If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound...

The tree would be in a superposition of making a sound and not making a sound.

If reality is a simulation, the tree might not produce sound to spare memory.

But the question says the tree fell.

If I steal $20 from someone who never notices have I not stolen anything?

>people's views on reality.
I think this is a strange thing to say. I don't have a "view on reality". There are a massive number of possibilities spanning the spectrum from some form of solipsism to hard determinism of a universe that is entirely self contained. I take the more reductionist, mechanistic approaches and operate as though there's an objective reality because it seems most probable, and has the most utility. It's the best model of the universe available as of yet.

So the tree falling and sound bullshit? Don't know. The implication here is that a machine that "hears", and is conscious, whatever that means, is somehow a relevant element. It probably isn't. The stuff there still works and interacts the same as it would any other time.

If.

Stop begging the question.

>does something that cause vibration in the air still causes vibrations in the air if no one is there
I wonder.

nigga this question was invented when they wasn't no microfones. just hook up some micorfones in da woods nigga n you'll hear some dead-ass tree dude.

Yea me neither, at most it could be a semantic quibble over the definition of "making a sound" but that's not terribly exciting either.

>when plebs believe in counterfactual definiteness

Hardcore version of OP's question :
Once you're dead, what proof do you have that world still exists ?

Subjectivity.

As in "Would you care if OP jumped under a moving train?"

This is the first time visiting this board and I can already tell that this ones meme is "da matrix".

>counterfactual definiteness
philosophag pls

A better question, how to you find the middle of a forest without defining what a forest is?

What delineates forest from not forest? Where does it begin and where does it end?

lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/

>Albert: "A tree falling in a deserted forest makes a sound."
>Barry: "A tree falling in a deserted forest does not make a sound."
>
>Clearly, since one says "sound" and one says "not sound", we must have a contradiction, right? But suppose that they both dereference their pointers before speaking:

>Albert: "A tree falling in a deserted forest matches [membership test: this event generates acoustic vibrations]."
>Barry: "A tree falling in a deserted forest does not match [membership test: this event generates auditory experiences]."

>Now there is no longer an apparent collision—all they had to do was prohibit themselves from using the word sound. If "acoustic vibrations" came into dispute, we would just play Taboo again and say "pressure waves in a material medium"; if necessary we would play Taboo again on the word "wave" and replace it with the wave equation. (Play Taboo on "auditory experience" and you get "That form of sensory processing, within the human brain, which takes as input a linear time series of frequency mixes...")

This, my thoughts exactly

>experimental results
>philosophy
wew

Yes dumbass. Set up a recording device, leave and notice everything still makes sounds even when you're not around

That's like asking if the world will still turn after you die of course it will you are so irrelevant

A faggot is basically friction of the black cock in op's mouth if we put it very very bluntly.
Op is always sucking nigger dick.
So yes.

If dinosaurs existed, but you weren't there to see them. Were they still alive?

ITT: Narcissistic faggots who think they're the centre of the universe and that nothing can exist without them percieving it.

Solipsism has nothing to do with narcissism.

Get over the resentment of your parents.

>Get over the resentment of your parents.
Elaborate

Anecdotally, in most instances where people use the term narcissist, or become fixated on the notion of narcissism generally, have resentment of their parents and their upbringing as part of its core. This is what prevents them from seeing the bigger picture, and ironically, themselves.

This correlates so heavily I thought I'd just throw it at you and see how it stuck. If I was in the field of psychology I'd most certainly investigate this obvious cluster.

ITT: The difference between sound as a qualia and as the vibration of air.

Speaking of psychology, don't expect a quick response for some number of hours if you do post back. I'm returning to something I made and never reconciled in my childhood, and trying to write it down. It's been stored in my head for years and for some reason I'm afraid of it blurring if I let go.

I can feel the anxiety pouring in and the muscles in my head tightening up. Absolutely disgusting.

ITT arguments over if qualia can be fully described in strictly mechanistic terms.

>to spare memory
You think that the machine running the universe simulator has tight memory requirements?

You think it necessarily has memory?

Sound is a vibration. A tiny straight-line ray of some particals. Microscopicly they are some distance apart.
So the best way maybe to say it is that YES you can DETECT it. Somehow. It's detectable. Doeasnt matter if someone is around to hear it it still makes 'something' .

>matrix meme
Why does everyone on this board pretend that the matrix movie is factual reality?

Also think about this!
If you had some crazy ultra hearing power you could hear it from miles away. Theoreticly speaking you could hear it on the other side of globe. Those 'vibrations' are continual , non stop traveling. around...

>vibration
>tiny straight-line ray of some particals
>not waves
This board is the result of self taught scientists reading too much pseudo-science clickbait.

An observer doesnt have to be consious in qm though. Even photons from the sun hitting the tree as it falls counts as observation. The only way what you were saying would be true is if the the tree fell in a lightless vacuum, in which case it wouldnt make a sound because vacuum.

The planck constant suggests we probably are in a simulation.

Cmon man?! Why that?
What is yours percepcion of all this??
If we werent philosophysing here this thread wouldnt exist. Whats the point of your comment? What should ppl do?
Go to some 'solid'-proof-sci-website , find whats generaly known to us , to people, then use that information?

>matrix
You don't actually understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying we have real bodies somewhere else, but just can't break out of the illusion, I'm saying the mechanics of the entire universe is being generated by some form of machinery, or something "external". Including you and I.

There are two types of waves. Longitudal - the 'straigh-line' ones AND Transfersal - 'wave' ones.
Learn sth bot!

lol
the point is that we use devices to capture , then make that exact sound. we could maybe have other 'devices' that captures sth else , and by translating 'that' whatever that may be, we can 'produce' it again.. its not necessarly HEARING. and SOUND.
IT CAN SIMPLY BE ANYTHING ! dont you get it?

There is such a thing as 'speed of sound'.
If its (The sound's) speed can be measured then it exists outside the observer.
So yes it does make a sound without any possibility of legitimate, valid denial.

You are deadly wrong.

no it doesn't

Why?
'Prove' me wrong? :)

Already have.

BTFO

How ?? :)
By saying i did? :)
no really... if you think a bit harder you will see that my 'philosophy' doesnt exclude yours