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

[AltF4]

Well, if you really want to debate literally about trees and sound, then there's not much to debate. Obviously when a real tree falls in the woods anywhere on our planet it causes information about that event to travel to humans even if they aren't in the immediate proximity of the tree.

But... then of course you're completely missing the purpose of a question that was never meant to be taken literally. The question doesn't even make sense taken literally. After all, if nobody was around, how do you even know it fell? Do you have the information of the tree falling or not?

You're in either in one situation or another:

1) You have information about an event and can then make claims about the properties of this event based on this information.

2) You have no information and cannot make any claims whatsoever.


The tree falling question is specifically designed to fall into category number 2. What is interesting is that it leads us to a counter intuitive result. Are you rejecting a result on the basis of it being counter intuitive?

 

[Unusual_Rex]

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.

Sorry. I didn't see that post.

 

[cF=)]

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.

Probably because you don't understand the concept of light being a wave/particle (thus related in some sort to quantum mechanics). However, this is absolutely not related to the question at hand which is the awkwardness of statements done without any observation available. When Schrödinger illustrates this problem through the cat example, he's indeed applying quantum mechanic principles to large object made of smaller parts. Like AltF4 explained well in another thread, yourself has as much control over your body than a pool ball hit by the cue ball does. If you're made of organs, themselves made of tissues, themselves made of cells, themselves made of molecules, themselves made of atoms, themselves made of quarks, your body obeys and follows the laws of physics.

 

[Reaper0329]

Well, with my severely lacking comprehension of quantum mechanics, here goes.

When the tree falls, it emits sound waves. So while not observed, the sound waves are still there, with the potential to be heard until it reaches a point where it can no longer be heard.

 

[Stroupes]

If a tree falls, and no one hears it, it does still make a sound.
Just because no one's around, it doesn't stop the sound from traveling.
Sounds still happen whether living beings are around to comprehend them, right?

 

[cF=)]

Again guys, the problem is not necessarily tree-related. The topic title is misleading because if you know a tree's falling, you had to make an observation to prove this true. If you make an observation, there is no reason why it wouldn't make a sound.

The problem arise when we go outside the question: If you're unsure whether a tree felt or not, how can you make a clear statement about the consequences of this event? The two possible scenarios are now available to us, and only through observation will we be able to know; this means either the sound reached our ears or we saw the tree fall.

 

[Sudsy86_]

For " sound" to be sound, must the waves reach the air? Or are soundwaves sound itself traveling?

Answering that opens the way to the answer.

 

[Kur]

Well, if you really want to debate literally about trees and sound, then there's not much to debate. Obviously when a real tree falls in the woods anywhere on our planet it causes information about that event to travel to humans even if they aren't in the immediate proximity of the tree.

But... then of course you're completely missing the purpose of a question that was never meant to be taken literally. The question doesn't even make sense taken literally. After all, if nobody was around, how do you even know it fell? Do you have the information of the tree falling or not?

You're in either in one situation or another:

1) You have information about an event and can then make claims about the properties of this event based on this information.

2) You have no information and cannot make any claims whatsoever.


The tree falling question is specifically designed to fall into category number 2. What is interesting is that it leads us to a counter intuitive result. Are you rejecting a result on the basis of it being counter intuitive?

No I think I do understand the purpose of the question and it is you who is missing the point.

The question was designed to have a 'yes or no' answer. If you answer 'yes' then you are likely a realist, you view the world as it is, things that aren't likely to happen probably won't and you probably are not a big fan of philosophy.

If you answer 'no' then you are what I like to call 'nuts'. You feel completely comfortable making claims that fly in the face of previously observed evidence and can not provide any of your own. You probably think all the questions in the world can be answered by philosophy, or rather, sitting in an arm chair and talking about it without actually knowing anything about it.

Of course if I was not around to experience it, I would not know if a tree ever fell. But I have seen trees fall and I have a good understanding of what happens when they do. I have a somewhat decent grasp on the physics involved when trees fall and though I probably could not work out the math and tell you exactly where the tree will land, or exactly what sound it will make, I have the common sense and the intelligence to make a rough estimate in my head based on my memories of other trees I have seen fall. I have no reason to think a tree will not fall, or fall in some different way, simply because I am not around to see it. I don't need to know a tree is falling to contemplate whether falling trees make a sound or not.

To answer this question in a realistic way, using information that is useful to us as living creatures, I have to say that a falling tree always makes a sound, and it would do so even if there was never any sort of being that could hear it to begin with.

Again guys, the problem is not necessarily tree-related. The topic title is misleading because if you know a tree's falling, you had to make an observation to prove this true. If you make an observation, there is no reason why it wouldn't make a sound.

The problem arise when we go outside the question: If you're unsure whether a tree felt or not, how can you make a clear statement about the consequences of this event? The two possible scenarios are now available to us, and only through observation will we be able to know; this means either the sound reached our ears or we saw the tree fall.

No.

The question was 'IF' a tree falls. It is not asking you to prove a tree fell.

You argument would mean that the possible outcomes are that a tree falls and somebody is around to witness it and hears it, a tree didn't fall, or a tree fell and through some unnatural process, made no sound at all BECAUSE nobody was around to hear it.

You are also claiming that unless we know a tree fell, we can't know anything about what happens when that tree falls. This basically means that all of the information gathered over thousands of years about falling trees is completely useless and can not be applied to any tree that has not fallen yet. Just like my reply to the black hole example. If we could look into black holes and see a singularity, and we see 1,000,000 singularities inside 1,000,000 black holes, why would we get to the 1,000,001st black hole and say "I have no idea what is inside this black hole until we look."

As I pointed out above, whether we know if a specific tree is falling or not is beside the point. Any tree that falls will behave in a predictable manner and we know any one tree will do the same, even if it hasn't fallen yet.

 

[Sudsy86_]

Well, if you really want to debate literally about trees and sound, then there's not much to debate. Obviously when a real tree falls in the woods anywhere on our planet it causes information about that event to travel to humans even if they aren't in the immediate proximity of the tree.

But... then of course you're completely missing the purpose of a question that was never meant to be taken literally. The question doesn't even make sense taken literally. After all, if nobody was around, how do you even know it fell? Do you have the information of the tree falling or not?

You're in either in one situation or another:

1) You have information about an event and can then make claims about the properties of this event based on this information.

2) You have no information and cannot make any claims whatsoever.

No, Alt, the question contains" If a tree falls"--it is a given in this circumstance that a tree is falling. That information is already with you, whether or not you know WHEN it is happening in an imaginitive space/time.

 

[Stroupes]

To those who say, "How do you know a tree even fell if no one was around anyway," animals hunt, earthquakes happen, it still rains, and trees still fall, even without humans around. Humans don't run the geological planet, nature does. It always has, and it always will even when/if humans aren't around. So really, the statement of "If...if you aren't there," is irrelevant.

 

[cF=)]

The question was 'IF' a tree falls. It is not asking you to prove a tree fell.

Then the question is dumb, it's like asking "if we add milk to freshly poured cereals, will they get wet?". Nothing I've said was contradicted by your text, because you argue that we had knowledge at the start, which is to opposite of how I see this question.

Perhaps you're arguing against something I never said. When I make calculations on an object's falling speed near the Earth's surface, I'll use the common 9,8 m/s² to describe how it accelerates. This number was obtained in previous experiments and I wouldn't be allowed to discredit it on the basis that I haven't observed my particular object behave that way. Similarly, a tree which we know felt will produce sound, why wouldn't it?

or a tree fell and through some unnatural process, made no sound at all BECAUSE nobody was around to hear it.

Wrong, you're again proposing that the tree fell AND THEN made no sound. If I wake up a morning and see a tree on the ground, I know by previous experiments that it had to make a sound. If I'm unsure, however, about the actual condition of my tree, I'm left with two scenarios: either it felt and made sound, or it never felt (because I did not hear it).

 

[BFDD]

Snex had it right, a tree falling produces vibrations/waves in the air. It does not produce sound waves unless there is someone to hear it. Sound is the interpretation of the air waves/vibrations. I checked dictionary.com for the actual definition of sound.

1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.
3. the particular auditory effect produced by a given cause: the sound of music.
4. any auditory effect; any audible vibrational disturbance: all kinds of sounds.

Definition 2 is a bit questionable as to whether or not it supports my claim you could argue either way. However, 1,3,4 show that a listener is needed for the waves to be considered a sound.

This was the point of the question, things such as sound, color, taste, and smell only exist if there was someone there to interpret it. Read John Locke's writings on primary and secondary qualities.

 

[Stroupes]

Snex had it right, a tree falling produces vibrations/waves in the air. It does not produce sound waves unless there is someone to hear it. Sound is the interpretation of the air waves/vibrations. I checked dictionary.com for the actual definition of sound.

1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.
3. the particular auditory effect produced by a given cause: the sound of music.
4. any auditory effect; any audible vibrational disturbance: all kinds of sounds.

Definition 2 is a bit questionable as to whether or not it supports my claim you could argue either way. However, 1,3,4 show that a listener is needed for the waves to be considered a sound.

This was the point of the question, things such as sound, color, taste, and smell only exist if there was someone there to interpret it. Read John Locke's writings on primary and secondary qualities.

Eh...no.
Things still happen whether there's something around to interpret it.
Otherwise, they wouldn't exist at all.
For example, if a bomb is timed to go off in 5 minutes, and EVERY living being suddenly disappears, the bomb's not going to stop, it's going to blow up, also creating sound. Just nothing's around to hear it. It's not like sound relies on humans or animals being around.
Yes, nothing will hear it, because no one's around, and yet, it still has the potential to be heard, if something were around.

 

[BFDD]

Yes sound by definition does require someone to hear it:
1. the SENSATION produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

Sound is the sensation. It is true that there will be waves produced that have the potential to produce sound no matter who is around, but those waves are not sound waves until they produce the sensation of sound. The sensation of sound cannot be produced with no one around to hear it.

Similarly something won't have a color unless is observed by something capable of interpreting color. Photons still bounce off and it does not turn invisible. It obeys all the laws of physics, but remains colorless until observed because color is a sensation produced by the object not a property of the object itself.

 

[x After Dawn x]

If a tree falls, and no one hears it, it does still make a sound.
Just because no one's around, it doesn't stop the sound from traveling.
Sounds still happen whether living beings are around to comprehend them, right?

This is, as far as I believe, what happens, but if you read the second post of the thread, you'll see that this issue goes into more depth with the topic of quantum mechanics and the such.

 

[cF=)]

I still think it's still stupid to take this question literally, it doesn't make sense in any way because it's a clear contradiction. "IF" implies you know the tree fell (and you know this through observation), and then you suddenly ask if it made any "SOUND" (observation). Do you or don't you know anything about the current situation of your tree?

That's why it's rather a discussion about observations then OH GNOES THE TREE MADE SOUND IF I SAY SO.

 

[BFDD]

Actually the purpose of the question was the answer I gave. The original inventor of the question was trying to distinguish between primary and secondary qualities. Much less exciting than quantum mechanics.

And no I am not saying it doesn't make a sound because I say so, it doesn't make a sound, because sound is a SENSATION not sure how you missed that in my last post. A sensation cannot be produced without an observer. It doesn't produce sound it produces waves, these waves are not sound until interpreted by an observer. Not sure how this is confusing I posted the definition of sound and it clearly defines it as a SENSATION.


http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/philosophy/courses/211/Locke's Essay.htm#book2ch8s7