If a tree falls in the forest, and there’s nobody around to hear, does it make a sound?
Yes.
>>8136466
Sound is just the energy waves travelling through the air processes by the ear.
If there are no ears, there's no sound, but there is still vibrations in the air.
>>8136466
can someone explain the utility of this expression? Someone used it in a message board I was viewing and the concept was lost on me.
must be my autism
>>8136535
Literally taken it helps people think about the differences between reality and perception while questioning the definition of "exists."
It's occasionally used by morons to pretend to be deep, or to make fun of people they think are pretending to be deep.
It's also regularly used to imply by analogy that the answer to a question doesn't matter or only matters from a certain point of view.
>do you think Donna would have dated me if I hadn't assfucked her sister?
>dude, if a tree falls in the forest...
>>8136466
Depends on if you define sound as the perception or as the vibration in the air.
>>8136466
animals would hear it
and you'r stupid
>>8136539
If it's not processed by the ear it's not sound like we define it but the vibrations are still there.
>>8136466
The sound anything makes is irrelevant if it is not able to alter any course of action.
I don't really get are you discussing - physics or linguistics?
If a tree falls and it's not happening in vacuum, it causes sound waves. Sound waves don't really give a shit if there are humans or other hearing mammals around, they just spread.
If you're arguing about "sound" as a word of English language, then by definition from OxfDict sound is "Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear." According to this definition, sound is still sound, even if it's not heard, but could be heard, if an animal or whatever with hearing ability were around.
So, yes, a falling tree in the given situation makes sound.
>>8136635
If a nucleus decays but you can't see the radiation, do you still get poisoned?
>>8136730
Yeah if you're near the radiation.
microphone + recorder
Lrn2twentieth-century techology
or get thee back, thou carbuncle
Is God dead?
>>8136466
No, events literally don't exist without an observer. You can't prove any causal event without experience, idiot.
Did GW150914 only happen after we've heard the sound at the press conference.
>>8136602
but animals don't exist when they're not being observed
wait, what if I don't exist while I'm not being observed?
>>8136466
Yes
Whether or not the tree falling has interacted with the air does not depend on the interaction between the air and a complex machine.
now take your philosophy back to >>>/his/ >>>/lit/ >>>/x/
>>8136762
>>>/x/ definitions of observer and causality. you're probably baiting so no elaboration needed unless you're actually an /x/ tier idiot. In that case I don't care to elaborate.
>>8136785
>definitions of observer and causality. you're probably baiting so no elaboration needed unless you're actually an /x/ tier idiot. In that case I don't care to elaborate.
Yuh dude numbers so exist if people weren't there to count them xD
>>8136762
Events exist but the phenomena y is zero, in the entire domain of x. There is no proof to begin with. It's just metaphysics at this point. Experience implies past tense of causality, the effectual. Of course, if the world is intra-universally connected, which I'm assuming it is, then there is an effect which can be observed. Whether or not that assumption is correct, there is an effect with a scope, that may or may not be extended to the observer.
>>8136466
this is a philosophic as well as a semantic question more than it is a scientific one.
It needs and observer to observe, no matter the medium.
And for the physical part it's just kinetic energy being transfered through different media. Meaning it makes a sound even if it's not falling, more pricecly nothing in the physical universe emits silence.
>>8136816
scope of nil, which says anything can be proven about the consequences of nil.
>>8136816
causal x, i.e.
>>8136550
Well sound is the vibration in the air (or other environment) so it makes a sound.
>>8136466
Yes.
If a tree falls in the forest, and there is someone around to hear it, does it makes a sound?
And what if this person is deaf?
What if there is no person?
That is one stupid question, there will be sound, having people to hear it or not.
>>8136466
There's no reason to think there is no sound. Epistemologically there isn't any way to know without observation, but everything we do know suggests that there is sound.
If there is no one around to hear it, how do we know a tree fell?
>>8138533
smart
>>8138533
really makes you think uh
>>8138533
We saw it on the ground a few hours later
nah, now this is just an argument about the definition of sound. I'd say that soundwaves count as sound whether or not there's an ear to process it, but if someone else defines sound differently, whatever.
>>8138533
wow, goosebumps
If a star emits radiation but due to the expansion of space neither its light cone nor its gravitational effects ever reach you, was it really there?
>>8138570
not until it has been observed.
all of you people saying yes, there is a sound have clearly never given any such questions deep thought. it obviously does not make a sound, just mere vibrations in the air. until these vibrations hit an observer's ear drums, no actual sound has been perceived.
better question - how many roads must a man go down?
you should be able to solve this.
>>8138602
there is but only one path
the one set forth
by god
almighty
vagina
extasy
love
if a tree falls in the forest, and there's nobody around to hear, does the forest exist?
>>8136781
WEW LAD
E
W
L
A
D
>>8136466
If nobody is around to hear then it's likely that nobody is around see it either.
How do we know it fell, then?
Bimini and the same thing happened to me and I will have the time to get back to you soon.
It is a quote from a philosopher from ancient times. It should not be taken literally, everyone knows that falling trees makes a sound (unless it fell in vacuum). The question rather focus on the questions of existence and epistemology and all of this falls under the field of philosophy which is not related to sci.
A scientist would say that it makes a sound, based on observations of falling trees and with induction the scientist came to the conclusion that it does make a sound.
What the scientist does not know (let's say this is ancient times without advanced equipment) is if the sound is independent from an observer. Because clearly, just looking at quantum mechanics observation determines the behaviour of a certain natual phenomenon so it is clear that the question is not dumb if you don't interpret it literally.
We know today that falling trees does make a sound because we have proven that this phenomenon is independent from and observer.
