|
Post by henry on May 7, 2007 22:44:31 GMT -5
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 8, 2007 1:11:04 GMT -5
What is a sound? If it is vibration, then yes, it does make a sound.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 8, 2007 4:13:42 GMT -5
I think its meant to be more of an existentialist question. As in, "Do things that you do not observe exist"? And my answer to both questions is no.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 8, 2007 4:24:42 GMT -5
Yes, it does make a sound.
However, as my dad once pointed out: an unobserved reality is a reality completely devoid of meaning. Without someone (or something) sentient to think about the sound, it's as if it never even existed.
(For now, my stance is non-religious.)
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 8, 2007 8:02:31 GMT -5
I think that your stance is religious, if you take religious to mean someone with faith. You are trusting some source to tell you that the tree fell, or made a sound. While it is likely that the tree made a sound (99.999% even), I dont think anyone could ever convince me that the tree for certain made a sound. Having that tiny doubt is important to me.
|
|
|
Post by caffine10x on May 8, 2007 9:15:27 GMT -5
Im gonna argue based on definition. So I agree with jeff on this. Definition of sound: disturbance of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a longitudinal wave, and therefore is a mechanical wave. Sound is characterized by the properties of sound waves, which are frequency, wavelength, period, amplitude, and speed.
Got it from wiki...(man everything is on wiki...)
The tree falls, no doubt the tree will hit the ground causing a wave in the ground, that wave has the properties of a sound wave as described above, thus it does make a sound.
OK thats my argument. But in all seriousness....WHO THE FUCK CARES!?!? lawl
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on May 8, 2007 10:52:14 GMT -5
Of course the tree makes a sound! Haven't you seen family guy? They never shut up once they've fallen over!
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 8, 2007 12:10:45 GMT -5
I'm more likely to agree with Alexei. It might be devoid of meaning, but it should still exist. Perhaps there is some doubt as to whether it actually exists. Like maybe the universe is set up so that things only exist if we observe them. But there is no way to prove that either.
It is like saying that everyone but me could be zombies without any consciousness and I am the only one who is conscious. It is impossible to convince me with 100% certaintainty that others have sentient thought and are not being controlled by a cosmic puppet master.
There is always some doubt, but I say for practical reasons, there is no reason to believe things disappear if we don't observe them.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 8, 2007 13:19:31 GMT -5
How do you know?
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 8, 2007 14:32:27 GMT -5
There is no absolute certaintainly on anything. But the universe would function simpler if we did not think things disappeared when we did not see them.
Also why would things vanish when we did not see them? They could turn into purple elephants when not being seen. Either one is possible but there is no compelling proof.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 8, 2007 14:54:00 GMT -5
A desire for the universe to function more simply does not constitute a basis for knowledge.
Still there is no proof that the tree falling in the forest makes a sound. However likely the production of sound may seem based on what we know about other trees that have fallen in the past, there is no evidence of this particular tree making a sound.
There is no compelling proof that things do not turn into purple elephants when not sensed.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 8, 2007 15:07:00 GMT -5
Yes I know the desire for the universe to function better does not make a basis for knowledge. Occam's Razor doesn't prove anything. What I'm saying is that the idea that things disappear isn't any more proved than the idea that a number of other things happen to it.
Saying "no sounds don't exist when no one hears it" is as valid as saying "trees turn into purple elephants when no one is looking at it" They could happen. We could never find out.
The only thing anything can be 100% sure about is the existence of his or her own mind.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 8, 2007 15:42:10 GMT -5
I agree, but I notice that you're no longer saying that the tree makes a sound.
'Saying "no sounds don't exist when no one hears it" is as valid as saying "trees turn into purple elephants when no one is looking at it" They could happen. We could never find out.'
Similarly, we can never know if the tree falling in the woods makes a sound.
*GONG*
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 8, 2007 15:46:32 GMT -5
If you define know as know with 100% certaintinly than no, we cannot be sure that a tree makes a sound. But we cannot be sure it doesn't make a sound. Saying yes or no are wrong answers.
I say that because of this, one should assume that it does because there does not seem to be a logical reason why the rules of the universe would change that way. If it does, it is up for us to prove.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 8, 2007 19:19:09 GMT -5
Right, good answer, I do assume that it makes a sound, but I will never know if it does or doesnt. As long as you are aware of your own self-doubt you are good to go if you ever want to become a Buddhist monk.
|
|