Thinking about an approximate quote the other day (“If a tree falls down in a forest and there is nobody around to hear it does it make a sound”) and I considered that I’ve never really known its point. So here is what i’m wondering - what (if anything) is this quote (or its variants) used to prove.The only theories (half-cocked as they are) that I’ve been able to develop are:
**1.**It’s an all purpose religious quote demonstrating that there are in fact some things we cannot know.
**2.**It relates to the Quantum physics/mechanics idea of the act of observing influencing that which is being observed.
3.(And this is one i’m unsure about) Technically no sound would be made as vibrations don’t become sound until they reach the ear-drum. Using this theory the quote is just used to illustrate a pedantic point about language.
So do any dopers know the purpose of this is it one of my theories or somethig completely different.
Any ideas about who came up with it would also be welcome.
I think it demonstrates the philosophical limits of observation; everything that we understand about the universe supports the idea that a tree falling in the forest when nobody is around would indeed create sound waves, but if we’re not there, we can’t prove it and if we go there to listen, we destroy one of the conditions of the experiment (us not being there).
There’s no way to prove that objects even continue to exist when nobody is looking at them (or observing them by some means) - for all we know, reality might take a breather when it isn’t looking, then swiftly jump back into line when it is needed, but there is no way for us to be any the wiser.
I don’t know who invented the quote , but it’s always struck me as a sign of mans arrogence. Maybe it is a religious quote, but if so - to my mind - it’s one that is meant to reinforce the idea of mans “dominion” over all other life.
Note the use of “nobody” in the quote. That means people. The presumption is that if human ears didn’t hear it, then it never happened.
It is a zen koan. There are many, many definitions of what a koan is, some of them extremely esoteric, but here’s a good basic one from the American Heritage dictionary:
In other words, it doesn’t mean anything, or it means whatever you want to mean, as long as it helps you along the path to enlightenment.
legion – the koan doesn’t say that it didn’t happen if nobody heard it, it merely asks the question. Your interpretation says more about you than it does about the koan (Why do you assume that “nobody” refers to people? Why do you assume that the answer to the koan is “no”?) A koan doesn’t have an answer, it just provides a framework for meditation.
Of course it’s possible that the koan is now being used in contexts in which some of the other interpretations are correct, in the same way that phrases change their meaning over time.
A tree falling in the forest makes a sound regardless if anyone is around to hear it. The world doesn’t go away just because we aren’t paying attention. On the other hand, if something happens that doesn’t affect anyone, it mind as well have never happened at all.
Of course my reply - anyones reply - says more about “me” than the Koan. The Koan is a centuries old, fossilized, stagnant question. The world I live in is vastly different to the one in which the Koan was postulated.
I always thought it meant that if all experience finds it’s source in consciousness, then the tree did not fall unless you were there to create the tree falling, or the forest for that matter. Or anything else, for that matter. Etc. Etc…
At least when Bruce Cockburn used it in his song, I’d always assumed that what he meant was something political. If something occurs that many people (in theory) would disapprove of, or perhaps be indirectly disadantaged by, does anyone care enough to do anything about it, if they are not personally confronted by it?
Yes, the entire nature of philosophy, motivations, emotions, and logic have changed. If you met someone from a thousand years ago you would not recognize his/her thought processes or basic human qualities.
Is this close to what you’re saying?
Oh, and of course, any quote that’s managed to survive hundreds or even thousands of years and still remain in the popular vocabulary must have nothing to say. I see your point.
wow i just figured that since it would make something that could be interpreted as soon therefor it made a sound, plus there would be animals and stuff to hear it. so many much deeper ways to interprete something seemingly so simple.
But is sound actually sound if it is unheard? It may be compression waves in air, but unheard, is it sound anymore? The world might still be there, but is it a physical condition that defines sound or is it hearing that defines sound?