Tree falls in the forest...

[alexwang32]

The classical question of whether it makes a sound or not is probably over-talked and therefore seems unworthy of further discussion, but just for fun lets all improvise and come up with some new perspectives.

 

I'll summarise a couple of "answers" I thought of:

 

1. Scientific ( Objectivity ) -- The world around us can exsist without the need of a subject, therefore events, such as a tree falling can occur withought our knowledge. According to phsyical laws a falling tree will impact the ground so that a vibration is created, which travels through the air as a sound wave, therefore it DOES makes a sound.
2. Spiritual/Philosophical ( Subjective ) -- Therory 1. A world cannot be said to be in exsistence without a sentient being ( or subject ) to observe it. Thus events that are unseen by the eye have unknown outcomes. There isn't anything that can be said to a falling tree that isn't under observation, except that it's possible that it will make a sound or not ( kind of like the uncertainity priciple in quantum mechanics ). Therory 2. A sound a a percetion experienced by a subject, in the absence of a subject there's no one to hear the sound, hence it can be said that there is no sound.
3. Literal Analysis -- If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, does it make a sound? Well before we look into that, we'll revisit Newton's First Law of motion: In a frictionless ( no external forces ) state all object are either static or moving in uniform rectilinear motion. Now, this imaginary state cannot be produced in the real world: It's impossible to create an enviorment in which object expereince no external force. That's why it's called an imaginary experiment. Now back to the tree... the question is about a tree that fell in a forest... and no one saw it... lets stop it right here. If no one saw the tree, how do you know it fell? You IMAGINED that it fell. So I have to judge whether some tree in your imagination make a sound or not. How can there possibly be a definite answer to that?

So there you have it, please come up with your own speculations or evaluate these theories. Thank you.

 

 

 

[StringJunky]

A sound is something experienced by an observer, so, in the absence of one there is no sound BUT there are perturbations travelling through the air/ground from the falling tree which could be sensed as sound if an observer was there. I think it's an observer-dependent phenomenon.

Edited January 1, 2015 by StringJunky

[alexwang32]

A sound is something experienced by an observer, so, in the absence of one there is no sound BUT there are perturbations travelling through the air/ground from the falling tree which could be sensed as sound if an observer was there. I think it's an observer-dependent phenomenon.

Hmm... you're right. This comes down to the definition of "sound".

 

Though if I were to refute your statement, I would question how you came to the conclusion that "there are perturbations travelling through the air/ground from the falling tree". We are talking about a tree that isn't obeserved. There's no possible way to infer what becomes of an event if the condition for the event to occur is that there musn't be any subject present during the event. Such an event is both logically and scientifically impossible to analyze.

 

Just a brain riddle for 2015

 

[StringJunky]

Hmm... you're right. This comes down to the definition of "sound".

 

Though if I were to refute your statement, I would question how you came to the conclusion that "there are perturbations travelling through the air/ground from the falling tree". We are talking about a tree that isn't obeserved. There's no possible way to infer what becomes of an event if the condition for the event to occur is that there musn't be any subject present during the event. Such an event is both logically and scientifically impossible to analyze.

 

Just a brain riddle for 2015

We know that a falling tree produces a sound, when we are there which is the result of perturbations, so we extrapolate that in our absence, the tree will very likely produce perturbations. We can only be sure to a high degree of probability but we can't be certain ..if we are being pernickety about it.

[Acme]

... ..if we are being pernickety about it.

Erhm...that's persnickety.

 

Trees never fall in woods unless someone is there to witness them. Prove me wrong.

[Eise]

I think an answer to the question only reveals what somebody means with sound.

 

If he means that it was heard by somebody, and it was stated that there was nobody there, then there was no sound.

If he means perturbations (that could have been heard when somebody would have been there), then there was sound.

 

So if somebody asks the question, the first thing you must do, and ask what the questioner means with sound.

 

Same when somebody asks you if you believe in God. First you must ask what kind of God. Then you might be able to answer the question. That is also the reason one formally cannot answer the question if one is an atheist. First you must know which God the questioner thinks you deny.

[StringJunky]

I think an answer to the question only reveals what somebody means with sound.

 

If he means that it was heard by somebody, and it was stated that there was nobody there, then there was no sound.

If he means perturbations (that could have been heard when somebody would have been there), then there was sound.

 

So if somebody asks the question, the first thing you must do, and ask what the questioner means with sound.

 

Same when somebody asks you if you believe in God. First you must ask what kind of God. Then you might be able to answer the question. That is also the reason one formally cannot answer the question if one is an atheist. First you must know which God the questioner thinks you deny.

The way I look at it is that sound is an experiential thing and necessitates an observer whereas perturbations don't. I suppose it depends on what those perturbations interact with, and the product of that interaction, that determines what we call it. For example those interactions could have a visual product rather than a sonic one via some appropriate device/sense.

Edited January 1, 2015 by StringJunky

[imatfaal]

..Same when somebody asks you if you believe in God. First you must ask what kind of God. Then you might be able to answer the question. That is also the reason one formally cannot answer the question if one is an atheist. First you must know which God the questioner thinks you deny.

 

I disagree with both your assertions - I believe nothing is supernatural, I also deny any definition of God that does not include the supernatural. Thus I can say that I do not believe in God.

 

Secondly, Athiests do not (necessarily) deny the existence of God - they merely do not positively believe in the existence of God. A belief in the non-existence is not identical to a non-belief in the existence

[Eise]

I disagree with both your assertions - I believe nothing is supernatural, I also deny any definition of God that does not include the supernatural. Thus I can say that I do not believe in God.

 

That means you already have a definition. So whatever a questioner means with 'God', you say it/he does not exist. That is a good way to produce misunderstandings.

 

Secondly, Athiests do not (necessarily) deny the existence of God - they merely do not positively believe in the existence of God. A belief in the non-existence is not identical to a non-belief in the existence

 

The difference in the case of God is absolutely minimal. Or do you really say 'Well, it could be that there is a God who created the universe, and who led the people of Israel through the desert, but unless I have proof I do not believe it'?

 

From the above I read that for you 'God' means at least something supernatural. Don't you believe that something supernatural does not exist? What could be something supernatural, that would change your mind?

[imatfaal]

 

That means you already have a definition. So whatever a questioner means with 'God', you say it/he does not exist. That is a good way to produce misunderstandings.

 

No it means I have a prerequisite - that is not the same as a definition. There can be any number of definitions which fulfil that requirement. As an example I can confidently say that I do not get any credence to the idea of a green and pink spotted faster than light steam-train.

 

The difference in the case of God is absolutely minimal. Or do you really say 'Well, it could be that there is a God who created the universe, and who led the people of Israel through the desert, but unless I have proof I do not believe it'?

No - it is anything but minimal. Proof has nothing to do with it - if I have proof then I no longer need belief.

It should be held open to question that one may be wrong - it would be hubris not to - Atheists do not believe in the existence of God, but many Atheists really would need more information to believe in the non-existence

[studiot]

Is religion, once again, not taking a thread off topic, by the new strict definition?

 

As to the topic

 

Surely only unsound trees fall over?

 

Or if you prefer

 

If you did not witness the fall, how can you prove the tree did not naturally grow that way?

Edited January 1, 2015 by studiot

[Acme]

Indeed. Someone might not hear the trees for the forest.

[imatfaal]

..From the above I read that for you 'God' means at least something supernatural. Don't you believe that something supernatural does not exist? What could be something supernatural, that would change your mind?

 

I do not believe that anything we currently have knowledge of lacks a natural explanation; albeit that we may be years from attaining the level of understanding to reach that explanation.

 

If, with all due precautions to stop fraud, we finally mapped the genome of a Neanderthal and found in the portions of non-coding DNA the text of the King James Bible, the Torah and the Koran - that would strike me as pretty supernatural and, in addition, I might have to reconsider the credence I currently give to the existence of the Abrahamic God.

[StringJunky]

...

If you did not witness the fall, how can you prove the tree did not naturally grow that way?

By understanding the conditions and behaviour required for trees to grow the way they do.

[studiot]

 

By understanding the conditions and behaviour required for trees to grow the way they do.

 

 

Fair comment, although I have seen trees naturally growing horizontally.

But I was not properly specific.

 

How can you prove that the tree came to its state by falling and not by some other mechanism?

[StringJunky]

 

Fair comment, although I have seen trees naturally growing horizontally.

But I was not properly specific.

 

How can you prove that the tree came to its state by falling and not by some other mechanism?

Residual percussion effects in the ground around the tree resulting from it falling and structural trauma in the tree itself.

[studiot]

 

Residual percussion effects in the ground around the tree resulting from it falling and structural trauma in the tree itself.

 

 

That's court-of-law evidence, not scientific proof positive.

[John Cuthber]

If there is someone in the forest, they don't hear the tree fall for a short while- sound traverses about a fifth of a mile per second.

So the sound propagates outward.

Eventually, it may well leave the forest and reach someone who has a big parabolic reflector and a microphone; they hear it

If it didn't make a sound as it falls, what did they hear?

[StringJunky]

 

That's court-of-law evidence, not scientific proof positive.

Science doesn't do proof; we are not doing maths. If we can ascertain to a confidence level exceeding 95%, then that conclusion will be judged to be correct.

[alexwang32]

First, to get rid of the literal ambiguity, lets assume "sound" means vibrations. Since from both an objective and subject view point, if a sound is heard there must be a vibration, and a vibration would be interpreted as a sound by a subject, thus the two can be equated.

If there is someone in the forest, they don't hear the tree fall for a short while- sound traverses about a fifth of a mile per second.

So the sound propagates outward.

Eventually, it may well leave the forest and reach someone who has a big parabolic reflector and a microphone; they hear it

If it didn't make a sound as it falls, what did they hear?

Instead of answering that, can you first tell me what part of the "no one is there to hear it" you don't understand? Hearing a sound from a distance is instrisically the same as listening to it close up. You've violated the pre-condition that there musn't be anyone to hear it. Using any apparatus to detect the sound is a mean to "hearing" it.

 

Science assumes that there's a objective world. If you're affiliated with such premisis then it's really waste of time to argue any further, because we know from natural laws that it will make a sound.

 

 

[Robittybob1]

 

First, to get rid of the literal ambiguity, lets assume "sound" means vibrations. Since from both an objective and subject view point, if a sound is heard there must be a vibration, and a vibration would be interpreted as a sound by a subject, thus the two can be equated.

Instead of answering that, can you first tell me what part of the "no one is there to hear it" you don't understand? Hearing a sound from a distance is instrisically the same as listening to it close up. You've violated the pre-condition that there musn't be anyone to hear it. Using any apparatus to detect the sound is a mean to "hearing" it.

 

Science assumes that there's a objective world. If you're affiliated with such premisis then it's really waste of time to argue any further, because we know from natural laws that it will make a sound.

 

 

 

If the noise scares wild animals and they run away, and that running away is evidence of a tree falling, are they also included in the group "no one there to hear it"?

[MigL]

Everything is interconnected.

Assume a tree falls in the forest today and there is absolutely no observer or listener, no matter what the distance.

Sound being a series of pressure pulses means there would be other effects which would be noticeable tomorrow, when all the observers/listeners have come back.

Tomorrow you may find a larger than expected amount of fallen leaves in the immediate vicinity which have been knocked down by the pressure pulses.

If we had a better handle on chaos theory, tomorrow, you may find that a storm developed North-East of that location due to the pressure pulse disturbance.

Tomorrow you may find that a lot of the wildlife has left the area or become skittish due to the loud noise.

Etc. Etc.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Instead of answering that, can you first tell me what part of the "no one is there to hear it" you don't understand

The tree falls in the forest.

The hearer is outside the forest.

So they are not "there" to hear it.

 

The point I was making is that, if you extend what you think of as "here" far enough there is always someone and the question is meaningless.

Next time, check who is failing to understand before you try insulting people.

[alexwang32]

The tree falls in the forest.

The hearer is outside the forest.

So they are not "there" to hear it.

 

The point I was making is that, if you extend what you think of as "here" far enough there is always someone and the question is meaningless.

Next time, check who is failing to understand before you try insulting people.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend, it's just that the questions you raise seem to inculde obvious flaws.

 

If you are standing on "objective world" ground, then I choose not to argue with you, since it would be pointless.

 

If we introduce a subjective world, then we must consider the influnce induced by the subject upon its environment.

 

The fact that wild animals running away does not necessarily imply a tree fell ( it may have been caused by fire ). What you're aruguing is basically that we can observe phenomenons that are consequences of an event and theryby deduce an event occured. Fundamental flaw here. The tree falling is the cause of perhaps a series of other phenomenons, i.e. a sound wave is created that propagates across nearby mediums, as well as leaves that drop on the ground, but these are all effects. Cause create effects, but effects don't necessaily point to the same cause.

 

We're talking about whether a falling tree makes a sound under the condition that no one knows about it.

 

if you extend what you think of as "here" far enough there is always someone and the question is meaningless.

This raises a lot of arguments... if one subject is introduced, all other "people" should be considered as objects. Therefore only one persons knowledge of the tree affects it outcomes. Though this may not be accepted in general. A better way of putting this would be that, as long as those other people have absolutly no knowledge of the tree whatsoever than they have no subjective influence on its outcomes.

 

 

The tree falls in the forest.

The hearer is outside the forest.

So they are not "there" to hear it.

Yes that's only true if you don't use some parabolic micophone to probe it. That would be essentially the same as staying inside the forest. Besides, as I said earlier, a sound inside the forest doesn't necessarily imply a tree fell. In order to conclude that a tree fell AND it made a sound, there has to be a confirmation of the exsistence of a tree, a sound, and the falling of a tree, the simultaneity between the tree falling and the creation of a sound. All this requires a conscientious observer.

 

If we assume there's some unknown correlation between the subject and the event, then obviously the subject's examination should interfere with the outcomes. This is accpeted as true even in science ( although it applies to microscopic scales mainly ).

 

I would like to point out three levels to this question:

1. Sound Level: Whether or not it makes a "sound".
2. Falling Level: Can a tree be said to have fallen when there is no subject?
3. Tree Level: Does a tree exist when no one is looking at it?

Edited January 2, 2015 by alexwang32

[MigL]

These are all effects ?

Of course they are !

 

So is hearing or seeing !