<p>I noticed that someone had posted a philosophical question a few days ago entitled 'Moral change'. So, I decided to keep the train going, and post a question that really baffled me when I took an introductory philosophy class at my local community college last summer.</p>
<p>Consider the following:
When we open a refrigerator, the light turns on. When we close it, the light turns off. However, assuming that none of us knew how a refrigerator worked, we would believe that when the the refrigerator is closed, the light would continue to stay on.</p>
<p>Now, thing of the age-old question "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". Using the same logic as the previous example, how would one answer this question?</p>
<p>Yes, based on the fact that sound is defined as vibration-created waves by a solid (the tree and the floor or whatever it landed on). Just because there are no ears to detect it doesn't mean a sound doesn't exist. It's like if you're alone in a room and there's no one else around, it doesn't mean you don't exist just because no one can see you. </p>
<p>The flip side of the argument is that you can't prove that sound exists because no one's there, but then again, you can prove that sound exists, period, if someone is there, so it makes much more sense to accept the latter that has been proven, then the former where it's never been and never can be proven that sound does not exist.</p>
<p>Turn that argument around: why would you (or an animal or a microphone) being there cause the falling tree to make a sound when it otherwise would not?</p>
<p>The answer: As JakaAmalgam already pointed out, sound is a physical phenomenon that exists independent of us perceiving it. </p>
<p>But what about emotions? Are they still there if we don't perceive them (i.e. can you be disappointed in your sleep when you don't have any recollection of what is happening)? Or colors: if there was not a single seeing creature in the universe, would colors still be real?</p>
<p>"
But what about emotions? Are they still there if we don't perceive them (i.e. can you be disappointed in your sleep when you don't have any recollection of what is happening)? Or colors: if there was not a single seeing creature in the universe, would colors still be real?"</p>
<p>Yes. Disappointment is simply a mix of neurons firing and hormones running through your body (yes it's a bit more complicated than that but it's still a physical phenomenon), and colors are simply demarcations of measurable wavelengths of light.</p>
<p>Reality is entirely perception, in every way. We live in the worlds we create. So, the answer is yes and no. For those who believe it still happens, it does, for those who don't, it doesn't.</p>
<p>Are we making a distinction between waves that are travel through some medium and sound? Would we call those waves sound only if someone actually perceives them? There are "sound waves" around us that we cannot perceive because their frequency is too high or too low, and we usually do not refer to those as sound, do we? So if there are sound waves somewhere in the forest where no one perceives them, the waves are undoubtedly there - but should we consider them sound?</p>
<p>Student92, I believe that there is an objective reality but it has nothing to do with what I would ordinarily consider real. In the physical reality there are no chairs or colors or intentions - there are only tiny small particles interacting with each other (or maybe not even that).</p>
<p>Can space be twisted around to create a worm hole? Does the universe go on forever or stop at a certain point? How big/small can something be (limit?)?</p>
<p>only questions that boggle my mind. besides religion.</p>
<p>I don't understand the "if a tree falls in a forest..". I dismissed it as a joke the first time I heard it but do people really think it doesn't make a sound? Refrigerators lights are designed to turn off when the door shuts. Sounds are not designed to "stop travelling through air" when we're not there. Put a tape recorder there..</p>
<p>
[quote]
Or colors: if there was not a single seeing creature in the universe, would colors still be real
<p>I've never used a refrigerator so this question is really biased. And never has a tree fallen on me so I would feel guilty answering without the expereince.</p>
<p>"Do you really believe that the moon is not there unless we are looking at it?"
- Einstein</p>
<p>(Unfortunately for proponents of absolute reality, Einstein was proven wrong by quantum mechanics. The accepted theory goes: Particle properties come into being only when measurements force them to. When they're not being observed or interacting with the environment, particle properties hang in a quantum limbo of probability. So until something interacts with it, the moon doesn't exist. It would be a mass of particles with a probability map encompassing the entire universe, with no definite position or velocity.)</p>
<p>(Btw, yes, the tree would still make a sound. Sound waves still have a medium to travel through, therefore sound is still produced.)</p>
<p>"Student92, I believe that there is an objective reality but it has nothing to do with what I would ordinarily consider real. In the physical reality there are no chairs or colors or intentions - there are only tiny small particles interacting with each other (or maybe not even that)."</p>
<p>Very true, but it's all irrelevant. If the moon was "actually" orange but every single person thought it wasn't, it isn't. If even one person doesn't, it isn't for them. It's not so much that physical reality isn't real, by all accounts it obviously is. It's just entirely irrelevant. Does it make a sound? Only if you believe so.</p>
<p>^ But it is relevant. George Orwell taught us that reality does matter; that 2+2=5 is wrong. And if we believe this (just for the sake of believing it), then we become subject to manipulation and lose the ability to think for ourselves.</p>
<p>The universe does stop at a certain point; it doesn't go on forever (has been proven using physics and astronomy). As to the OP, you are viewing the world in a rationalist (must be able to prove every idea using logic, what you can't prove isn't certain) vs empiricist (bases most ideas on experience). It's a matter of which one you believe (at least in my philosophy class there was no right vs wrong answer but a which one are you and do you have good reasons for it).</p>
<p>No, but the colors would appear different according to perspective. Based on this train of thought though - there would be no "neutral" color that would exist if no one was watching, but it would still be there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^ But it is relevant. George Orwell taught us that reality does matter; that 2+2=5 is wrong. And if we believe this (just for the sake of believing it), then we become subject to manipulation and lose the ability to think for ourselves.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>but who says concepts are even real? 1 cloud could really be 1/2 a cloud. Maybe it is 2 clouds put together. Maybe it is millions and billions of water particles.</p>
<p>Concepts are used as tools on how we perceive things but are not actually reality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The universe does stop at a certain point
<p>Well, concepts are assigned to parts of reality that have been observed. The reality is that a cloud consists of millions and billions of water particles. We just call this group of particles a cloud. Whether or not it consists of a number of clouds is irrelevant, as any such group of particles is called a cloud. So two clouds "stuck together" is actually just one bigger cloud (unless there's a defined separation of the two). </p>
<p>So technically, you're right in saying that concepts are just our perception of reality. But these "concepts," if proved to be true through experimentation time and time again (including into the future), are reality. Two and two always equals four (using base 10), therefore, it is reality that adding two objects to another two objects will yield four objects.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, concepts are assigned to parts of reality that have been observed. The reality is that a cloud consists of millions and billions of water particles. We just call this group of particles a cloud. Whether or not it consists of a number of clouds is irrelevant, as any such group of particles is called a cloud. So two clouds "stuck together" is actually just one bigger cloud (unless there's a defined separation of the two).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A cloud wouldn't be assigned a number by anyone but a human because other animals don't use our logic. Logic is a tool. To an animal, they see it how they see it, and even then, they are only viewing the waves of light that are bounced off of it.</p>
<p>We won't ever be able to view the world "just the way it is" is what I'm getting at. Only through are perceptions can we attempt to define reality.</p>