3 ms·
> The 'observer effect' has nothing to do with there being any sort of conscious or intelligent observer. If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one to he
by musingsole 5y ago
> The 'observer effect' has nothing to do with there being any sort of conscious or intelligent observer.
If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?
Science can't meaningfully separate any of its observations from a conscious observer. At present, that's the realm of philosophy.
- mypalmike 5y agoIf you rigorously define the term "make a sound", the tree in a forest question loses its apparent profundity.
- musingsole 5y agoThen please do so. Until you have conscious observer, you have no evidence that anything at all has happened and you might as well discuss angels on a pinhead.
- mypalmike 5y agoBetter than me defining it, you should choose a definition. Make it rigorous and unambiguously testable and your conundrum goes away. Furthermore, plenty of phenomena are detectable without a present conscious observer. If I accidentally drop a bread crumb as I bite into a crusty sandwich while walking in the forest and nobody notices, does it ever land on the ground? (Note that in this case, there's no linguistic ambiguity to insert a false profundity to the question. "Land on the ground" is pretty clearly defined.) We know the answer is yes because we understand gravity. And as evidence (rather than first principles), we might also find ants later in the spot where the breadcrumb landed.
- musingsole 5y agoSchroedinger's breadcrumb.