Does the tree fall when nobody observes?

If a tree falls, there is nobody to see it, I mean humans, then nobody would realise it falling down, at that time. So as to say, there is no proof of a tree falling, thus it didn't exist in humans mind at all, because no one realised it. That is a fact. What Philosophicus is trying to say is something like this, but he just left out that it didn't exist in human's mind, rather than it didn't happen at all...

I havent referenced religion in any thread where it wasnt brought up. Philo brings it up, I respond about it and according to Brandino and his teacher (philo) im the guy whos way off base.

This thread isnt even about religion and look at brandino, completely irrational in his ways, bringing it up.

This is almost too hard to believe.

What Philosophicus is trying to say is something like this, but he just left out that it didn't exist in human's mind, rather than it didn't happen at all...

Ive gathered that he did that purposely. Trust me, he tries so hard to be deep but he ends up shallow.

OK.. in a human's mind a tree doesn't fall unless you see it fall.. and? I don't see the point behind that statement at all.. it's pure common sense.

i dont think the answer to this question is based on sight alone its to do with all of the senses, for example; anything that u cannot see, hear, smell, feel or taste is non existent until the very second that one or more of ur senses can detect it. so in this case, if nobody is present when the tree falls, they cannot prove its existence. so until someone or somethign can say with certainty that the tree has fallen then it isnt fallen.

TREES FALL....TREES FALL....Just put your recording device next to it....

Yes, the tree falls. Just because an observer is not present does not stop the tree from exsisting. It just deccipitates someone from observing the event and putting themself above the event as an onlooker.

You, and nearly 75% of this world need to learn that as we learned a long long time ago, the universe does not revolve around you. You are not so important as that something doesn't exsist simply because you're not there to witness that. What do you think? You're God or something?

The fact is, when you long pass from this Earth, things are still going to happen, events are still going to take place, and ignorant people are still going to believe it's all manifestations of what they allow to happen. Because they want to be in "control". When you don't have any control. You're part of a bigger picture, and when you learn to accept your role in that picture you'll feel alot better then struggeling to convince yourself that you have so much "control" over reality..

The fact remains that observation, or rather consciousnes creates reality, not the other way round.

Consciousness of something....doesn't have to be human though.

so nothing exists unless someone or something is aware of it. for example, before pluto was discovered, as far as us humans were concerned it ddnt exist, although it obviously did, but before we were aware of it, we wernt concerned by it, so it wasnt part of our reality.

just like with certain things you lost and dont miss until you need them

But something else could of been aware of it on some conscious scale...so it .................ugh....I need more coffee..

'Pluto' per se could not have existed before it was named. Definition is what creates an entity - nothing can exist without having definition, and we as humans give things definitions.

i think in a way everything exists in its own reality and the only way we share the reality of other things is thru our senses. so if there is no other being present when the tree falls, it only falls in its own reality and not the reality of anything else

But reality is also bound to definition, and a tree cannot define its own reality.

Originally posted by Wonderer
'Pluto' per se could not have existed before it was named. Definition is what creates an entity - nothing can exist without having definition, and we as humans give things definitions.

Originally posted by Wonderer
'Pluto' per se could not have existed before it was named. Definition is what creates an entity - nothing can exist without having definition, and we as humans give things definitions.

So, animals and insects without using definitions don't find things existing? 😄

No, an animal does not think in terms of something being in existence or not, it merely senses things without acknowledging their 'existence'.

the animals senses acknowledge the existence of the thing though?

Originally posted by Wonderer
No, an animal does not think in terms of something being in existence or not, it merely senses things without acknowledging their 'existence'.

So, if a tree falls in the woods an animal can sense it, but not acknowledge anything.