I was talking to my friend about this and I told him "No. It doeasn't because sound is vibrations that our ears interpret(sp? It is 8 in the morning and I'm half asleep) sound. All the tree will do is send out vibrations and since no one is there than no on can interpret the vibrations to sound."

My friend countered, "Vibrations are a type of sound, we just can't understand them so our brains interpret(sp?) it as what we hear now (unless yyou are deaf. No offense to any deaf pple)."

What is your thoughts on this and the question?

I'm so damned sure we had this exact thread a while ago.

Of course it makes sound. Sound is defined as "vibrations in the air that is usually detectable by the human ear" or something along the line of that.

Whether there's no one to hear it or not doesn't matter. It makes the sound.

When you're alone in a room and there's no one else around, does that mean you don't excist because nobody can see you?

Sound is the vibration of air. It doesn't even matter if humans can hear it because there are ultrasonic sounds that are there but we can't hear them.

Yes, the tree makes a sound.

but sound is the movement of air particles through vibrations, so a tree falling in a forest makes movement.

but, of course it makes a sound. and no one cna prove otherwise.

When you're alone in a room and there's no one else around, does that mean you don't excist because nobody can see you?

Good point,

I also think it does make a sound. There will always be sound on our planet, it's just that our ears are simple tools for understanding it.

The best answer you can give is probably
'Not any sound that matters since theres no-one there'

That sound can matter, just not to the people who aren't there.

Great analogy Angelic.

When a tree falls in a forest, and someone is around to hear it, it does make a sound. I don't see how it can not make a sound if someone is just not there in the first place.

It does make a sound. Elephants are proven to make deep rumbles that humans cant hear, yet that doesnt mean it isnt real.

OH~ Heres another one.

'What is a sound of a one hand clap?'

A clap...^

You can't actually clap with one hand, can you? Unless you consider it clapping when your fingers hit your palm.

i think you can clap with one hand..........

it just doesn't make the same sound as clapping with two hands

I think fingers hitting the palm is more of a click...

Here's one for you!
If a man speaks and there are no women around to hear him, is he still wrong?

Somebody's been watching too much Simpsons.

Isn't this all from that book Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu?

Okay, here's a different example, I think.
On Mercury, there is no atmosphere, and when meteors and comets crash continuously onto the planet's surface, they cause vibrations. But because there is no air to carry them -- no sound. Agree or disagree?

That's an interesting one, and in fact I think that there is indeed no sound, only vibrations of solid materials.

In space there's no air to cause sound either. Films where you see space battles with lots of noisy explosions and lasers are utter bull crap cos there is no air be moved.

There is sound, just undetectable through the normal means. (which is by air)
provided that you're physically in contact with the obeject that's vibrating, and that the vibration is strong enough so it shakes the eardrums, then you'll "hear" the meteorite hitting the surface of mercury, or whatever. through internal vibration.

Umm, I'd just like to say that sound waves can travel through solids and liquids.

hence why i said "normal means" when referring to air.

we've all tried the "ears to the door" thing when we were kids didn't we? :P

Firstly, I don't care what the human hearing range is, let's just take it as infinite.
"Sound is vibration, as perceived by the sense of hearing. Vibrations usually travel to our ears through the air; the ear converts them into nerve impulses sent to our brains, where the impulses become sound."
Or, in more technical terms,
"longitudinal waves that successively propagate through media that are at least a little compressible (solid, liquid or gas but not vacuum)."
Therefore, Angelic is right to say that there is no sound in space. Thus, no matter how close you are to the falling meteor, you won't hear a thing. You will die from the impact, yes, but there will be no sound. The source also tells us that sound does not equal vibrations, as most members are seeming to think...

As for the root topic, about the tree falling, yes, there is a sound, even if you're not there to hear it. Sound, waves, oscillations are too complicated to explain in a single post. Go to the local library for more information (if you want to).

Just remember: "In space, no one can hear you scream."

but another point is: should we care if the sounds existed if we have no means of proving it did?

Can't you just say what they said in Year 9 or 8 science that sound is just the compresstion and rarefaction of a particles?

@pifish: Sure I can. It's the same meaning as longitudinal waves... And you know more than some of the older members here...
@mystery_editor: Sure we should care. And it can be proven.

@pifish: everything is scientific!
@stel: but why should we care?

@pifish: Sure I can. It's the same meaning as longitudinal waves... And you know more than some of the older members here...

I just got taught that in High School science.

@mystery_editor: To satisfy our curiosity, I suppose. And every single bit of knowledge is useful to one or another. (At least astronauts know not to shout for each other 'through the air' while on the moon XD)

What if they want to make a point very clear over the radio?

or use over-the-top hand signals and arm-waving?

True.

How about if there's air in space? Youll probably hear all the things in space and makes research on it a lot easier.

@pfish - Ill be in high school next year! :lol:

I am pretty sure the question is supposed to be philosophical

You people and your science.

pah, who needs philosophy when we have the scientific theory behind waves? :D

wat kind of question is this? haha never thought about that

Here is a good question: If a man says something, and his wife doesn't hear it, is he still wrong?

Ut depends on what he said. He could say his wife is smart. His wife is smart, but didnt hear. Does that make him wrong?

I was talking to my friend about this and I told him "No. It doeasn't because sound is vibrations that our ears interpret(sp? It is 8 in the morning and I'm half asleep) sound. All the tree will do is send out vibrations and since no one is there than no on can interpret the vibrations to sound."

My friend countered, "Vibrations are a type of sound, we just can't understand them so our brains interpret(sp?) it as what we hear now (unless yyou are deaf. No offense to any deaf pple)."

What is your thoughts on this and the question?
It does make sound, it's just that no one is there to hear it.

Why are you guys talking about husmands? Does is really matter?

great a rhetorical question.. well sorta anyway

well i'll say it does make sound, i mean the forest is full of life and stuff so an animal will hear the tree fall and thus hear the sound of the tree falling, therefore the tree falling will make a sound, it's just a sound we can't hear because we're too far away

I think it does make sound. ;)

I would like to know why.

So far, my favorite defense as to it making sound is the oone that says if your alone in your room and noone knows where you are does it mean you don't exist(something like that). But you know/see/whatever you are there/exist.

Because of all the reasons precedent of my post.

Wait. I have a question. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, how does it not make a sound?

like this: The tree falls in such a way that is does not disturb any of the particles in the air or itself or the ground, thus causing no vibrations whatsoever. Then it makes a landing on the ground that again disturbs no particles, and therefore, the tree falls without making any sound.

Another way is that when the tree falls, you play another sound that's its exact opposite in waveform with exact same amplification to the sound of the tree falling, cancelling out the noise perfectly.

as an afterthought, even if its on somewhere like surface of the moon, there'll be sound via surface vibration. There is sound in space, just you can only hear it if you're in physical contact with whatever's "generating" the sound.

Even if you cancel the soundwaves out, though, the sound will still be produced; it will just be cancelled in an extremely short ammount of time after it is created.

it will just be cancelled in an extremely short ammount of time after it is created.

Then its not perfect cancel.

therefore it still happened.

If a completely deaf man sees a tree fall in a forest, does it make a sound?
Someone is around, but what if they cannot hear it?

Why does it matter if it's a deaf person or a healthy person. The tree falls, sound is produced, whether if not the person can hear it is their own problem.
Sound is not dependent on human's presence, when we're presence we can HEAR the sound, likewise if a tree falls in the forest where there are other animals, they will hear it too.

That's true. The sound is there, it's just that if no one's around no one will hear it.

When you're alone no one is around to see you but you're still there right?

like this: The tree falls in such a way that is does not disturb any of the particles in the air or itself or the ground, thus causing no vibrations whatsoever. Then it makes a landing on the ground that again disturbs no particles, and therefore, the tree falls without making any sound.

Another way is that when the tree falls, you play another sound that's its exact opposite in waveform with exact same amplification to the sound of the tree falling, cancelling out the noise perfectly.

as an afterthought, even if its on somewhere like surface of the moon, there'll be sound via surface vibration. There is sound in space, just you can only hear it if you're in physical contact with whatever's "generating" the sound.

Trees don't fall specially though. Due to gravity, it just... falls. It doesn't slowly fall, or softly fall, it falls. Faster and faster depending on how tall the tree is. And, however it makes a landing, there will still be sound. No matter how lightly you set a pencil or a phone or something down, you can still hear it.


Why does it matter if it's a deaf person or a healthy person. The tree falls, sound is produced, whether if not the person can hear it is their own problem.
Sound is not dependent on human's presence, when we're presence we can HEAR the sound, likewise if a tree falls in the forest where there are other animals, they will hear it too.

Yes, exactly right.

=.= what's the point of this discussion?
I think the question is already solved and further discussion will be repetitive, because i almost wanted to say:

"Sound is cause by collisions which result in difference in KE or PE, the difference will be heat and sound, therefore as the tree falls, there are difference in energy due to friction in the air and friction on the ground, the difference will be sound and heat"

and i think all the posts above has explained that.

:yawn:

the point of discussion is no longer valid. we're now making random comments on arbitary questions that are further persued by some of us.

and dzv, read what I wrote again and think.

"like this: The tree falls in such a way that is does not disturb any of the particles in the air or itself or the ground, thus causing no vibrations whatsoever. "

Trees don't fall in a particular way. Not in real life anyways. Naturally though, it is not going to fall in that way that it will not disturb any of the particles in the air, or itself, or the ground.

precisely. its all theory, nothing practical. but you didn't ask "how can a tree fall without making noise In a practical way"

(and for future reference, that's "Kou is fooling around" talk)

:mellow:

It'll make a sound (dunno if anyone's said this...) but even if there's no humans.. there's always a form of life around who can hear...

as an afterthought, even if its on somewhere like surface of the moon, there'll be sound via surface vibration. There is sound in space, just you can only hear it if you're in physical contact with whatever's "generating" the sound.
Didn't you read the posts? There is no sound in space. There is no such thing as "sound via surface vibration". If you're "in physical contact with whatever's generating the sound", you still won't be able to hear anything, but you can feel (sense of touch) the vibration.

:lol:

really, learn some physics.

then try an experiment. block your ears with some wax or something, and let someone stop on your feet, very very very hard. or maybe that isn't "loud" enough for you to hear.

try another: why do you think that when you hum with your ears and mouth closed, it "sounds" louder?



all sound needs is a medium to travel in. you, as a solid being, is also another medium for soundwaves to travel through. when you vibrate, so will your eardrums. when your eardrum rings, you'll hear a noise.


:yawn:

Cut 'em some slack they're only a 14 year old who probably hasn't actually studied sound in science yet.

When you're alone no one is around to see you but you're still there right?

Actually, in keeping with the original problem, it's the other way round. You are there to perceive yourself. Others are, however, not there. You cannot perceive them, and in consequence, cannot be sure they exist.

It's the beginning of the train of thought that leads to Descarte's, "I think, therefore I am." And, yes, it's a philosophical problem. Scientifically speaking, this a non-problem.

Oh please...dont get Philosophy into this scientific topic.

precisely. its all theory, nothing practical. but you didn't ask "how can a tree fall without making noise In a practical way"

(and for future reference, that's "Kou is fooling around" talk)

:mellow:


Exactly. Which is why it doesn't matter how a tree falls.


(I'm also just going on because I feel that this thread is going to die... kind of soon. There's really nothing left to talk about. We can just debate and debate about this forever, and/but no positive end comes to this)

Oh please...dont get Philosophy into this scientific topic.

*Slinks sideways into the shadows to remain there.* ;)

therefore it makes a sound when the tree falls

Oh please...dont get Philosophy into this scientific topic.
Just in case you haven't noticed, it IS a Philosophical problem.

Angelic as for your statement about no one sesensing you not meaning you don't exist, you do sense your self. And in a way, if no one is thinking/sensing you , you DON'T exist. By this I mean absolutely NO ONE(including yourself) senses/thinks of you. But to be sure about this we have to go into the meaning of existence....

meh from what i heard, from the movie " what the bleep do we know" (mind bogueling movie btw) when an object is behind you or away from anyone's sights, it splits into a cloud of posibility and if you turn back they reform to where the should be. essentially the mutiplicity is vewed as a small window through the other worlds, as the are suppesebly infinitely split as each ppl make a decision. so the tree could or could not make sound, or it could not even fall until anyone come to check on it. this is affected by cameras and mechanical devices since are essentially controlling them.

just my two cents, im not shure if it makes sence...

just my two cents, im not shure if it makes sence...

Quantum philosophy :whistle:

Okay..fine let's get philosphy into this

the word "Sound" is a social fact, but there's a brute fact, which is that tree falls and it does make a...NOISE. "SOUND" probably wont' exist because humans aren't present, but NOISE as in..SWOOSH, BOOM, CRASSH, whatever you want to call it exists.

So there, my conclusion is:
When a tree falls and no one hears it, SOUND doesn't exist but NOISE does!

A tree can fall, but it doesnt mean it will hit the ground and make noise. It can fall, but it matters what it falls into, how much it falls, and how it falls.

1) It can fall in a vacumed chamber. Even if theres 100,000,000 people around it, no one can hear it.

2) It can already be close to the ground, but just falls 1/2 inch and hits the ground.

3) It can fall with multitude of vines around and on it. Even it it falls, it doesnt hit the ground.

~

Now..

1) No one is around it for 100 miles. Yet, all the worlds amps and one lone microphone is placed there. If right, it will kill of everyones hearing for hundereds of miles.

2) It falls, but places in front of it was a camera placed on RECORD. No one hears it, but someone later plays the tape. Does hearing it live count? I know listening to Mozart live would be better, but all we have now are CD's.

Topic says:

"If a tree falls in a forest..."

not in a vacuum chamber, a forest.

Okay, so thats scraped out. But then, what kind of forest? One in the ocean? A kelp forest? I forest of stones? If your getting all philosophy on me, ill have to bring up great literature, which uses words in many forms. In writing, forest isnt confined to just "A group of trees", but could be used for a comparason in a smilie.

But what if its a forest on a planet with no air? That too..

DOn't treesneed air to live?

they do! and they need nutrients and sunlight and water

Okay, so thats scraped out. But then, what kind of forest? One in the ocean? A kelp forest? I forest of stones? If your getting all philosophy on me, ill have to bring up great literature, which uses words in many forms. In writing, forest isnt confined to just "A group of trees", but could be used for a comparason in a smilie.

But what if its a forest on a planet with no air? That too..

Well, there isn't anything comparing a forest for it to be a simile. When you think of forest, most people tend to think of a group of trees, not a forest of stones or kelp. And I wouldn't consider this question great literature.

Actualy, a group of kelp is concidered a 'Kelp Forest'.

~

Septer, StormyChild, on Earth they do. Isnt it possable that there are more elements then there are on Earth? So isnt it possable there are living creatures on another planet that dont need are?

String theory people..

Actualy, a group of kelp is concidered a 'Kelp Forest'.

~

Septer, StormyChild, on Earth they do. Isnt it possable that there are more elements then there are on Earth? So isnt it possable there are living creatures on another planet that dont need are?

String theory people..

Exactly. Just because we need Oxygen to survive, that doesn't mean other beings do.

we need trees as they produce the oxygen we need and we produce the carbon dioxide they need

Septer, StormyChild, on Earth they do. Isnt it possable that there are more elements then there are on Earth? So isnt it possable there are living creatures on another planet that dont need are?

String theory people..

Read up on why carbon is very good for creating life and why other elements aren't as great (some say silicon might be able to do it and it might). And even if there were other elements around, we probably would know about them, remember the periodic table and the theories of the guy who created it that were proven to be right. If you haven't done this in science yet Radical Dreamer you probably will.

Actualy, a group of kelp is concidered a 'Kelp Forest'.

~

Septer, StormyChild, on Earth they do. Isnt it possable that there are more elements then there are on Earth? So isnt it possable there are living creatures on another planet that dont need are?

String theory people..
I understand that, I think that way but would it really be considered a plant? Maybr it would fall under a diffrent kingdom. And even if it is a plant, would it be a tree?
~~
For people who said that animals in the forest wouold hear it then that means that someone is around to hear it, thus not ansewring the question properly. The question does not say a human isn't around to hear it.

Heck yes it will make a sound If I fall down in the middle of a forest I will hear myself. The trees are alive damnit ALIVE! They have feelings too just like everyone and everything else. Try to prove my wrong, I dare you but before you do I must say that I have done this a THOUSAND times so be prepared.

[QUOTE=**Hinata**]Heck yes it will make a sound If I fall down in the middle of a forest I will hear myself. The trees are alive damnit ALIVE! They have feelings too just like everyone and everything else. Try to prove my wrong, I dare you but before you do I must say that I have done this a THOUSAND times so be prepared.[/QOUTE]
I agree with Hinata 100%! :D The trees are alive and diserve to be heard! WOOT! ^.^ :heh:

Hooray! Some one agrees with me. Thank you Septermagic for reassuring me, I feel so happy now. Whoot!

Welcome!

XD

trees should be respected as an animal not a plant XD

Heck yes it will make a sound If I fall down in the middle of a forest I will hear myself. The trees are alive damnit ALIVE! They have feelings too just like everyone and everything else. Try to prove my wrong, I dare you but before you do I must say that I have done this a THOUSAND times so be prepared.

Trees don't have eyes, ears, nerves or even brains. They may be alive, they still don't think or have feelings.

Prove it are you a tree?

That is a really, really stupid thing to say Hinata, really just because there's no concrete evidence that trees don't think doesn't mean that they don't and asking someone to "prove it" is silly. Most people say that animals think and have feelings, but do they, why don't you prove that they do Hinata, are you a rat/mouse/chimp/cat/dog or sheep? Bloody idiot.

Maybe I am a rat/mouse/chimp/cat/dog or sheep, you don't know that. Do you?

Can we really prove that humans have feelings? According to Hinata, no. We con only prove that our own self has feelings, but agian, according to Hinata, the other billions of humans dont have feelings because we cant prove it because we arnt them.

That was all sarcastic and smart-ass'y. I wasnt agreeing with Hinata .... Or am I?

Stop that I am soo confused.

Are you confused? Can you prove it by demonstrating the exact brain activity patterns associated with confusion and then show us the patterns from the time when you were confused and then prove that they are really yours and not someone elses?

YES!! Just not right now.

But if you can't do it right now then perhaps you are a paedophile out looking for depressed children to stalk, and posing as a 17 year old you're going to proceed to find someone latch on and stalk them, which you might do since no-one is you and as such everyone on this forum is a paedophile until proven otherwise, which can't be apparantly done since none of us are every other user on this forum. I'm going to stop now because this is just utter bullshit.

Why are you saying/asking such aweful things of me? I'm gonna go kill myself now. Only the trees understand me. Jeez I think I'm gonna throw up I'm mean come on a paedophile ewww.

Because as stated in one of my previous posts you're being a bloody idiot.

Nope I'm not bloody just an idiot but I already knew that you didn't have to rub it in.

Well I apologise for being rather immature in trying to prove a point.

Stop it, save it for PM or MSN

I thought it did just stop.

Just afraid things might keep on going
anyways...

Here's another thing to think about.

When the question says "no one" does it mean "no human" or "NOTHING" (not even animals)

I think the one actually refers to only human. unless the main character is an animal.

You'd say "nothing" if refering to a lack of life in general. "One" refers to "someone," which is indeed a person.

True. 'One' usualy refers to 'someone' which obviously refers to 'humans' in most cases. And theres nothing in the riddle to show that that 'one' isnt human, so we can all assume that 'one' refers to 'human'..

Confused by my own words :teeth:

~

Okay, so I refer to Angelics earlier post about "If no one is around but me, does it mean I dont exsist because no one can see me?" Or somthing of that sort.

The vibration is there. I think sound/noise is when the brain interprets the vibrations into brain waves/sound or what ever. But the vibration is there. Now, we cant be exactly sure if the tree makes a sound because there is no one to dicifer the vibration into sounds, so we can only assume there is vibrations and vibrations only. And we can only assume.

Now for those who say vibration is sound, you are partialy wrong. Yes, vibration leads to sounds when it hits the eardrum -etc, but what about out of the atmosphere? There could be one of those back massagers that vibrate in space and it vibrates. Now lets assume no one touches it, and it just goes along vibrating. It vibrates, but no sounds are produced.

But then you have to take in notice what is around the tree when it falls, or what happends when/after it falls. The tree would be partialy off the ground by less then an inch and still fall, for falling is falling. Do you personaly think a tree would make sound humans can detects if it only falls 1/2 an inch? Also, how big is this tree? tiny or giant? And what is it falling into? Is it falling off a cliff into the ocean, or onto an abondoned military bunker?

EDIT: God, and I forgot about 'one' meaning 'human'. If it means no humans are around, we can be safe and assume that theres other animals. Animals can hear, right? I rest my case.

NOTE: That edit only works if you truly want a quick answere without thinking and you want to disect the riddle for no good reason.

I still don't understand why my answer would be wrong. If a tree falls in a forest and a person is around to hear it, then it would make a sound. By the basic logical systems, if a thousand different people each and went into a forest and a tree falls, and they hear it, then the conjecture would be that when no one is there, it would still make a sound.

um...who thinks it DOESN'T make a sound?

Sorry Neero-bozu I think it does.

I say it doesnt. Ill say what I think agian.

No one is around = only vibrations

someone is around = vibrations are decifered by the brain into sound.

~

Now lets say there is someone around when the tree falls. But all organs-body parts used to hear is gone from his/her body. The trees fall. Now, is there sound? No. No matter how many trees fall, that person hears no sound. But does that person feel the tree fall? Yes.

You need hearing organs for there to be sound.

~

Now, lets assume a bit more. Lets say humans has never had any hearing abilities. Ever. And never will. Ever. So, to that world of humans, sound doesnt exsist and for one simple reason: No hearing organs. So a million trees could fall on that planet at the same time, but no one would hear a sound. So, there is no sound untill the vibrations are decifered by the brain. Simple as that.

Saying that sound is only sound when something can decypher the compression and rarefaction is a bit like saying that radio waves don't exist until something can decypher them, essentially flawed. Or saying that bat's ultrasonic SONAR isn't really sound because we can't hear it. And using Radical Dreamers people with out hearing organs example, what if people weren't in anyway able to detect various forms or EMR, would that mean that they wouldn't exist? No it wouldn't , sound will always be sound, regardless of wether something is actually capable of hearing it.

Your radio thing has nothing to do with my theory in any way what so ever.

~I claim that if no one is around to decifer the vibrations into sounds, all that is there is vibrations, no sound.

~You claim I said that if nothing is there to decifer the vibrations into sound, the vibrations and sound dont exsist.

You just made yourself look a bit idiotic there...

Actually it's all electrical signals until it reaches the speakers. But that's not what I'm trying to say is the radio waves by your logic can't exist until something has put it into a format (can't think of a better word) that the object that is on the end of some radio waves can sense is flawed.

WTF no



The vibration is there. I think sound/noise is when the brain interprets the vibrations into brain waves/sound or what ever. But the vibration is there. Now, we cant be exactly sure if the tree makes a sound because there is no one to dicifer the vibration into sounds, so we can only assume there is vibrations and vibrations only. And we can only assume.




No one is around = only vibrations

someone is around = vibrations are decifered by the brain into sound.

Wow, I agree with Radical_Dreamer (just because that description is more scientifically correct than mine)

I agree with Radical Dreamer. It seems like the crux of the argument is about the definition of sound.

From wikipedia: In more technical language, sound "is an alternation in pressure, particle displacement, or particle velocity propagated in an elastic material" (Olson 1957) or series of mechanical compressions and rarefactions or longitudinal waves that successively propagate through medium that are at least a little compressible (solid, liquid or gas but not vacuum).

From encarta:Sound, physical phenomenon that stimulates the sense of hearing.

Therefore, unless there is something or someone to hear it, no "sound" is made.

Wow, people agree with me O_O Thats a first..

Don't you feel so special?

I kinda don't agree... Sound doesn't have to be decifered by the human mind. frequencies not heard by humans are voided if that were true.

Stick it too them Toshihiko,
From wikipedia: In more technical language, sound "is an alternation in pressure, particle displacement, or particle velocity propagated in an elastic material" (Olson 1957) or series of mechanical compressions and rarefactions or longitudinal waves that successively propagate through medium that are at least a little compressible (solid, liquid or gas but not vacuum). This one supported me more than Radical Dreamer, says nothing about an interpretaion of this waves by a person. And the Encarta definition states, that it stimulates, not is made existant by, the human ear.

Don't bring in all this "what if" stuff. Making all these theories that could've happened if the humans didn't have ears or whatnot. Who cares? As it turns out, we do have ears, ladies and gentlemen. And also, the fact that you make humans sound *so* superior because sound needs to be converted through the HUMAN ears as idiotic, also. Animals can, in fact, hear ( been proven ), and I'm sure the animals in the forest ( as animals do live in the forest, what a shocker ) would hear it. Just because a sound isn't heard, doesn't mean it's not there. By YOUR definition, Radical Dreamer, you think that humans need to be present in order for sound. That's similar to saying you need to be outside to know that there is a sun. By YOUR definition, Radical Dream, you think that if humans AREN'T present, there is no sound. That's similar that if you are inside, there isn't a sun. The sun will always be there, like sound waves will always be there, whether humans like it or not.

hm i shall contemplate this over a cookie

Wow it's getting HOT in here.....................I am leaving.

Dominate, how do you know it made a sound though? How do you know the spacific variables around the tree when it fell? I made it clear that the tree did fall, but there could have been somthing that made it so it made very little to no sound.

~


That's similar that if you are inside, there isn't a sun.

Im inside!

*looks out of the window*

Well lookie look, the sun is right there.


The sun will always be there, like sound waves will always be there, whether humans like it or not.

But is it sound waves of vibration? Is there on diffrence? Or is there a diffrence?

"That's similar that if you are inside, there isn't a sun. "

Dude, that was proving YOUR point that isn't making sense. If you read the line before that, you said that if the human wasn't there, then there isn't sound. See the analogy?...

" how do you know it made a sound though? How do you know the spacific variables around the tree when it fell?"

If you read before, it's called a logical statement. Something that's happened before many, many, times repeatedly over without fail and getting a conclusion from that is called a conjecture. I'm sure if you went and got 1,000 people individual go into a forest, wait for a tree to fall, they would each hear it. Therefore, the conjecture would be that if someone was not in there, the tree would still be "heard".

This reminds me of Serial Experiments Lain: "If you aren't remembered, you've never existed."
In this case there is no human to testify that the tree fell and made sound, so it isn't remembered. Let's keep animals and out of the picture for a moment. It is of no importance whether there was sound or not, cause no one remembered the tree falling, there is no falling. But that is just silly. If someday someone would enter that particular forest and see a fallen tree, the person will know it fell once, because trees do not materialize out of nowhere in a fallen state. The person could maybe think of how the tree fell and what sound it made, but it isn't a real experience.

Back to a more realistic view: If we put a soundrecorder in a forest where, miraculously, we know a tree will fall and record the whole thing, it will make sound. Sound is moving air, in this case it is the tree falling making the air move and thereby creating sound. I'm not into science stuff but I do wonder what happens to the sound... Is it like light? Will it move into the universe and if we were to travel faster than sound we would run into it? Or will sound just disappear because the energy that moves the air runs out?

I conclude that there will be sound, because whenever air is moved there is sound. (I know this conclusion has about nothing to do with all the rubbish I wrote :heh: )

Yeah I was reading it and thinking "what was the point"...
Oh well... all arguments like these end in stalemates as they always drag back to concepts of reality. I think we should create a standard for variables and such before continuing to discuss things. Also defining basic things such as sound, perception, and reality would help.

i think a treee will make sound if it falls. but if theres no one around it, how does anyone know it has fallen in the firts place? if u place a camera to check for falling trees, and a tree falls, then you are assured that it did make noise.

and thats me tring to fit a comment in a big thread.

Okay, I had to jump in here...Radical Dreamer you're mistaken in the fact that sound and vibrations are completely different...sound is caused by vibration (it can be measured - cycles per second or Hz - and related to "pitch")...whether or not not a person is there to hear it makes no difference, and neither does the medium the vibration is carried through.
Try thinking about the problem in reverse...speakers (especially subs) are capable of reproducing sound, and at sufficient volume you can "feel" the bass as vibrations in your body. Sound is most definitely an interpretation - which is why people hear sounds slightly differently...think in terms of music whether a note is sharp or flat - some people are completely tone deaf while others have perfect pitch.
Have you ever been in a pool or bathtub? Hold your head underwater and tap the sides or splash the surface. You can still hear the sound, even though there is no air.
Human ears are not required for the sound to be considered "sound"...otherwise a microphone would not be able to record the sound. My science is a bit rusty, but most microphones convert sound into electrical impulses [through the piezoelectric effect?]
And about space: even space is not a perfect vacuum...particles exist, though in such low density (parts per billion/trillion/some large number) that sound is not effectively conducted.
On the opposite end of the scale, solids can also transmit sound...spend some time around industrial facilities or heavy equipment...low droning hums and dull thumping sounds are often apparent despite the presence of thick concrete walls...in this case sound is even transmitted between different medium (from the machinery->air->concrete->air->your ears).
Radiator pipes are another example of this...in old office buildings with boilers you can hear the pipes banging as they warm up...far from the origin of the sound.
Using the inverted-wave cancellation method isn't a good explanation either as a tree falling (which will still cause vibration even if it is 1/2" off the ground; and will still make sound when rubbing the vines that will suspend it in midair - even though the roots would have to dislodge from the ground causing sound in the process) would cause sound waves to emit in all directions...the wave cancellation only works when the waves meet along opposite vectors...Not to mention the fact that sound travels at different speeds depending on temperature, humidty and numerous other factors.

Philisophically speaking though, I'm pleased to see that someone made a Lain reference...but I'm surprised no one has said anything about Evangelion...specifically the "degrees of freedom" monologue near the end of the series.

Anyway, this was awfully long winded, but I'm curious to see what kind of response this will attract.

Radical Dreamer you're mistaken in the fact that sound and vibrations are completely different

:what: WTF :what: That was my point. Sound and vibrations are diffrent. It takes somthing to decifer vibrations into sounds.


Human ears are not required for the sound to be considered "sound"...otherwise a microphone would not be able to record the sound. My science is a bit rusty, but most microphones convert sound into electrical impulses

Of course. I ment that it took somthing; human ear or a stirofoam cup with string; to decifer vibrations into sound.

~

Heres a vuage way for me to texplain my thinking. When someone claps their hands by you, your ear drums vibrate and the whole cycle happends and then the brain "decodes" the messages from the nerves into sound.

But, if you plug your ears to a great extent, you cant hear it. Obviously the clapping is making vibrations, but YOU cannot hear sound because YOU cannot decifer it.

~

To me, sound differs from person to person. Sound exsist only to one who wants to hear sound.

Now, you could contradict all you want and say sound exsist even if you plug your ears. The person clapping hears it. But if you say that, you agree with me. The person who wants to hear it hears it. The other doesnt want to and makes it hard for the ears to detect the vibrations, thus no sound.

:what: WTF :what: That was my point. Sound and vibrations are diffrent. It takes somthing to decifer vibrations into sounds.



Of course. I ment that it took somthing; human ear or a stirofoam cup with string; to decifer vibrations into sound.

~

Heres a vuage way for me to texplain my thinking. When someone claps their hands by you, your ear drums vibrate and the whole cycle happends and then the brain "decodes" the messages from the nerves into sound.

But, if you plug your ears to a great extent, you cant hear it. Obviously the clapping is making vibrations, but YOU cannot hear sound because YOU cannot decifer it.

~

To me, sound differs from person to person. Sound exsist only to one who wants to hear sound.

Now, you could contradict all you want and say sound exsist even if you plug your ears. The person clapping hears it. But if you say that, you agree with me. The person who wants to hear it hears it. The other doesnt want to and makes it hard for the ears to detect the vibrations, thus no sound.

And you can be a *&(%#*@ idiot all you want. Doesn't change the fact your "scientific" explanation is seriously flawed, sound can and will exist wether or not you want to hear it. Now if you want to try and turn it into a "I was trying to be philosophical about it" then be my guest, that's fine I couldn't care less and I assume that's what this thread is about. So either we can sit here and consistantly refute everything you say Radical Dreamer and you can bitch and whine and "prove" that your fraked up "science" works. Or you can just shut the frak up. Your choice. And by the way by your logic, visible EMR doesn't exist when we cover our eyes. As well as that I'd like to say that saying that we're agreeing with you if we say clapping person hears something doesn't work, we probably would just be saying: Person claps, clapping makes noise, person hears sound, someone standing nearby who never wants to hear another clap again, still hears noise, person nearby with ears blocked, doesn't because they have blocked their ears, where's the validation? Also you've probably never touched upon sound in your science class yet stop arguing about it in a faux sciencey way. A lot of that probably sounded very incoherant and rambling and antagonistic. Probably was too.

Not true. It is 100% impossable to find out if sound exsist if nothing is there to detect it. For the reason that once you try to find out, your there thus you hear it. Placing somthing electronic wont do good either, because there is somthing to pick up sounds.

Now I said what I wanted. Now will you be kind enough to tell my how you know that sound exsist if nothing is there to detect it?

LIKE I have said before. DO NOT bring "what if"s here, it is completely idiotic because this is not a what if question. Who answers questions with another question? That's not answering the question.

Radical Dreamer, no offense, but your answers make you sound *incredibly* vain. Something like this "Just because I can't hear, means that NO ONE can hear it." That's pretty much what sums it up. Just because YOU can't hear it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Who made you have the power of dictating what can be heard? You look at a red sheet of paper, and then you close your eyes. Oooh! I guess the red sheet of paper doesn't exist anymore! IT'S still there, isn't it? It's only because YOU can't see it. Who, really, gives a ... about you? No one, really. Because even if you weren't there, the RED paper is still there. Same thing with the tree falling in the forest. Just because YOU weren't there to listen to it, doesn't mean that there isn't sound to be listened to.

...right.

That's like me saying I'm a boy.:halo:

I think the answer to this is all really easy. It's is all were you beleve sound starts. in science it says that sound is the waves but some people believe that sound is not sound until it hits your ear(like Ibeileve). So even if you did record it and heard the sound of a tree falling it isn't the tree making that noise it is really the tape recorder. so in other words it is what ever you want it to be.

:what: WTF :what: That was my point. Sound and vibrations are diffrent. It takes somthing to decifer vibrations into sounds.


Ok, try reading my point again...I said you are mistaken in believing that they are different. Sound cannot exist without vibration. Vibration is the source of all sound.


Of course. I ment that it took somthing; human ear or a stirofoam cup with string; to decifer vibrations into sound.

Heres a vuage way for me to texplain my thinking. When someone claps their hands by you, your ear drums vibrate and the whole cycle happends and then the brain "decodes" the messages from the nerves into sound.

How are the human ear and a styrofoam cup even close to being equivalent? The ear (I'm grouping the ear and all it's parts, as well as the brain's activity into one term here) is responsible for decoding the vibration of the air into electrical signals that we INTERPRET as sound.
The cups in your example serve only to collect and focus the sound waves transmitted from the air to the string and back to the air again. Without the cups, you would have to hold the string next to your ear and your fingers would absorb the vibrations and the experiment wouldn't work.


But, if you plug your ears to a great extent, you cant hear it. Obviously the clapping is making vibrations, but YOU cannot hear sound because YOU cannot decifer it.


Precisely...the clapping is making the necessary vibrations to cause sound...the only thing you've proved here is that if your ears are plugged you would be unable to determine whether a person is actually clapping or just pretending to clap.


To me, sound differs from person to person. Sound exsist only to one who wants to hear sound.

Now, you could contradict all you want and say sound exsist even if you plug your ears. The person clapping hears it. But if you say that, you agree with me. The person who wants to hear it hears it. The other doesnt want to and makes it hard for the ears to detect the vibrations, thus no sound.

Yes, in fact I could contradict you. Because what you just said makes no sense. Sound is a form of ENERGY, it is not dependent upon psychological conditions ("wanting" to hear it).

When vibrations occur, sound is produced...being able to hear it makes no difference because humans have such a narrow range. There are more inaudible sounds present around you all the time than just the ones you can hear. Ever blown a dog whistle? Makes no sound to you, but your dog will take notice right away. Ever seen an ultrasound picture of a baby? Ever wondered how bats can fly at night without running into things? Ever used a fishfinder? These all use sound...and guess what? You can't hear the sound... so by your logic the sound doesn't exist and all these things actually operate on magic.
If I spend all afternoon in the sun I'll probably get sunburnt...I can't see the UV light that is actually damaging my skin but I'll still get a nice red burn to prove it's there...even if I don't "want" to get a sunburn.


Not true. It is 100% impossable to find out if sound exsist if nothing is there to detect it. For the reason that once you try to find out, your there thus you hear it. Placing somthing electronic wont do good either, because there is somthing to pick up sounds.

Now I said what I wanted. Now will you be kind enough to tell my how you know that sound exsist if nothing is there to detect it?

You're saying that without something to detect sound we are unable to detect sound? Following that logic: without something to detect electricity (ie- a voltmeter), we would be unable to detect electricity. Tell that to the cat that chews through the lamp cord. Having no concept of electricity, I'm pretty sure my cat CAN"T tell me how many volts average household AC runs at, but it still experiences the effects of electricity, thus proving its existence. If my cat chewed through a power cord while no one was home (tree falling in forest and no one sees it), I could still have a dead cat when I do get home.

You've proved and re-proved that your argument is weak and based solely on conjecture and the fact that you didn't pay attention during science class. But you've clung to this for far too long so I'll add a bit of conjecture myself.

If I can't prove to you that the sound of a tree falling over exists without recording it, then I want you to prove to me that this tree even exists. And if it does exist that it has indeed fallen over.

Really dom I thought you'd have a better sense of debating. Before shutting down dreamer you have to think of a person's concept of reality which is why I thought we needed some standard instead of all this conjecture and theoretical situation making. Rhetoric aside This argument is one that can never be proved because no matter how logic dictates the human mind percieves. At the same token our mind can recieve impulses created artificially and see or hear what that source dictates as reality. ^_^ personally though I hope the tree makes a sound so it can mark it's new life with something momentous.

I hate to take sides shinpopopo but I have to agree with radical dreamer. yes sound cannot exist without vibration but that doesn't mean vibration can't exist and not make sound. and we know the tree will all make vibrations. at least I think we can all agree with that. but as Dreamer said that if you cover your ears and someone is making a clapping noise and you can't hear it. that kindof says that not all viabrations are sound.

-.- All right, I suppose nobody really sees my point, because a lot of people are repeating the exact opposite of my point and saying that they're right. If people really understood, then they would not be able to repeat what has been said before. O.o

Originally posted by theviolinist:
but as Dreamer said that if you cover your ears and someone is making a clapping noise and you can't hear it. that kindof says that not all viabrations are sound.

Well, let's say that two people were at the place where the tree fell. One person covered their ears while the other did not. Since the first person did not hear the tree crash to the ground, but the second persond did, does that mean that the noise only exists to the second person and not the first person? And let's say you went to a concert and recorded the performance. If your friend didn't hear the concert, does that mean that the concert didn't exist to him/her until he/she saw the recording? And then, there's those times when kids go on a trip or something, maybe they come across that tree. Most likely, atleast one of the kids will comment, "Oh, that must've made a loud noise." Then the tour guide would agree. If the comment was incorrect and the kids were sixth grade or older, the tour guide would most likely interject and say, "No, it didn't make a loud noise because no one was there to hear it." Therefore, that tree did make a noise (are we still arguing over this?), just there was no one there to hear it. When it comes to "What If" questions, you just have to ask yourself: What if I was there? Ooogle, now just let me sit down and stare before my head blows from the sense I made... :blink:

LIKE I have said before. DO NOT bring "what if"s here, it is completely idiotic because this is not a what if question. Who answers questions with another question? That's not answering the question.

Please point out where it says in my post "what if"?


Radical Dreamer, no offense, but your answers make you sound *incredibly* vain. Something like this "Just because I can't hear, means that NO ONE can hear it." That's pretty much what sums it up. Just because YOU can't hear it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Who made you have the power of dictating what can be heard? You look at a red sheet of paper, and then you close your eyes. Oooh! I guess the red sheet of paper doesn't exist anymore! IT'S still there, isn't it? It's only because YOU can't see it. Who, really, gives a ... about you? No one, really. Because even if you weren't there, the RED paper is still there. Same thing with the tree falling in the forest. Just because YOU weren't there to listen to it, doesn't mean that there isn't sound to be listened to.

:\ My idea was very clear. You cannot say somthing is there unless there was somthing there to prove it so. I really hope you have the intalect solve your own questions with what I just said.


Ok, try reading my point again...I said you are mistaken in believing that they are different. Sound cannot exist without vibration. Vibration is the source of all sound.

Of course! I see where your comming from, but I guess I need to explain myself agian. I ment that you need vibrations to make sound, but the two are compleatly diffrent things. Its like you need milk to make butter, but the two are diffrent things.


How are the human ear and a styrofoam cup even close to being equivalent? The ear (I'm grouping the ear and all it's parts, as well as the brain's activity into one term here) is responsible for decoding the vibration of the air into electrical signals that we INTERPRET as sound.
The cups in your example serve only to collect and focus the sound waves transmitted from the air to the string and back to the air again. Without the cups, you would have to hold the string next to your ear and your fingers would absorb the vibrations and the experiment wouldn't work.

Okay. I see my fault :D


Yes, in fact I could contradict you. Because what you just said makes no sense. Sound is a form of ENERGY, it is not dependent upon psychological conditions ("wanting" to hear it).

When vibrations occur, sound is produced...being able to hear it makes no difference because humans have such a narrow range. There are more inaudible sounds present around you all the time than just the ones you can hear. Ever blown a dog whistle? Makes no sound to you, but your dog will take notice right away. Ever seen an ultrasound picture of a baby? Ever wondered how bats can fly at night without running into things? Ever used a fishfinder? These all use sound...and guess what? You can't hear the sound... so by your logic the sound doesn't exist and all these things actually operate on magic.
If I spend all afternoon in the sun I'll probably get sunburnt...I can't see the UV light that is actually damaging my skin but I'll still get a nice red burn to prove it's there...even if I don't "want" to get a sunburn.


People have had the ability to hear taken away from them because of psycholigical conditions they have went through. But I see where your comming from.

And your second half is irrelevent. Those have been proven to exsist with the help of technology. But this riddle is a bit diffrent. There is nothing there to prove that the tree makes a sound when it fell other then people guessing it did. And I must bring up my idea of the diffrent variables around the tree when it falls. The riddle doesnt spacifiy anything, so we can only assume.


You're saying that without something to detect sound we are unable to detect sound? Following that logic: without something to detect electricity (ie- a voltmeter), we would be unable to detect electricity. Tell that to the cat that chews through the lamp cord. Having no concept of electricity, I'm pretty sure my cat CAN"T tell me how many volts average household AC runs at, but it still experiences the effects of electricity, thus proving its existence. If my cat chewed through a power cord while no one was home (tree falling in forest and no one sees it), I could still have a dead cat when I do get home.

You just dont seem to make sense. You wouldnt need a voltometer to detect if theres electricity in the cord in the first place. Just simply turn on the lamp. And there is someone to prove (in a sense) that there was electricity in the cord. The dead cat. It may take a while, but from deduction inference, you can easly tell the cat died from chewing on the cord (static in the cat's hair, if the cord has chew marks). So your example doesnt prove anything.

~

Now, lets say that there is a lone lamp. Just there, no one to turn it on, no one to check if there is electricity going through the house. Now, if there is people around, lets just say they dont do anything that has to interact with the electricity going to the house with that lamp.

So, how do we know that there is electricity going to the lamp? Ususaly lamps or light bulbs are associated wth electricity, and many will assume that there is electricity. But how can we say so? We dont know the conditions of the area or anything.

We can only assume.


If I can't prove to you that the sound of a tree falling over exists without recording it, then I want you to prove to me that this tree even exists. And if it does exist that it has indeed fallen over.

If you cant prove that it doesnt make a sound with out a recording device, I have proven my point.

And we have to assume that the tree fell because those are the conditions the riddle has given us. If you dont want to beleave it dont try to solve the riddle.


-.- All right, I suppose nobody really sees my point, because a lot of people are repeating the exact opposite of my point and saying that they're right. If people really understood, then they would not be able to repeat what has been said before. O.o

So you want us to post our ideas and even if it contradicts yours, we must agree with you? Just because you have an idea doesnt mean that we arnt intitled to post ours.


Well, let's say that two people were at the place where the tree fell. One person covered their ears while the other did not. Since the first person did not hear the tree crash to the ground, but the second persond did, does that mean that the noise only exists to the second person and not the first person? And let's say you went to a concert and recorded the performance. If your friend didn't hear the concert, does that mean that the concert didn't exist to him/her until he/she saw the recording? And then, there's those times when kids go on a trip or something, maybe they come across that tree. Most likely, atleast one of the kids will comment, "Oh, that must've made a loud noise." Then the tour guide would agree. If the comment was incorrect and the kids were sixth grade or older, the tour guide would most likely interject and say, "No, it didn't make a loud noise because no one was there to hear it." Therefore, that tree did make a noise (are we still arguing over this?), just there was no one there to hear it. When it comes to "What If" questions, you just have to ask yourself: What if I was there? Ooogle, now just let me sit down and stare before my head blows from the sense I made...

Now, I have to post my idea agian. It takes a device (organic or artifical) to decifer vibrations into sound (electric currents, snyopsis in the brain; what ever), but untill sometime or someone decifers the vibration, we cannot say if there is sound. In all your example, you said at least one person heard the sound. So we can safely say that there was sound because someone can prove that there was.

And about the tree's and 6th graders. We cannot say it bade a sound because no one was there to prove it. How do we know that that tree wasnt lowered with machines, slowly and softly so it made little noise?

And also..


If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

So I can safely assume you wernt there.

When the tree falls the kinetic energy is converted to sound energy which causes the vibrations of air particles. At this point, there are sound waves. However, unless there is something or someone to detect the sound waves, sound is not produced. I agree with Radical Dreamer. Many people just want to ignore the fact that sound only is "produced" when there is a detector. Please read up on the definition of sound first before posting comments.

If "no one" refers to nothing then there will be no sound.

I am not sure if this has already been clarified but such proverbs as "If a tree falls and no one is around, does anyone hear it?" is supposed to be philosophical. Such questions come from Wu Wei better known as the answer to the original saying of "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" which is nothing. It's a buddhist philosophy if I remember correctly, (though it could have been zen- which manifested into buddhism as it so happens). Anyway, I just felt like adding my two cents, hope I'm not being repetative.
-suka

No, thats actualy good info for people who didnt already now.

Anywhom, time to refine my ideas.

Scenario One
There is someone there

So a tree falls in a forest and someone is there. First the tree falls and hits the ground. The ground vibrates. As the ground vibrates, the person also vibrates making the anvil shake (and so forth) without the air-born vibrations shaking the ear dums. When the chain reaction is done, the brain interprits the synopsis the nerves send to it into brain patterns.

Now how the brain works is one of the hardest things to explain. I dont fully understand it myself. So we can just say the brain says that there is sound because it interprits the vibrations into sound.

Then there is also air-born vibrations from the air displacement from the tree falling. The only step added if the ear drum vibrates which shakes the anvil.

Thus, in the end the person hears the sound only because their brain interprits the vibrations into brain waves, etc.

Scenario Two
There is no one there

Once agian the tree falls and makes the ground vibrate and makes air-born vibrations. Yet, there is no one there. The vibrations go astray like in any conditions but it thins out before anyone can notice the vibrations. No one is there to notice the vibration, so no one can interprit vibrations into brain waves into sound.

Goshdarn learn to spell properly, and correct some of that grammar before Apostrophe Man and your English teacher strike you down. And actually have some understanding about the subject matter before you start posting rubbish like this, read up on the subject before you post, I mean that. Firstly what's this "Vibrations through the air" stuff, it isn't vibration it's a compression wave like I've been saying before sound is the compression and rarefaction of particles, looks something like this:
| | |||| | | |||| | | |||| | |
They are also considered longditudanal waves, which leads allows sound to be defined in frequencies and the like. When you're talking about the occiles, don't just talk about the anvil as if it's a new word you learnt today and it makes you look intelligent, it doesn't remember that all three of them vibrate. When we get to the brain part of it, don't abuse the word synapses, you don't even know what it means, don't use it all. Now you say that the person only hears the sound because the brains interprets it as such (you change from decyphering to interpret, odd that) Of course they only recoginse the sound because the brain has decided it as such, doesn't mean that the sound didn't exist, just that it couldn't be heard if the person was deaf. And your Number Two definition is even more rubbish. Once again you talk about vibrations instead of sound waves, are denying their existance? Those waves will exist no matter what you say to the contrary Radical Dreamer. Sound and actually hearing the sound are two different things, keep that in mind next time you post here, I have never seen sound defined as actually hearing something. So all your arrogance and steadfast refusal to back down won't help you win this argument, eventually everyone will simply acknowledge your idiocy and leave you and your delusions alone.

Oh and as you may have been able to tell, I found some of my old science books.

They aren't sying that the concert didn't exist. They are saying that to someone who didn't her it it was vibration and not *sound*. Plus, if no one interprets it it will not be sound. I agree and disagree with adical Dreamer.

Please, stop with the 'what ifs' at DZV said. In the question I see nothing of people being there or clapping hands or concerts!

Concerts and clapping hands were used in examples. In this kind of question, examples are almost the only way to expalin things.


Those waves will exist no matter what you say to the contrary Radical Dreamer.

Duh. Vibrations will always be there. I only said if there is no one to interprit the vibrations, there will not be sound. Its that simple! Its not hard to get.


When we get to the brain part of it, don't abuse the word synapses, you don't even know what it means, don't use it all.

Your joking? Lol, so if you cant prove your idea you must try to force people to not post their ideas?

And I know I dont have the best spelling. I dont care, and you shouldnt either because you seem to understand what im saying even with my spelling ;)

sweet, this topic is getting all fired up here. Wow i'm surprised that people could argue over a question such as this.

It's like the "which comes first, chicken or egg?" question XD

If you beleave in evolution, its the egg. If you beleave in intelegent creation or god stuff, its chicken ;)

Please point out where it says in my post "what if"?

:\ My idea was very clear. You cannot say somthing is there unless there was somthing there to prove it so. I really hope you have the intalect solve your own questions with what I just said.

I know this has nothing to do with anything, but don't you find it ironic you can't even spell intellect? And I know your idea is clear. Quite clear, as I've heard it repeated twenty billion times before (Exaggeration, but you get my point, I hope. Need I say more? Want me to elaborate? Want me to count it out? Or do you get my point?). Now I'll repeat my own self. Solve my questions, with your *different* answers. Because I based my questions off of other posts, that were quite similar to yours. And you reposting them in a different format doesn't change that they mean very close to the same thing. And repeating and saying that I'm wrong isn't changing anything either. And with the "You cannot say something is there unless there is something there to prove it so." I have answered THAT already also. I have said, a conjecture is making a generalization from your observations. If 1,000 people individually observe a different falling tree (every time) makes some noise, then the 1,001 tree that falls with no one to observe it, according to simple, basic, very very basic, extremely basic, the first step of logic, logically basic logic, it will make noise. It's called logic.


Not true. It is 100% impossable to find out if sound exsist if nothing is there to detect it. For the reason that once you try to find out, your there thus you hear it. Placing somthing electronic wont do good either, because there is somthing to pick up sounds.

Now I said what I wanted. Now will you be kind enough to tell my how you know that sound exsist if nothing is there to detect it?

My apologies. I took you for someone sensible that wouldn't need me to blatantly type out that even though you didn't use the format "what if", you are using that type of question. Where did you get that there is nothing there to detect it? I interpret no one as humans. No one. Such as "One describes onself..." that means a human, not an animal or any other life form or thing. A huuuman. Human. Why do you think yourself as a human so superior? Because if the first thing that pops into your head is that a human isn't there to hear it, so therefore there isn't- couldn't be any sound, then there is some vanity (not of yourself) of your human"ness" right there. Humans are not the only one that can hear. It is a forest. Forest has many animals, you know, little woodland creatures called squirrels and things. And (I feel like a repetitive robot) they can hear. It's been proven. So there is something there to listen to a falling tree. But anyways, why would you think that only humans can be there to listen to sound? Seriously.

Your acting really stupid now. So your saying no one means no humans? fine, theres 100 of every animal there but humans ;)

No one means not a living creature darling.

Oh, really? I guess we live in different places, darling (Score one for you, for trying to act like an older person by using a stupid childish nickname. What's next? Sweetie? Honey? Keh) because if, for instance, no one is home, that's not including my dog. When I say no one is home, I mean no person is home, and my dog is always home. So different customs. Now that you see why I think so differently from you? It's because we have different definitions of different. By the way, don't think that yours is so right either, because according to the dictionary, the dictionary (meaning not your brain that you rack up these different definitions in order to prove your point from): No one (pronoun), No person; nobody.

Whoa- what's that? No person? Wait... wait, should I look up what person means? Because... is a PLANT a person? Gosh, I mean that since according to YOU, a plant would be a living creature, do you have plants in your home? Wouldn't that just completely contradict the whole question? "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" That question. If no one means a living creature, how can the trees be there? Honestly. Answer that please. Oh, and let's make a little goal, shall we? Why don't you respond without trying to dis or try and belittle me? That would be a good goal, wouldn't it?

Acting stupid... and yes, 100 of every animal is there... so...? And that deserves a wink because... ? Is that a sarcastic wink? I would not know... so many misinterpretations...

Fine hunny (happy?)

Just remember that words dont allways mean the same when its used in diffrent ways. Like "I" usualy means myself, but there is the royal "I", which means the subject in the sentence, such as you.

I guess the riddle is actualy up to preference. If I go by no humans but animals, by my logic there is sound. But If I go my nothing at all but trees and stuff, there is no sound.

Concerts and clapping hands were used in examples. In this kind of question, examples are almost the only way to expalin things.



Duh. Vibrations will always be there. I only said if there is no one to interprit the vibrations, there will not be sound. Its that simple! Its not hard to get.
What I'm trying to say here is that the those waves are the sound , that's not hard to get either or is it?



Your joking? Lol, so if you cant prove your idea you must try to force people to not post their ideas?
I said don't use a word synapses the you way did, just say something like: "The brain proccessed the sound that reached it"


And I know I dont have the best spelling. I dont care, and you shouldnt either because you seem to understand what im saying even with my spelling ;)
I should care because I although understand the ideas that you're putting forward it probably would be nicer if you took a little extra time to check spelling and push that one extra key for an apostrophe.


Because... is a PLANT a person? Gosh, I mean that since according to YOU, a plant would be a living creature, do you have plants in your home? Wouldn't that just completely contradict the whole question? "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" That question. If no one means a living creature, how can the trees be there? I didn't think trees counted as living creatures, just living things.

And as a final note for the time being, although this may sound silly, I think that it would solve all our tree problems, a duel, I think it'll make one big wave of repercussions (Too bad I can't slip vibrations into this) in this forum. (That was really really bad) Anyway a duel would solve this fight, I'll bring a loaded gun and Radical Dreamer can have one of my foils, then I'll say something classic like "Never bring a knife to gun fight" and using my non-existant marksmanship I'll shoot his ears off, then we'll procced to dangle him over a cliff whilst he begs for mercy unfotunately we'll plug our ears so we can't hear him scream, then we'll drop him, into a safety net. Radical Dreamer will procced to surrender and we'll win this argument. We'll dust off our hands and go back to living in relative harmony. Problem solved.

As you may be able I've rid myself (for the moment at least) of Radical Dreamer's sillyness (At least I perceive it as such). I apologise for being such bastard Radical Dreamer.

http://evamade.org/e107_files/public/8_win.jpg

I don't really agree but, it's the thought that counts right, anyway I never admitted defeat or that you were right.

But what if you were obviously wrong? Then what.

Remember never is a strong word..

If I was obviously wrong, which I wasn't, then yes I would but like I said before I'm not wrong. Remember obvious is a powerful word.

Your joking? Lol, so if you cant prove your idea you must try to force people to not post their ideas?

And I know I dont have the best spelling. I dont care, and you shouldnt either because you seem to understand what im saying even with my spelling ;)
I'm not holding anyone at fault for typos (I know my grammar and spelling often suffer), but accuracy does count for something. Your misuse of synapsis (synapses) and sudden knowledge of the workings of the inner ear does lead me to believe you did a brief search to add legitimacy to your argument. Not that that's a bad thing, but pifish is right, it's better to generalize things; using technical terms improperly is a pretty transparent device.

I see the "logic" aspect was brought into play; I thought about playing that card in my last post but decided to steer clear...1001 identical observations make for a good theory, but one could always argue about #1002 being completely different. But the world around us (as we currently understand it) is pretty much entirely based on assumptions just like that.

As for my sound=vibrations point, it seems like you're still not understanding me the way I intended, but it's our definition of sound that is the underlying problem. The way I interpret the word "sound" is the same as someone else described earlier: kinetic energy converted into sound energy.
I'd like to elaborate just a bit more and point out the vibrations are caused by friction between the tree and WHATEVER IT MAY CONTACT - ground, vines, etc. Heat would also be a by-product of this friction, though minimal in comparison to the sound energy produced. The Law of Conservation of Energy basically tells us that input=output so because there are no other apparent sources of energy being produced (light, electrical, etc) the kinetic energy must be taking some other form as the tree does not continue to move indefinitely.
Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that I understand sound to be a physical effect/reaction to the tree falling. So in my view, there need not be persons or devices near the tree to record and prove the sounds existence...it is POSSIBLE to record the sound (to provide evidence to others), BUT not recording/witnessing the sound will not negate it's presence.

The way I understand your points is something like this (and please clarify I miss anything). I'm going to sort of twist your idea into a broader picture, but hopefully I'm still capturing the idea.
The sound (and causes/effects of sound - vibration) may exist in the situation but it is the CONCEPT of sound (as defined by humans) that is in question. "Sound" is a term conceived by humans and applied by humans to the electrical impulses the ear sends to the brain...so the sound of a falling tree would be an abstract thought that we apply to the abstract thought of what we recognize as a tree falling. Ok, that's confusing but hopefully it makes enough sense for now.
Anyway, if we have seen a tree falling before, then we can apply these abstracts to a video (with no sound) of a tree falling. We can see that a tree definitely falls (and have heard the sound of a falling tree before), but without audio we can't be sure that it really does make the sound on this occasion...so the abstract of the falling tree making sound cannot be linked to the falling tree without having the brain process the actual sound events into what is perceived as "sound".

I'm going to quit now before my head explodes, but while I was writing that I had a funky thought...I want to hear what everyone comes up with to explain this scenario. I'm abandoning my "sound as a physical reaction" hypothesis for this one as it wouldn't change anyway, so I want people to try to apply Radical Dreamer's ideas to this (I've got an idea in my head that I'll share later).

What if Person A is sleeping and Person B starts talking to Person A? Consider the following:
1. "A" can still hear "B" (although on a subconscious level)
2. Since "A" is asleep he/she does not have the choice to "want" or "not want" to hear "B".
3. "A" may react to "B" talking (again, on a subconcious level as "A" is still asleep) but will not recall the events when awake.
4. Given a recording of "B" talking to the sleeping "A", would "A" be required to admit that "B" was producing sound? Or would the recording simply be proof that the recorder/speaker is capable of producing sound at the present time?

From the point of view of Person A, is Person B producing sound? Provide an explanation while accounting for some/all/none of these points (I just provided them as a starting point).

You have some great points there. But you still dont explain what sound is. you said


The way I interpret the word "sound" is the same as someone else described earlier: kinetic energy converted into sound energy.

But you still dont explain what sound, AKA sound energy, is. You just state that sound is kinetic energy converted into sound energy. Yet, what is this sound energy you speek of?

~

And you are starting to understand what my conseption of sound is too. Thats really nice. You put it in better words then I could, but now I must fine tune it.

To me, sound is animals perception of vibrations being turned into thoughts. I cannot exactly explain what these thoughts or brain waves are, because no one really knows. I beleave that sound doesnt exsist outside the body, but in the mind.

Now, please dont confuse sound with vibration. The two are very diffrent. Vibration is kenetic energy. Its actualy that simple. Once somthing moves, it produces vibrations.

But to turn vibration into sound it takes an animal to "gather" the vibrations and turn it into nerve impulses which are sent to the brain. Right when it gets there, I cant really put it into words. You just think theres sound, so you hear sound.


What if Person A is sleeping and Person B starts talking to Person A? Consider the following:
1. "A" can still hear "B" (although on a subconscious level)
2. Since "A" is asleep he/she does not have the choice to "want" or "not want" to hear "B".
3. "A" may react to "B" talking (again, on a subconcious level as "A" is still asleep) but will not recall the events when awake.
4. Given a recording of "B" talking to the sleeping "A", would "A" be required to admit that "B" was producing sound? Or would the recording simply be proof that the recorder/speaker is capable of producing sound at the present time?

1. True.

2. True.

3. Not true. A may react to B talking, but A may recall the events. I tried it with music durring sleep, it happens.

4. How can someone not agree that someone is talking, thus making sounds? And the recording doesnt prove that the recorder is capable of producing sounds, it proves the recorder is capable of gathering vibrations and turning it into electric impulses.

NOTE This is my kind of disscussion. Where no one is making sarcastic remarks and its not all heated :) Thanks Popopo

A sound is something a human or living things hear. if no one is around, it isnt a sound for the meaning of sound is something heard by humans if you know what I mean. and I don't see why anyone bothers making hugeeeeeeee explanations. It's simple really.

Actualy it isnt. There are many defanitions to sound, and it is impossable to prove that one is right and another isnt.

And if it is so simple, care to explain what hearing is, and what is the process of hearing? And is it strickly humans? I dont understand your explanation actualy, it wasnt compleat..

I honestly hav no idea how to explain it better considering i'm English retarded. But if no one is around to hear it, it's not a sound because the meaning of sound is only something a human hears. if no one hears it or if it's too far away to hear anything but you can see it, it still isnt a sound. oh god, i dont know how to explain really -_-

See what I mean. If you cant explain it good, might as well not say anything because you will just confuse everyone. But its not like the whole topic isnt confusing already.

I'm trying, geez, I'm trying to eplain it right but I'm English retarded, so sue me because I get C's in English e.e;

Kindly Edited by your friend Pifish You have some great points there. But you still don't explain what sound is.

But you still don't explain what sound, AKA sound energy, is. You just state that sound is kinetic energy converted into sound energy. Yet, what is this sound energy you speak of?

~

And you are starting to understand what my conception of sound is too. That's really nice. You put it in better words then I could, but now I must fine tune it.

To me, sound is an animal's perception of vibrations being turned into thoughts. I cannot exactly explain what these thoughts or brain waves are, because no one really knows. I believe that sound doesn't exsist outside the body, but in the mind.

Now, please don't confuse sound with vibration. The two are very different. Vibration is kinetic energy. It's actualy that simple. Once somthing moves, it produces vibrations.

But to turn vibration into sound it takes an animal to "gather" the vibrations and turn it into nerve impulses which are sent to the brain. Right when it gets there, I cant really put it into words. You just think there's sound, so you hear sound.

NOTE This is my kind of disscussion. Where no one is making sarcastic remarks and its not all heated :) Thanks Popopo

I don't think that sound has it's own energy form, like I've said before a sound wave is the compression and rarefaction of particles in a medium, and if you'll look back to one of my previous posts you'll see a diagram like this:

| | |||| | | |||| | |

Which is one way of showing the compression and rarefaction of the particles. The sound wave is the transferral of mechanical energy. In air (and probably all sound conductive materials) The compression and rarefaction of the air is caused by a change in the pressure of the air, squeezing the particles together, because the medium is elastic (it would have to be to conduct sound) it bounces back causing the rarefaction. Now sound moves more quickly through liquids and solids, because the paricles are closer together, the sound conductivity of a substance is measured using the closeness of the particles and the elasticity of the substance. Right that's my definition of sound, that is sound, in a basic way, and that's what I think sound is not an interpretation of it but the actual wave itself.

I honestly hav no idea how to explain it better considering i'm English retarded. But if no one is around to hear it, it's not a sound because the meaning of sound is only something a human hears. if no one hears it or if it's too far away to hear anything but you can see it, it still isnt a sound. oh god, i dont know how to explain really -_-

Wrong, sound is the vibration of air (or any other material such as liquids) that humans can hear. So if no one is around, it's still a sound, just that no one heard it.

What you're saying is like saying that a car is an object with four wheels that people drive around with. So following your logic, when no one is driving the car, or you take one wheel off, it's not a car anymore.

That's not really correct, now is it? Sound is there, it's just now always heard, just like cars are cars even when they aren't moving.

You need hearing organs for there to be sound.
Let me rephrase that quote. Are you saying the following:

"I need the ability to hear sound in order for sound to exist."


If you are, then I think that statement is flawed. So the only way something exists is if we have the ability to detect it?

Ok, take us humans for example. We all do not have to ability to detect UV rays on our own. Does that mean UV rays do not exist?

Most of us do not have the ability to hear sounds below 20hz. Does that mean that any sound below 20hz does not exist?

We all do not have the ability to see Pluto from Earth thorugh the naked eye. Does that mean Pluto does not exist?

Columbus discovered a new piece of land in 1492. So this means that piece of land did not exist before 1492?

A tree falls in a forest and I do not have the ability to hear the sound. Does that mean the sound of a tree falling in a forest does not exist?

Hmmm, maybe there is someway that everyone can combine all of their ideas and come up with a solution to the problem that everyone can agree on.

"I need the ability to hear sound in order for sound to exist."

I think a deaf person will not know what a "sound" is. So i think that quote is true.

If all the animals in the world (including humans) cannot detect sound, sound wouldn't exist.

Remember the definition of sound is a human invention.

I don't see how people can agree anymore, when there has already been 10 complete pages of people arguing, because this is all about perspective. Technically, everyone is right.

I believe the word you're looking for is "theoretically". Technically, Angelic is correct.

I don't see how people can agree anymore, when there has already been 10 complete pages of people arguing, because this is all about perspective. Technically, everyone is right.

If we are talking about perspective, then both sides are correct because there is no absolute frame of reference.

I am not sure if this has already been clarified but such proverbs as "If a tree falls and no one is around, does anyone hear it?" is supposed to be philosophical. Such questions come from Wu Wei better known as the answer to the original saying of "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" which is nothing. It's a buddhist philosophy if I remember correctly, (though it could have been zen- which manifested into buddhism as it so happens). Anyway, I just felt like adding my two cents, hope I'm not being repetative.
-suka
:) :) :)

Wrong, sound is the vibration of air (or any other material such as liquids) that humans can hear. So if no one is around, it's still a sound, just that no one heard it.

What you're saying is like saying that a car is an object with four wheels that people drive around with. So following your logic, when no one is driving the car, or you take one wheel off, it's not a car anymore.

That's not really correct, now is it? Sound is there, it's just now always heard, just like cars are cars even when they aren't moving.

Really? Because like.. years ago I was asking my brothers and some of my teachers about a simillar question. "If a locker slams in a hallways with no body in it, does it make a sound?" and that's what they said D: so yah.. I kinda grew up with that thought. I honestly dont know if you understand what I mean though..

I think a deaf person will not know what a "sound" is. So i think that quote is true.

If all the animals in the world (including humans) cannot detect sound, sound wouldn't exist.

Remember the definition of sound is a human invention.

A deaf person would probably be aware of the concept of sound, as most of us are aware of Ultra Violet light, none of us can see it but we know that it's there. And every definition these days is a human invention, the concept of money, electricity, the internet, in case of electricity it has always been around even before anyone had any knowledge of what it was, as did atoms and space and a round world. Just because something can't be seen, heard or in any manner or form detected, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Let me rephrase that quote. Are you saying the following:

"I need the ability to hear sound in order for sound to exist."


If you are, then I think that statement is flawed. So the only way something exists is if we have the ability to detect it?

Ok, take us humans for example. We all do not have to ability to detect UV rays on our own. Does that mean UV rays do not exist?

Most of us do not have the ability to hear sounds below 20hz. Does that mean that any sound below 20hz does not exist?

We all do not have the ability to see Pluto from Earth thorugh the naked eye. Does that mean Pluto does not exist?

Columbus discovered a new piece of land in 1492. So this means that piece of land did not exist before 1492?

A tree falls in a forest and I do not have the ability to hear the sound. Does that mean the sound of a tree falling in a forest does not exist?

Now getag, that doesnt work the same way. I beleave sounds are just thoughts, you dont. So by my logic, there is no thoughts by a person if that person doesnt exsist. But by your logic, there is thoughts by a person, even if he doesnt exsist.

Another way of explaining it is like this. You see the computer, and of course it is there. But your thoughts arnt "physicly" on Earth, so if your not there your thoughts of your computer have never exsisted or never will.


A deaf person would probably be aware of the concept of sound, as most of us are aware of Ultra Violet light, none of us can see it but we know that it's there. And every definition these days is a human invention, the concept of money, electricity, the internet, in case of electricity it has always been around even before anyone had any knowledge of what it was, as did atoms and space and a round world. Just because something can't be seen, heard or in any manner or form detected, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Yes, the deaf person knows of this sound, but isnt it impossable to explain it to him/her without first hand experince of sound?

~

EDIT: Okay, I was thinking agian and I want to rephrase my logic...

Sound is created my the mind to interprit vibrations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neerolyte
I think a deaf person will not know what a "sound" is. So i think that quote is true.

If all the animals in the world (including humans) cannot detect sound, sound wouldn't exist. //

Oh, my goodness. There is a what if question. I am sorry, but humans and animals can detect sound, so please don't post a what if question!



A deaf person would probably be aware of the concept of sound, as most of us are aware of Ultra Violet light, none of us can see it but we know that it's there. And every definition these days is a human invention, the concept of money, electricity, the internet, in case of electricity it has always been around even before anyone had any knowledge of what it was, as did atoms and space and a round world. Just because something can't be seen, heard or in any manner or form detected, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Thank you! Explain the underline.



Yes, the deaf person knows of this sound, but isnt it impossable to explain it to him/her without first hand experince of sound?

Erm... who really cares if the deaf person can hear or not ( can't )? And what does if a deaf person can hear or not have to do with a tree falling in the forest? Unlike pfish, please elaborate your sentences if it has to do with something, so I'm not all just assuming you assuming I know what you're talking about. That, or I just don't think you know enough of what you're talking about to elaborate. But I hope that is not the case. Of course it isn't.


The answer:

If you try to make an answer and post alot of times backing it up, you just have a lot of time on your hands.

Oh, bloody. Here we go again. The answer to what? The main question? Because that just does not make any sense at all if it is.



If we are talking about perspective, then both sides are correct because there is no absolute frame of reference.

Yes, and since no one knows who the person that first made up this question was, we can just tell all of our perspective on this question, theoretically (Thank you Red Stone, that was the word I was looking for, but I couldn't remember it so I just stuck in technically), and it would not matter because there is no one with authority to tell us if we're right or not. Because the person who made up this question, probably isn't alive anymore, so since we don't know which perspective (since there are many) that person is looking for, all this arguing comes into a lot of boredom, as it is monotonous and redundant to go on. As especially, not a lot of people are really disproving one another, they're just repeating what they said and calling other people wrong/stupid (something to that effect).

The answer:

If you try to make an answer and post alot of times backing it up, you just have a lot of time on your hands.

Another way of explaining it is like this. You see the computer, and of course it is there. But your thoughts arnt "physicly" on Earth, so if your not there your thoughts of your computer have never exsisted or never will.

So are you saying that if a person does not experience a particular event, then that experience does not exist?

"If a tree falls and no one is around to experience the sound of that particular tree falling in that particular forest, then this particular experience does not exist for those people."

This I do agree on, and again is based on frame of reference.

Yes and no. I beleave sound needs somthing to create it (vibrations) but it needs more. The vibrations need to be decifered into brain waves/human thoughts by the process of the inner ear crap.

So, if one step in the congo line is missing, such as a human "decoder", There will only be stray vibrations.

~

I say it agian. To me, sound is just humans interpritation of vibrations.

NOTE When I say human, I mean all living creatures.

NOTE Dont be an idiot and say tree are a living thing, and they dont hear. You know what I mean.

Wow, I just noticed that some of these replies come minutes apart...didn't somebody just say something about too much time on people's hands?

Gedtag...we sooooo don't want to get into frames...frames are evil constructs and will serve only to confuse people.

I've gotten lazy since I jumped into this...I no longer have the ambition to quote everyone, so I'll ignore everything except the last few posts.

About the deaf person's awareness of sound...a person who has been deaf since birth may be unaware of sound in concept; an adult who has lost their hearing for whatever reason would be aware of sound...so I don't think you can say that sound doesn't exist for deaf people.

And I'm sick of hearing the words "compression" and "rarefaction"...this really only describes how the sound affects the particles as it travels through a medium - an elaborate way of saying that the particles vibrate. Yes, this is simplified, but it is a suitable exlanation for the scope of our discussion.

Hey I just realized that sound can be defined mathematically as well...everyone remembers sine waves, right? Does anyone want to try to incorporate this into an explanation?

Since we've covered this in pretty good detail I think it's time for a change...anyone want to dive into light instead of sound? Especially since I was just talking about particles and waveform properties. Maybe a little something like this: if a lamp is turned on in the forest and no one is around to see it does it still produce light?

>.< What is going on? I haven't been checking in and it looks totally nuts.

Yep, I couldn't keep up with the pages of stuff in between each of my posts so I pretty much quit...'twas fun though...

Hey I just realized that sound can be defined mathematically as well...everyone remembers sine waves, right? Does anyone want to try to incorporate this into an explanation?


But all the mathematical and crazy equations for the waves and stuff is freaking complicated, I don't quite understand a lot of it apart from the basics of the wave, like the frequency, wavelength, amplitude and notwhat, sure we could turn this into a scientific disscussion of the sound wave, but that wouldn't be very fun would it?


Another way of explaining it is like this. You see the computer, and of course it is there. But your thoughts arnt "physicly" on Earth, so if your not there your thoughts of your computer have never exsisted or never will.

How can someone's thoughts not physically be on this planet? I thought part of your previous explanations of sound included references to electrical signals and notwhat that sounds pretty physical to me.

NOTE When I say human, I mean all living creatures.

NOTE Dont be an idiot and say tree are a living thing, and they dont hear. You know what I mean.

... When you say... human... you mean all living creatures?

And... a tree isn't a living thing?...

Wow, I really would not have gotten that if you hadn't pointed it out.

So are you saying that if a person does not experience a particular event, then that experience does not exist?

"If a tree falls and no one is around to experience the sound of that particular tree falling in that particular forest, then this particular experience does not exist for those people."

This I do agree on, and again is based on frame of reference.


omg that's exactly what this question is going for.
Frame of reference...eh..no, more like terministic screens

I haven't heard or seen 99% of all people on Earth... so you all do not exist! MWHAHAHAHAHA!

No but seriously, perception is different from existance, which is the derivitive of the question. Things exist without perception, but they do not exist within our minds because the information of the unpercieved object has not been put into our knowledge.

the original question i think is pointless that has no real answer to it, only to confuse ppl.

@Archangel: Hmm, I'll have to partially agree with you on that, just twisting your comment to be more like there is an answer to it, it's just philosophical so therefore the answer just goes around in circles between people and never ends because they're all arguing over perspective. Philosophy, on my opinion, is just a bunch perspectives put together to make it look like the "right" answer. What may look like philosophy to me might look like gibberish to you, as my other huge essay was.

As it has been said before there is no definate answer to this question because it all depends on your definition of sound snd from what angle you are viewing this question (don't take that literally). I know I started this topic so don't kill with saying this. I never thought it would turn into a compleate war.

I the pshysical sense a tree falling in the forset does create a sound wave, a physic (almost total) certanty. But a sound in a litterary sense cannot exist if it isnt percieved because sounds are defined by our preception of them.

well thats my view

"Sound: 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."

-American Heritage Dictionary

Yes, the tree makes a sound. It just doesn't make a noise :P

If you're in doubt, keep a tape recorder in the forest:P

That contradicts the riddle then. The part about "If no one is around to hear it" is a lose way of saying "No one in hell is there, got that?!".

I never thought this question would go 13 pages? @_@
Of course it makes a sound.

"Sound: 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."

-American Heritage Dictionary

Yes, the tree makes a sound. It just doesn't make a noise :P

If you're in doubt, keep a tape recorder in the forest:P
^ Thank God, someone with intellegence

I still have no idea how one would know if a tree fell in the forest in the first place, if there was no one there. Did someone go back to the forest, and saw a tree that was clearly out of place amongst a forest? Or... what...

Maybe it was really old and weak so it gave in.

I still have no idea how one would know if a tree fell in the forest in the first place, if there was no one there. Did someone go back to the forest, and saw a tree that was clearly out of place amongst a forest? Or... what...

If you're in a forest, and lots of the trees are standing up, and one is lying down, it would be fair to assume that - at some point - it has fallen. But you've got a point. If I know that a tree fell, I also know it made a sound. And if I don't know whether it made a sound, I also can't know whether it actually fell.

Well yes, of course at some point if a tree is on the ground is has fallen. But how do you know that no one was around to hear it? Because you can't actually "see" no one is there because then you would be there making yourself one person that is there.

I'm so damned sure we had this exact thread a while ago.

Of course it makes sound. Sound is defined as "vibrations in the air that is usually detectable by the human ear" or something along the line of that.

Whether there's no one to hear it or not doesn't matter. It makes the sound.

That's what I told my dad when he asked. lol

Albert Einstein in regard to quantum theory requiring an observer for measurement of collapsed wave states once made a comment along the lines of:

Does the moon exist only because a mouse looks at it?

So it really depends on the theory you subscribe to (Observer required vs. observer free mechanics) and your theory to what constitutes an observer (ie: are trees capable of observing themselves).

/two_cents

I'm pretty sure this thread served its purpose like 10 pages ago.
who the hell is writing more junk into this.

quit reviving finished topics or write junk for argument's sake. :mellow:


@Sora: of course. it is the bloody definition of sound.

Never replied to this thread before.

And yes it would. No one would hear it because the sound waves would die before... well since anyone wasn't close enough to the waves.

Stupid question.

Kou's right. Let's close this thread =P