If a tree falls in the middle of a forrest, and nobody is around would that tree make a sound? Of corse not, because you would need a ear in ordor to hear it. Lets say your you are viewing the tree falling through binaculars, and are out of ear shot. You see it fall, but you dont hear it. So you have basicaly witnessed the tree falling with no ears around to hear it. So dosnt that prove it? Or I like to put it like this. Lets say a light bulb falls out of the celing in an empty ware house, does it make a crashing sound when it hits the floor?
Now if that is true, what about this, is the building even there if nobody is there to see it. If the theory about the sound is true, wouldnt it allso aply to sight? That does make sence right? If there is no eye to see an object how can it be there? Its like “The game” if the object is to forget it excist, and you are winning it, because your not thinking of it, does it really excist? Well it does now, because, You just lost the game. LOL
Logically, that makes a slight bit of sense. Scientifically, no. Sound is created, regardless of who is around to see or hear it. A building would exist, regardless of who sees it, because matter cannot simply be destroyed and recreated.
At least, that’s the scientific way of looking at it. 
There was one time, that I was thinking about the tree question, and I got into the thought profoundly deep, and I havnt been able to catch that feeling sence. If you think about such Zen questions hard enough it can really take you to a diffrent place. I wish I could get back into that thought I was in, but it really does take alot of mental energy to get where I was.
Circus of Values: You’re darn right as far as physics goes. But physics ain’t the only approach here. Consider this popular adage, before we move on: if a man says something in the forest, and no woman is there to hear him— is he still wrong? 
For the most part, you’re right about sound: it can be defined physically, and if you follow that definition, any collision within an atmosphere will produce sound. But sound can also be defined humanely: the phenomenon of sound, without someone gifted with cognition to single it out as an entity of the concept “sound”, is just a bunch of molecules shaking. The reactions to it perpetrated by other animals are more or less mechanic, while ours is cognitive.
(I’m trying very hard to make the ideas of these philosophers, Berkeley and C.S. Peirce, intuitive. Turns out that’s nearly impossible, because their philosophies are the most arcane things one has ever seen. So bear with the gross simplification wherever you can in good faith see a better-yet-more-complex explanation of the same kind, and feel free to question whatever else sounds absurd.)
According to that human definition, if a tree falls and no human comes in contact with it— well, it darn sure moved a lot of air molecules around, but it did not make sound. On the other hand, a fallen tree found days later, or a falling tree being watched on a muted television, will produce sound — not audible sound, but the intuition of sound, and in a sense the experience of sound itself. Don’t take me for granted on this one, you’re capable of this. Go watch lumberjack videos on YouTube with the speakers off. Can’t you hear it? At the back of your mind? Yes: that is the sound of a tree falling.
Okay, first of all, I never thought a forest was the ideal setting for this question. After all, there’s bound to be other animals in the surrounding area, even if they aren’t human, they still are able to perceive it. Even if there aren’t any animals, there are other plants, and there are people who believe plants can perceive sound. I’m not 100 percent sure I believe this too, but this is enough to interfere with the question at hand.
But technicalities aside, lets simply ask the question: If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody’s around to hear it, does it make a sound? Or better yet: If a tree falls in the middle of a barren desert, and nobody’s around to hear it, does it make a sound? I actually think a better question would be: does it matter if it made a sound. No, no. I’m not trying to belittle anyone who asks the question, nor am I trying to belittle the question. I’m simply stating that this question should be asked before moving on to the original one. But what is the answer of this question? Depends.
Consider this: Lets say the tree falls in the absence of any living thing capable of perceiving it. Lets then consider that someone comes across it some time after it has fallen. They see the tree lying on its side, and can safely assume it fell. With the knowledge that it fell, they can tell that the fall probably caused vibrations in the surrounding air. Whether or not they consider that without perception to be sound is up to them.
But lets say that a bit more time passed before someone finds the tree’s site. Enough time for the tree to completely decompose and be taken back by the desert, so that there is absolutely no evidence the tree was ever there. Does it matter, in that case, whether or not it made a sound? No. Does it matter that the tree fell? No. Does it matter that the tree even existed? Well, that depends on whether any living thing capable of perceiving it came across the tree before it fell. Whatever happens with the tree makes no difference if nobody knows about it, nor ever will. Did it exist? Did it fall? Did it make a sound? Without evidence or witnesses, those questions have no answer.
That may seem like an awfully negative way of viewing things, but I think that this may be much more than simply a bleak analysis. In fact, I believe there may have much more positive an far-reaching implications than simply a dead tree falling in the desert. Lets say there’s a location of unrivaled beauty on some distant planet, the grand canyon looking like a ditch by comparison. I think you know where I’m going with this: unfortunately, before anyone could travel to this planet, its star goes nova, obliterating the whole world. Now, if anyone were to witness the view, they would be moved to tears, but unfortunately, this breathtaking view has taken no breaths before being obliterated. So, did this sublime planet’s existence even matter, even with all its beauty? No.
So, with all that said, if there is a grand purpose to life, I think I know what it is: to perceive. To witness. To experience the universe to its greatest potential. Would there be any point to the universe without anyone to appreciate it? I think you know the answer. Us humans have been able to go above and beyond what other animals on Earth have been able to do. Not only have we been able to analyze our perception of the planet beyond that of any other animal on Earth, but we have also been able to add much more to the planet, including society and technology, among other things… for better or for worse.
I strongly stand by my belief that life is the most important thing in the universe, for without it, the universe might as well not exist.
I don’t think the saying is meant to be interpreted physically…
If you want to analyze it scientifically, you cannot ignore the fact that particles are in a state of super-position, meaning a state of probability, until it is being ‘observed’.
Meaning, that if you’re not looking to the forest, there is only a probability of that happening.
Try thinking about it like a RPG computer game if you ever played one.
When no player is at a certain area, that area isn’t being rendered. As soon as someone ‘observes’ it , it is being rendered by an algorithm that determines which one of the probabilities come into existence.
this assumes that trees do not have a governing consciousness that would be aware of the tree falling ?
Well, by the time the tree falls, the tree is probably dead.
“this assumes that trees do not have a governing consciousness that would be aware of the tree falling ?”
yes…
Whatever someone is aware of is rendered…
Just like a computer game really. If you ever played diablo/warcraft or any of those RPG games , you know what I’m talking about.
It’s only rendered when someone interacts with it.
If the tree Could hear the sound, then he would hear the sound. Quite difficult to explain with a few short lines.
I’m pretty simple minded about these kind of things. If the tree falls and hits the ground, it’ll do the same thing a tree that you can hear will do. It’ll make something you can hear. Even if there’s nothing there to actually hear the sound, the tree, ground, and air do what they always do. If you say that’s not actually sound, that it’s air compression, then fine it doesn’t make a sound. Neither does a tree you can hear, your brain does.
To the second part, why can’t the tree exist if I’m not there? What’s so special about me that reality doesn’t work when I’m not around? To me, there’s a difference between imagination and reality. Eg. The kingdom of Hyrule (Zelda) is not real, but the game disc and my TV are.
How about: if they’d shut up Copernicus properly, would the earth still be the center of the universe?
If you took fatal vigilante justice on someone who was released for reasonable doubt, when you are so sure s/he is guilty, can you be satisfied with your personal truth?
Wouldn’t Schrodinger’s cat notice that it was still alive, before anybody peeked in?
Personally, I can’t abide Subjectivity and Solipsism. It’s like a toddler playing peek-a-boo, shutting its eyes and thinking that you can’t see just because of that, and calling it philosophy. I much prefer…
Three monks watch a flag waving in the air.
One remarks, “The flag is moving.”
The second monk says, “Not the flag, but the wind is moving.”
The third and wisest says, “Not the flag, not the wind, but the mind is moving.”
(and I say, “No way, it’s totally the wind.” )
the particles would go in a state of superposition.
goodness,
these questions are asked so the person who is inclined to give answers will become silent and bewildered ,
all the egos answers, thinking it knows : its like thinking you can take medicine by staring at it and then giving it to a wind up talking doll,
and justice does not exist, justice is a criminality and perversion reflecting a breakdown of communication and a tyrannical congregation of ego temples
the middle is our currrent evolution in which a certain number of minds have become pure enough to be simple and see to agree with each other, while a lot of monkeys talk and fight and get into mischief,
the middle is why systems are somewhat taken seriously, and somewhat openly ridiculed by even those who run them, in this “society”
our evolution requires that the collective mind only uses its focus to call into existence what is wholesome and good,
and that the middle becomes zero, and all on the wrong side of the fence meet some waves 
these zen questions were asked because minds have had a tendency to hold fast to illusions and grip them to the lonesome end, when freedom and joy were to be found in the immediate present moment like a child playing with its shoes
they are simply alarm clocks ,
which is why sometimes the zen masters randomly beat students with sticks
You know, this question has always interested in me just in it’s paradoxical kind of nature.
Anyway, in addition to all the things people have been saying thus far, quantum scientists would have something to say about observable events and such. It’s been determined in a number of experiments that whether an observer is there to observe an experiment or not actually changes the results, even if only slightly. It really displays the whole “your mind creates your world” type of concept.
Does that mean that if I’m in the middle of the forset all by myself, got the chilly willis, scream out load, drop dead… well I really didn’t made a sound (because nobody heard me) matter of fact if nobody founds my body it means I’m still alive… 
hihihi
well
think of it this way.
each entity is in its own computer game.
The problem with the if the tree falls in the forest question is that a tree can’t fall without any entity being aware of it. It only happens in probability and a lot of things do, until consciousness observes it and makes reality collapse into the reality with the highest probability in that particular moment. It’s like a computer RPG game . The rendering engine is the reality engine.
It’s really far out and quite big to grasp but just try to eat this, one bit at a time.
"Needing a good night sleep since 2000 "
Hysterical