• asudox@lemmy.world
        12·
        1 year ago

        “If you are right in the woods and no one is around to see it, were you really right?” is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and perception.

        Can we assume the unobserved world functions the same as the observed world? – e.g., “does observation affect outcome?”

        A similar question does not involve whether or not an unobserved event occurs predictably, like it occurs when it is observed. The anthropic principle suggests that the observer, just in its existence, may impose on the reality observed.

        However, most people, as well as scientists, assume that the observer doesn’t change whether the tree-fall causes a sound or not, but this is an impossible claim to prove. However, many scientists would argue that a truly unobserved event is one which realises no effect (imparts no information) on any other (where ‘other’ might be e.g., human, sound-recorder or rock), it therefore can have no legacy in the present (or ongoing) wider physical universe. It may then be recognized that the unobserved event was absolutely identical to an event which did not occur at all. Of course, the fact that the tree is known to have changed state from ‘upright’ to ‘fallen’ implies that the event must be observed to ask the question at all – even if only by the supposed deaf onlooker. The British philosopher of science Roy Bhaskar, credited with developing critical realism has argued, in apparent reference to this riddle, that:

        If men ceased to exist sound would continue to travel and heavy bodies to fall to the earth in exactly the same way, though ex hypothesi there would be no-one to know it

        This existence of an unobserved real is integral to Bhaskar’s ontology, which contends (in opposition to the various strains of positivism which have dominated both natural and social science in the twentieth century) that ‘real structures exist independently of and are often out of phase with the actual patterns of events’. In social science, this has made his approach popular amongst contemporary Marxists — notably Alex Callinicos – who postulate the existence of real social forces and structures which might not always be observable.

        For example: In quantum mechanics, Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment that illustrates a paradox of quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead, while it is unobserved in a closed box, as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. This thought experiment was devised by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 in a discussion with Albert Einstein to illustrate what Schrödinger saw as the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

        In Schrödinger’s original formulation, a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor (e.g. a Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that, after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality resolves into one possibility or the other.

        In conclusion: When there is noone to hear if you are right or not, your righteousness is not yet confirmed, thus you being in a superposition state where you are both right and wrong. Unless someone comes and hears your words, will then your righteousness be judged and stated.