– The philosopher’s puzzle of whether a tree that falls in the woods makes a sound, posits that someone walking in the woods discovers a fallen tree, and wonders whether it had made “a sound” when it fell.  It presents it as a general question about unanswerable questions.

Endless discussions on subjects like that still consume philosophical discussions.  What they seem to miss is whether it matters, whether what we can conclude about a lack of information makes any difference.  It can, but it might also be only a difference in what we know, and in how we observe it.

That’s the “two realities” problem, that what nature does and what we make of it ourselves are very different.

One could ask the same question in an answerable way by turning it around. You could equally ask the greater question of whether a fallen tree ever contained the breath of life.

The breath of life is equally or perhaps even more elusive than the thundering crash of a falling tree, a sound that leaves no visible mark. The past life that built the tree is equally invisible, but evident in the layer upon layer of the tree’s construction, and in the upturned root mass, and the deep leaf compost all around it, the hole in the canopy above.

Wherever there’s an event it will leave a footprint you can generally find in its place

So the “unanswerable question” can be used to take you on a path of exploration.  The “formal realities” of the mind (at a loss without information) and the “physical realities” of the world can be connected,

with high confidence that is confirmable and extendable by others.

Such connections between formal and physical realities are not threatened at all by ‘seeds of doubt’ and being left open to question, as they themselves are the products of open questioning.  They may change, but they’re made stronger by discovering the unexpected, not weaker.

The puzzle is not about whether all questions about reality are answerable as some clearly are and some are not. It’s more about whether reality has any independent existence from our information, and if not, do we need to take reality to be what someone else says it is, or something discoverable.

Asking the question the right way the answer is clearly, yes, information and things are constructed independently, and no, you need to decide what to believe yourself, and can often confirm for yourself what others say.

How the puzzle is posed makes it seem as if it’s about whether the unanswerable questions if life give you a sound basis for sweeping metaphysical proofs.  That’s more “P.T. Barnum” theatrics once you see the “strange attractor” of its hidden assumptions.

One can always find unanswerable questions, but it’s the task of all science and language to connect the formal worlds in our minds with the physical realities we are all part of.

Unanswerable questions might prove something quite useful, or be great leads.  Where there is neither a use or an answer, it’s quite possible that they don’t mean much at all, and you might as well continue on with other things. ;- )