So I solved dark energy...

Post Reply New Topic

The old "if a tree falls down in the woods, and no one hears it does it make a sound?" question.

Depends on how one defines "sound".

If by 'sound" you mean the vibrations in the air themselves, then it doesn't matter if any human, or animal, is around to hear it. Its still "sound". Atmospheric vibration in the right frequency range, and in the right volume to be heard would still be "sound" whether anyone, or any thing, hears them, or not.

But if you define "sound" as the sensation of "hearing"- the nervous system's detection of atmospheric vibrations (and not the atmospheric vibrations themselves) then if no creature with ears is around to hear it then it does not make a sound because there would be no sensation of hearing the atmospheric vibrations resulting from the tree crashing.


+++++++++++++++++++++

My own opinion?

I go by analogy to the other senses.

If the question were "if a tree caught fire in the middle of the woods and no one (and no animal with eyes) were around to see it would the fire produce light?"

Most would say "yes, of course it would make light. The fire would produce photons and light waves in the right intensity and frequency that would be classified as "visible light" regardless of whether or not anyone saw the fire. So yes, it would produce light.

So by analogy to that I would say that the crashing down tree does produce sound (the waves in the air) regardless of whether any creature hears them. So it still makes a sound even if no one hears it.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 25 Jun 2017, 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Awesome!

On a similar note: in the mid 19th Century Walt Whitman penned a single line that presaged much of 20th Century science.

That one line was "I believe that a blade of grass is nothing less than the journeywork of the stars."

When he wrote that scientist had no clue yet as to how the Sun (nor any star) could keep burning so hot and so long because they had yet to discover nuclear fission, and fusion.

We now know that stars are powered by nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion results in light elements like hydrogen being fused into heavier elements like oxygen and carbon. And that oxygen and carbon are vital building blocks of the cells that make up living things. Therefore all living things are the result of long dead stars making the material that we are now made of. So in a literal sense, we, and blades of grass, are "the journeywork of the stars".

Thank you. I’ve been alone with Perception since I read Doors of Perception decades ago and you’re the first with the patience to talk to me about it.

That’s a definition of unperceived sensation – which is the basis of my question. How did you arrive at that point? By hearing other things and analyzing the process. But then you cut off the need for a receiver. Your definition of “sound” is modeled on similar events *plus* a receiver.

Sort of like, 2+3=x. But that does not prove the existence of x. Its conditional, isn’t it? We know what X would be if it exists, but we have not proven that X is really there.


I lean heavily on perception. I can’t take sound to be atmospheric vibrations themselves. Mustn’t they land somewhere? In the tree question, the process finished without landing anywhere. So I can’t call it sound.


Perception again – the 5 senses unperceived do not create reality. Where did we get these measurements of photons and light waves? From other events that got perceived. I include robots etc. as perceivers – not only the human nervous system.


There it is – can we call something Sound if nobody/nothing perceives it? But that’s a process with its head lopped off. It has to go a few steps further.

Thank you for putting up with all this.

It's not "sound" to those that can't hear, but it is "sound" (by the English definition) to those who feel its impact.

Yes, "feel its impact." Quite so. And for those who don't?

Because SOMETHING feels its impact, it's still sound, by the English definition.

I can't be there for every tree that is felled in Siberia....nor any tree, for that matter

But how do you know what 'something feels' ?
And the word 'impact' - my whole problem is lack of impact.
By 'sound', I mean 'noise'. The British 'sound' - do you
mean a man of sound character, that sort of sound?
"Brexit, what a sound idea!"

He is using sound as a noun to mean something you can hear. Not as an adjective (sound character). A noise is an annoying intrusive sound. Not just any sound.

Mars has an atmosphere. So if a small meteor hits the surface of Mars it doubtless makes a booming sound that goes through the Martian atmosphere even though there are no living creatures on Mars to hear it.

I've always found this question to be highly egocentric, as if nature didn't exist until humans were there to observe it. Along those same lines, did dinosaurs exist before humans dug up their fossils?

And don't take that personal Claradoon, it's not you I have a disdain for, merely the question.

Yes. The question always struck me as being a bit solipsistic. Like asking "did the continent of Antarctica exist before Captain Cook discovered it in 1780 (or whenever it was)?

Humans hadn't seen the place before that moment. So did Antarctica exist before that moment?

Or why stop there?

Its also like asking "did ANY thing in the Universe exist before I, Naturalplastic, was born to perceive it in 1995 AD?".

Lol!

Last edited by naturalplastic on 26 Jun 2017, 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

in a purely subjective sense, i created the universe when i became conscious of it, and it will be zapped out of existence when my consciousness is gone.

That's what I'm looking for!

LOL...it's purely subjective, though.

The world will exist after you leave it.

If there are "other lives," you'll still be able to perceive it.

If there aren't, probably not.

But it still exists, just like the world existed before January 2, 1961, at 9:08 PM, the day/time of my birth.

The anniversary of which I shall observe in due form, in due course. Did you want to sleep in that day?
<Send in the clowns>

Yes, it's purely subjective, but it's the only theory that rings true for me. <long pause while physicists ROFLMAO>

Physics keeps changing its mind. What physics believes is absolutely, incontrovertibly TRUE!! ! until they announce that they were wrong. In the meantime, minimal brains like me can keep our thoughts to ourselves. But you know what? I never believed E=mc2, not even back in 1956. And sure enough ... 50 years later ... and then they say Einstein knew that all along (not that they'd share or anything).

I woke up cranky, can you tell? Have a lovely day anyway.

I think you need a nice breakfast. I'll make you bacon and eggs with toast (butter on the side, in case you don't like much butter).

No Belgian waffles!?!?!?!?