The vibrations in the air caused by the tree/airplane are not sounds. They are just that, vibrations - longitudinal waves that transfer energy via the oscillation of particles through a given medium. Through detecting these vibrations and relaying them to your brain in the form of electrical impulses, your brain is interpreting them as sound. Without any organism around, these waves would not be detected, and would stay as just that - waves.
---
I disagree. By picking a side and arguing it, your reducing the problem to a rather simple state.
First and foremost, you would have to decide on a definition of sound. With over 6.6bn people in the world, which one of those is to decide on the correct interpretation? Does it lay with the scientists, the biologists/physicists/chemists? Does it lay with the philosophers? Do the metaphysicists decide what sound is?
According to one interpretation of sound, the answer may be yes.
According to another, the answer may be no.
With that logic, my answer is yes and no.
---
Of course, naturally I could have taken a side. I personally believe sound to be a process. It requires a source, a sudden release of energy resulting in the oscillation of particles in any given medium, the process being completed by the detection of these vibrations. The tree falling would have started the process, but with nobody around to finish it, it is incomplete. Hence, if I were to take a side I would say no sound had been made.
You can't argue I'm wrong. If you attempted, all you would really be arguing is my definition or interpretation of sound, and not the problem itself. But heck, what do I know - I'm not a philosopher.
---
Edit: after reading some other responses I realize this is quite the elementary answer. Applying quantum mechanics on a macroscopic level? Bleh.
Results 1 to 24 of 24
Threaded View
- 20 Dec. 2009 12:33pm #23