<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>Not at all. Thinking that 2+2=5 is being immune to the manipulation that is societal influence. Here's what it all comes down to. Every person effectively lives in their own world. Whatever they think, is. For every choice, action, word that comes out of their mouth, it will be based entirely on the truths of their own reality. Society dictates that when a lot of these worlds line up, it is "truth" regardless of how true it is. The greatest minds thought the earth was flat for a long time, and it was. No one was taking their boats too far away for fear of falling. The great minds are again, determined by the majorities perception. Looking everywhere in history and today, what actually is doesn't matter. </p>
<p>This is easiest seen with religion. For a lot of people on this earth, God exists in one way or another. For others, it doesn't. Is either right? Who knows. It doesn't matter, because both are living in worlds dependent on their own thoughts.</p>
<p>Well yes, people can believe that 2+2=5, but can they prove it as well as people who prove 2+2=4? People can believe that it's actually little blue smurfs using magic to grind my coffee every morning, but can they prove that as well as just simply seeing that it's the rotator mechanism that grinds it? Yes, everything and reality is based on the individual's perception, but it doesn't matter if they can't prove it at least at the same level as those who can with a different perception. </p>
<p>It's that thinking that turns this math/science question into some "philosophical" question. What doesn't make sense to me is why someone would believe that just because no one's there to perceive it would render it nonexistent, rather than believe the alternative, which is repeated trials of there BEING a sound when someone is there, thus the assumption of there being no reason of there not being a sound just because someone isn't there. And we have the current scientific theory for how sound is created, through vibrations in the air-- the tree making contact with the floor. Those who believe that the sound isn't created don't have any sort of proof that says that sound is not created when there is no one there to perceive it. And based on that premise, they will never be able to even start to proof that there is no sound, which just makes it more ludicrous. </p>
<p>If I kill someone, but no one is around to see me, did I kill that person? Or did that person just "die". If someone has no taste buds but eats an apple, is that apple flavourless? I could go on all day, but it really boils down to two viewpoints: something that's proven, versus something that's fantasized.</p>