If a tree falls and no one hears it.....does it make a sound??

No, and here's why. I don't even need to read the other threads.

Hearing is a sense, just like sight. And just like sight, hearing is entirely dependent on the "observer". That's why there are people who cannot hear anything, and people who cannot see anything.

Now, granted, both hearing and sight are initiated by very real phenomena. However, senses are merely INTERPRETATIONS of phenomena. When you see a green apple, "green" is only how your mind interprets it. In reality green only exists in your mind...what you are REALLY seeing is only light waves of a certain wavelength. And if your optic nerve has been severed, you don't see ANYTHING even though those same light waves are constantly bombarding your eyeball.

Sight is NOT the same as the existence of light waves. Sound is NOT the same as the existence of sound waves. One is dependent on the observer and is only an INTERPRETATION of reality, the other is what is actually happening in reality.

"Sound can't exist if no one is alive to hear it"? I don't think that's exactly how it works...

I believe it makes a sound. Are you telling me that sounds are exclusive to humans?

Benny_is_here

Actually sound is an ears interpretation of the waves that are made when something vibrates. So without the person, there is no sound, yet there are still the vibrations. It all really depends on your definition of sound. Sound waves are processed by our brains, so really its not sound. Its just air and waves. And va-blah! Its physics my friends!

No, and here's why. I don't even need to read the other threads.

Hearing is a sense, just like sight. And just like sight, hearing is entirely dependent on the "observer". That's why there are people who cannot hear anything, and people who cannot see anything.

Now, granted, both hearing and sight are initiated by very real phenomena. However, senses are merely INTERPRETATIONS of phenomena. When you see a green apple, "green" is only how your mind interprets it. In reality green only exists in your mind...what you are REALLY seeing is only light waves of a certain wavelength. And if your optic nerve has been severed, you don't see ANYTHING even though those same light waves are constantly bombarding your eyeball.

Sight is NOT the same as the existence of light waves. Sound is NOT the same as the existence of sound waves. One is dependent on the observer and is only an INTERPRETATION of reality, the other is what is actually happening in reality.

MrGeezer

I think the real question is,

If a tree falls in the forrest and hits a mime, does anyone care?

staindcoldlp

Where did you hear that! I read that in a comic a really long time ago and it's one of the funniest things I've ever heard.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

No, and here's why. I don't even need to read the other threads.

Hearing is a sense, just like sight. And just like sight, hearing is entirely dependent on the "observer". That's why there are people who cannot hear anything, and people who cannot see anything.

Now, granted, both hearing and sight are initiated by very real phenomena. However, senses are merely INTERPRETATIONS of phenomena. When you see a green apple, "green" is only how your mind interprets it. In reality green only exists in your mind...what you are REALLY seeing is only light waves of a certain wavelength. And if your optic nerve has been severed, you don't see ANYTHING even though those same light waves are constantly bombarding your eyeball.

Sight is NOT the same as the existence of light waves. Sound is NOT the same as the existence of sound waves. One is dependent on the observer and is only an INTERPRETATION of reality, the other is what is actually happening in reality.

West-Coast-G

I think it's quite clear that the expression "no one" is used in this case to refer to any organism (human or not) that is capable of hearing.

The question really depends on how you define sound. The tree will obviously make vibrations, but can you consider that a sound?

From Wikipedia:

Sound is a disturbance of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave. Sound is characterized by the properties of waves, which are frequency, wavelength, period, amplitude, and speed.

Humans perceive sound by the sense of hearing. By sound, we commonly mean the vibrations that travel through air and are audible to people. However, scientists and engineers use a wider definition of sound that includes low and high frequencyvibrations in air that cannot be heard by humans, and vibrations that travel through all forms of matter, gases, liquids, solids, and plasmas.

[QUOTE="West-Coast-G"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

No, and here's why. I don't even need to read the other threads.

Hearing is a sense, just like sight. And just like sight, hearing is entirely dependent on the "observer". That's why there are people who cannot hear anything, and people who cannot see anything.

Now, granted, both hearing and sight are initiated by very real phenomena. However, senses are merely INTERPRETATIONS of phenomena. When you see a green apple, "green" is only how your mind interprets it. In reality green only exists in your mind...what you are REALLY seeing is only light waves of a certain wavelength. And if your optic nerve has been severed, you don't see ANYTHING even though those same light waves are constantly bombarding your eyeball.

Sight is NOT the same as the existence of light waves. Sound is NOT the same as the existence of sound waves. One is dependent on the observer and is only an INTERPRETATION of reality, the other is what is actually happening in reality.

MrGeezer

I think it's quite clear that the expression "no one" is used in this case to refer to any organism (human or not) that is capable of hearing.

Maybe you'd be interested in Merriam Webster's definition of sound... specifically "mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing." The mechanical radiant energy is there regardless of whether you detect it or not.

Main Entry: 3sound
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soun, from Anglo-French son, sun, from Latin sonus, from sonare to sound; akin to Old English swinn melody, Sanskrit svanati it sounds
1 a: a particular auditory impression : TONEb: the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing c: mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="West-Coast-G"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

No, and here's why. I don't even need to read the other threads.

Hearing is a sense, just like sight. And just like sight, hearing is entirely dependent on the "observer". That's why there are people who cannot hear anything, and people who cannot see anything.

Now, granted, both hearing and sight are initiated by very real phenomena. However, senses are merely INTERPRETATIONS of phenomena. When you see a green apple, "green" is only how your mind interprets it. In reality green only exists in your mind...what you are REALLY seeing is only light waves of a certain wavelength. And if your optic nerve has been severed, you don't see ANYTHING even though those same light waves are constantly bombarding your eyeball.

Sight is NOT the same as the existence of light waves. Sound is NOT the same as the existence of sound waves. One is dependent on the observer and is only an INTERPRETATION of reality, the other is what is actually happening in reality.

guynamedbilly

I think it's quite clear that the expression "no one" is used in this case to refer to any organism (human or not) that is capable of hearing.

Maybe you'd be interested in Merriam Webster's definition of sound... specifically "mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing." The mechanical radiant energy is there regardless of whether you detect it or not.

Main Entry: 3sound
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soun, from Anglo-French son, sun, from Latin sonus, from sonare to sound; akin to Old English swinn melody, Sanskrit svanati it sounds
1 a: a particular auditory impression : TONEb: the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing c: mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing

Yeah, that's the nice thing about dictionaries. Since there are so many definitions of the same word, it's easy to pointout the ones that support your position while simultaneously ignoring the ones that don't.

So yeah, I'll pretend that you didn't just selectively choose to exclude the definitions that would hurt your position, and instead simply say "by golly, you're right!"

Dude, this isn't this stone age. You're not the only one here who's ever opened up a dictionary.

Yeah, that's the nice thing about dictionaries. Since there are so many definitions of the same word, it's easy to pointout the ones that support your position while simultaneously ignoring the ones that don't.

So yeah, I'll pretend that you didn't just selectively choose to exclude the definitions that would hurt your position, and instead simply say "by golly, you're right!"

Dude, this isn't this stone age. You're not the only one here who's ever opened up a dictionary.

MrGeezer

I realize that, tell me which definition do you think is more accurate?

Definition 1

"Main Entry: 3sound
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soun, from Anglo-French son, sun, from Latin sonus, from sonare to sound; akin to Old English swinn melody, Sanskrit svanati it sounds
1 a: a particular auditory impression : TONEb: the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing c: mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing
2 a: a speech sound b: value in terms of speech sounds
3archaic: RUMOR, FAME
4 a: meaningless noise bobsolete: MEANINGc: the impression conveyed : IMPORT
5: hearing distance : EARSHOT
6: recorded auditory material
7: a particular musical ****characteristic of an individual, a group, or an area"

Definition 2

"Main Entry: 5sound
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English sund swimming, sea & Old Norse sund swimming, strait; akin to Old English swimman to swim
1 a: a long broad inlet of the ocean generally parallel to the coast b: a long passage of water connecting two larger bodies (as a sea with the ocean) or separating a mainland and an island
2: the air bladder of a fish"

Or definition 3

"Main Entry: 7sound
Function: noun
Etymology: French sonde, from Middle French, literally, sounding line
: an elongated instrument for exploring or sounding body cavities"

Yea, Id go with the first one...of course, there are other definitions still, but they are for the adjective, verb, and adverb forms of "sound."

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Yeah, that's the nice thing about dictionaries. Since there are so many definitions of the same word, it's easy to pointout the ones that support your position while simultaneously ignoring the ones that don't.

So yeah, I'll pretend that you didn't just selectively choose to exclude the definitions that would hurt your position, and instead simply say "by golly, you're right!"

Dude, this isn't this stone age. You're not the only one here who's ever opened up a dictionary.

guynamedbilly

I realize that, tell me which definition do you think is more accurate?

Definition 1

"Main Entry: 3sound
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soun, from Anglo-French son, sun, from Latin sonus, from sonare to sound; akin to Old English swinn melody, Sanskrit svanati it sounds
1 a: a particular auditory impression : TONEb: the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing c: mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing
2 a: a speech sound b: value in terms of speech sounds
3archaic: RUMOR, FAME
4 a: meaningless noise bobsolete: MEANINGc: the impression conveyed : IMPORT
5: hearing distance : EARSHOT
6: recorded auditory material
7: a particular musical ****characteristic of an individual, a group, or an area"

Definition 2

"Main Entry: 5sound
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English sund swimming, sea & Old Norse sund swimming, strait; akin to Old English swimman to swim
1 a: a long broad inlet of the ocean generally parallel to the coast b: a long passage of water connecting two larger bodies (as a sea with the ocean) or separating a mainland and an island
2: the air bladder of a fish"

Or definition 3

"Main Entry: 7sound
Function: noun
Etymology: French sonde, from Middle French, literally, sounding line
: an elongated instrument for exploring or sounding body cavities"

Yea, Id go with the first one...of course, there are other definitions still, but they are for the adjective, verb, and adverb forms of "sound."

Um...did you even READ the first one?

Of course it does. Just because no one heard it doesn't mean the sound wouldn't happen. Going by your logic, who says theres a tree at all? No ones there to see it, why would it exist?Mumbles527

QFT

Yes it does.

no becuase you need to be there to hear itPoshkidney

it creates a compression wave in the air, which if a person were present, would be interpreted as sound

it creates a compression wave in the air, which if a person were present, would be interpreted as sound

comp_atkins

However, if the person is not there, all you have is a compression wave.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

it creates a compression wave in the air, which if a person were present, would be interpreted as sound

There are still animals aroundthat wouldhear the compression wave.

MrGeezer

However, if the person is not there, all you have is a compression wave.

There would still be animals there that would hear it. You could also record the sound using electronic equipment and hear it later.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

it creates a compression wave in the air, which if a person were present, would be interpreted as sound

There are still animals aroundthat wouldhear the compression wave.

subject117

However, if the person is not there, all you have is a compression wave.

There would still be animals there that would hear it. You could also record the sound using electronic equipment and hear it later.

Once again, the question assumes that there is NOTHING that can hear it.

Also, if you recorded it, the tree STILL would not make a sound.Because when you press play, the sound that you are hearing came not from the tree, but from the RECORDING DEVICE. If the actual sound wave that reaches your ears is coming from the recording device instead of the tree, then it's NOT the tree that is making a sound.

osudn travels in sound waves...... that menas it need air to for peopelt to hear it. and once a sound is made, it doesnt dissapear , its soumewhere in space.... it does not ceese to exist......Spelly-93

again, since everyone is ignoring it >_>

I was thinking about it, and according to the dictionary definition, both answers are correct. Being that both answers are correct, you must eliminate the possibility of one answer because there would be noone present to hear the sound so that correct answer doesn't exist in this case.

The only other correct answer that there is, is that yes the sound would exist because the sound waves exist.

It just really depends on which definition of sound someone clings to though, so noone is wrong in this argument...

[QUOTE="Spelly-93"]osudn travels in sound waves...... that menas it need air to for peopelt to hear it. and once a sound is made, it doesnt dissapear , its soumewhere in space.... it does not ceese to exist......Spelly-93

again, since everyone is ignoring it >_>

Well, you're wrong. As stated, sound is caused by a compression wave traqvelling through a medium. However, the STRENGTH of this compression wave gets smaller as it travels threough MORE of that medium. This is the precise reason why things get louder as you get closer to them. The compression wave that causes you to hear sound loses energy as it travels through space. Eventually it loses energy.

The same principle applies when you take a boat into the middle of a lake and drop a rock in te lake. At first you get a big wave. However, this wave keeps getting smaller as it travels along the surface of the water, and ends up being nothing by the time it reaches the shore.

but if no one is there how can it make a sound.

itdosen't make a sound if no one is there to hearit.

but if no one is there how can it make a sound.

itdosen't make a sound if no one is there to hearit.

Poshkidney

I think you'll find that when most things fall, sound waves are created. Therefore it does make a sound regardless of if anyone hears it.

I'm kind of shocked at how long this topic I started has lasted.....I just expected a few silly responses and I get all these scientific theories lol.

And anyways to clarify the confusion again.....all animals and humans are dead. Even though I wrote that on the second page or something, people are still throwing the animals in there.

I was thinking about it, and according to the dictionary definition, both answers are correct. Being that both answers are correct, you must eliminate the possibility of one answer because there would be noone present to hear the sound so that correct answer doesn't exist in this case.

The only other correct answer that there is, is that yes the sound would exist because the sound waves exist.

It just really depends on which definition of sound someone clings to though, so noone is wrong in this argument...

guynamedbilly

What kind of dictionary are you reading that answers questions?

[QUOTE="Poshkidney"]

but if no one is there how can it make a sound.

itdosen't make a sound if no one is there to hearit.

noblead16

I think you'll find that when most things fall, sound waves are created. Therefore it does make a sound regardless of if anyone hears it.

How do you that it makes a sound if you not there to witness it.

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]

I was thinking about it, and according to the dictionary definition, both answers are correct. Being that both answers are correct, you must eliminate the possibility of one answer because there would be noone present to hear the sound so that correct answer doesn't exist in this case.

The only other correct answer that there is, is that yes the sound would exist because the sound waves exist.

It just really depends on which definition of sound someone clings to though, so noone is wrong in this argument...

a-c-slater

What kind of dictionary are you reading that answers questions?

Heh, the one where you ask "what does this word mean" and it tells you.

[QUOTE="noblead16"][QUOTE="Poshkidney"]

but if no one is there how can it make a sound.

itdosen't make a sound if no one is there to hearit.

Poshkidney

I think you'll find that when most things fall, sound waves are created. Therefore it does make a sound regardless of if anyone hears it.

How do you that it makes a sound if you not there to witness it.

I know that it makes a sound because I don't have any reason to believe that Physics principles don't apply whenever I turn my back.

If you throw a rock off a cliff, and then walk away, how do you know it'll hit the bottom? because physics says that unless there's a good reason not to, the rock will be affected by gravity and will keep falling until it hits something (the ground).
Similar reasoning explains that SOUND itself has nothing to do with the presence of a human, but in order for it to be HEARD, there must be someone nearby.

If a deaf guy stands next to a big enough tree that falls over, he will feel the force of the sound waves on his body (hypothetical situation), even though he can't hear them.

Depends whether you believe sound is independant of the oberserver or not.Buffalo_Soulja

How does it depend on what someone believes? Isn't it about what is proven fact?

[QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"]Depends whether you believe sound is independant of the oberserver or not.drewtwo99

How does it depend on what someone believes? Isn't it about what is proven fact?

No because you can't prove it. If there's nobody to hear it then you can't get any observations.

Go to youtube.com and watch a video of a tree falling.

It makes the same sound as that even if no one hears is.

Just because you don't know something is there, doesn't mean it doesn't exist

[QUOTE="drewtwo99"]

[QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"]Depends whether you believe sound is independant of the oberserver or not.Buffalo_Soulja

How does it depend on what someone believes? Isn't it about what is proven fact?

No because you can't prove it. If there's nobody to hear it then you can't get any observations.

If you can't prove that the laws of physics changed spontaneously then I don't think you can prove it didn't make a sound.

[QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"][QUOTE="drewtwo99"]

[QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"]Depends whether you believe sound is independant of the oberserver or not.drewtwo99

How does it depend on what someone believes? Isn't it about what is proven fact?

No because you can't prove it. If there's nobody to hear it then you can't get any observations.

If you can't prove that the laws of physics changed spontaneously then I don't think you can prove it didn't make a sound.

Its a philosophical question, like the chicken and the egg, or God and the stone he can't lift. There's no way to test them, that's why they're philosophical, and that's why people keep asking them incessantly.

Its a philosophical question, like the chicken and the egg, or God and the stone he can't lift. There's no way to test them, that's why they're philosophical, and that's why people keep asking them incessantly.

Buffalo_Soulja

You didn't answer my question though. If a tree falls and no one hears it, then the only way it wouldn't have made a sound is if the laws of physics changed and sound didn't propogate. It doesn't depend on anyone being their to hear it and verify it, since the laws of physics make it happen. Unless someone could prove that the laws of physics changed, then it must have made a sound. I don't get why this is a philosophical question.

[QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"]

Its a philosophical question, like the chicken and the egg, or God and the stone he can't lift. There's no way to test them, that's why they're philosophical, and that's why people keep asking them incessantly.

drewtwo99

You didn't answer my question though. If a tree falls and no one hears it, then the only way it wouldn't have made a sound is if the laws of physics changed and sound didn't propogate. It doesn't depend on anyone being their to hear it and verify it, since the laws of physics make it happen. Unless someone could prove that the laws of physics changed, then it must have made a sound. I don't get why this is a philosophical question.

Only way a tree would not make a sound, is if all the air was vaccumed out of the area that the tree fell

[QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"]

Its a philosophical question, like the chicken and the egg, or God and the stone he can't lift. There's no way to test them, that's why they're philosophical, and that's why people keep asking them incessantly.

drewtwo99

You didn't answer my question though. If a tree falls and no one hears it, then the only way it wouldn't have made a sound is if the laws of physics changed and sound didn't propogate. It doesn't depend on anyone being their to hear it and verify it, since the laws of physics make it happen. Unless someone could prove that the laws of physics changed, then it must have made a sound. I don't get why this is a philosophical question.

I answered already you're question in part before you asked it. You can't prove the laws of physics don't change unless you are there to test it, which you can't do.

[QUOTE="drewtwo99"][QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"]

Its a philosophical question, like the chicken and the egg, or God and the stone he can't lift. There's no way to test them, that's why they're philosophical, and that's why people keep asking them incessantly.

Buffalo_Soulja

You didn't answer my question though. If a tree falls and no one hears it, then the only way it wouldn't have made a sound is if the laws of physics changed and sound didn't propogate. It doesn't depend on anyone being their to hear it and verify it, since the laws of physics make it happen. Unless someone could prove that the laws of physics changed, then it must have made a sound. I don't get why this is a philosophical question.

I answered already you're question in part before you asked it. You can't prove the laws of physics don't change unless you are there to test it, which you can't do.

But you can't prove that they do change, so you can't say that the tree didn't make a sound!

[QUOTE="drewtwo99"][QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"]

Its a philosophical question, like the chicken and the egg, or God and the stone he can't lift. There's no way to test them, that's why they're philosophical, and that's why people keep asking them incessantly.

Buffalo_Soulja

You didn't answer my question though. If a tree falls and no one hears it, then the only way it wouldn't have made a sound is if the laws of physics changed and sound didn't propogate. It doesn't depend on anyone being their to hear it and verify it, since the laws of physics make it happen. Unless someone could prove that the laws of physics changed, then it must have made a sound. I don't get why this is a philosophical question.

I answered already you're question in part before you asked it. You can't prove the laws of physics don't change unless you are there to test it, which you can't do.

Or maybe it already has.

All you have to do is take a sound recorder and wait for a tree to fall with no one around to hear it.

Come back time to time and if you see a tree fallen over, check the recorder.