How can we be sure?

any is exclusively in absolute terms, therefore relativity do never exist and that is why existence is free

a sound is in absolute terms free so what falls cant make a sound

the point is your insistence to mean any and everything from your wills so to deny anything freedom rights and to force an absolute character to yourselves freedom above a conceived dimension based on lies and properties that cant b possessed

that is how what you mean actually by this boring question is the sound of something exceptionnally great so superior in absolute terms

OK
Paradox? No
Messing about with semantics? Yes
Everything makes a sound.
The sound may not register on the human scale, but it does on some.... and it does travel in a vacuum. You are not in our perceived quantum realm at present so will not encounter this. Where there is substance there is motion - friction - sound. End of, please put to rest.

Reality? As you determine it.

Since God is omnipresent then this situation is impossible. Assuming then, you mean only humans are not around, because it is impossible for God to not be around, then I would say, yes, it of course makes a sound. The eternal Tao, the Holy spirit, the Queue ( the Qi ) are everywhere and omnipresent. Also all matter is connected by unseen forces, and if even any subatomic particle moves, all other matter in the universe is affected. Sound needs matter to flow through. You have pointed out one thing; most online philosophy forums are full of atheists and agnostics, who, because they do not think God is omnipresent, make false assumptions. Why not extend your question to theologians as well as the common dogs of philosophy, for fairness?

well i tend to believe where logic leads. universe is simple for those who understand it. and can quantify everything

Why not prove first that a god exists and then prove that it is omnipresent otherwise you are (as you put it) making false assumptions.

Short of actually not really being on planet earth and perhaps living only a simulated existence strapped into a chair on a space vessel, the tree certainly makes a sound.

Management by the universe would be computer based if what you suggest was possible.

Of course the scenario can be levelised and this could then be <10% of actual existence as a construct, therefore escape would be impossible given 90% of 'all' belonged to your captor or the computer left to manage stasis.

How you can be sure, is that you cut your toe nails.

You are then that toenail clipping, until such time as you are released or you try to get out, pleasing notions of trees falling, should be left for the Chinese, try.....

'If space were really our external atmospheric perimeter, why have we not analysed its content to a factorisable value based on distances between atomic particles?'

Not too difficult.

Then at least some answer might arrive, not just a pleasing nights sleep and a cocked eye from the neighbor, who also thought that once.

I still prefer to think of the "wave-particle duality" as a unitary "wavicle." I like the notion that, as North noted, classical physics is more about reality as it appears to us, while quantum physics is about reality as it is represented by certain mathematical approaches. When we "observe" phenomena by means of mechanical means and, therefore, are not "seeing" them sensorily, we may still think of the observation as a purely intellectual event. The "mechanical instrument" is an extension of our otherwise sensorial means of observation. The end result is knowledge, knowledge relative to our nature rather than absolute.

Can you state an equation which corresponds to this particular assertion?

In particular in the sense you describe quite aptly?

I am curious, because mathematics is not my strong point and I prefer to see single equations of sense, rather than spirals and spirals of others which define segments of reality rather sparsely organised in terms of clarity.

I understand maybe perhaps it cumulative and general equations are the source of your end opinion, if such is how it is, I am not concerned.

I prefer my spirals.

Oh, ok, I really appreciate timetravel's answer... The poster above.

The answer to your question lies within darkness. Can it be brought to light? Your question is basically asking if we make sound exist by our acknowledgement of the sound. That would be like asking if a Super Nova wiped out our planet and all consciousness, would the universe still exist? Are you stubborn enough to have to see it to believe it? I'm sure.

this is ur fancy and wills that u r saying, it has nothing to do with anything happening or real

when u see smthg u become more then else u r and forver less that thing relation to

universe is to b respected for itself fact, no will could accept that to do

and u r the stupid u mean about others to justify ur fancy

who do not respect else existence right starting with things perspectives, are much more intelligent then who do respect else rights
bc they must deal with everything then alone in positive ends terms
while who deal with else properly keep it open since ends depend then on too much else rights so realize the least of present being only

Are you sure?

You know Ryan you're pretty pathetic

You know your funny. The "are you sure" was to Imans. I would like to speak to Ryan.

i dont have to b sure about anything wrong
what is meant is anything else that prove u wrong, and this is done
in that sense of course im sure that u r hundred percent wrong

But how can you know that someone didn't come, pick up the recorder, go record a different tree falling in a different forest, and then come back and return the recorder to its original position?

uncertainty is certain

My question is, is anything certain? Can we be sure of an outcome merely because it has been done? Or because logic dictates such? Is there any real truth to it, or can that not be decided? >>

Death and taxes is the only thing we can be sure of, as the old saying goes, and that's pretty much the way it is today

no not really, definitely not. I think. Well it's pretty bad and drastic down here but when I look at the sky I see a big blue sky and it seems really kind and good, all good, and plentiful and happy, and I just don't see anything like that down here; it's one place that Man can't really frequent either ...you know? It's basically a clear blue sky and everything down here is horror, bright too, big, and it just seems, I think Man lies. The one place you can't go is big and happy. And everything down here is just horrific. It's not certainly horrific though. See, there's reason to question the horror, which seems irrefutable. I don't believe anything really. except faith. no because I've caught too many lies. too many things are forgotten, too many things "didn't happen." Jesus' miracles are sort of like that too because he would say tell no one, tell no one, so did they happen? I don't know. Maybe there are some that were not recorded. Shouldn't the sky be made out of nails and hanging babies if this is reality? Shouldn't it be on fire?

No it's not certain, at all. That's my A proof.

It's a happy sky.

Because it's just really terrible. None of this stupidity is certain.