Things happen whether we accept them or not, like the old question about trees making noise when they fall.
What would happen if we framed the age-old question of measurements vs. subjectivity differently? Instead of stating what we cannot do—if you can’t measure it it doesn’t exist—why not ask—what can we do differently to measure that which we hear?
When unexplained audible differences don’t match a measurementist’s worldview, they often fall back on the seeming impossibility of the problem. How could our advanced science not be able to measure everything?
I get it. And there’s no doubt in my mind that if enough bright people took an interest in problem-solving we’d soon have answers.
This whole ongoing debate is close to what is known as the Gettier problem where knowledge is equivalent to justified true belief. If you are looking at the hands of a clock that say it’s 2 PM, you have every reason to believe that it is 2 PM. That fact the clock stopped working twelve hours prior (the “truth”) isn’t part of your knowledge base. Your knowledge forms your true belief.
Our consistent observations cannot simply be shoved under the rug because another observer cannot connect all the dots.
While each observer has fully justified true knowledge, that doesn’t obviate the ultimate truth.
I believe Edmund Gettier would agree with me.