I think this question is actually really deep because its asking if the universe is dependant on consciouness or if it is independant. It's asking the question of whether the world is the figment of our imagination (us as in any conscious being) and I think it is really quite interesting.
If you go by scientific method than you need evidence to prove if something exists right? So if the world got zapped and all the humans disappeared and there was nobody to use the scientific method to prove that it existed than how do we know it exists? This idea completely undermines the workings of science. If you believe that the tree makes a sound than you you have to also believe that things exist that science cannot and will not ever understand. If you think it doesn't make a sound than you just undermined another key rule of science that we are simply observing the independant world!
I know this sounds very anti-science but I understand that this theory has no practical value its only romantic thoughts. I think science is a great tool to use for betterment of the world and for increasing understanding. I just don't want anyone to believe science is infallible.
Interesting post! Really thought provoking.
Let us assume that the word "sound" means the actual vibrations in air which is not dependent of the process of hearing. Even if all human beings were wiped of the earth, the fact that an object hitting the ground will produce sound remains. I believe the laws of physics exist independently of the existence of human kind. Or what do you think?
Yes. Because, you know, science. Although it keeps the philosophers nice and quiet.
It's actually quite a presumptuous question, suggesting a person has to witness something for it to be classed as actually having happened.
I believe that sound is something we perceive, so no it would not make a sound. As many have pointed out, it would still make a vibration, but if there is no living thing around to HEAR it, a sound is not made. Sound is perceived, just as beauty is perceived. Sound is in the ear of the beholder. Wow, I actually really like that phrase now.
Yes, because I define 'sound' as 'a disturbance or disruption in the environment that would create auditory sensation if in any auditory perceiver if any were in range.' Man, that was easy.