The Nature of Reality.

According to a well known philosophical notion there is something difficult to determine about the nature of perception. The famous question is: 'If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound?'



Common sense would suggest straightaway that it does indeed make a sound - why wouldn't it? Then along come some clever people who say that if no one hears it how can you say the falling tree made a sound? In other words a sound is defined as a sound heard. This generalises to the case for all perception i.e. any object that is perceived is there in the sense that we can perceive it's phenomenal attributes and say it's there. Likewise if we don't perceive something we can say either we can't know if it's there or worse that it doesn't exist at all. It's even believed that reality and the universe itself might be dependent on being perceived by us and whomever else to exist.



For me, this is nonsense and not in some cool, counterintuitive way. Suppose humans are the only intelligent, self aware beings in the universe. Did the universe not exist before we came along to perceive it? As Einstein said to Niels Bohr; 'Do you believe the moon is only there when you look at it?' To be fair, Bohr replied 'No, but I only know it's there when I look at it.' The Copenhagen interpretation also implies that the moon has a small but non-zero chance of jumping from one side of the sky to the other.



Thought experiment: suppose there are twelve people in a room - the last twelve on the planet following some global Holocaust. They are standing around a circular table and looking at an apple on the table. They all see it and as Bohr would say, they know it exists. Now they all do an about face and turn away from the apple so that no one can see it. What happens to the apple? According to the observer-dependent model it may well disappear because no one perceives it! I’m open to correction on this, but I’m trying to show that quantum theory is flawed in this respect and others such as the famous cat.



But, is that really faithful to the subjectivist view? You might also say that although the apple cannot be seen it is there, even solidly, but is invisible or totally dark. This is the equivalent of the real, solid tree not making a sound but instead we're using the sense of sight not hearing. When the tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it, the tree still exists and falls but makes no sound. Likewise the apple gives off no light so is invisible or totally black. But if you combine sight and hearing and the other senses and also human understanding you get perception. If the twelve people in the room facing away can't perceive it in this way i.e. with their senses nor deduce from other data that it's there you do indeed have to conclude that it disappears. Don’t you?



Things get more complicated when you consider the idea of quantum observership. It is known that if you observe a quantum system say electrons in an atom you change what is observed in a mysterious way. For example if you're looking at a particle that is, through quantum magic, simultaneously in positions X and Y with probabilities A and B (there are often more than two possibilities) respectively and then make a measurement the probabilities condense to just one real value i.e. a definite position in space; collapse of the wave function. But where was that particle a few seconds before – probably here and probably there?



Also, if you're trying to get information about a mixed up set of spinning particles and split them into two distinct streams, one of particle M and the second of particle N, thinking you now know more than when they were a random mix and that you can choose one of the streams and definitely find one type you're wrong. You find you still have not gained any information because when you go to observe one stream, the act of observing in a weird but real way randomises that stream again - you're back to a mix. Quantum observership has changed things in a real, verifiable way.



But are the two scenarios discussed in the previous two paragraphs the same thing as the above? I would argue not. The former amounts to saying the perception causes existence, the latter says that observership changes what already exists - not the same thing at all so we can separate the two and say that the former is wrong and the later is true if not fully understood. So the tree falling in an empty forest DOES make a sound i.e. reality is observer independent and it is objective; objects exist out there and around us whether perceived or not. But when they are perceived they are known to exist - by the perceiver. Quantum observership can indeed change the state of an already existing system to another state. Also, in a more ordinary way, if, by observing something, you mean shining a light on it you are effectively pointing a beam of photons at a system of particles and will obviously disturb it. This is almost if not classical. Most perception isn’t actively interfering with something like shining a light on it though; we simply pick up or receive light (or sound, etc.) as perceivers in the environment which leaves us with the same question: does perceiving objects this way affect them? For me - and I could be wrong – to say that something ceases to exist because it isn’t perceived isn’t reasonable or true, I think.



The Buddha said 'It is your mind that creates this world.' I would respectively disagree and say 'It is your mind that perceives the world, not creates it - or destroys it for that matter. Going out on a limb here, General Relativity and Roman Catholicism are objectivist and maybe one reason these pairs of different systems: Catholic/Buddhist and Relativity/Quantum Theory - i.e. in the spiritual and scientific realms respectively - are inconsistent and incompatible i.e. because of this objectivist/subjectivist split.



Maybe reality is actually supported by God even though man, so far, cannot describe it, at least and disappointingly, the physical cosmos. The spiritual realm has been mapped out too by the prophets and great teachers like Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed and others but there is inconsistency and division there too which has resulted in the spiritual equivalent of uncertainty for the genuine truth seekers who are confused by the many possible paths. They can't all be right. On the other hand is only one the truth? Or is the truth a mosaic of different traditions and disciplines or is it futile and self-deceiving to believe in the spiritual in the first place? All we seem to have here are good questions with no definite answers, just your own faith or gut instinct.