If a tree fell and no one was around...

[Nikola]

If you perceive that it has made a sound, or assume that it will make a sound, then yes, it will make a sound. If you can convince yourself 100% that it will not make a sound and believe that beyond a shadow of a doubt, then it will not make a sound. Just like you can move a mountain with a mustard seed worth of belief, you can also create your environment in any shape that you wish. The human brain is a tool that directs your eyes to see what you believe you should see and your ears to hear what you think you should hear. Everything is conditional and material form is only an illusion, solidified by belief. The real question is, does the tree continue to exist if no one is around to observe it?

[DrP]

You don't know whether it makes a sound for the same reason you don't know whether the world existed before you were born. .........But can you prove the tree makes a sound any other way than observing that sounds are made in similar situations? (And don't say "yes" and talk about mathematical models and whatnot - fundamental physics is empirical too.)

 

I don't buy this. It is the same as saying "does my next door neighbour exist at night, when I am in my house and he is in his"? I can't see him or hear him because I am in my house and he is in his - so how do I know he exists when I go to bed? He might only pop into existence when I go into the garden - then I see him outside, but when he goes in he disapears. I know he exists. With your line of thinking there you cannot prove anything at all.

 

I can draw reasonable conclusions based on the way the rest of reality works to assume that the world existed before I did, just the same as I can conclude my neighbour exists and that the tree makes a noise or a sound when it falls when there is no-one there.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"2: Vibrations causing this sensation" "3: What is or may be heard"

May be heard meaning, it may have been heard by someone

 

Exactly - "may" be heard - it doesn't actually have to have been heard for it to be a sound. A sound is a sound whether it has been heard or not - by definition of the word in any decent dictionary.

Edited November 17, 2009 by DrP
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

With your line of thinking there you cannot prove anything at all.

 

Now you're catching on.

[tomgwyther]

The semantics have taken a new twist. Sound has been defined; we're now onto definitions of:

Can, Is and May.

If a vibration of air particles can be, may be, or is heard then it is by definition a sound.

'Can' and 'Is' would refer to direct observation. i.e. I can seen the moon; it is observed.

'May' would refer to a prediction that if an observer (Listener) were present at the time, then a sound would be heard.

i.e. "I may look at the moon and I 'can' see it as it 'is'.

If something cannot be observed (heard) either directly or indirectly, then it is absurd to suggest that it exists a a physical phenomenon.

If there is no-one or nothing there to hear the sound then the sound cannot be heard.

something which cannot be heard or is not heard is not a sound.

Something which is not seen is not a sight. Something which is not tasted is not a taste. Something which is not smelt is not a smell.

 

here are some quotes from the wonderful world of Wiki!

 

The magazine Scientific American corroborated the technical aspect of this question, while leaving out the philosophic side, a year later on Apr 5, 1884, on page 218 of their magazine when they asked the question slightly reworded, "If a tree were to fall on an uninhabited island, would there be any sound?" And gave a more technical answer, "Sound is vibration, transmitted to our senses through the mechanism of the ear, and recognized as sound only at our nerve centers. The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound."

 

The production of sound requires 3 things: A source, a medium, and a receiver.

 

This is leading us onto such subjects as 'The absence of awareness' and 'Knowledge of the unobserved world'

 

 

 

 

p.s. The schrodinger tree is both standing and fallen until it is observed.

 

p.p.s. Are there any deaf lumber-jacks on this forum who could help us out hear?

Edited November 18, 2009 by tomgwyther

[DrP]

I still disagree by definition that "sound" needs a receiver.

 

Philosophically I conceed that we can argue that you cannot prove anything either way. Scientifically I still stand by the answer "yes" - it makes a sound by definition of the word sound in my dictionary.

[Mr Skeptic]

Hm, I'm pretty sure that "vision" unambiguously needs a receiver though.

[iNow]

Vision [math]\ne[/math] Visual Information

Sound [math]\ne[/math] Auditory Information

 

 

Sound does not require a receiver. Auditory reception does.

Without a receiver, the pressure wave still traverses the medium. That's really all there is to it.

[John Cuthber]

Sound is a form of energy andthe conservation laws require it to be emited whether there's anyone to hear it or not.

 

Incidentally re

"Aristotle loved empirical research,..."

and

"He ended up at some of his crazier assertions by extrapolating from "common knowledge."

 

Which do you mean?

Extrapolating from known to unknown is hardly empirical.

 

"sometimes the easiest way to get an answer was to actually look."

Aristotle is noted for saying that spiders have 6 legs (or was it flys have 8).

[Sisyphus]

Incidentally re

"Aristotle loved empirical research,..."

and

"He ended up at some of his crazier assertions by extrapolating from "common knowledge."

 

Which do you mean?

Extrapolating from known to unknown is hardly empirical.

 

"sometimes the easiest way to get an answer was to actually look."

Aristotle is noted for saying that spiders have 6 legs (or was it flys have 8).

 

He engaged in much empirical research, but was inconsistent in its application, sometimes instead extrapolating from common knowledge. Where is the confusion?

[StringJunky]

Vision is not the equivalent of Sound because vision is the act or ability of seeing. The sensory equivalent of Vision is Hearing.

 

Light is the equivalent of Sound since they are both waves, although with different natures, If light can exist in the absence of a receiver so can the pressure wave we call Sound.

 

Just my 2 cents.