>The theory "A tree falling in a deserted forest does not generate pressure waves in the air" is a theory that makes falsifiable predictions
I do not believe that the theory "A completely unobserved and unrecorded tree does not generate pressure waves in the air when it falls" is falsifiable. How would you falsify it?
I don't think anything intelligent can be said about a "completely unobserved and unrecorded tree." We do not know an object that has the qualities of being unobserved and we can never know, because then it wouldn't be unobserved any more. That's the idealist argument against materialism.
This is where the Less Wrong post on Occam's Razor [1] comes in handy. It helps make clear how to respond to someone who argues that backward perspective.
I do not believe that the theory "A completely unobserved and unrecorded tree does not generate pressure waves in the air when it falls" is falsifiable. How would you falsify it?
I do agree that no-one seriously believes it.