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

[QUOTE="Smoke89"]God hears the trees screamscowboymonkey21

cpo335

:roll:

trodeback

[QUOTE="bluezy"]Since when does sound cease to exist without someone witnessing it?CheezyFrog

My thoughts exactly!

[QUOTE="bluezy"]Since when does sound cease to exist without someone witnessing it?CheezyFrog

My thoughts exactly!

We've only observed nature for a few thousand years and it's been here for much longer then that.

trodeback

Yes, exactly! And this is why I think it's so important for US to realize that we have no significant impact on the principles of nature. We can manipulate the physical world, but only by working within the confines of these principles. I really do appreciate where you're coming from, though. How do we know that the physical properties of the every place in the universe are identical, for example? Obviously, we don't know that.

Talking about something that happens on Earth, though, isn't quite the same. Though we can not be certain (in reality, we can never be absolutely certain about anything that is understood through science), we can make an excellent educated guess that the matter on this planet will behave in the same way whether or not we are there to witness it, because as I said before, we're just another species of animal. The matter is there and is totally 'indifferent' to our presence. And though it could never be proven, I don't doubt anything would change if we were eliminated completely. Through study, we can be reasonably certain that the nature of the universe didn't change when the dinosaurs died out. There's no logical reason to assume things would be different if we were to die out.

But we do have an influence. The only way we can document scientific fact is through observation, and if observation is skewed then so are the facts. Thermometers must absorb thermal energy to measure heat. Ammeters (used to measure current) add resistance when connected to a circuit. Photons must be bounced off electrons for them to be seen, altering it's original path.

The very nature of this thought experiment though requires that there be no observation, so scientific conclusion is impossible. The outcome relies on a person's definition of sound: whether it be dependant on or independent of the observer.

But we do have an influence. The only way we can document scientific fact is through observation, and if observation is skewed then so are the facts. Thermometers must absorb thermal energy to measure heat. Ammeters (used to measure current) add resistance when connected to a circuit. Photons must be bounced off electrons for them to be seen, altering it's original path.

The very nature of this thought experiment though requires that there be no observation, so scientific conclusion is impossible. The outcome relies on a person's definition of sound: whether it be dependant on or independent of the observer.

Buffalo_Soulja

yeah this is something I was trying to explain. In deeper Quantum Mechanics the very act of observing something changes it's very nature.

[QUOTE="pianist"]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.trodeback

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.

Yet we can't come to a conclusion of whether or not a falling tree in a forest makes a sound if no one is there to hear it. :|

This is the way I see it:
A tree falls in the forest and someone's there to see and hear it fall: It makes a sound. A tree falls in a forest, but no one's there (apparently excluding animals >_>): It still makes a sound, but no one is there to hear it (again, excluding animals >_>).

From what we've been saying to each other, this is what I've picked up on you:
A tree falls in the forest and someone's there to see and hear it fall: It makes a sound. Once the person leaves and another tree falls, no sound is made. O_o

It's a terribly flawed argument, and I hate to see humanity drop a level on something so childish as a rhetoric.

[QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"]But we do have an influence. The only way we can document scientific fact is through observation, and if observation is skewed then so are the facts. Thermometers must absorb thermal energy to measure heat. Ammeters (used to measure current) add resistance when connected to a circuit. Photons must be bounced off electrons for them to be seen, altering it's original path.

The very nature of this thought experiment though requires that there be no observation, so scientific conclusion is impossible. The outcome relies on a person's definition of sound: whether it be dependant on or independent of the observer.trodeback

yeah this is something I was trying to explain. In deeper Quantum Mechanics the very act of observing something changes it's very nature.

Yes, obversation does change! No one's there to gawk at a falling tree!

Sound:

-nound

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

No. No sound is made. Using this terminology, it doesn't. Sure, you could choose another definition to say it does, but I'm using this one for the sake of this debate. If a tree falls in the forest, vibrations (sound-waves) are sent through the air. That we can all agree on. But if no one is there to hear it (including animals, otherwise this debate is pointless), those vibrations are not being recieved by any ears ("organs of hearing"), and thus these vibrations can't be classified as sound.