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

Yes it makes a sound,Everything makes a sound.marterikster

Go back to school dude. On Earth, sound travels to your ears by vibrating air molecules. In deep space, the large empty areas between stars and planets, there are no molecules to vibrate. There is no sound there. NOTHING MAKES A SOUND IN A VACUUM!

Incorrect. It's more analogous to asking what a Granny Smith apple LOOKS like.

Take a Granny Smith Apple. It's always gonna have the same wavelengths of light being reflected off of it. But a normal person will say that it's green, while someone with total color blindness will say that it's gray.

The question is NOT asking about the sound waves propagating through the air. It is asking about the PERCEPTION of sound, which does not exist if there is no observer.

If a Granny Smith apple falls in the forest, and no one is around to see it, does it still look green? Of course not. Even when people ARE there to see it, even THAT doesn't guarantee that it looks green.

And that's the nature of this question.

MrGeezer

Here's Someone who's taken quantum physics

THe better question is why the **** should we even care?

Incorrect. It's more analogous to asking what a Granny Smith apple LOOKS like.

Take a Granny Smith Apple. It's always gonna have the same wavelengths of light being reflected off of it. But a normal person will say that it's green, while someone with total color blindness will say that it's gray.

The question is NOT asking about the sound waves propagating through the air. It is asking about the PERCEPTION of sound, which does not exist if there is no observer.

If a Granny Smith apple falls in the forest, and no one is around to see it, does it still look green? Of course not. Even when people ARE there to see it, even THAT doesn't guarantee that it looks green.

And that's the nature of this question.

MrGeezer

The perception of colour is dependent on the beholder, as is the perception of sound. There's no argument about that. But like you say, the wavelengths exist in this example, as do the sound waves in the example of a tree falling in the forest. So what this really boils down to is how you define colour or sound. If you base your definition on empirical observation (i.e. the behaviour of the physical world that causes a person to see or hear something), sound or colour can exist without perception. But if you base your definition on perception, obviously perception is required.

The first two dictionary definitions of sound are as follows:

1.the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

2.mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, it does produce mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level. It does make a sound - assuming that's the definition you use. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around it does not produce the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium, because there is no one's auditory system to produce the sensation. The first definition supports your argument, the second supports mine. You can take that as you will.

It seems that you're arguing that there is a difference between 'a sound' and 'sound.' But I feel these are both the same thing. One would perceive a bang and a hiss differently - both are 'a sound.' And both have particular physical properties associated with them that cause the person to perceive them differently. These properties exist, regardless of how they are perceived. You could measure them and 'see' the sound happening on a computer read-out, even if you were completely deaf. 'A sound' can just as easily be defined as an isolated occurrence of mechanical vibrations as it could be defined by your perception-dependent definition.

Depends on whether you believe there is "matter" beyond our perception of it. The fact that when you witness a tree you are not witnessing "The" tree but rather light being reflected off the tree into our retinas whereon electro-chemical reactions take place and you perceive a percept, that is what your senses are telling you it is, but it is not "The" tree. This percept varies amongst everyone, no two percepts could ever be the same. So again does this tree exist beyond you, your mind and the senses which behold it? If no two people perceive the same tree in the same way ever, what does that make of "The" tree? Where is "The" tree? How does it exist?

If the world is dependent on the mind of the beholder, then what is the epistemological nature of the world around us. To us the world is then wholly dependent on our experiences of it, since we can never know the "Real" world, nor know how other people view their worlds, since their senses and sense data are different and separate from ours.

Hoobinator

I absolutely believe there is matter beyond my perception of it. If I arrange to meet someone over the telephone, I do not see the person, but I know he or she exists, and I know that if I go to the arranged meeting location that I will see him or her, unless he or she is, for whatever reason, prevented from being there. If I arrange to fly to Turkey, I fully expect Turkey to be there when I get off the plane.

You are correct in that no person can know the 'real' world, because everything we experience is wholly dependent on our individual perceptions. But that does not mean the matter itself does not exist. For every person, the root cause of a sensation is the same. If you and I are in the same room and we both hear a clap of thunder, we may be perceiving it completely differently, but both of our perceptions were based on the same physical occurrence. If you hear a clap of thunder in China and I'm in Canada, the clap of thunder DID happen, even though I wasn't around to hear it. It would certainly have been real in every sense to you.

Another example - no matter how two people perceive a wall, neither will be able to pass through its very exact dimensions. It exists, and it is not dependent on perception. If one person is blind, the wall will be every bit as real (and impassable) when he runs into it as it would be to someone who is capable of visually perceiving it.

Do remember that no matter how two people perceive a wall, neither will be able to pass through its very exact dimensions. It exists, and it is not dependent on perception. If one person is blind, the wall will be every bit as real (and impassable) when he runs into it as it would to someone who is capable of visually perceiving it.

pianist

I understand the logic, but this is still an appeal to the senses. One must touch the wall to truly confirm that it does exist. If one does not have confirmation about the wall existing then really the wall is in paradox. Regardless of the actual state of the wall one will never have true confirmation that it is really impassible until they try to pass through it.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

Do remember that no matter how two people perceive a wall, neither will be able to pass through its very exact dimensions. It exists, and it is not dependent on perception. If one person is blind, the wall will be every bit as real (and impassable) when he runs into it as it would to someone who is capable of visually perceiving it.

trodeback

I understand the logic, but this is still an appeal to the senses. One must touch the wall to truly confirm that it does exist. If one does not have confirmation about the wall existing then really the wall is in paradox. Regardless of the actual state of the wall one will never have true confirmation that it is really impassible until they try to pass through it.

The fact that you do not personally know if something exists does not render it non-existent. You are in no way capable of perceiving the keyboard I am using to type this message. Do you believe it is non-existent? Let's say the blind person does not run into the wall, but merely passes by it - does the wall not still exist as matter? It does not exist for THAT person, but it still exists. So it is only the individual's perception - not the matter - that is affected by his not coming into contact with it. I'll bet the German submarine sailors wished the destroyer dropping depth charges on them in WWII wasn't real because they couldn't see it. But obviously the destroyer did exist.

I tend to think of the physical world as being quite independent from our perceptions. Our understanding of it requires confirmation and experimentation, but its existence requires nothing at all on our part. If all life was snuffed out on Earth tomorrow, the matter that makes up this ball of rock would still exist, regardless of the fact that no one was around to sense it. Bear in mind that unless you believe in a supernatural creation of the universe, this HAS to be true, because there had to be a point in time at which matter did exist, but not in a state that could perceive anything. If the matter did not exist, we would not be here, because there would be nothing from which to make us.

I tend to think of the physical world as being quite independent from our perceptions. Our understanding of it requires confirmation and experimentation, but its existence requires nothing at all on our part. If all life was snuffed out on Earth tomorrow, the matter that makes up this ball of rock would still exist, regardless of the fact that no one was around to sense it. Bear in mind that unless you believe in a supernatural creation of the universe, this HAS to be true, because there had to be a point in time at which matter did exist, but not in a state that could perceive anything. If the matter did not exist, we would not be here, because there would be nothing from which to make us.

pianist

The point I'm trying to make is surety can never be confirmed unless there is someone there to confirm it. The only absolutes made are from the perceptions that we make of them. If everyone did dissapear from the Earth and it was left barren, no one would know the state of the matter because no one would be there to perceive the outcome of everyone dissapearing. There is no sure way to know if anything will happen how you think it will happen unless it happens while you're observing it.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

I tend to think of the physical world as being quite independent from our perceptions. Our understanding of it requires confirmation and experimentation, but its existence requires nothing at all on our part. If all life was snuffed out on Earth tomorrow, the matter that makes up this ball of rock would still exist, regardless of the fact that no one was around to sense it. Bear in mind that unless you believe in a supernatural creation of the universe, this HAS to be true, because there had to be a point in time at which matter did exist, but not in a state that could perceive anything. If the matter did not exist, we would not be here, because there would be nothing from which to make us.

trodeback

The point I'm trying to make is surety can never be confirmed unless there is someone there to confirm it. The only absolutes made are from the perceptions that we make of them. If everyone did dissapear from the Earth and it was left barren, no one would know the state of the matter because no one would be there to perceive the outcome of everyone dissapearing. There is no sure way to know if anything will happen how you think it will happen unless it happens while you're observing it.

And this is something both of us can agree on. Actually, I'm not sure why we're discussing the matter at all, since it seems both of us believe exactly the same thing - that matter exists regardless of our perceptions, but that our understanding of it (knowing how it behaves, or that it exists at all) is totally dependent on our perception.

[QUOTE="trodeback"][QUOTE="pianist"]

I tend to think of the physical world as being quite independent from our perceptions. Our understanding of it requires confirmation and experimentation, but its existence requires nothing at all on our part. If all life was snuffed out on Earth tomorrow, the matter that makes up this ball of rock would still exist, regardless of the fact that no one was around to sense it. Bear in mind that unless you believe in a supernatural creation of the universe, this HAS to be true, because there had to be a point in time at which matter did exist, but not in a state that could perceive anything. If the matter did not exist, we would not be here, because there would be nothing from which to make us.

pianist

The point I'm trying to make is surety can never be confirmed unless there is someone there to confirm it. The only absolutes made are from the perceptions that we make of them. If everyone did dissapear from the Earth and it was left barren, no one would know the state of the matter because no one would be there to perceive the outcome of everyone dissapearing. There is no sure way to know if anything will happen how you think it will happen unless it happens while you're observing it.

And this is something both of us can agree on. Actually, I'm not sure why we're discussing the matter at all, since it seems both of us believe exactly the same thing - that matter exists regardless of our perceptions, but that our understanding of it (knowing how it behaves, or that it exists at all) is totally dependent on our perception.

Done & Done

No,Because the sound waves dont reach anyones ears,therefore theres nothing to hear it.No sound.xxDustmanxx

God hears it :P

No,Because the sound waves dont reach anyones ears,therefore theres nothing to hear it.No sound.xxDustmanxx

Brilliant. So next time I cheat on my girlfriend I can tell her «The sound waves or my pelvic area hitting the girl's pelvic area didn't reach your ears, so no sound. Didn't happen.»

Of course she's gonna take that for the truth!

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]No,Because the sound waves dont reach anyones ears,therefore theres nothing to hear it.No sound.Krigen89

Brilliant. So next time I cheat on my girlfriend I can tell her «The sound waves or my pelvic area hitting the girl's pelvic area didn't reach your ears, so no sound. Didn't happen.»

Of course she's gonna take that for the truth!

[QUOTE="marterikster"]Yes it makes a sound,Everything makes a sound.trodeback

Go back to school dude. On Earth, sound travels to your ears by vibrating air molecules. In deep space, the large empty areas between stars and planets, there are no molecules to vibrate. There is no sound there. NOTHING MAKES A SOUND IN A VACUUM!

Unless the tree fell in space, that gives no support to your argument. :|

The tree does, in fact, make a sound; it's just that no one's there to hear it. Saying otherwise is dangerously close to saying that the tree never fell at all.

Another thing: This says no ONE (implying people). Sound can be percieved by animals, too, and, since this is in a forest, there's bound to be animals. :|

Does an object that is in another location so that we cannot see it have a color?CptJSparrow

Is it even there?

OMG THERE IS NO SP00N! :|

Look guys, I hope my last post made it clear, but this is the same as Schrödinger's Cat (something you all apparently did not pick up on earlier).

Check this Wiki

Meow!

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]Does an object that is in another location so that we cannot see it have a color?2FacedJanus

Is it even there?

OMG THERE IS NO SP00N! :|

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]There is no answer. It is a parable meant to inspire contemplation.bluezy

You can't have either of those...

It's like asking what weighs more, a trafflegog or a walgarite. It's not some deep philosophical statement, it's just garbage.

Why wouldn't it? :| I can't believe people actually ask this question as if they're serious.kornholio360

Of course it would: Sound is created by vibrating air molecules. When something like a tree falls down, hits the ground, and you are near it, you can hear it because the vibrating sound waves came from the object falling. If no one is around to hear something fall, but it does, it has to have the same effect on the air - vibrating the air molecules. And when you vibrate air molecules, you have what we call sound. Therefore, YES.

[QUOTE="trodeback"][QUOTE="marterikster"]Yes it makes a sound,Everything makes a sound.scorch-62

Go back to school dude. On Earth, sound travels to your ears by vibrating air molecules. In deep space, the large empty areas between stars and planets, there are no molecules to vibrate. There is no sound there. NOTHING MAKES A SOUND IN A VACUUM!

Unless the tree fell in space, that gives no support to your argument. :|

The tree does, in fact, make a sound; it's just that no one's there to hear it. Saying otherwise is dangerously close to saying that the tree never fell at all.

Another thing: This says no ONE (implying people). Sound can be percieved by animals, too, and, since this is in a forest, there's bound to be animals. :|

Hmmmm. Wrong. His argument was that everything makes a sound. Sound is only a perception of something that can hear. Plus the only place that sound can be heard is where an atmosphere exists for sound molecules to travel in. Hence why everything does not make a sound. It matters where the object is before a sound is made. And if there was no one their to confirm that the sound was made, then no confirmation can be made that a sound happened. Unless I'm talking to doctor Dolittle here, animals don't count.

Look guys, I hope my last post made it clear, but this is the same as Schrödinger's Cat (something you all apparently did not pick up on earlier).

2FacedJanus

Posted this a Hell of a long time ago in this thread buddy

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="trodeback"][QUOTE="marterikster"]Yes it makes a sound,Everything makes a sound.trodeback

Go back to school dude. On Earth, sound travels to your ears by vibrating air molecules. In deep space, the large empty areas between stars and planets, there are no molecules to vibrate. There is no sound there. NOTHING MAKES A SOUND IN A VACUUM!

Unless the tree fell in space, that gives no support to your argument. :|

The tree does, in fact, make a sound; it's just that no one's there to hear it. Saying otherwise is dangerously close to saying that the tree never fell at all.

Another thing: This says no ONE (implying people). Sound can be percieved by animals, too, and, since this is in a forest, there's bound to be animals. :|

Hmmmm. Wrong. His argument was that everything makes a sound. Sound is only a perception of something that can hear. Plus the only place that sound can be heard is where an atmosphere exists for sound molecules to travel in. Hence why everything does not make a sound. It matters where the object is before a sound is made. And if there was no one their to confirm that the sound was made, then no confirmation can be made that a sound happened. Unless I'm talking to doctor Dolittle here, animals don't count.

This is in a forest, is it not? He's not going to space anytime soon, is he? As long as the answers are 'Yes' then 'No,' the space argument has no purpose and, therefore, you wasted precious time by typing that.

Even if you can't ask animals if they heard the sound, that still doesn't mean the sound wasn't made. That's just silly. :|

Ask Schrödinger's cat.2FacedJanus

That pretty much explains it.

This is in a forest, is it not? He's not going to space anytime soon, is he? As long as the answers are 'Yes' then 'No,' the space argument has no purpose and, therefore, you wasted precious time by typing that.

Even if you can't ask animals if they heard the sound, that still doesn't mean the sound wasn't made. That's just silly. :|

scorch-62

Once again, if there was no one there, then no one can prove that there were animals there that heard the sound. Hence if someone wasn't there there's no way to confirm if anything happened. If no one was there to observe the tree falling, then no one can be certain that the tree made a sound. Hence a Parallax. In which case, the tree doesn't exist because there was no one there to physically touch it, watch it, or hear a sound being made. Read Pianist & my posts. We already beat this topic to piss.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"]This is in a forest, is it not? He's not going to space anytime soon, is he? As long as the answers are 'Yes' then 'No,' the space argument has no purpose and, therefore, you wasted precious time by typing that.

Even if you can't ask animals if they heard the sound, that still doesn't mean the sound wasn't made. That's just silly. :|trodeback

Once again, if there was no one there, then no one can prove that there were animals there that heard the sound. Hence if someone wasn't there there's no way to confirm if anything happened. If no one was there to observe the tree falling, then no one can be certain that the tree made a sound. Hence a Parallax. In which case, the tree doesn't exist because there was no one there to physically touch it, watch it, or hear a sound being made. Read Pianist & my posts. We already beat this topic to piss.

I've read tham, alright. Pianist beat the topic to piss. You haven't even given it a black eye yet. Stop glorifying yourself. :|

Anyways... Since no one was there, you are right that no one can prove that animals weren't there to hear the tree. No one is there to hear it, but it does make a sound (on Earth). As long as there is a medium through which the sound waves can travel (in this case, air), the sound exists. Saying otherwise is like saying that I don't exist because you don't see me.

I've read tham, alright. Pianist beat the topic to piss. You haven't even given it a black eye yet. Stop glorifying yourself. :|

Anyways... Since no one was there, you are right that no one can prove that animals weren't there to hear the tree. No one is there to hear it, but it does make a sound (on Earth). As long as there is a medium through which the sound waves can travel (in this case, air), the sound exists. Saying otherwise is like saying that I don't exist because you don't see me.

scorch-62

And the winner is... no one. Pianist & I agreed to the fact that no one knows the state of matter and what it will do if there is no one there to observe it. I'm not glorifying myself, but I cannot stand when people try to make assumptions based on false ideas. Sound is not an absolute principle. Nothing is absolute, and to say that something will ALWAYS happen is a sign of ignorance. If you're not willing to go to a higher plane of thought then I guess I'll give you the ignorance trophy and we'll be done with this topic.

And the winner is... no one. Pianist & I agreed to the fact that no one knows the state of matter and what it will do if there is no one there to observe it. I'm not glorifying myself, but I cannot stand when people try to make assumptions based on false ideas. Sound is not an absolute principle. Nothing is absolute, and to say that something will ALWAYS happen is a sign of ignorance. If you're not willing to go to a higher plane of thought then I guess I'll give you the ignorance trophy and we'll be done with this topic.

trodeback

We can't be sure of what will happen, but we can make a reasonable guess based on past experience. I seriously doubt the physical properties of the universe are dependent on human presence, and that everything changes the moment no human is around to experience something. I still contend that a falling tree will make a sound regardless of whether humans are around to hear it or not based on the definition of sound I accept to be true. Of course, I will not say I can prove that claim. But you'd have to come up with a pretty good explanation as to why the physical properties of the universe are dependent on human presence to convince me otherwise...

To be blunt, we just aren't that important.

We can't be sure of what will happen, but we can make a reasonable guess based on past experience. I seriously doubt the physical properties of the universe are dependent on human presence, and that everything changes the moment no human is around to experience something. I still contend that a falling tree will make a sound regardless of whether humans are around to hear it or not based on the definition of sound I accept to be true. Of course, I will not say I can prove that claim. But you'd have to come up with a pretty good explanation as to why the physical properties of the universe are dependent on human presence to convince me otherwise...

To be blunt, we just aren't that important.

pianist

Well I can't... all I can say is that science is made up of the observations that we make of the natural world. When we see something new, something amazing, our first response is it can't be real; only later does the scientific evidence come out that explains how and why things do what they do. All I'm trying to say is that nothing can be proven with absolute because we know so little about how the natural world works. New things are discovered every day. So to say that something will work in an absolute nature just isn't plausible. We've only observed nature for a few thousand years and it's been here for much longer then that.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="trodeback"][QUOTE="marterikster"]Yes it makes a sound,Everything makes a sound.trodeback

Go back to school dude. On Earth, sound travels to your ears by vibrating air molecules. In deep space, the large empty areas between stars and planets, there are no molecules to vibrate. There is no sound there. NOTHING MAKES A SOUND IN A VACUUM!

Unless the tree fell in space, that gives no support to your argument. :|

The tree does, in fact, make a sound; it's just that no one's there to hear it. Saying otherwise is dangerously close to saying that the tree never fell at all.

Another thing: This says no ONE (implying people). Sound can be percieved by animals, too, and, since this is in a forest, there's bound to be animals. :|

Hmmmm. Wrong. His argument was that everything makes a sound. Sound is only a perception of something that can hear. Plus the only place that sound can be heard is where an atmosphere exists for sound molecules to travel in. Hence why everything does not make a sound. It matters where the object is before a sound is made. And if there was no one their to confirm that the sound was made, then no confirmation can be made that a sound happened. Unless I'm talking to doctor Dolittle here, animals don't count.

Sound is not a perception of something that we can hear. I looked it up: sound1(sound) n.

1. 1. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas

I also like how you're reffering to "sound molecules," as if they exist. What you are trying to talk about is AIR molecules. There is no such thing as a "sound molecules," and if there was, it would just be vibrating air molecules. And it doesn't matter where the area the object fell or made a noise, except in space where this is no air. Also, why don't animals count? If my dog barks at another dog walking by which is 25 ft away, the other dog won't hear it? Because by your logic, that is exactly what would happen. Oh and your little spiel about "no confirmation that a sound can be made," has a hole in it: If a meteor crashes on the moon, but no one can see it, does that mean it crashed tehre in the first place?

God hears the trees screamsSmoke89