The question itself establishes that the tree exists; and we know that trees fall and make a loud thud and move some dirt and leaves aside as they hit the ground.

Maybe the sound of the tree falling is something I don't hear, so the sound doesn't exist for me, but the air was moved and the tree crashed to the ground whether I was there or not. Does it change things if a squirrel heard it?

I am insignificant. What I perceive or don't makes absolutely no difference to the universe as it keeps churning along.

I cannot see it any other way. O.K. you can call me thick now.

And that in itself is a very valid question. Perception has always been an argument that swings both ways for philosophers. I myself hate perception arguments, but cannot deny the validty that knowledge must start a posteriori.

You absurdist!

No, your not thick . . . you're just a realist. And that's just groovy . . . not my cup of tea, but you have a valid point. But you must keep in mind that sound is only understood as such by beings that are capable of understanding it as such. That's not to say that a squirrel lacks the ability to hear, but I doubt very much a squirrel considers the sound of a tree falling in the same light that man does.

The only reason we know there's a loud thudding and whooshing sound when a tree falls is because 1) empirical observations have proven this to be the case; and 2) we have systematically assigned principles to natural phenomenas. Ergo, it is almost impossible for a person to concieve of the possibilty of a tree falling without sound, despite the lack of a person within range to empircally observe (sound) this phenomena.

However, is it really that impossible to concieve this?

So you also feel that the "If a tree..." question is a foolish one?

I get just a quick murky glimpse of what you are saying and then it's gone. I wonder if I can't see an important point that is staring me in the face. I believe there are an infinite number of "things" I don't know about but they still exist. What I see is crystal clear but who knows, probably misguided.

For me, I find it perfectly plausible to accept that if something makes a sound and there was nothing there to hear it, then there was no sound.

Sound after all is something that has to be observed to exist. If you don't hear a noise there is no evidence that the noise exists, so effectively, to you, it doesn't.

Also, on a personal note, Realism is a solid stance to take in this world, where scientific knowledge gives us all the evidence we need to accept the world around us. Questionning the validity of facts and knowledge where human perception is concerned is a worthwhile pursuit though. There's a lot the mind can tell us that outside influences can't.

Indeed, knowledge a priori is far more valuable than knowledge a posteriori.

And yes, I find the "if a tree falls . . ." question to be moot, as all "if" questions are. It presents, in itself, a situation with unjustifed validity. Although the argument itself may be sound, the problem with "if" questions is that it always present some sort of premise that can be carefully scrutinized by any number of philosophical principles, and counter-argued to prove its invalidity.

thank you.

The world itself, along with philosophy are both the image of the word absurd. Wouldn't you question the limits of your own mind and knowledge there would be no progress.
So yes, I'm an absurdist and I'm proud of it.
Everything is possible.

I too am an absurdist . . .