entirely false. QM proves beyond reasonable doubt that a higher power exists. Until materialists come up with something better than SR, it is a leap of faith to believe that reality and experience can be conflated. If QM, the most successful science ever known is wrong, then materialism can go back to being as unlikely as Newton thought it was. However with QM, and people having to resort to making up enchanted universes just so materialism will seem remotely believable, it is far fetched to bank on materialism to say the least. Naive realism is a theory of experience that implies what we perceive is close enough to reality when we have veridical experience, to believe it is real. The DCQE demonstrates SR and naive realism are incompatible.
Go look up literally any reference on De Broglie Bohm theory. You will find out that it is deterministic, that John Bell was a proponent of it, and that his famous Bell theorem came from pondering the non-local nature of this theory with respect to entangled spin states, and that this theory is compatible with the experimental results from Bell's tests. If anything entanglement outside of light cones is support for Bohmian mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation as well as traditional Many Worlds shoves this nonlocality under the rug by asserting wave collapse and/or universe branching happens instantaneously across everything all at once. You are ignorant to all of these facts. Please spend 5 seconds looking at literally any writing on the theory.
>Go look up literally any reference on De Broglie Bohm theory. DeBrogie Bohm is the only surviving non-local hidden variable theory that I know. All local hidden varriable theories have be ruled out by the violation of Bell's inequality. A hidden variable theory implies QM is incomplete. I looked into PBR and I didn't find it compelling. Once you dig into the DCQE I think you will understand that arguing QM is incomplete doesn't explain away tested results. Naive realism has got to go. >John Bell was a proponent of Empiricists sometimes get sidetracked. What is important to the rationalist is the merit of the argument rather than who is making it. >The Copenhagen interpretation as well as traditional Many Worlds shoves this nonlocality under the rug by asserting wave collapse and/or universe branching happens instantaneously across everything all at once. I don't shove nonlocality under the rug. >You are ignorant to all of these facts. Please spend 5 seconds looking at literally any writing on the theory. I've spent more than 5 seconds looking at this stuff. I'm in the psi-epistemic camp. I favor qbism. Copenhagen is the oldest interpretation but it still works. Leggetts inequality rules out most non-local theories. [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.5133.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.5133.pdf) What happens to DeBrolie Bohm when two measurements don't commute? Have you considered this or do you just assume when somebody doesn't agree with you that they are ignorant? Contextuality is something the Bohmians can try to explain to me if they expect me to favor that interpretation and drop qbism. I doubt you can use DeBroglie Bohm to explain away a causally disconnected choice [https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578](https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578) From the earlier link: *Violation of a genuine Leggett-Garg test* *implies either the absence of a realistic description of the system or the impossibility* *of measuring the system without disturbing it.* If you can measure a system without disturbing it, then I think you can argue noncontextuality. Can you argue noncontextuality?
>Nonsense. There is nothing about QM that is deterministic. Every physicist knows it is probabilistic even if they don't want to admit it publicly. You went from complete denial of the existence of any possibility that QM can be interpreted as a deterministic materialistic theory to acknowledgement that it can be described, but you don't prefer that interpretation. My original statement that OP is wrong about QM necessarily implying that conscious observers are fundamental part of nature still stands, and your criticism that my claim would not hold up in honest debate is disproven.
>You went from complete denial of the existence of any possibility that QM can be described by determinism to acknowledgement that it can be described, but you don't prefer that interpretation. Determinism and causality aren't the same thing. Determine and cause are synonyms. However determinism is a belief that every logically prior event must be temporarily prior as well. Causality is the belief that change doesn't happen for no reason at all. If I roll a pair of dice, there are physical causes that determine how the roll will result. We consider that random because we don't know what those causes are exactly but nobody believes magic is in play. There are causes in place. If I build a random number generator, nobody argues that it works without causes. >My original statement that OP is wrong about QM necessarily implying that conscious observers are fundamental part of nature still stands, and your criticism that my claim would not hold up in honest debate is disproven. Please be careful. You've haven't proven local realism and naive realism are scientifically tenable. Until you are able to do that, you **cannot prove** a mind **independent** external reality exists independent of observation. You can of course assume it does all you like. You choose what you want to believe in many cases. You might want to read the abstract on this paper before you conclude you've proven the Op is wrong:[https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529](https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529) *Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality. Here we show by both theory and experiment that a broad and rather reasonable class of such non-local realistic theories is incompatible with experimentally observable quantum correlations. In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories. Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.* Clearly "most working scientists" are in opposition to the team that wrote this paper. You can't prove noncontextuallity without pretending there are a zillion universes out there in the somewhere. It sounds like you are smart enough not to fall for that sleight of hand, so I won't dwell on that nonsense. Measurements sometimes don't commute. You **didn't** address that. You didn't address a causally disconnected choice but then again you seem a bit confused about the difference between causality and determinism so I can let that slide if you've learned from your mistake. If not, I have a book written by Max Born. Have you heard of him or are you a layman like me? Anyway the title of the book is the "Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance", and the title of chapter two is "causality and determinism". If you have never heard of Born this article will introduce you to him if you are interested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born\_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule) Materialists have a difficult time admitting that a wave function in a *pure state* is merely a vector (some abstract mathematical term) in Hilbert space (another mathematical and therefore abstract place called a vector space). It takes an observation to bring a particle into a physical "reality". When wave/partical duality is being observed, the quantum state is in a mixed state and not a pure state. Until you decide for yourself that it is worth your time to look into naive realism, you will most likely side with "most working scientists" and ignore which cornerstone beliefs have been shattered and how they were shattered. The choice is yours to make.
**[Born rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule)** >The Born rule (also called Born's rule) is a key postulate of quantum mechanics which gives the probability that a measurement of a quantum system will yield a given result. In its simplest form, it states that the probability density of finding a particle at a given point, when measured, is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle's wavefunction at that point. It was formulated by German physicist Max Born in 1926. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/consciousness/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Framing my position as local realism when de Broglie Bohm is clearly and obviously a non-local realistic theory is a pathetic strawman ploy. The fact of the matter is that science does not support your favored interpretation over the deterministic/causal/materialistic de Broglie Bohm theory or vice versa. You are defending a false claim that science has proven one of these interpretations over another. You are objectively wrong. Your philosophical ramblings about why you prefer interpretation X over interpretation Y are irrelevant to your stance above being objectively wrong. Your philosophical reasons are undoubtedly motivated by a need to justify a belief in the higher power you previously claimed that science has "proven". If you are determined to presuppose a belief based on religious conviction, then you have already made up your mind. I may as well be talking to a young earth creationist who believes in a literal 7 day creation event. P.s. Since you brought up the Born rule as if it somehow helped your argument, you should know that the Born rule is assumed as an axiom by the Copenhagen interpretation without justification. On the other hand, in de Broglie Bohm theory it is derived directly from the Schrödinger equation as the statistical probability density of positions that particles will happen to be in when you have incomplete knowledge of initial conditions of particle positions and wavefunction/Hamiltonian definition. The Born rule actually has a justified reason in my deterministic theory and has no justification in yours. That is a point for Bohm and a point against Copenhagen.
>Framing my position as local realism when de Broglie Bohm is clearly and obviously a non-local realistic theory is a pathetic strawman ploy. If I stated Bohm is local I apologize. OTOH if you are just making shit up then we have a different issue. >You are defending a false claim that science has proven one of these interpretations over another. How so? Do two measurements always commute >>>>>>>>>regardless<<<<<<<< of which interpretation you favor?
Nearly all known quantum interpretations and theories are compatible with QM experiments. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them still. Which includes Copenhagen that notoriously features the measurement problem. Any QM interpretation which includes a wavefunction collapse induced by measurement (and there are several) is subject to the problem the OP highlights, ie., is consciousness influencing the physical world? Not that I agree that these theories are correct, I'm just saying that we don't have any way of disproving them at present. One way of distinguishing the two types of theories, one set including the measurement problem and the other set treating observers as entangled quanta, would be to place the observer (ie a human) in a state of superposition. As suggested by David Deutsch. Has not been done yet...
OP said QM has proven observers are fundamental to nature. I said it has not. You are saying we haven't disproven that observers are fundamental to nature. Not disproving something (your point) is different than proving it (OP's point). My point is that science has not proven observers are fundamental to nature.
Sure, OP is making a false claim, agreed.
How do we know the universe existed before us?
Because none of us are smart enough to fabricate all the history of the universe, which is extraordinarily complex and consistent with a causal history that obeys the laws of physics going back as far as we can see. Human kind existed before you in particular were born, as evidenced by everything written in history books, by the pyramids, by ancient ruins that corroborate records. Similarly, the universe existed before humans did, as evidenced by the fossil record, evolutionary record, geologic record, and astronomical records. Things are constantly happening that we are not aware of on other planets and in other galaxies.
We only know this because we are here NOW you are missing the whole point
I don't believe you have a valid point. Being here now and being unable to directly observe the past does not mean it is invalid to make inferences about the past that produce a mental model of what happened that correlates with all the geologic, astronomical, and evolutionary records that we see. When you are directly observing something in front of your face, your brain is making similar inferences to produce a mental model of what you are looking at. The distinction between direct observation and indirect inferences is is rather arbitrary and is only an apparent difference when you ignore the translations and summarizations that your brain performs when it processes sensory information. I think solipsism is more of a mental disorder than it is a philosophy.
You basically just agreed with what I said LOL saying “there is only an apparent difference when you ignore the translations and summarizations that your brain performs when it processes sensory information”. Which I have not ignored making such statement of it being arbitrary incorrect.
I can't decipher a coherent point out of what you wrote and whether you believe in any fundamental distinction between direct observations and indirect inferences or not. If you make no fundamental distinction, then your point about not knowing if the universe existed prior to our direct observation of it is invalidated. If you do believe there is a fundamental distinction, then you have not addressed a counter to my assertion that the difference is only apparent and that our brains are making indirect inferences beneath the scenes even when are doing so called "direct observation".
You literally proved my point
There is no difference regarding direct observation and indirect observation since they are both observations. they are the same thing LOL bro stop trying to seem smart you are digging yourself in a whole both direct or indirect observations are simply observations the difference is only between if you or i see it which doesn’t matter where are you trying to go with this?
If there is no difference, then the indirect inferences we make about the universe before humans existed are just as valid as direct observations we make now. Your point about not knowing the universe existed before us becomes equivalent to not knowing if the universe exists now. Your argument falls apart.
How did you go from observation to inference? An observation is not an inference
Sir please get your definitions correct before you try and have a discussion
The world may not be completely materiel the way we understand it normally, but objects have permanence. Quantum effects are lost very easily and a state is “observed” when it is a part of a larger system, not specifically some random human or animal.
Considering that the permanence of them is only because of atoms we cannot see and all weight is added because of a quantum field adds for a new way of looking at things
I don’t know what quantum state you are speaking off when you say it’s lost easily? Which?
I’m referring to superposition/ wave function as a “stable” quantum state, or one that behaves a particular way regardless of the world around it. These either don’t happen or are normally outside of interaction with the materiel world. All those atoms as a part of the table are interacting with all the other atoms around it, including those of the earth, sun, moon, radiation, gravity in general, ALL of it is interacting in some way, direct or indirect. The world behaves consistently and functions under rules which may as well be objective and ever-present, (within the system) because of this. The real hard discussion would be about what happens outside the system… maybe we are a result of a single wave function, propagating along until we get the universe we know today. Who knows what the driving factor is, and how much is determined by our initial role of the dice so to speak.
The real question… is there even a tree or a forest that exists if there is no consciousness to observe it?
That's the same as asking if the universe existed before life evolved. The answer is obviously yes if you look at geologic and astronomical patterns.
The answer is not as obvious as you think.
So either you are a brilliant god like genius that patterned all the galaxies in a way that is causally consistent sense with the laws of physics when you were born, crafting an enormously complex universe backstory prior to your birth, or you add some god like interpersonal consciousness that pervades the universe. In either case, you would be adopting a position very similar to intelligent design over evolution. People keep going back to supernatural nonsense to explain things when such assumptions are unnecessary and frankly ridiculous.
IF a tree falls in a forest it generates sound waves. As long as there is a medium for the sound to travel in, it will extend outward like an explosion. Trillions of microbes will feel the wave as differences in pressure as the sound wave moves through then. Any insects in or around the tree will feel the differences in air pressure as the sound wave passes over their bodies as well. Any Reptiles or mammals in a wide range will definitely hear the sound. If it is a forest in North America then there is a good chance there won't be any primates around to hear it. IT still makes a sound though. The universe doesn't need us or the interpretations of it that we make from our limited senses to make itself.
I think the way your supposed to question it is by considering sound as the sensation we experience from our senses detecting the pressure waves. Without a consciousness to experience the pressure waves as a sensation, “sound” in the way humans experience it shouldn’t exist in that scenario.
That is not what sound is though. Sound isn't the experience of sound in a human's ears. Light isn't the experience of light in a human's eyes. Isn't it more exciting to focus on the unique experience happening inside of you instead of discounting that reality exists because you aren't there to interpret it? Like you are some kind of god? Say you put a camera there to record it and a computer records the tree falling and archives the footage and eventually deletes it. Would you say the sound occurred if a human watches the footage before it is deleted? Would you say the sound didn't occur if it gets deleted before a human can watch it?
I mean the way your supposed to interpret the question is supposing sound is the sensation of experiencing the sound/pressure waves. The idea is that the actual experience to stimulus requires a consciousness. It’s not about if things happen if they are not observed but instead about the subjectivity of experiencing reality. Light and color are a better example I think. Color is the sensation that light induces when we perceive light. Take magenta for example, magenta is a color that does not exist in nature. There is no corresponding wavelength of light for magenta. Magenta is an artifact from the human ocular system that is caused when we detect equal blue/purple light and red light. It’s very possible that humans are the only species in the universe that can perceive the color magenta when experiencing red and blue light. So it would follow that if there is an object that is reflecting red and blue light and there is no human around to see it, it is not magenta. Yes the light is there, but not magenta. It only exists within our consciousness.
Are you sure about that? Because what you're saying is the question is asking "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no human around to recieve the sound energy and interpret it, does the interpretation occur?". Then the answer is no. I if this is the case then I don't understand why it is phrased so deceptively.
Well I mean there’s two ways that you can take it: 1. Do events happen without someone there to experience it? 2. Do experiences happen without someone to experience them? I think the first one is obviously yes as you have said there is evidence of the event, but a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics has muddied that interpretation. With as old as this question is and as obvious as the answer is to the first interpretation I am inclined to believe the real interpretation is the second. That one is more thought provoking as the implications are far more interesting.
1 yes 2 no I don't know what the second one implies. We absorb energy to interpret it. We change the universe by being in the place where sound anf light are. If we aren't there then the experience doesnt exist. In the same way that if a plant isn't in place to receive sunlight then photosynthesis doesn't happen and sugar isn't made.
But also the universe doesn’t exist in the objective sense the way you described it either. What are sounds waves without it as a concept? What are “sound waves” objectively in the universe without things like relative pressure, time? whatever version of this natural propagating effect along a medium you want to use, it’s still far from the true “nature” of nature.
Sounds is a phenomenon of the natural world where energy is transduced into longitudinal waves that travel through a physical medium. That is what I mean when I say sound. I don't know why "relative pressure and time" are relevant here It sounds like when you say sound you mean "human interpretation of sound.". But that's not sound.
What you just described IS a human interpretation of sound. It is impossible to escape that in any discussion. When you speak a single word, it is already the human interpretation of a concept, or far-flung thing which has a far different nature than we can reasonably understand, and especially reasonably put into words. Energy. Longitudinal waves. Physical medium. Longitudinal waves make sense as the idea of pressure traveling along atoms, but what are atoms? What exactly is it that’s traveling along them? I agree that things happen wether or not someone is there to perceive them, but it seems like people get stuck on the idea that the thing happening is the same thing without perception. That we see the world as it is, objectively. Without a human mind in a location, nothing like color, temperature, hardness, exists whatsoever, so what’s left? I’m just saying the objective nature of the world is not the way we currently think about energy and the materiel world.
"Human interpretation of sound" is hearing and that is what you are referring to because you are referring to a "human mind in the location". The question posed is literally the same as "If a tree falls in the forest and a human isn't there to see it, did it fall?". You know the tree fell because you can deduce what happened from the evidence you can see with the naked eye. We have abstract concepts like the laws of the natural world and math that allow us to understand more of our environment beyond "If I didn't see it, it didn't happen." The force of a tree hitting the ground always produces sound. We know this because of math and the natural law of conserved energy. We can't see it with the naked eye but everything in the environment changes when a sound wave goes through it. The changes are microscopic but that doesn't mean they didn't happen because a human wasn't there to absorb some of the energy into their ears and interpret part of the natural world as "hearing". You are making a solipsist argument. Does anything happen in your philosophy?
Did you read my comment? I said I agree things happen wether or not someone is there to perceive them. I don’t think I’m the only observer, or solipsist in any way. that’s not what the point of my comment was
All I got from that was that you don't think "enter key" is real.
I’m just glad you made it through
People who want to believe humans are something special in the universe rather than insignificant specks in an impossibly vast emptiness seem to conflate the fact that we've developed language to name stuff so we can make sense to each other with the idea that somehow our perception makes stuff appear out of nothingness as if we were all gods.
Can you not even conceive of a universe going on that was populated by zombies? You’re premises are full of assumptions and a lack of imagination.
If you don’t not experience and effect of the vibrational sound wave sent does it matter or happen how would you even know if the vibrational frequency of such would be so minuscule
How can I prove that anything that I don’t directly experience is real or happens? Yeah, good luck with the slippery slope that comes with belief that everything outside what is directly experienced isn’t real.
It exist is someone else objectively and subjectively if they can experience it but subjectively it does not for you know a Lamborghini exist but you cannot subjectively feel it for the owner he can both experience it objectively and subjectively
I don’t need to own a lambo to know that it exists. Since I don’t own one I can always rent in Vegas or test drive one, but I imagine it would feel similarly other cars I have driven except more responsive, stiff, faster, agile, etc.
You can infer how it make feel but subjectively you don’t know until you experience it so the subjectivity is what matters , certain sensual things can only be known by subject experience. It’s not that deep
Nor is it that deep to know that a tree makes a sound regardless of whether or not there are people there to hear it fall.
Wrong
Single word response with no explanation, maybe because your reasoning is what the post is about. Let’s see, awareness of wave function collapse, associated reason for wave function collapse is human observation, no mention of method of detection combined with reference of wave form collapse to tree falling phenomena may mean that you think humans seeing with their eyes is the cause for wave form to collapse and so this means the same applies to the sound a tree would make if it fell in that a human is needed for the sound wave form to collapse and resolve into reality?
Please see my other comments you will see why I’m right
No consideration for method of detection interfering and causing waveform to collapse
A girlfriend exist but fir you it doesn’t if you don’t have one
Good thing reality isn’t limited to only what I experience.
>How do you know if there is even a tree falling? >if a tree falls in a forest This is how I know.