Green_Sleeves: ....and there's no-one around, does it make a sound?Well?!!
Trees exist, forests don't. D'ya get that? A tree is a real thing that exists. A forest is a concept. It's amazing how many people don't undersand concepts and belive them to be real things. How can we think we have been educated when we don't even understand the basics of thinking or reality?
God help us, we couldn't think our way out of a wet paper bad. No wonder we are such dupes.
facetowardsfront: Trees exist, forests don't. D'ya get that? A tree is a real thing that exists. A forest is a concept. It's amazing how many people don't undersand concepts and belive them to be real things. How can we think we have been educated when we don't even understand the basics of thinking or reality?
God help us, we couldn't think our way out of a wet paper bad. No wonder we are such dupes.
I understad the concept part, but.. did the tree exist before we observed it?
What do we know about what forms reality? Quantum Physics gives us a lot to ponder about the 'concept of reality' it in its own right.
facetowardsfront: Trees exist, forests don't. D'ya get that? A tree is a real thing that exists. A forest is a concept.
So sorry I am coming back to this again, apologies, but I have kept pondering this, and I have questions.
The forest is a concept as it is a summery of trees, but is the tree not a summery as well? A crowd is a conecpt then, but is not every body in that crowd made up of billions of cells just the same? How can the tree or the body be real, if we say the forest is not real but just a concept?
This to me is the thinking of entropy, and it leads in my mind to the conclusion that then only the smallest parts, the parts undevidable.. (and oh my.. can time be ultimately devided?) are 'real'. There is the theory of the ever expanding universe, instead of the imploding one, and if the first should come to pass, this universe will disolve into nothing but the smallest parts drifting almost like desert sand. The only concept left then would be that of a 'beach' for someone looking upon this universe (as obviously none within would be able to look upon it).
Where do we stop 'deviding' to accept something as being 'real' and not a 'concept'?
Honest question, I am sort of lost on that one right at this moment >.<
tinyfangs: I understad the concept part, but.. did the tree exist before we observed it?
What do we know about what forms reality? Quantum Physics gives us a lot to ponder about the 'concept of reality' it in its own right.
IN the Macro world, quantum physics is not apparent. The tree exists. If none of the trees existed because you cannot observe them, you would get rather short on breath, very swiftly as they produce a chunk of our oxygen.
MADDOG69: IN the Macro world, quantum physics is not apparent. The tree exists. If none of the trees existed because you cannot observe them, you would get rather short on breath, very swiftly as they produce a chunk of our oxygen.
Thank you Maddog, I think I can work with that thought process. That makes good sense
Sometimes a small nudge is all that's needed to keep my mind from spinning over the edge, phew lol
tinyfangs: Thank you Maddog, I think I can work with that thought process. That makes good sense
Sometimes a small nudge is all that's needed to keep my mind from spinning over the edge, phew lol
The whole philosophical spillover about observing and not observing quantum physics things is mumbojumbo though and has got traction in the mass media.
It all boils down to this... to detect something in real life we reach out and touch it. You can feel wood for example? You can see a tree because the photons of light reflecting off it impinge on our retina.
Now in the quantum world to detect an electron for example, you must use something to 'see' it. Photons and other particles themselves are on the same scale as the electron, so they themselves would interfere with the electron itself if we tried to detect it. That's called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The more we detect about 1 particular state of a particle the less certainty we can know it's other properties.
IN the macro world... it's like reaching out to touch a fly to see if it's there, blindfolded..... once we touch him, we know he's there, but he instantly flies away somewhere else. He's 'observed' and forever changed because of it.
Sound waves are made by a vibrating object. The object turns other forms of energy, e.g. electric or kinetic energy into sound waves. This happens when the object vibrates the air molecules around it, which are then transferred as sound. A tuning fork moves back and forth at a specific frequency thus moving the air around it in the same frequency which then reaches our ears as sound waves. So if there are no ears to hear then there are only vibrations!
MADDOG69: The whole philosophical spillover about observing and not observing quantum physics things is mumbojumbo though and has got traction in the mass media.
It all boils down to this... to detect something in real life we reach out and touch it. You can feel wood for example? You can see a tree because the photons of light reflecting off it impinge on our retina.
Now in the quantum world to detect an electron for example, you must use something to 'see' it. Photons and other particles themselves are on the same scale as the electron, so they themselves would interfere with the electron itself if we tried to detect it. That's called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The more we detect about 1 particular state of a particle the less certainty we can know it's other properties.
IN the macro world... it's like reaching out to touch a fly to see if it's there, blindfolded..... once we touch him, we know he's there, but he instantly flies away somewhere else. He's 'observed' and forever changed because of it.
You formulate that great, and again a huge thank you, I can follow that with my mind, but.. what about the 'Matrix theory'? I know a team was working on trying to find ways to prove or disprove possibilities in regards to our reality just being a simulation. If if it would be a simulation, what would that do to the existence of the tree and oxygen?
Karn1: Sound waves are made by a vibrating object. The object turns other forms of energy, e.g. electric or kinetic energy into sound waves. This happens when the object vibrates the air molecules around it, which are then transferred as sound. A tuning fork moves back and forth at a specific frequency thus moving the air around it in the same frequency which then reaches our ears as sound waves.
Karn1: Sound waves are made by a vibrating object. The object turns other forms of energy, e.g. electric or kinetic energy into sound waves. This happens when the object vibrates the air molecules around it, which are then transferred as sound. A tuning fork moves back and forth at a specific frequency thus moving the air around it in the same frequency which then reaches our ears as sound waves. So if there are no ears to hear then there are only vibrations!
Yes, that's how I usually approach the falling tree and noise question too, but I'd have written a novel and everyone would have thrown stones at me again It needs a 'receiver' to be classed as sound, I'd say, but one could argue it is sound regardless, as the possibility for it to be acknowledge as sound is there? Not sure
tinyfangs: Yes, that's how I usually approach the falling tree and noise question too, but I'd have written a novel and everyone would have thrown stones at me again It needs a 'receiver' to be classed as sound, I'd say, but one could argue it is sound regardless, as the possibility for it to be acknowledge as sound is there? Not sure
tinyfangs: You formulate that great, and again a huge thank you, I can follow that with my mind, but.. what about the 'Matrix theory'? I know a team was working on trying to find ways to prove or disprove possibilities in regards to our reality just being a simulation. If if it would be a simulation, what would that do to the existence of the tree and oxygen?
What you should be worrying about is how the fly felt. What was the fly thinking? I wonder where is the fly now? Was he sad? Maybe it was a she fly? That's right .. a she fly... flying around... part of the Collective Conciousness..... you should write a poem now about that fly living in our Quantum World.
MADDOG69: What you should be worrying about is how the fly felt. What was the fly thinking? I wonder where is the fly now? Was he sad? Maybe it was a she fly? That's right .. a she fly... flying around... part of the Collective Conciousness..... you should write a poem now about that fly living in our Quantum World.
tinyfangs: I understad the concept part, but.. did the tree exist before we observed it?
What do we know about what forms reality? Quantum Physics gives us a lot to ponder about the 'concept of reality' it in its own right.
Eastern philosophies consider the observed world to be a projection of our inner world. Without humans to observe there would be no world and no trees to fall. This was laughed at by westerner scientists until the Double-Slit experiment. Then all the major physicists started taking LSD and practicing Transcendental Meditation to try and come up with answers.
tinyfangs: I think Eastern philosophies have been ahead on quite a few things while we ended with Descartes
One of our own philosophers from 300 years ago who very much built on the ideas of Descartes was the Bishop of Cloyne, George Berkeley. He went on to have Universities named after him, such was his contribution to mathematics, physics and philosophy.
Berkley argued from a Solipsist perspective that our mind is the only reality and anything outside the mind does not exist. This is very much the same as Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism and other eastern philosophies and Descartes "cogito ergo sum". The observer and the observed are both necessary for something to exist. But as a man of God, like the Eastern folk, he understood our mind is part of the Universal mind and therefore trees do exist and fall, whether we see them or not, because in the mind of God they do.
Strangely enough Berkley was from the same region of the country as Green Sleeves. I wonder is there a genetic link to this question? Or is it all in my mind?
facetowardsfront: One of our own philosophers from 300 years ago who very much built on the ideas of Descartes was the Bishop of Cloyne, George Berkeley. He went on to have Universities named after him, such was his contribution to mathematics, physics and philosophy.
Berkley argued from a Solipsist perspective that our mind is the only reality and anything outside the mind does not exist. This is very much the same as Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism and other eastern philosophies and Descartes "cogito ergo sum". The observer and the observed are both necessary for something to exist. But as a man of God, like the Eastern folk, he understood our mind is part of the Universal mind and therefore trees do exist and fall, whether we see them or not, because in the mind of God they do.
Strangely enough Berkley was from the same region of the country as Green Sleeves. I wonder is there a genetic link to this question? Or is it all in my mind?
I think I just had a devine intervention too, as my electricity went just as I was about to post what I had typed here so I shall leave a certain part out (even though it was a compliment)
Anyway, I despise Descartes with a vengeance, which is of course rationally very wrong of me, as he has put out a lot of interesting thoughts, but as a man who as far as I am aware nailed animals on boards and cut them open alive, he somehow fails to gain my favour, no matter how he justified those actions.
What you outlined above I can follow, even though I am a creature mainly understanding the world through 'feeling' it, and that can at times make it hard for me to comprehend some philosophical material (turns to sheet music in my mind). Thank you for putting it into words that make sense to me.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If a tree falls in the forest......(Vote Below)
Well?!!
---- IMAGE REMOVED because photobucket.com no longer allows embedded images ----