Right!
In your Holographic Universe you made the intention of putting a video camera in order to capture the sound.
Then when I see the video tape in my Holographic Universe, the tree has fallen and made a sound.

Did the tree fall and make a sound in a person's Holographic Universe halfway around the world tho ?

yes it did because we are living in the same person's holographic world - why not broadcast it on all the channels around the world so everyone can see and hear!, even tho u are distanced away from the tree u witnessed it happened at the same time as everyone else therefore there is the proof that it actually happened even if we weren't there we can verify it ;]

YES it does make soundwaves and whatnot. and NO it doesn't because maybe a certain someone may not be there to EXPERIENCE the soundwaves hit their ear canal for the noise to be heard.

its all about experience. if it is not experienced. it is non existant in our reality, that is.

i hope someone watched family guy last night:

Peter: if a tree falls and no ones around to hear it does it make a sound?

Tree: you bet! george over there hasn't stopped %%%%%ing since 2 months ago!

George the Tree: something really funny

What we really want to know is wether there is a sound when there is nobody or nothing around it, to record/hear it. If we wanted to know "does it make a sound when there are no humans nearby" we would have ended this topic at page 2 ^^

Yes indeed. But still the topic should have been concluded a long time ago. There are a couple of reasons for people not accepting that 'sound' results from the tree's fall:

* That 'sound' can only happen when the energy interacts with our (or others) organs of hearing.
* That if no consciousness is there (perception) we do not know the sound can be generated (the question presupposes the tree exists)

In the first case the semantics of the question imply the sound could be heard, if it was generated and someone was within hearing range. So it's not a case of the definition of sound, but a question of does our consciousness 'create' the illusion of the sound. As has been pointed out, the physics of the energy generated by the tree's fall aren't questioned and this energy is simply another way of defining 'sound'.

The second case seems to be puzzling, but thinking about this leads to a contradiction in the argument of the "it's all just consciousness" believers. If everything is consciousness then consciousness is everything. The question, as already stated, presupposes the existence of the tree so consciousness is present to perceive it. That the consciousness is 'deaf' to the sound we may hear is irrelevant. So the tree exists and it's fall issues the sound (because consciousness is already there) but no physical entity is there to 'hear' it. The sound exists because the tree does.

Yup.. but if there is not anyone conscious around to hear it, we can't even be sure the tree exists at all.

Eventhough it is most likely that the falling tree will make a sound, without an observer we will never know for sure. I don't think there is a correct Yes or No answer to this question.

Which brings up an interesting point.
How is "the" world created, if everyone is in their own Holographic universes?

I believe it does NOT make a sound if there is no-one theRe to hear it. It creates a vibrational energy that has the POTENTIAL for producing sound.
For instance, the air is FULL of the energy of radio station emissions, all blearing their music and voices to the world, but the sound is un-manifest, unless you have a radio reciever through which it can manifest- THROUGH which it can be EXPERIENCED.
Also conSider a rainbow, does it exist if there is no-one there to see it? Again, no. It exists in POTENTIAL only. It requires the Sun AND water AND an observer with ALL three being in the proper spacial relatoinship to eachother, for the rainbow TO MANIFEST, to be seen - to be EXPERIENCED.

I'm not sure you got the point I was making about consciousness. Here is my take on the 'Universal Consciousness' argument...

There doesn't have to be an 'anyone' present for the consciousness to be there. Consciousness is everything and 'the observer' is just a part of that consciousness. The question states the tree exists - hence consciousness is 'there' so the sound is generated by the fall. An 'observer' is unnecessary being only a part of the universal consciousness. In the universal consciousness argument people have been equating us with this consciousness, but if something is stated to exist without us being present (as the tree is in the question) then we are obviously not the 'consciousness'.

I'm sure someone like Brave will say "How do we know this Universal Consciousness exists if we aren't there to perceive it?". That question is both unnecessary as the riddle states the tree exists - hence the presence of consciousness - and contradictory to the whole premise of universal consciousness whereby it is argued the universe IS consciousness made into reality so consciousness must be everywhere regardless of whether we perceive it or not.

The only way to argue against this is to take an entirely solipsist stance and believe everything is simply a creation of OUR mind - not a universal consciousness.

I agree. I have faith in universal consciousness. But universal consciousness is everything! So the tree is the observer and the sound is the observer. Everything is just one omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient observer (universal consciousness, God).

So from that point of view there is no tree or sound but universal consciousness.

Universal consciousness always exists because it is who we actually are. When we turn mind inwards, God manifests as the inner consciousness. --Ramana Maharshi

Universal consciousness is everything. Infact from the highest point of perspective there is no 'everything' just universal consciousness.

Universal consciousness is beyond all that can be said or thought or seen. Universal consciousness is everything but also free from everything including purpose. Purpose creates limitation and binds.

We can still remember the golden days before Heisenberg, who showed humans the walls enclosing our predestined arguments. The lives within me find this amusing. Knowledge,you see, has no uses without purpose, but purpose is what builds enclosing walls.

His Voice

Leto Atreides II

When you try and find reason and justify a purpose for infinie universal consciousness you limit it to thoses reasons and purposes or just end up in a paradox .

Most discipline is hidden discipline, designed not to liberate but to limit. Do not ask "Why?" Be cautious with "How?" "Why?" leads inexorably to paradox. "How?" traps you in a universe of cause and effect. Both deny the infinite.

The Apocrypha of Arrakis


Universal consciousness just is.

What can one say of universal Being except IT IS? --- Chuang Tzu

But either way whatever you believe, it comes down to this:

Behold, O Man, you can create life. You can destroy life. But, lo, you have no choice but to experience life. And therein lies your greatest strength and your greatest weakness.

Orange Catholic Bible,
Book of Kemla Septima, 5:3

I was fairly certain my post would drag you onto this thread again, Brave...

Hope you're well, my friend.

Im pretty predictable aye? Im going good mate!

If you leave your T.V. on at home, and there's no one there to watch it, is it on. Does the refrigerator light really go off when the door is closed.
another point, if sound is an energy or wave length, so is light. If there was no one to see the light, then by that logic, there's no light. No light speed, no time. So time only exist because we do.

i see,

Which is how it is. We're all creating everything.

So you're saying we get 'absorbed' into this 'universal consciousness', sorta like the Borg?

No.
In an infinite system, all things are infinite, including your personality.

In which case you would be aware of everything...

I did not say we get 'absorbed in to consciousness' that is a misunderstanding of my explanation. Your awareness is a part of the Universal Consciousness (if this exists). It [your awareness] isn't aware of everything, but the universal consciousness is.

So you think something is aware of everything?

Ok here is something I wrote recently on this exact thing.

In response to some idiotic thing I read in a recent psychology book, I offer this. The book asked the age old question for which there is supposed to be no correct answer. “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around does it make a sound?” Then the book goes on to answer the question and say that it could not make a sound because sound has to be perceived. It did at least acknowledge the fact that sound waves would be produced, but that somehow if the sound is not heard it is not sound.
This is absurd. In order to accept this as fact, we must also accept that nothing exists if it is not perceived by, I am assuming, a living being. I say ‘living being’ very liberally, although it is surely implied that human perception is required to be valid. Also based on this, the tree itself cannot exist because no one is around to acknowledge or perceive it. So if the tree is perceived as standing at some point, then it does fall when no one is around to hear it, it must then be perceived to have fallen by someone that had once seen it standing.
But even this is not correct. Applying the “no sound” theory, the tree could not have fallen because between the time it was seen standing and the time it was seen laying on the ground, it did not exist because at that time it was not being perceived. If sound must be perceived to exist then I can only find it reasonable that motion must be perceived as well. If the tree was not witnessed falling then it didn’t fall, it just became to be on the ground.
So my answer, of course it would make a sound and of course things exist without our having to perceive them. Unless of course the Earth really is flat in which case I withdraw and shut up.

Most of us have done things silently without anyone notice. It was like there was no action at all. But yes, there was...

Almost getting into the area of 'binary' thought.

So, would the 'falling' part involve witnessing (whether by eye or ear) the actual falling of the tree - or would it simply be enough to turn up some time latter and realise the tree had fallen?

Is the 'falling' part the bit in between standing up and being on the ground, or is it the change in state from the tree being a 'standing tree' to one of it being a 'fallen tree'?

Though it could be argued that in order for someone to be aware of this - they'd first need to be aware of the 'standing tree' and (at some point latter) - the 'fallen tree', in order to realise that a 'falling' had taken place.

Personally, no.

I was speculating on what others who say the tree and sound do not exist because there is no 'observer' present believe with regards universal consciousness. The belief that nothing exists simply because 'we' cannot perceive it seems contrary to the rest of the belief that universal consciousness exists. As I stated, the riddle states the tree exists, therefore consciousness (in the solipsist belief) is there to make it exist. If the tree exists it is sensible to surmise the sound it makes when it falls does as well.

So the argument that no sound issues because there is no observer is really just a misunderstanding of what the question states and asks.

There is no absorbing into anything because how can something be made from eternity and infinity without it already being eternal and infinite. I agree that everything is infinite but that there is no "everything" only infinity. Therefore the personality, the phenomenal world etc are all illusions of infinity.

But by saying that universal consciousness is present when the tree falls is saying that there is someone or something to hear it.

See logically you would say yes BUT me thinking out of the ordinary I would say no. why?

Because someone has to be there to HEAR the sound being made. There may be sound waves but if no one is there to hear the sund, then technically there is "no sound".

Universal consciousness - which is what the 'consciousness is all' crowd must believe seeing the tree exists...

man... how is this topic still going. Its like asking the question "Did the universe exist before life in the sense of biological beings existed?" Obviously it did. If a sound occurs and there's no1 there to hear it the sound still existed it just becomes irrelevant to anyone since it is not perceived. An irrelevant sound. It is still however a sound.

Ya the crowd and environment are one and the same.

Gandhi was committed to Advaita Vedanta (i.e. monistic or, more literally, nondual Hinduism), to the belief that all life comes from “the one universal source, call it Allah, God or Parmeshwara.� He expressed this belief by conceiving of all entities as drops in the ocean of life:
“The ocean is composed of drops of water; each drop is an entity and yet it is a part of the whole; ‘the one and the many’. In this ocean of life, we are little drops. My doctrine means that I must identify myself with life, with everything that lives, that I must share the majesty of life in the presence of God. The sum-total of this life is God.� (Fox, 1995. P259 (Gandhi)

But in reality subject and object are One; inasmuch as they are mere two aspects of the single process of perception; they are both the same, both being sparks of Brahman. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988. p88)

Following the logic, you agree everything is infinite.......then the personality is infinite.

Therefore My personality is infinite.

Ya

So then we can agree god doesn't exist, right?

I wonder what tree fell so many years ago that made man ponder such an obvious question.

I think yes, it makes sound even though a human isn't within the sound range to hear it.

How can anything not exist in infinity?

EXACTLY!

And now for the metaphysic version :

If a tree doesn't fall in the woods, does it make a sound ?

if someone says (or in this case writes) something incoherent, something which makes no sense at all, something which is quizzically dim-witted, something so painfully obivous that the answer to it can be told by a five-year-old; what if some one asks something really really dumb and there is no one around to listen to their question, would it still be considered dumb or not?


hmm, now thats a tough one!!


why aren't more people like you in this world? oh, wait yes there are infact its full of them.

thanks for mystifying my brain.

cheers!!!

How can you have a "supreme" being .......if we are all infinite?

If a woman nags in the forest and thier is no men around, does she make a sound

lol Yes she does make a sound but if no man is around to hear it, it isnt truley a nag.

Ummmm, I thought those vibrations were called 'sound' waves.

ergh, u guys have to understand that there are relevant sounds and irrelevant sounds as they effect us. Its like asking, if a tree falls in the wood and there is no1 to hear it but one man who tells evry1 else on the planet except for me is it a sound from my point of perspective? Its irrelevant to me but relevant to evry1 else who knows about the sound.

if you put a micraphone in the woods you would record somthing,so there is a sound...da

It doesn't matter by what means u go about hearing the sound. If there was a tree that fell in the wood somewhere, and it was randomly recorded without any human interference, then the sound only becomes relevant when played. If u waited 3 years before playing the sound then it is an irrelevant sound for 3 years before u played it.

Do you really posess any thing in this world other than your consciousness, or are you posessed by your consciousness.
Since the body is mortal the above statement tell us we are in acutality the concinceness, therefore we are imortal in this respect.
Are you the center of your universe? If you are, then your consciousness is the god of your universe.
Therefore there is a god, and the tree in the forest only makes noise if you wish.

I am only 13,and i will try to end this question,the tree is in the forest,it fell,it vibrated,its not sound,if there is someone there to hear it,it enters the ear,and is interpreted as sound in our knowing of our intellegence,we heard it,it made sound,if there is no one there,no one heard it,it vibrated,but since nooned was there to hear it,it didnt enter anybodys ear,and therefore,could not be interpreted as sound to any one,Also therefore its not sound,if any animals heard it,we dont know,they cant tell us its sound,cuase they dont speak as we do,are not of as of intellegence to us,so,to the animals,they just survived,and lived to the next day,and for a ongoing struggle,i dont need to be a scientist to know this,if you heard it,you know of it,you can tell someone else,and it exists in your knowlege,and whoever you told,if nobody heard it,it exists to the world,but not in the worlds knowledge.

thanx for reading my post =)

So basically you are saying that if I kill someone and tell no one and no one is around to see it, then it never happened. So without a witness I could not be prosecuted. What’s that? Evidence you say? Finger prints? Well fingerprints no more prove I was there than a tree on its side proves it fell. If we do take the evidence of the tree on its side as proof that it fell, then we also must fill in the blank that we were not present for. The sound as it fell.
Just because something is not perceived does mean it does not exist. Murder exists without perception and so does sound.
The earth was perceived to be flat at a point in history. It did not make it so. So maybe the question should not be, “does it make a sound?” But instead, “is the sound perceived real?” Hmmm.

Paranormal,that's not the message in my post,i know evidence can be found,but im mainly pointting towards the "the sound"in this question,if you like,i recommened,take time to read my post,and see if you can see my messages in it,i always put messages in my posts,on important occassions like this,nice point,but not what im trying to clear up =)

No it does not make a sound. Like the op said in order for there to be a sound, there must be something, a device like a recorder or a ear to transform the vibrations to a sound. There is however a noise produced, but with nothing around to pick it up, you can't call it a sound as defined.

im not here to flame anyone but.... you guys are seriously going around in circles.

its all about EXPERIENCE.

if someone asks you to observe a tree falling down 1,000 miles away. it will be impossible to experience it thus making it, in a sense, non-existant in your reality though you might have some sort of an idea of how a tree would sound falling.

NOW.

if someone asks you to observe a tree falling down 1,000 miles away but this time you have measuring devices (camera, sound equiptment ex. satelite) then you are experiencing a tree falling down thus making the whole scene existant (in a very shallow sense). because you are observing it and the tree falling.

same thing can be said if someone asks you to observe a tree falling down at 25 ft away compared to 25 miles away.
a tree falling down 25 miles away is impossible to be observed thus making it non-existant in your reality UNLESS you have proper equiptment to observe it falling.

i still do think, after all this, that the tree still falls and makes a sound but trees dont have ears and animals living near a tree really dont give a f*ck about this age old question. all they really care about is moving out of the way so they wont get crushed.