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

[disregardthat]

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

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

 

[Dmitry67]

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

Copenhagen? The abandoned one? Ha ha!

 

[baywax]

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

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

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

Earthquake Prediction by Animals: Evolution and Sensory Perception

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

Manuscript received 13 July 1998.

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

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

 

[disregardthat]

Copenhagen? The abandoned one? Ha ha!

"abandoned"?

 

[Dmitry67]

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

 

[WaveJumper]

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

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

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

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

 

[disregardthat]

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

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

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

 

[WaveJumper]

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

 

[disregardthat]

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

What?

 

[WaveJumper]

What?

How many people can board a mid-size car?

 

[disregardthat]

How many people can board a mid-size car?

I won't participate in your games

 

[WaveJumper]

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

...is the same as saying:

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

 

[disregardthat]

...is the same as saying:

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

I doubt it. Realism is a persistent view.

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

 

[WaveJumper]

I doubt it. Realism is a persistent view.

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

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

 

[disregardthat]

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

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

 

[baywax]

I doubt it. Realism is a persistent view.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Entropee]

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

 

[disregardthat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[baywax]

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

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

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

 

[disregardthat]

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

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

Not in any way.

 

[baywax]

Not in any way.

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

 

[disregardthat]

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

Am I supposed to defend against this:

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

That's nonsense.

 

[baywax]

Am I supposed to defend against this:

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

That's nonsense.

When you deny realism exists everything is nonsense.

 

[disregardthat]

That's just not true.

 

[Galteeth]

To bring this back down to Earth a bit:

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

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

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

 

[baywax]

To bring this back down to Earth a bit:

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

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

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

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

 

[Descartz2000]

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

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

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

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

 

[ValenceE]

Hello all,

baywax, you ask;

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

VE

 

[baywax]

Hello all,

baywax, you ask;




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

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

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

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

Regards,

VE

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

 

[baywax]

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

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

Please define "meaningless"/

 

[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?