Sai:
On the tree falling, you are using two different
definitions for what 'noise' is. The presence
of an observer is necessary for one, while
the other is of energy transferred. When the
observer is gone, energy is still transferred.
You have a merely verbal argument.
Jim:
Noise can be defined in two ways, that I can
think of:
1) A conscious experience of sound
2) Physical sound waves propagating
through the air powerful enough, and within
the correct frequency range, to be detected
by a non-deaf person.
Although noise defined by 1
stops (the philosopher suddenly dies), noise
defined by 2 continues to happen, based on
the principle of the conservation of energy.
Since the conscious experience
of noise is caused by sound waves in the air,
which are in turn energy, then my argument
is that the noise is there, even if there
are no observers.
Noise entirely defined by (1)
is a bad definition. Here is why, starting
with an analogy, replacing noise with light.
Light can be defined in two
ways that I can think of:
1) A conscious experience of light
2) Physical electromagnetic waves
propagating through space powerful enough,
and within the correct frequency range,
to be detected by a non-blind person.
Light takes about 8 minutes
or so to travel from the surface of the sun
to the earth. Using only definition (1) of
light leads to a paradox: At any moment light
is streaming continuously from the sun to
the earth, yet definition (1) says that the
light is there only if it is consciously observed,
so there is no light between the earth and
the sun. This is absurd. Of course there is
light between the earth and the sun! If there
wasn't then the sun would stop shining.
A paradox is a sign that the
assumptions are wrong. Definition (2), the
physical definition of light, is needed to
destroy the paradox.
Now back to sound again.
Say you are standing near a
continuously noisy loudspeaker, such that
you can hear noise emitted by it. Noise travels
at the speed of sound through the air and
so takes time to arrive at your ear. If you
only use definition (1) of sound then you
are denying that there is any sound between
the loudspeaker and your ear. This, too, is
a paradox, because the speaker is always emitting
noise, in an analogous way that the sun is
always emitting light.
If you accept the physical
definition of sound (definition (2)) to be
true, then my argument about the falling tree
is logically correct. The tree continues to
make a noise, even if there are no observers.
If you don't accept the physical definition
of sound then you create a paradox.
As an aside, I looked up the
origin of the word noise and was fascinated
to find that it derives from the French for
'uproar, brawl' which stems from late Latin
nausea - 'discomfort', in turn from Latin
'sea sickness' derived from Greek naus for
ship.
Sai:
In the original tree argument it wasn't clear
to me that you were making an argument for
why we should accept the definition. I actually
think you did a great job of describing why
it is a better definition (I never liked the
idea of quantum physics and needing to destroy
the wave by observing it)
I think you did a good job...
but... how can you tell that this activity
of energy being transferred in the form of
noise occurs when there is no one to observe
(which is the heart of the zen question)?
You do a nice job of trying to get around
this by putting the philosopher into it, but
how can you tell that the very act of no observer
being there doesn't alter the results somehow
with the energy being transferred?
You did well describing why
definition 2 should be used, and I accept
that. If you want to give more input on one
of life's great mysteries, I will still be
here :).
Jim:
You are right, I think! No matter how much
I try to nail this down this matter of the
presence of observers, I don't think it is
possible.
Re Quantum Mechanics. Quantum
Mechanics in its current form can be interpreted
as saying that unless something is observed
it hasn't happened. Quantum Mechanics supports
the idea that the tree doesn't make any noise
if there are no observers. Amazingly Quantum
Mechanics goes further and says that there
is only no noise if there is no possibility
of observation! (For example, the presence
of a sound recorder). This isn't just theory,
experiment has proven the theory to a remarkable
precision.
This can suggest an Anthropic
Principle of the Universe, the idea that the
Universe wouldn't exist if there were no observers,
therefore the Universe must produce observers
in order to exist.
Sai:
Re quantum mechanics: you should be wary of
any system that has 'string theory'... It
is a little too much like phlogiston for me.
Jim:
String theory extends quantum mechanics, not
the other way around. Aspects of string theory
will hopefully be tested experimentally, before
2010. [UPDATE: 2009, my hopes were optimistic. It has since become obvious that String Theory is not testable even in principle, and is therefore not even a science. String theorists are still clinging onto a dead and ugly theory. Read "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit for a geat explanation. - Jim.] I totally agree that the wave function
collapse aspect of QM is dodgy, but experiments
do show that the potential of an observer
causes the wave-particle duality to break.
Back to Falling
Tree page
Add your comment to this page
 | | | | |
| From: |
Mad Pole | Subject: | 2000-11-26 08:49:57 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Boon | Subject: | 2001-02-16 22:24:47 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Graham | Subject: | 2001-08-24 19:14:27 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Nick Araya | Subject: | 2002-08-29 17:00:04 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Richard | Subject: | 2004-04-25 13:47:28 |
| | | | |
help: how to add your comment Page hits: 2990
