From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   Ed Cryer  writes:   
      
   > Richmond wrote:   
   >> Ed Cryer  writes:   
   >>   
   >>> I should think that anyone at all perusing a philosophy forum will   
   >>> recognise the maxim in the title. If a tree falls in a Siberian   
   >>> forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a noise?   
   >>> They'll also recognise the standard reply. Falling trees cause   
   >>> vibrations in the air, which impact on eardrums and produce the   
   >>> perception of sound in the mind. No ears, no sound.   
   >>>   
   >>> This is, of course, the main entry point into phenomenalism (what   
   >>> George Berkeley termed "empirical idealism").  I believe that today   
   >>> realism rules the roost. But I'm not sure just why.   
   >>>   
   >>> Does anyone know of any knockout arguments in favour of metaphysical   
   >>> realism?   
   >>>   
   >>> Ed   
   >>>   
   >>> There once was a man who said "God Must think it exceedingly odd If   
   >>> he finds that this tree Continues to be When there's no one about in   
   >>> the Quad."   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Dear Sir, Your astonishment's odd.  I am always about in the Quad.   
   >>>                And that's why the tree Will continue to be Since   
   >>>                observed by Yours faithfully, God >> I can't answer   
   >>>                the point directly, but I can waffle on about >>   
   >>>                something >> vaguely related in physics,   
   >>>                i.e. decoherence. The Schrödinger's Cat >> theory is   
   >>>                usually used in support of the idea that the   
   >>>                observer's >> observation affects reality. But an   
   >>>                alternative way to see it is that >> information has   
   >>>                leaked from the system, and so superposition is   
   >>>                lost. So >> in the case of the tree, maybe it has   
   >>>                both fallen and not fallen, until >> some information   
   >>>                leaks from the system, i.e. the sound. It need not be   
   >>>                >> heard, it could simply affect the ground with   
   >>>                vibrations. So, if a tree >> fell down in a forest   
   >>>                surrounded by a cryogenically cooled isolation >>   
   >>>                system, then maybe it didn't and did.   
   >   
   > You seem to have led us away from classical philosophy into the realms   
   > of the clash between classical physics and quantum theory.  David   
   > Hume, George Berkeley and even John Locke knew nothing about all that;   
   > not even Immanuel Kant had heard of Heisenberg or Schrödinger.   
   >   
   > Do you see a new pathway through the woods of human understanding   
   > which may have been opened by these physicists? Or is it just some   
   > murkier woods into the mists?   
   >   
   > Remember that philosophy is not science. Those two disciplines use   
   > different methods of attack?   
   >   
      
   I wasn't trying to stay in one discipline or another, I was just   
   thinking about the question you posed, and went where it took me. But   
   Hume was an empiricist, and science is empirical.   
      
   Because of the quantum origin of cosmic background radiation we can link   
   quantum theory with cosmology, and there is scientific cosmology and   
   philosophical cosmology.   
      
   How do we go back to where Hume was, do we just forget what we know?   
   Hume asked some quite modern questions about whether space and time are   
   infinitely divisible, or discrete, or as we would say these days,   
   digital. These are both scientific and philosophical questions.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)