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

Post Reply New Topic

You are missing the point.

Let us assume that all beings are deaf, because for some reason, they haven't developped hearing. Does the tree make a sound then, forest or no forest? As I have said earlier, it just depends on the definition of sound, and most of the problem is a consequence of an ambiguity in the word "sound". I think that, by following the most sensible position, we arrive at the conclusion that it wouldn't make a sound, because the vibrations, even though they would exist objectively, are only understood as sound because of a process of perception.

However, as many have brought it up, it is also about objectivity or subjectivity of existence, a higher debate, but a futile one, since it is beyond human understanding.

Sound itself is just a series of sinusoidal waves of pressure moving through matter. Thus, a falling tree makes a noise, even if every living creature was deaf.

It would make a sound in the sense that a bunch of air molecules would carry the vibrations of the tree, but it wouldn't make a sound in the sense of someone actually perceiving and sensing those vibrations. Its even arguable that its wholly a thing unto itself without the observers mind translating the vibrations into a perception and relating it to constructs like "tree" and "noise", since sound is a concept relative only to human thought.

Is a tree falling in the forest without anything to hear it the same as observers around another tree as it falls in a vacuum?

You don't call waves that travel in a medium anything special until they are traveling through at a certain frequency? "Sound" to me is the effect, not the cause.

No. If a tree falls in a forest, the air molecules vibrate.

A tree can't fall and hit the ground to make a noise if it's in a vacuum... it will just be perpetually falling.

But say it did, the air molecules would not vibrate, so there would be no pulses or noise even if people were there to hear it

The air would vibrate, but no one would hear it. Even if the vibrations carried to where someone was, they still wouldn't hear it if they were far enough.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sound

Note definition #2.

If you drink an entire bottle of cough syrup, is a krispy kreme donut still sweet?

Aren't snakes deaf? They would still notice the "sound" they just understand the sound in a different method (I worded that terribly but couldn't think of other words to use)

But I also agree it would not be a forest if there were no animals in it.

Yes, unless the tree is as light as a feather.

I think the Schrodinger cat is a much better paradox.

The tree thing never really struck me as very profound or meaningful.

You make an interesting point. If that is true, it would mean that "sound" did not exist before creatures with ears came along.

Not all interpretations of quantum mechanics require an observer and, in most of those that do, 'observer' does not mean autonomous agent/living entity/consciousness.

Sound is a physical phenomenon: Waves motions of molecules in a fluid. Noise is a concept relative to human thought. We perceive sounds that are non-periodic as "noise"(like TV static).

The bottom line is that reality and the phenomena within it exist independently of human(or even animal) perception. EOS.

What utter NONESENSE.

what a comprehensive failure to even spell "nonsense" let alone describe why it is nonsense.


if an unknown entity has a white stone and a black stone, and the 2 stones are separately encapsulated in boxes which conceal the contents, and one box is cast out to the "other side of the universe", no one will know what is in the local box until it is opened and the contents witnessed.

if i open the local box and see a white stone, then i will then instantly know that the box on the other side of the universe contains a black stone.
it does not take billions of years for me to observe the contents of the box on the other side of the universe to observe that it has a black stone in it. i can fast track reality by already knowing it is the case sine the local box contains a white stone.

if no box is opened to reveal it's content to my consciousness, then i would have no idea which box has a white or black stone in it.

is that the threshold of reality? is "reality" only a brains interpretation of what is in it?

it does not require any consciousness for every thing in the universe to exist. existence is considered subjective, and i believe that the universe will continue happening after my consciousness is dead.

a universe devoid of consciousness is still a complete universe (albeit devoid of consciousness).