Philosophy is not the search for proof. It's the search for truth.
It's not possible to prove anything, but I can offer you my truth.
Printable View
Philosophy is not the search for proof. It's the search for truth.
It's not possible to prove anything, but I can offer you my truth.
I think you might be misunderstanding the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, that doesn't mean the tree doesn't exist. The actual point is that the concept of "sound", as distinguished from sound waves, requires a receiver for there to be the phenomenon of "sound". Quick example: you have a stereo hook-up: your radio is attached by wires to your speakers. The radio is "on" and the station is playing a song. If the speaker wires are attached to the speakers, the speakers are (in a sense) emitting sound. Now if you disconnect the speakers from the speaker wire, while you still have "sound" in the sense of music in the form of an electrical current, the electricity running thru the wire (I realize it may not technically be "running thru a disconnected wire) is not the sound of the music. It requires the presence of the connected speaker for there to be audible music. Similarly, while a falling tree may create sound waves in the atmosphere, until the energy of those sound waves comes into contact with a "hearer", and until the sound wave energy is converted into what we call "sound"-which is the phenomenon of the sound wave-electrical impuse-interacting on our brain, there is no "sound". Doesn't mean the radio doesn't exist; just means that "sound" is what happens in our heads.
That's exactly what I said :)Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
For clarification's sake, what you quoted was my answer to your original post, not an argument against your conclusion
If a tree falls on your radio, then there's no sound at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
Chris actually pointed out the reason why a tree does NOT make a sound by arguing why he believes it does.
A sound is the combination of three distinct events: 1) the initial creation of vibrations, i.e. the tree hitting the ground 2) the vibrations traveling through a medium, in this case the air and 3) the vibrations being received by some "hearing" device. If no one is there to receive, or "hear," the vibrations then all three of the conditions of the sound have not been met.
Each of these events alone is not a sound, even if they may exist independently. For example, two objects can make contact without creating vibrations, though this may be difficult to find in the real world.
Finally, objects that make contact in space do not make sounds in the way they would on Earth. Simply, the vacuum of space will not continue the chain of vibrations. This is the same reason why sound travels further in water - the molecules are so close that the initial energy from the vibrations is not lost in the "empty spaces" between them.
You cannot hear wind itself.
How would you define truth if it is not something that can be proved?Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
Beacause otherwise it'd be called a lie.....Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
There are two theories of truth, the correspondence theory and the coherence theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
The correspondence theory would suggest that truth is the correspondence between beliefs and reality. Propositions are true if they accurately correspond to reality.
The coherence theory believes propositions are true if they are mutually consistent and they are supported by or consistent with all available evidence. That is, they cohere with each other and all other evidence.
Philosophy is the personal search for truth by rational means. Something can be true for me, and fit my reality, but not fit yours.
"admitting you cannot do something is not arrogant"... Agreed, but insisting that a tree falling does not make noise simply because a human is not there to hear is.
And how do you define each? What is the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
Your final statement assumes relativism, which not every one buys into. I, fore example, don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
I guess I should revise by statement to say that I suspend judgment, unless it can be proven one way or the other. I don't think it's so much saying that the tree doesn't make noise if there is no human to hear it - it could be a camera or an animal or a detector of any type. And it's not that the tree makes no noise, it's that you can't PROVE that it makes any noise. To me, it is not to say that reality is based around humans so much as that proof is based around observables. And it's not this question that I find interesting, it's the implications about what we can "know" and what can be "proved."Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye5
To call it human arrogance is the same as getting tied up in the idea of what is "sound" or "a noise" - you're missing the spirit of the question.
I'd say, based on prior information related to having observed several trees falling in a forest in the past, that yes, it indeed does make a noise, ceteris paribus. How much noise it makes is, in my experience, related to the density of the forest in question, and the height, circumference at chest height, and canopy cover of the tree in question.
Just because we do not directly observe something does not mean it does not happen. However, whether it matters to us is another question altogether.
James.
How many is several? How many is enough? A statement can be true 99 times, but if it is false just once, it is still a false statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
You are talking to a statistician Holli - the only thing that matters to me are averages. On average, falling trees make noise. Whether you are there to hear it or not is irrelevant. If the direct observation of phenomena were a prerequisite for an event to occur, we would never be able to allocate non-zero probabilities to future events, for example, but we clearly do and can.
James.
Either way, there are two theories of truth that do not require proof to form their definition, which I think is what you asked for. Whether you believe those truths are absolute or relative is neither here nor there.Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
I think this is the point I made earlier James, and I think it is a fair argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
[QUOTE= If a married man makes a decision while alone in a forest, is the decision still wrong?[/QUOTE]
If my wife doesn't know about the $350 razor I just bought, did I really buy it? Well, if I don't tell her, it didn't happen and life is good. :) If she finds the bill :deal: ......Oh boy, is there sound! :eek:
Is it? Sorry Greg, I did not read the entire thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
If we are talking a one-off, I am with you all the way Holli - it is either true or false. But if 99 falling trees make a noise, and one does not, all that tells me is that 99% of trees make noise when they fall, on average. The non-noisy tree does not invalidate the 99 noisy ones. But that is the whole point of information - the more you get, the better informed you are. Who would base an entire idea upon a single observation, and state it as truth? It's madness I tells ya! Madness!!!!!
James.
I think the fact two people made the same point is a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
I agree with you, you can either work on the principle that trees falling make noise because all the evidence suggests this, or you can try and produce evidence to the contrary.
I think you can also accept that it is the truth that the noise of every tree falling does not enter into your reality, how ever, based on your experience, you can hypothesize they make a noise too.
Your last point james, about basing an idea on one observation is kinda the crux of this debate. As you will never be able to observe a tree falling down and not be there at the same time, you're effectively basing an idea on no observations. This is where the idea of a running hypothesis is important, you can base an idea on your truth, and work with it until you gain evidence to the contrary. There is no wrong answer, in order to gain that evidence, you would have to be there and not be there at the same time.
I know only a little about stats, so please, James, correct me when I make a mistake here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
You could say that, on average, falling trees which have been observed make noise. (For now, lets not say anything about unobserved trees - we are trying to reach a conclusion about them, so we should not make statements about them.) Right off the bat, it seems to me that this statement allows for the possibility, though perhaps with an extremely small probability, that a falling tree that is observed could make no noise. That is to say, stating that the average observed falling tree does make noise does not rule out the possibility of an observed falling tree not making any noise. It then seems to me that, the statement that the average falling tree which is observed is not sufficient to prove that all observed falling trees will wake a noise - let alone unobserved falling trees.
How did I do?
Imagine my name is Dylan, and I hone razors. Let's say I hone 10 razors per day, and I've been honing at that rate for 10 years. I have shave tested every razor that I've ever honed, and 99% of them passed the shave test on the first try and were deemed shave ready. I now sit down and hone your razor for you and, without testing it, I tell you that it is shave ready. Is it? Do I have justification to say that it is shave ready? Can it be proven that it is or is not shave ready without testing? What if 100% of my razors were shave ready on the first try? What if 50% were?
Falling tree = kinetic energy
kinetic energy + ground = movement stopped
movement stopped = energy dissipated as a wave in the ground and sound in the air
Yep, I study engineering :P
Then some will say: A noise is something that someone can hear.
Animals hear WAY better than we do. And if a tree fall, some birds will start flying around and small animals will run the other way, even if there is no human around.
Shouldn't be too difficult ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
Ok, so, you would have a working hypothesis that the razor is shave ready, based on all prior evidence.
Every time you hone a razor, that's basically what you form, that's what you take to the sink when you shave test it. Your hypothesis is either proved correct or incorrect.
In this scenario, there is a test. There is not one for the tree thing.
It's interesting, seeing as you mentioned you don't believe in relativism that your truth that the razor is or isn't shave ready, is relative to you. It does not mean it will be true for me.
The fact that there is a test is irrelevant if you consider a scenario in which you do not apply the test.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
As we all know, shave ready is a relative term - when I say a razor is shave ready, I mean that it meets my definition of shave ready. This holds, whether truth is relative or not.
So, am I justified or not? How many razors do I have to have honed, and what must my success ratio be for me to say that the next razor I hone will be shave ready on the first try? How many and what percent if I wanted to sell razors without testing them? How many and what percent for you to be willing to bet your life that my razor is shave ready? (Maybe higher/"real" stakes will change how someone views this.)
Sorry I'm here late and I did not read the entire thread, but I saw somebody say that depending on the observer, the activity (sound, energy, etc) both happens and doesn't happen.
Philosophically, the implications of the question are very Cartesian (remember, I think, therefore I am?).
Physically, on a small enough scale of observation, the implications are also Cartesian.
"Things" can both happen and not happen at the same time.
This may be a little bit off topic, but considering the nature of the question (does something happen if it is not observed, or blocked from observation, does it still happen), I would bring up the double-slit experiment.
Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ahh the old George Berkeley question..Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
reminds me of this:
YouTube - fresh prince in bel air, western philosophy
Sound is defined as :
The free dictionaryQuote:
Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing
I think sound is being confused with communication by some here. Communication requires someone to receive the message. Sound just needs to be capable of being heard (not heard necessarily). If a deaf man stands was standing close enough to the fallen tree to feel all the vibrations, but didn't hear it, does it not make a sound?
The fact that we observe something does not make it so, either. We see stars in the night sky every night that burned out millions of years ago (according to scientists). So, some of the stars no longer exist even though we "see" them... Human observance or nonobservance is not required for something to "really" happen.
:roflmao:roflmao:roflmao How big is the tree ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rawaz
Just an observation. Interesting how the aim of western philosophy is to make you think yet Zen koans are designed to make you stop thinking :)
Right, it's kind of important that you do the test. If you don't do the test, you will never have all evidence to support or oppose your hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
Until you do the test, it's an educated guess. Now, I would say that, in many ways you are justified. I don't know about you but it's been a long time since I've put a razor to my face if I didn't think it would shave.
The rest would change from person to person. The important thing though, is the running hypothesis idea.
Also, if a definition is true for you, and not for me, it is not an absolute truth. It's relative.
To be honest, I have my doubts about the validity of the entire question... These philosophers are an insalubrious lot...
YouTube - Bruce's Philosophers Song
:D
The way the question is posed, there are three possible answers. Yes, it makes a noise, no it does not make a noise, and it neither makes nor does not make a noise. These seem to me to be conditional answers.
Given you take the question literally, the answer would be yes it makes a noise.
Given you take the question allegorically, the answer would be maybe yes, maybe no - depending on the underlying meaning you take from the question.
Given you are off with the fairies, your answer would be it neither makes nor does not make a noise.
We can discount the third answer as obviously coming from a crazy person. That leaves the first two choices. The answer "yes" appears in both the literal and allegorical cases. Further, the probability of a "yes" in the allegorical case is non-negative, although it may be small.
Therefore, integrating across both conditions, we clearly see that "yes" occurs more frequently than "no". In other words, the value of the answer that maximises the condition space imposed by the original question is "Yes".
Therefore, the answer to the question is most likely to be yes.
James.
Jimbo, you gotta submit this in an expanded format to the IgNobel committee. You'll win hands down mate!
From your first - It sounds to me like you're saying now that it is a hypothesis that the tree will make noise. I agree that it is a hypothesis - it could be correct or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
For your second - yes, I think they will shave, but (in my reality) they are not all shave ready.
For your third - again, you call it a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be correct on incorrect. So it sounds to me like you are not saying that you know for a fact that the tree makes a noise (or the razor is shave ready), but you hypothesize that it does (or is).
For your forth - "shave ready" is a relative term, but truth is not. If a razor is shave ready for me, than it is shave ready for me. That does not mean or imply that it will be shave ready for you. Your definition of shave ready may be different, but the truth value of whether or not a razor is shave ready for me is not affected by whether it is shave ready for you.
So, you said that it's been a while since you shaved with a razor that you did not think was shave ready. Would you bet your life that the next one you hone up will be shave ready on the first try?
Well, that about answers the question as far as I'm concerned!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
exactly. You will never know, but you can take a stance on one side of the fence. Like I said, I don't believe either answer is wrong because we will never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
Is either answer right, either? I revised my initial answer to say "I suspend judgment."Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
There is a forest surrounding the falling tree so the wave function potential for it to make noise collapses when it encounters the first tree or animal, even the first mote of dust and therefore, yes it does make noise.
Even more curious, if the sun rises and there's noone there to witness it does it cast light?
If you see the light from a star, is there really a star?Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
Noise is sound waves. If a tree falls in space it won't make a sound. In the forest, it does.
I have to say that this has been a very interesting,entertaining,thought prevoking read Thank You all for the headache :confused::)
I think you can make a reasonable argument, from a philosophical point of view, for both. One of the answers is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
I guess, seeing as we will never known, it's a question of which answer makes the most sense to you, and that is the right answer.
If I was at a table and this topic came up, I would take the least popular answer and go with it. I do that with all sorts of topics, on forums as well, and it's quite interesting.