Phat writes:
if nobody were around, how can there be facts without observers? The old "If a tree falls in the forest...." philosophy.
If a deer's there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a microphone's there to hear it, does it make a sound? I'd say that it does in both cases, though the deer and microphone may interpret the sound differently than a human would.
To change the scenario slightly: If a (really freakin' big) tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to feel the vibration when it hits the floor, does it make a vibration? If your neighbor feels a tree hit the forest floor and stores that information in his/her memory, then how is that record of the event any more special than the record that's made by the dirt and decomposing leaves that have been scattered around the felled tree in a rather predictable pattern?
In other words, what exactly is it that defines an observer? So far, I don't see any reason to believe that unintelligent life and non-living matter can't make observations. It seems to me that in order for a universe to exist, it must at some stage consist of at least two objects which are capable of affecting each other, not necessarily anything more.
™ Version 4.2
