@ice science assumes that if you do the same thing, you get the same result, and that theories are checked by falsifying them.
Something as hard to measure, hard to define, mercurial, subjective and personal as experiencing sensations are at best at the edges of science. Something you might try to say something about using those theories.
So science would prefer to refer to sound, the physical phenomenon first, rather than the thing it can't say things easily about.
@ice for light we have light, the physical thing, a picture, which talks about a picture is formed and "a sight" implying someone/-thing experiences it.
Though language can be pretty contextual..
@ice @raboof i am too lazy for that, see this article https://theamericanscholar.org/a-new-theory-of-the-universe/
Science doesn't "need" to answer questions about consciousness/experiencing/etc about which it indeed does not have an answer. I think he is searching for a religion.
Also he seems confused, equation general relativity with _much_ more speculative theories. GR is seen in various ways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity ) suppose if he is confused the way above he might not distinguish between weak-field and strong field tests.
@ice @raboof also, for instance Newton can perfectly well answer the Zeno arrow paradox... So what if you can divide the distances in half, it divides the times in half too, it all adds up to the same time however you dice it..
I don't think he really understands QM enough to claim to have the answer to the interpretation problem.
@ice @raboof thought PZ Myers might have said something about it, indeed he has an article with this link:
http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/ (not read yet)
@jasper @raboof He’s not confused. His views are well-documented and based on the works of Schrodinger and Wheeler, among many others, and he collaborates with astronomers and physicists. His two other books deal with the criticisms of this 2009 article and go beyond his initial publication from 2007. His theory is controversial and may have its flaws, but it also has supporters among scientists. I wouldn’t dismiss it so quickly.
For physical vibrations, physicists would probably just throw the word sound at it, especially if it has a audible or higher frequency. If they use equations for it, they'll probably mention the medium, like air/materials?..
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!