"If a tree falls in the forest and no one or thing is around to hear it does it make a sound?"
I'll put up my opinion and argument later. Otherwise I'm technically loading the question.
Printable View
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one or thing is around to hear it does it make a sound?"
I'll put up my opinion and argument later. Otherwise I'm technically loading the question.
I say yes. However, Schrodinger's Cat says "yes and no."
If something happens, and no one knows it does.
Does it even happen at all?
Because the point of something happening is for it to have an effect.
And if no one is aware that the cause happened, then is there even an effect at all?
Technically, yes. Philosophically, no.
Yep but to put that in words more understandableQuote:
Originally Posted by Gabe
Yes it makes a sound but although we cant hear it, the sound was still made but without witness and there is no changable fact because if it makes a sound when we were there to witness it and if the only changed circumstance is witnesses it does in fact make a sound.
Then you need to have a look at Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by RavenBlast
Also, that thing that shows electronics/atoms/whatever moving in a wave-like pattern only when no one is looking. Crazy shit.
Basically the argument comes down to whether one defines sound as vibrations being intercepted by ear drums, or as just the vibrations themselves.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear, who is to say that it fell in the first place?
I feel that the best way to answer a philosophy question is with a philosophical question. Never answer a question that has no correct answer.
yes because birds will fly away when tree falls!
Sound is a sensation. It is the mind interpreting the sensation of vibrations. If sound is the vibration and independent of the listener then all sound should sound the same to everyone with healthy ears and it doesn't. At the same time you can say sound is a human experience since other animals experience it. Senses are flawed and easily fooled, but they are what establish reality for the individual. Nothing to hear, then no sound.
Technology proves nothing. By putting a recording device in the area to record, you allow it to experience the vibration and translate it into digital or magnetic message. There is no sound. Then If you play that back and listen there is a sound. An even if there was a sound before because it was recorded by said device the recorded sound is different from the original sound.
I was expecting you to pull the "both yes and no" argument, as it's both philosophical and scientific. I just wish I could remember the name of the electrons/atoms test. =[
EDIT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Had my nerd science friend tell me the name. Being there is everything! :D
Naw, yes/no is too easy. It more likely a yes or a no. Its better to try and pick a side and argue
Depending on your ideas of quantum physics, the answer is yes and no, so it's not more likely yes or no.Quote:
Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE
If nothing is observing (measuring to be technical, I think) something, then it behaves in all possibilities. If you don't watch the tree fall, it both makes a sound and doesn't, along with every other thing that could possibly happen. It's not until you notice it fall that it makes a sound.
YES. YES. YES.
If you think too hard about it
your mind is going to get into
some weird trans and make yourself
believe that somehow there is no sound
whatsoever unless someone is able to
hear it themselves. Thats not true,
get out of that thought right now.
Sound was born when everything else was
born. Sound is the reaction of energy.
The transfer of energy, more precisely.
The tree falls, there is gravitation potential energy.,
When it lands, kinetic energy. The transfer makes a
big sound, and also has damage done to the surface.
No matter if there is 200 people there, or none,
it makes a god damn sound.
To the contrary, nothing exists unless it's being measured by something. Yay quantum physics. So, if you aren't there to hear it, and nothing else is there to measure it (e.g. other animals, whatever), then it does every possible thing, including not make a sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus! Muffin
Paper quote
Quote:
According to the dictionary a sound is:
“a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.
b. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
c. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.”
The first definition can not be used or correct because it would define sound as only experienced by humans, which is obviously not true since other animals hear. Dogs are known to have a hearing range greater than a humans and bark and growl to communicate. We also know of many other animals that communicate with sound. The second definition is not an accurate description of what a sound is because it is the definition of a wave and all waves are not sound waves. Also it makes sound independent of the listener. Meaning that the sound should sound the same to every listener with healthy ears but it does not. Some sound sound good to one person and terrible to another, because of the way the individual's mind processes and interprets the vibrations. Also on top of this is vibration is sound and independent of the listener then it should be able to exist in a vacuum but it can not. However the last definition fits our purpose and offers a complete understanding of sound. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by vibrations in the air or other medium, this definition works for two reasons. First it includes all animal and second it points out the fact that a wave or energy is not a sound but rather sound is a sensation. If a sound is a sensation then there must be someone or something experiencing the sound for the sound to exist. The vibration of the air alone is not a sound because nothing experiences this vibration.
Oh shit. Semantics just answered this question!
Yep. Absolutely had my argument done in the first paragraph, the next two pages were just curtsy.Quote:
Originally Posted by GAMEchief
YES THE FUCKING TREE MAKES A SOUND. Put It This way.
a book drops in class with people in it. The book makes a sound.
Ok. Now if a tree falls and no ones around. It makes a sound to!
Someone give rape a cookie
Someone didn't read the posts above his. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rape
This question has always annoyed me; not because it's unsolvable, but because you gain nothing from finding the answer.
Sounds are created by vibrations, to say that the tree landing wouldn't cause vibrations would be rediculous ^^
But then you have to decide if vibrations convert to sound if no one is there to hear them, since that's the roll of your ear drums.
I've always picked no, the vibrations wouldn't be converted into sound.
Well, if no one hears it, it still makes a sound. Just a sound that no one heard. Let's say if an automatic airplane exploded in the desert, and no one heard it, did it really make a sound? Of course it did, it's just that no one heard it. The sound waves still moved until they stopped, and no one heard them. Yes, it made a sound.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shojo
---
I disagree. By picking a side and arguing it, your reducing the problem to a rather simple state.Quote:
Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE
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.
Yes...Thats just like if i said i jumped off a skyscraper and landed...did it really happen because noone seen it..yes it happened because i did it and i know the truth..You feel me?