If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around...

[Kur]

Does it make a sound?

I've been inspired by the chickens and eggs debate to start another debate on the same sort of theme of just for fun.


I think most everybody has heard this one but for those who have not I'll lay it on in full here.

"If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it actually make a sound?"


I usually assume the creator of this question assumes that there were no animals or recorders, or listening devices, or any such thing around either to hear the sound.

I think the underlying question here is "Is a listener required for sound to exist?"

Sound is basically vibrations traveling in waves through some kind of medium, usually air. So I suppose since a falling tree would generate vibrations, then sound would exist as such. But does a vibration always make an audible noise? Not at all. Maybe the tree falls and creates sound waves, but without a set of ears nearby to hear them, perhaps the sound waves do not actually make any noise?

Since it would be impossible to test this, you have to simply make a decision based on your own knowledge of how sound works, how ears work, how trees fall, and the combined effects of all of that.


I am personally a realist. If a tree falls and makes a sound when somebody is there, and nobody has ever reported a tree falling soundlessly, then it must make a sound when nobody is there as well. Of course I can never know for sure or prove it, but I am comfortable making that claim.

 

[AltF4]

The answer is pretty obvious until you get into quantum mechanics. Here is a brief explanation of how it breaks down at a fairly conceptual level...


Quantum Mechanics has the concept of an "Observer" which is necessary for certain things to happen. You see, matter itself is not made of particles. Matter is represented entirely through a mathematical structure: a probability distribution cloud. A particle is never "in any one spot" but rather smeared over a given area.

A particle only gains a "definite" position when observed. Until that point, it remains in a kind of limbo where it only has probability of being in any particular place.


Now the cool part: Schrödinger's cat.

This is a thought experiment given by Erwin Schrödinger. It goes like this: There is a black box, and inside it there is a cat, a vial of poison, and a radioactive material. What happens is that the radioactive material will over the course of an hour either not emit a particle, or it will (with equal probability). If it does emit the particle, then a lever hits the vial of poison, killing the cat. If no particle is emitted, then nothing happens and the cat lives.

So you set the contraption in place and wait an hour. Without looking into the box, you ask the question: Is the cat alive?

Depending on what interpretation you're using and a number of other matters, one can make the claim that until you look into the box, the cat is in an entangled state of living AND dead. Only when you open the box to observe it does the cat take a definite state.


Similarly, if no observation is made in the forest, it can be claimed that any states (such as the noise made by a falling tree) have not for sure happened.

 

[snex]

your understanding of "observer" in QM is flawed... an "observer" in QM is any other particle. in the case of the forest, the surrounding stuff would collapse any waves caused by trees falling.

the real point of this question is about pointing out the nature of "sound" (and similar things like "color," "taste," etc). things like colors, tastes, and sounds require brains to interpret them, otherwise they are in no way special from the rest of the stuff going on around them.

the human ear can only hear from 20Hz to 20,000Hz. anything below or above this, we dont consider a sound. but nature doesnt make this distinction without humans around. air vibrations take a continuous range from 0 to whatever the planck limit allows. "sound" is an artificial construct invented by humans, so no, the tree does NOT make a sound if it falls and nobody is there to hear it.

 

[AltF4]

The meaning of "observer" in QM is not precisely defined. That's what I meant by "depending on what interpretation you're using and a number of other matters".

Besides, calling any particle an observer just introduces a relativistic effect the the phenomena. To the observing particles, the cat has a definite state, but this state can differ from observer to observer. Or even not exist if you are not an observer. If you're outside the box, the cat can still be entangled for you.

It really depends on what interpretation you choose to go for. The many-worlds interpretation paints a totally different picture. There isn't a definitive answer right now. That's why I tried to word it like "you can make the argument that...".

 

[Kur]

The answer is pretty obvious until you get into quantum mechanics. Here is a brief explanation of how it breaks down at a fairly conceptual level...


Quantum Mechanics has the concept of an "Observer" which is necessary for certain things to happen. You see, matter itself is not made of particles. Matter is represented entirely through a mathematical structure: a probability distribution cloud. A particle is never "in any one spot" but rather smeared over a given area.

A particle only gains a "definite" position when observed. Until that point, it remains in a kind of limbo where it only has probability of being in any particular place.


Now the cool part: Schrödinger's cat.

This is a thought experiment given by Erwin Schrödinger. It goes like this: There is a black box, and inside it there is a cat, a vial of poison, and a radioactive material. What happens is that the radioactive material will over the course of an hour either not emit a particle, or it will (with equal probability). If it does emit the particle, then a lever hits the vial of poison, killing the cat. If no particle is emitted, then nothing happens and the cat lives.

So you set the contraption in place and wait an hour. Without looking into the box, you ask the question: Is the cat alive?

Depending on what interpretation you're using and a number of other matters, one can make the claim that until you look into the box, the cat is in an entangled state of living AND dead. Only when you open the box to observe it does the cat take a definite state.


Similarly, if no observation is made in the forest, it can be claimed that any states (such as the noise made by a falling tree) have not for sure happened.

The beginning of this post reminds me of that experiment where some scientists were passing light particles through slits in a wall. They had predictable results until they added a second wall with more slits. Then they got all these crazy patterns they didn't predict. So they 'observed' the light particles as they passed between the slits, and the results changed to what they thought would happen originally.

I found this amazing, that the very act of observing could have a drastic effect on the outcome of an experiment.

Then I found out a while later that the tool they used to observe the light particles was actually a physical object the light had to pass through.

Kind of takes the awe and flushes it down the toilet.


The other part of this is that there is a real observer effect when dealing with quantum systems. For us to 'see' an electron, a photon must first interact with it. That interaction will then send the electron on a different path. But on the flip side, had nobody been there to observe the photon which interacted with the electron, would the photon have not interacted with the electron anyway? the observation it would seem would only have an effect on the photon, but not on the subject of the observed particle, the electron.



Schrödinger's cat is often used incorrectly by the lay person when trying to describe superposition. Schrödinger never intended for his cat to be an example, but actually the opposite. He was showing how weird the idea behind the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was when applied to systems outside of atomic or subatomic scale.

The purpose behind the thought experiment was to show that there has to be a line drawn to say when a quantum state stops being a mixture of states and becomes one or the other. The real problem behind this comes when you realize that the observer is assuming that only the subject can be in a mixture of states and that the observer can not be. Who is to say that the observer is in a constant state of both observing a dead cat and observing a living cat, until the observer is observed doing one or the other? And that observer would need an observer and so on infinitum. It is a paradox in itself.

Over time the thought experiment has had the desired effect and most quantum scientists understand that the acts of observation and measurement must also be defined for a question to make sense and that quantum mechanics is best left to explain what it was designed to explain, the mechanics of atomic and subatomic particles.


"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Believe me, this is not an insult. This crap is hardcore difficult.

All this means that the tree falling and any sound generated is either there or not there. It is not in a state of superposition, or being both at the same time.

So I have to ask you again, does the tree make a sound?

the human ear can only hear from 20Hz to 20,000Hz. anything below or above this, we dont consider a sound. but nature doesnt make this distinction without humans around. air vibrations take a continuous range from 0 to whatever the planck limit allows. "sound" is an artificial construct invented by humans, so no, the tree does NOT make a sound if it falls and nobody is there to hear it.

Well sound is really any vibration. the artificial construct is 'sound humans can hear' or 'noise'.

Just like anything else, food is edible whether somebody eats it or not, the sun is bright whether anybody sees it or not. And sound is generated and travels by falling trees whether anybody is around to hear it or not.

The laws of physics do not suddenly stop working if nobody is around. A tree falling generates vibrations in a certain frequency at a certain decibel level because it has too.

 

[snex]

Just like anything else, food is edible whether somebody eats it or not, the sun is bright whether anybody sees it or not. And sound is generated and travels by falling trees whether anybody is around to hear it or not.

this is incorrect. the sun is not "bright" if there is nothing around that can detect and differentiate photons. the very idea of "brightness" in such a world would be nonsensical. you are mistaking the actual physical properties of sunlight (wavelength, photons/sec, etc) with our brain's interpretation of them (yellow, bright, etc). the same holds for sound and all other qualia.

 

[AltF4]

Snex:

Well... I think then you're defining sound to be

"The sensation that a human experiences when exposed to vibrations in the inner ear"

So by that definition of COURSE the tree doesn't make a sound if nobody's there.


But that's not what we're asking in the OP. The understood definition of "making a sound" is whether or not the air vibrations occur.


Kur:

Well, you appear to be familiar at least a little with Quantum Mechanics. I am surprised you didn't mention it in the OP, then! That's usually what this debate degenerates to!

And the thing you're talking about in the beginning of your last post is the Dual Slit experiment. Light travels through two slits at the same time and interferes with itself! Cool stuff.

And, yes, Schrodinger did use the cat thought experiment to try to demonstrate how ridiculous the Copenhagen Interpretation can sound. It would lead to a cat which is neither alive nor dead. But it doesn't actually demonstrate a contradiction, only something which seems counter intuitive. I wouldn't dismiss anything on those grounds.

 

[Pure-???]

It's kind of funny that one of those old questions designed to make your head hurt has become a dsicussion of quantum physics.

ANyway, of course it makes a sound! Why wouldn't it?

 

[snex]

Snex:

Well... I think then you're defining sound to be

"The sensation that a human experiences when exposed to vibrations in the inner ear"

So by that definition of COURSE the tree doesn't make a sound if nobody's there.


But that's not what we're asking in the OP. The understood definition of "making a sound" is whether or not the air vibrations occur.

ok.. so do air vibrations at 30,000Hz make a sound? what about vibrations near the border of human limitations that some people can hear and others cant? what about vibrations at 1Hz that nothing can hear?

what if a tree falls in the forest and it only makes vibrations at 1Hz, and people ARE there to witness it? does it make a sound?

 

[OffTheChain]

Wow, loving a few of the above posts.

Anyway as far as I am concerned I think the tree still does make a sound when it falls even though no one is around to hear it, the fall of the tree will still generate a sound, just because no one hears it does not mean it does not take place or exist.

 

[AltF4]

Snex:

It seems like you're just rephrasing the original question. I don't see a relevant difference between a tree falling and nobody being around versus a tree falling and someone being present but unable to observe the event.



The problem I have with saying the tree does make a sound is that it reminds me an awful lot of hidden variable theories. It feels patently unscientific to do so: if we have no information about an event, we cannot say what happened one way or another. For the unobserved, the object remains in a state of neither having made a sound or not. To say that it certainly does make a sound is an attempt to rationalize your preconceived notions about how the world works in terms of modern physics. The universe is under no obligation to obey how you think it should work. The math gives no indication towards unobserved events having certain values, so why should we introduce that concept?

 

[redgreenblue]

The laws of basic physics and logic require the sound to be made. But the laws of theoretical physics, like the concept of superposition, say it's impossible to determine. Theoretical physics makes me feel like throwing myself off of a tall building onto shards of glass.

 

[snex]

physics has nothing to do with it.

"sound" is a qualia that only exists in a brain. if no brains are around to detect and interpret vibrations of air, then no sound is present.

 

[redgreenblue]

physics has nothing to do with it.

"sound" is a qualia that only exists in a brain. if no brains are around to detect and interpret vibrations of air, then no sound is present.

sound is an animal interpretation of air vibration, no? visuals are an animal interpretation of light waves. would you argue that the tree does not have a visualization of itself because no one is there to see it?

 

[snex]

sound is an animal interpretation of air vibration, no? visuals are an animal interpretation of light waves. would you argue that the tree does not have a visualization of itself because no one is there to see it?

a tree that nobody sees reflects photons of a certain wavelength, but it has no "color." "color" is an interpretation of those photons made by brains. if you built a robot that could sense a wider or smaller range of wavelengths than a human can, the robot would experience the "color" of the tree differently than we do.

 

[SkylerOcon]

If a tree falls, there will be sound. Go ahead. Take your shoes off and drop them on the ground. That made sound.

If nothing is there to see it fall, then nothing is there to see it fall. That doesn't mean that it suddenly doesn't make noise.

 

[AltF4]

Skyler... have you read any of the posts before you? It's not as simple as that. You're not even providing any evidence for your case. You're just stating that it's true.


Snex:

You're still just going off on the definition of "sound" as being the qualia experienced by humans exposed to vibrations in the air. I don't have a problem with that definition except it leads to a non-debate. Of COURSE no sound is made by a falling tree with nobody around, then. There's no debate there.

The real interesting debate is whether the actual air vibrations (normally called "sound") are present despite the lack of an observer.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Actually, I did read the other posts.

But, what you're saying contradicts the laws of the world. From what I could gather from your posts, you were saying that depending on what you thought was going to happen to that cat in the box, it was actually going to happen.

Well then, how come everybody who goes to Vegas doesn't win? I'm pretty sure their minds are set on winning money, but not very many people do. You can't see the cards other people have, so if you hope that those are bad, do those become bad?

The entire basis of the tree not making a sound makes no sense simply because the tree has to make sound. It fell, it hit the ground, and it made a thump.

 

[redgreenblue]

a tree that nobody sees reflects photons of a certain wavelength, but it has no "color." "color" is an interpretation of those photons made by brains. if you built a robot that could sense a wider or smaller range of wavelengths than a human can, the robot would experience the "color" of the tree differently than we do.

an interpretation subjective to the one experiencing the phenomenon still happens without someone there to interpret the data. what you are arguing is basically bits of data don't exist unless an electronic device is reading them.

 

[blazedaces]

Actually, I did read the other posts.

But, what you're saying contradicts the laws of the world. From what I could gather from your posts, you were saying that depending on what you thought was going to happen to that cat in the box, it was actually going to happen.

Well then, how come everybody who goes to Vegas doesn't win? I'm pretty sure their minds are set on winning money, but not very many people do. You can't see the cards other people have, so if you hope that those are bad, do those become bad?

I have absolutely no idea how you came to this conclusion. Read his post again, this time, quote it, show me where this ridiculous notion comes from. You're completely misunderstood the example.

The entire basis of the tree not making a sound makes no sense simply because the tree has to make sound. It fell, it hit the ground, and it made a thump.

Just because you repeat yourself doesn't make it any more true. The world doesn't act in a way that makes sense to you. It acts the way it does just because that's the way it acts. We study and try to produce "laws" to describe the way it acts. You just want to apply these laws in the wrong situations, but it doesn't always work that way...

Try to think outside the box...

-blazed

 

[Zook]

Urgh. You can't answer this question, seeing as how it can't be tested.

Personally, I believe that if the tree hits something, (ex. another tree, the ground, etc.), the tree would produce vibrations, and thusly making what would be a sound, were there anything to hear it.

Of course, this is just guessing.

 

[snex]

an interpretation subjective to the one experiencing the phenomenon still happens without someone there to interpret the data. what you are arguing is basically bits of data don't exist unless an electronic device is reading them.

that is EXACTLY correct! there is no such thing as a "bit of data" without some device to arbitrarily divide up, calculate, and arbitrarily decode the current going across a wire.

You're still just going off on the definition of "sound" as being the qualia experienced by humans exposed to vibrations in the air. I don't have a problem with that definition except it leads to a non-debate. Of COURSE no sound is made by a falling tree with nobody around, then. There's no debate there.

thats the point of the question - to demonstrate the nature of qualia. theres no debate under your definition either. of course falling trees cause air to vibrate.

 

[TheManaLord]

If you're a philosophical ******* than maybe it does maybe it doesn't.

If you are alive and use any reasoning then it makes a ****ing sound as it should.

 

[redgreenblue]

that is EXACTLY correct! there is no such thing as a "bit of data" without some device to arbitrarily divide up, calculate, and arbitrarily decode the current going across a wire.

You do realize we are at a standstill, yes? This conversation is rapidly developing into one about superposition. Does a perceived concept only exist when perceived? It's impossible to determine. You argue easily for both sides. It does exist; the existence of perceived phenomena is dependent on the real phenomena (in this case, air vibrations) and as a result exists by association. It doesn't; the existence of the uninterpreted phenomena does not prove the phenomena dependent on the interpreter, and consequently you cannot truthfully acknowledge the existence of said phenomenon if it is perceived differently by whomever is observing at the time.

Also, I think we should try and stick to not messing with the exact definition of the words in the phrase. We are referring to sound strictly as the perception of vibration, correct? Good. Then let us proceed with the logical catch-22 we are stuck in.

 

[Kur]

thats the point of the question - to demonstrate the nature of qualia. theres no debate under your definition either. of course falling trees cause air to vibrate.

And here is what I was waiting for you to say.

You said that falling trees cause air to vibrate. That is sound. Sound is the name given to vibrations in air.

You are arguing against noise. Noise is the manufactured phenomena that requires a person to experience it. Noise is the product of sound traveling at frequencies the ear can pick up.

So to say that "of course falling trees cause air to vibrate" is the exact same as saying "Of course falling trees cause sound"

Them from here I could argue that the possible range of frequencies created by those falling trees is always within the spectrum of frequencies we can pick up as noise.

 

[swim2007]

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around it does NOT make a sound.

The talk seems to be all about the physical qualities of sound and the way we perceive it. I feel that the real focus should be the mind's interpretation of scientific phenomena. The mind can only percieve / visualize what it observes. If it does not observe anything, than nothing actually happened. If no one is around to hear the tree fall than there is no sound.

Also if you were to stand right next to a tree before it falls, and than waited until it fell to the ground, how can you tell that the sound came from the tree? What if the tree actually didn't make any sound as it hit the ground? What if there was a plate shift in the earth that caused the sound? What if sound is only a concept we have created to explain phenomena that we do not understand. It all depends on how much of science that you are willing to believe and accept as truth.

 

[redgreenblue]

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around it does NOT make a sound.

The talk seems to be all about the physical qualities of sound and the way we perceive it. I feel that the real focus should be the mind's interpretation of scientific phenomena. The mind can only percieve / visualize what it observes. If it does not observe anything, than nothing actually happened. If no one is around to hear the tree fall than there is no sound.

Also if you were to stand right next to a tree before it falls, and than waited until it fell to the ground, how can you tell that the sound came from the tree? What if the tree actually didn't make any sound as it hit the ground? What if there was a plate shift in the earth that caused the sound? What if sound is only a concept we have created to explain phenomena that we do not understand. It all depends on how much of science that you are willing to believe and accept as truth.

You can bring infinite variable probability into any argument. All it does is completely shatter previous logic that upholds a system of understanding. No good actually comes from it.

 

[swim2007]

You are correct. However even with a realist approach to this arguement, it is still a matter of the mind and perception. Since a person's mind is the only outlet for them into the physical world, and if the mind does not perceive an event that is happening live in front of them (a tree falling), than there is no evidence of this happening.

 

[redgreenblue]

You are correct. However even with a realist approach to this arguement, it is still a matter of the mind and perception. Since a person's mind is the only outlet for them into the physical world, and if the mind does not perceive an event that is happening live in front of them (a tree falling), than there is no evidence of this happening.

By that logic, there's no evidence of anything happening apart from what is immediately sensible. How would you feel if I said you don't exist? I don't see you. I don't hear you. It's probably just a computer talking back.

 

[Kur]

You are correct. However even with a realist approach to this arguement, it is still a matter of the mind and perception. Since a person's mind is the only outlet for them into the physical world, and if the mind does not perceive an event that is happening live in front of them (a tree falling), than there is no evidence of this happening.

Ok.


There is physical evidence. Evidence which outlasts the event. A tree that has already fallen is evidence of a tree falling. The sound that emits from the tree when it falls is also evidence, even if it is short lived. Saying that there is no sound without a listener is the same as saying there is nothing without somebody to experience it.

What about when a person happens across the fallen tree? It is a tree laying on its side with a stump next to it which matches the base of the fallen tree.

Nobody saw the tree fall. Does that mean it didn't fall? That it simply appeared there, fully grown and already laying on its side as soon as the person was within sight of it?

Of course not. The tree fell at some point in the past and when it did there were many many sounds that rang out across the forest when it happened. The laws of physics do not care if a brain is around to understand them.

What about time travel? What if a tree falls with nobody around and according to you, does not make a sound. Then somebody goes back in time and watches the same exact tree fall. Since you just said that tree could not have made a sound, will the same event suddenly change from having a person there or will it continue on its silent decent?

What about sleeping people? I happen to be a heavy sleeper. I don't hear much when I am asleep which makes it hard for me to find an alarm that will wake me up. Is that because my alarm really isn't making any sound until I am awake and able to hear it? If so, how did it wake me? How do people wake themselves by snoring and farting in their sleep?


The TV in my bedroom is on at the moment but nobody is there to hear it. Is it making any sound? Is the TV sending signals to the speakers causing them to vibrate? Is there even a picture appearing on the screen? Or is my whole bedroom in some kind of suspended animation because I am not in it?


Maybe you are right. Maybe nothing ever happens without a person there to experience it. Maybe nothing exists until a person is looking directly at it and then it disappears again as soon as nobody is around. Shoot, maybe I am the only person who actually exists and everybody else just pops into and out of existence as I wander around the planet. Or maybe you are the only person and I am just a thought waiting to be visualized if you ever happen to wander where I am supposed to be living.

I suppose that is a good way for the ol' sky fairy to save on his bandwidth costs.

 

[yossarian22]

By that logic, there's no evidence of anything happening apart from what is immediately sensible.

Yep.
And if you are not an empiricist, you can doubt the validity of that evidence. Leaving you with pretty much nothing

How would you feel if I said you don't exist? I don't see you. I don't hear you. It's probably just a computer talking back.

I wouldn't really care. It is an intriguing philosophical position, but absolutely useless in practicality. I am not going doubt the existence of the car heading towards me at 60mph. I am going to move.

 

[Unusual_Rex]

@OP

Haven't read through all the pages, but from what I've heard, it doesn't make a sound, it only make a sound when we hear it. It make the vibrations, or some sorta stuff, but until we hear it,it doesn't make a sound.

It was something like that atleast.

 

[Kur]

@OP

Haven't read through all the pages, but from what I've heard, it doesn't make a sound, it only make a sound when we hear it. It make the vibrations, or some sorta stuff, but until we hear it,it doesn't make a sound.

It was something like that atleast.

I covered this in the thread.

Sound is the name we give to those vibrations so yes the tree does make a sound. Noise is the product of sound vibrating our inner ear in a frequency we can detect. In other words noise is the result of our bodies natural sound detector. If there is no detector around, that does not some how prevent sound from occurring?

And the next question would then be "Ok, the tree makes a sound, but does it make a noise if nobody is around to hear it?"

My answer would then still be yes. Noise is just the small range of sound we can hear. It does not require a person to hear it anymore than a dog turd needs a person around to emit smells. The smells are there waiting to be inhaled just as the noise is there waiting to be heard.

 

[snex]

I covered this in the thread.

Sound is the name we give to those vibrations so yes the tree does make a sound. Noise is the product of sound vibrating our inner ear in a frequency we can detect. In other words noise is the result of our bodies natural sound detector. If there is no detector around, that does not some how prevent sound from occurring?

And the next question would then be "Ok, the tree makes a sound, but does it make a noise if nobody is around to hear it?"

My answer would then still be yes. Noise is just the small range of sound we can hear. It does not require a person to hear it anymore than a dog turd needs a person around to emit smells. The smells are there waiting to be inhaled just as the noise is there waiting to be heard.

imagine you put a recording device in the forest to listen for air vibrations caused by trees falling. but the device only records the physical qualities present.. frequency, period, etc. now, without reproducing those physical qualities, can you convey the nature of the vibrations to a being with the ability to hear? you could, but it would require tampering with the being's brain. in other words, interface with a brain is necessary for a "sound" to be present. a "sound" is more than the physical properties of the air vibrations - it is a brain's interpretation of those vibrations.

 

[Surri-Sama]

imagine you put a recording device in the forest to listen for air vibrations caused by trees falling. but the device only records the physical qualities present.. frequency, period, etc. now, without reproducing those physical qualities, can you convey the nature of the vibrations to a being with the ability to hear? you could, but it would require tampering with the being's brain. in other words, interface with a brain is necessary for a "sound" to be present. a "sound" is more than the physical properties of the air vibrations - it is a brain's interpretation of those vibrations.

I think i agree with you, but your making it hard to understand...

If a tree falls and no one is around to "hear" it does it make a sounds...

i think yes it does..."The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".

And yes before anyone asks i got that quote from the Boondocks

 

[AltF4]

I prefer to think of it like this:

Imagine you have a black box. You cannot see, hear, smell, or in any other way gather information about what is inside the black box. You have no information about the contents of the black box.

-What is inside the black box?

Well, obviously you don't know! Certainly you could speculate. But there is no way to know. You cannot make any statements about the contents of the box.


Similarly, if an event occurs such as a tree falling in the woods with nobody around, there is no information about that event. We do not have any information about what transpired during that time. Thus we cannot make any judgments on whether or not a sound was made.



It would be patently unscientific to declare that one thing or another "certainly did happen" despite not having any evidence to support it!

 

[Zero Beat]

The vibrations(as probably overstated in this thread) are still sent out, a receiver is not required for sound to exist, just a medium for the vibrations to travel.

I understand how it can get slightly complex with the way our brain determines sound, but it does not mean the easier explanation isn't right.

It doesn't make a sound in the sense that it never reaches a suitable brain to determine the outcome, but the vibrations are still there, and I know you guys already discussed how sound works. No need to insult your intelligence.

 

[Kur]

I prefer to think of it like this:

Imagine you have a black box. You cannot see, hear, smell, or in any other way gather information about what is inside the black box. You have no information about the contents of the black box.

-What is inside the black box?

Well, obviously you don't know! Certainly you could speculate. But there is no way to know. You cannot make any statements about the contents of the box.


Similarly, if an event occurs such as a tree falling in the woods with nobody around, there is no information about that event. We do not have any information about what transpired during that time. Thus we cannot make any judgments on whether or not a sound was made.



It would be patently unscientific to declare that one thing or another "certainly did happen" despite not having any evidence to support it!

Not knowing what is in a box does not mean there is nothing in the box either.

And a tree falling in the forest leaves plenty of evidence and information about the event. We can make a judgment about what happened because of the information we know about trees and what happens when they fall. We know vibrations are always sent out when a tree collides with the ground. We know that those vibrations, aka. sound, are always in frequencies that humans can hear.

We don't need to be on a star to know it is hot, we don't need to sniff a dog turd to know it stinks, and we don't need to hear a tree fall to know it makes a sound.

It seems pretty arrogant actually to say that somehow the natural laws of the universe work differently depending on whether or not we are there to see the results and it would be unscientific to claim that it does.

 

[AltF4]

Let's rephrase the question slightly in order to illustrate the point I'm trying to get at...


You come up with a simple device that (after a certain interval of time) shuts a mouse trap. You put this device into a black box. The box (just like previously stated) prevents any information about the contents of the box from leaving.


You set it up and wait the desired amount of time and then ask the question "Is the mouse trap open or shut?"

Now... you know that your device SHOULD have set the mouse trap off, and according to the laws of physics you're familiar with everything should have caused the mouse trap to shut. But you don't actually have any information to support this claim. The only way to gather information about the state of the trap is to open the black box. Only then can you make a real statement about the mousetrap that isn't essentially just guessing.


This is analogous to black holes and singularities. According to what physics we understand, black holes ought to have a singularity in their center. But read the wording very carefully in any paper written about them! You'll notice that it's all speculative! The event horizon of the black hole prevents any information about the contents from leaving, thus we cannot actually make any informed statements about the contents of a black hole. For all we know, there could be a Shakespearean Play being reenacted by little green men inside the black hole. We have no information.

That is why you shouldn't be so hasty to declare that the sound "certainly does happen", because if we have no information about the event then we cannot say for certain.


EDIT:

Kur:

Don't take the question too literally. Certainly falling trees provide evidence of sound even if someone is not in its immediate proximity. What the question is getting at is more allegoric. It's not about trees and sound, per se, but rather events and information.

It seems pretty arrogant actually to say that somehow the natural laws of the universe work differently depending on whether or not we are there to see the results and it would be unscientific to claim that it does.

You wouldn't like advanced physics very much at all then! Because the universe certainly does act differently depending on how it is observed.

 

[Kur]

Let's rephrase the question slightly in order to illustrate the point I'm trying to get at...


You come up with a simple device that (after a certain interval of time) shuts a mouse trap. You put this device into a black box. The box (just like previously stated) prevents any information about the contents of the box from leaving.


You set it up and wait the desired amount of time and then ask the question "Is the mouse trap open or shut?"

Now... you know that your device SHOULD have set the mouse trap off, and according to the laws of physics you're familiar with everything should have caused the mouse trap to shut. But you don't actually have any information to support this claim. The only way to gather information about the state of the trap is to open the black box. Only then can you make a real statement about the mousetrap that isn't essentially just guessing.

There is a huge difference between a mechanical device, subject to failure, and the laws of the universe that are not.

I could lock a mouse in an air tight black box and leave it on a shelf for 50 years. Is the mouse still alive? Is the mouse dead? Of course it is dead. For it to be alive the mouse would have to survive without air, food, and live over 10 times its natural life span under those conditions.

In order for your mouse trap to have not been set off your mechanism would have had to fail.

To make a statement about your mousetrap setup, I would have said "Given that the mechanism did not fail , the mouse trap will be set off."

As far as a falling tree goes, I would say "Given that the laws of physics and nature did not fail, the tree made a sound." Until you can point to an instance where the laws of the universe suddenly stopped working, we are pretty golden on trees making sound when they fall.

This is analogous to black holes and singularities. According to what physics we understand, black holes ought to have a singularity in their center. But read the wording very carefully in any paper written about them! You'll notice that it's all speculative! The event horizon of the black hole prevents any information about the contents from leaving, thus we cannot actually make any informed statements about the contents of a black hole. For all we know, there could be a Shakespearean Play being reenacted by little green men inside the black hole. We have no information.

This is not analogous to black holes at all. We have observed millions of fallen trees and every one of them played out as would be expected given the information we gathered. We have not directly observed the center of a black hole. If we had observed the center of a black hole and found, whatever, a singularity, then found that in no less than 1million other black holes contained a singularity then why would you look at the 1,000,001st black hole and say "Gee, I don't know guys, this one might have little green men acting out Shakespear. We won't know until we look!"

That is why you shouldn't be so hasty to declare that the sound "certainly does happen", because if we have no information about the event then we cannot say for certain.

Hasty? Millions of years of people hearing trees fall and I am making a hasty declaration? If we are to look at this from a scientific point of view, then until somebody can come up with evidence that trees do not make a sound if nobody is around, then we are to conclude that they do, just like in all of the observed instances.

EDIT:

Kur:

Don't take the question too literally. Certainly falling trees provide evidence of sound even if someone is not in its immediate proximity. What the question is getting at is more allegoric. It's not about trees and sound, per se, but rather events and information.

Yes I understand that. But as far as events and information go, we are talking about the specific example of trees and sound.

You wouldn't like advanced physics very much at all then! Because the universe certainly does act differently depending on how it is observed.

Yeah, I am aware of some of the strange goings on of quantum physics and the role of the observer, but I am hardly impressed by it. The most famous of these experiments, the 'double slit' or whatever it is called, really had me going for a while until I found out that the 'observer' what so drastically changed the outcome of the experiment, was a measuring device that the photons had to pass through before they even got to the slits. It really takes all the wonder out of the results for me. The 'observer' became part of the experiment. Had the observer been an object that the photons did not have to come into contact with, then the experiment would have played out like before.

And even so, quantum physics is supposed to explain the strange behavior of sub atomic particles. Applying it to larger objects such as cats in boxes with poison, trees in the forest, and people, just serves to undermine the physics we already ascribe to those things because the physics for them is different.