Is that not "macro", not quantum? Or is this just an analogy he's making?
There was a recent theory put forward that, in fact, quantum principles do apply on a macro scale. For example, "Schrodinger's cat" is real, not just a model. And if a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound AND it doesn't -- until something observes it... at which moment the outcome is determined by probability.
Did the ant that the tree fell on "observe it", hear the sound? Did the amoeba to the left of the falling tree "observe it"? Did the leaf on the falling tree "observe it"? Did the silica molecule the tree fell on "observe it"?
yitbos
Those “macro” events are the result of the micro quantum events list in the article such as “a radioactive atom decaying, for example, or a particle of light impinging on your retina - the universe is supposed to “split” into different universes.” That would result in a lot of universes.
And if a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound AND it doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Define sound. I have always considered sound to mean what we hear, in that case there is no sound unless some being is there to hear it. In the absence of a listener there would be vibrations but no sound. If the only listener is someone who is stone deaf there would still be no sound. Some seem to define sound to mean the vibrations themselves but that doesn’t seem right to me.
I can sit in silence and hear the opening notes of a Beethoven symphony just as I can sit in the dark and see the sun set over a mountain. Sounds and visions exist only in the mind, the stimulus which we interpret as sound and vision may be considered to have external reality but not the sounds and the visions themselves.