Thread: If a tree falls in the forest..you're gonna hate this one.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I first saw the one hand clapping koan posted in the window of a storefront on Haight Street in SF in the '60s. That and "Buy Free Things". I thought about those until my head hurt.

I've heard the tree falling thing but I was older then and knew enough not to let it bother me. I ride off road singletrack bike trails through woods. I've done a lap and on the second lap a tree had fallen that wasn't down on lap one. If it had fallen on anyone it would've flattened them. When your number is up ......

So, did you hear anything?????

Originally Posted by Seraphim

So, did you hear anything?????

Not a sound.

If you guys check the Wiki article, you'll see there is a differentiation between the idea of whether or not the sound part relates to "a sound a person can hear" or a "disturbance of air." The wiki seemed to suggest the question was posed without considering this technecality, and would suggest the second interpretation is what was intended. My understanding is that the core question is, when x is not observed by anyone/anything, does x still exist.

You could ask "If there is a tree that is not observed, does the tree exist."

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

If you guys check the Wiki article, you'll see there is a differentiation between the idea of whether or not the sound part relates to "a sound a person can hear" or a "disturbance of air." The wiki seemed to suggest the question was posed without considering this technecality, and would suggest the second interpretation is what was intended. My understanding is that the core question is, when x is not observed by anyone/anything, does x still exist.

You could ask "If there is a tree that is not observed, does the tree exist."

Sort of a Schrodinger's cat type thing going on.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Sort of a Schrodinger's cat type thing going on.

Similar, but not exactly the same. During the time the cat is not observed, while there is a probability that it is dead and a probability that it is alive, the Copenhagen interpretation says that the cat exists in a hybrid state which contains both the alive and the dead states.

Billy might say that there is no cat, because it is not observed, whereas the CH says that the cat exists in the hybrid state until it is observed and it's state "collapses" into either the alive or dead state.

The key difference is that the CH does not doubt the existence of the cat. In a way, they do the opposite by introducing the hybrid state that includes two possible states for the cat. Maybe Billy would say that a third state, one of nonexistence, should be included as well ;-p

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

Similar, but not exactly the same.

I can make it almost the same
The cat is just the vacuum and the life and death of the cat are the excitations of that vacuum. Analogous to the pressure waves in the forest air.
How's that?

Originally Posted by gugi

I can make it almost the same
The cat is just the vacuum and the life and death of the cat are the excitations of that vacuum. Analogous to the pressure waves in the forest air.
How's that?

Similar, but not exactly the same. :-)

Just because you do not hear the falling three it does not mean it will not produce a sound. This is the same as saying at night I do not see the sun there for it is not emitting light...

Originally Posted by mainaman

Just because you do not hear the falling three it does not mean it will not produce a sound. This is the same as saying at night I do not see the sun there for it is not emitting light...

It gets fun when someone asks you to prove it. For example, can you prove the sun is emitting light when you cannot detect that light in any way, not even indirectly (so using the reflection off the moon counts as detecting light from the sun).

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

It gets fun when someone asks you to prove it. For example, can you prove the sun is emitting light when you cannot detect that light in any way, not even indirectly (so using the reflection off the moon counts as detecting light from the sun).

if the moon is shadowed by clouds you can't see the reflected light. How about 1/4 moon does that mean the sun is only 1/4 glowing? In a cloudy day you are not seeing the sun does that mean the sun does not glow?
The falling tree will produce sound waves, that is universal truth, same with the Sun it always glows, no mater if you see it or not.
The Shroedinger thought experiment was designed to describe the fact that a system is a superposition of a number of quantum states, and it is not in a single quantum state at any time. This just a consequence of the uncertainty principle.