The Falling Tree and its Ideal Noise

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think this is correct.

1. The notion of the 'making of a noise' is a human one so there must be a human with this notion for the tree to make a noise.
2. For the movement of atoms or soundwaves (I'm not clear on the science) to be detected as noise there must be present a human or some other creature with similar hearing apparatus.
3. The idea of soundwaves and atomic movement and so on are theories devised by humans, so even if you conceive of this as a purely physical phenomenon that takes place whether observed or not, it does not happen as you conceive of it thus, without first of all being conceived as such by a human. Human's came up with the laws of physics so human presence is essential to their existence and behaviour.

Thanks for reviving my idealism theme!

Soundwaves and sound itself exists independent of stupid humans, we just gave this stuff its names.

Vibrations of the air occur whether or not anyone is present. The perception of sound requires a perceiver of sound. Someone must be there to hear the sound for there to be the experience or perception of sound.

ruveyn

Vibrations of the air create sound whether or not there is a receiver of said sound.

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, by Zach Weiner, for February 27. 2012:



Conservation of Energy. Simple. The potential energy of an upright tree is converted to kinetic energy in the form of impulses and waves of air pressure, which is "sound". The "noise" aspect come in when it is determined (but not necessarily perceived) that the sound is both aperiodic and non-harmonic.

QED

I don't think there is a "true" answer to the question. It's just a matter a defining terms differently.

It just comes back to the debate about the subjectiveness or objectiveness of reality: does reality exist if there is no one to experience it? It is a most tedious and unnecessary question, and, more to the point, it cannot yield a definite answer within the bounds of human experience and understanding, just shiny arguments that lead nowhere.

Yes. There is no such thing as subjective reality, only subjective perception. Reality is objective, and exists with our without being observed. Conservation of Energy is a physical principle that has been demonstrated innumerable times; there is nothing 'subjective' about it.


Only if you are ignorant of science, or a practicing Zen Buddhist, teaching with koans.

Well... If no one existed who could feel reality, how could it be known it existed? But then, you can push it further: Does an outside reality exist? If it does, is it observable? How reliable are our senses to observe said reality? Can they even observe it?

Is there even a way to prove any answer to any of these questions?

As I said, I find this question rather boring. It cannot lead to any conclusion.

The first definition of sound given by Dictionary.com is the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. By this defintion, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it does not make a sound because there is no one around to experience the stimulation of their hearing organs by the vibrations caused by the tree falling.

The second definition of sound given by Dictionary.com is mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level. By this definition, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it does make a sound because it is irrelevant to how the vibrations are perceived.

Depending on whether you define sound as a sensation or as vibrations determines whether or not the tree falling made a sound.

If a tree burst into bloom with flowers, and no one sees it, does it make a sight?

If the blossoms give off airborne molecules that would be precieved as scent but no nose is around to detect those molecules does it make a scent?

Part of this "enigma" is caused by disputing definitions.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/

Now, your idealist version of this problem seems to be that since present-day theories, no matter how intersubjectively verifiable, depend on human minds to construct the intellectual framework, that implies nothing even vaguely similar to what is described by the framework occurs "out there" independently of humans. I see no reason at all to think that - if every person died of a super-duper effective pathogen tomorrow by 12:00 PM UTC-6 there'd still be something analogous to sound waves being generated if a tree fell at 12:58 PM UTC-6 tomorrow.

Are you arguing for the old "Reality exists only because humans observe it" fallacy? This is the basis for every creation myth ever invented - the idea that nothing can exist without an intelligence to acknowledge it. Something would have to exist before it can be perceived, otherwise, it is just imagined.


There is no empirical evidence for the existence of any reality other than the natural one we evolved in - there is no evidence for a


If you were bored with this topic, then you would not be so involved with it, either.

Of course, some people would consider any topic of discussion completely irrelevant if they did not add their own commentary to it, thus revealing their own selfcenteredness. It is the epitome of egotism to believe that nothing could exist without one's own acknowledgement of its existence.

OP: its a cheap linguistics game.

Aside from a solipsist no one would debate that waves are being generated in the air by the impact of the tree that would be tantamount to sound. One side of the game plays that sound is that wave in the air whether an ear is there to hear it, the other side of the game would insist that its only 'sound' once its picked up by the human ear drum and assembled into something that we can register. I go with the first group because I work with audio often and a recorded wav seems to work pretty reliably, nothing shifty or dodgy happens to it when I'm not there to hear it. To suggest otherwise is like asking "Will the world exist when I'm gone?" or "Do stars beyond our visible range have heat?" - great questions for a solipsist to ohh, ahhh, and wow the campus hippies with and great cause for people to worry about the mental state of those who find things like that profound.

and if you leave something in a precarious position on top of a door with a window ajar you can come home to find it broken on the floor. To go there then you need the 'all things are visible in the mind of God' which essentially causes the tree to make a noise as well.

Hi Saturn,

According to Pepé Le Pew, these arguments didn't stink before God invented noses.

Tadzio

It does seem a matter of definitions:

1) sound = something that a human perceives, or
2) sound = mechanical vibrations in air

If you go with definition #1, then you're left having to make up a new word for what #2 is -- since #2 can have physical effects, such as triggering an avalanche.

I guess another counter-argument for #1 is, "If a person hallucinates the sound of a tree falling, did a tree fall?" So, overall I think #2 works better as a definition.