Thread: If a tree falls in the forest..you're gonna hate this one.

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.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Billyjeff2, if something is not heard then it does not make a noise (or a sound)

I think you might be misunderstanding the point.
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.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

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".

That's exactly what I said

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.

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Perhaps this is too literal, but "hearing" is an auditory response to sound waves. I would say the falling of the tree creates sound waves irregardless of anyone or anything such as an animal, insect or even a tape recorder being around to "hear" them. "Hearing" is a perception of frequencies. If no one or nothing is around to perceive the sound waves, the sound waves still exist.

If a rocket still visible but leaving the earth's atmosphere explodes, it's a silent display to those watching it since it's beyond their auditory perception. Was it heard? No. Did it create sound waves? Yes.

I'm still stuck on the sound of one hand clapping, myself.

Chris L

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.

Originally Posted by gregs656

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.

How would you define truth if it is not something that can be proved?

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

How would you define truth if it is not something that can be proved?

Beacause otherwise it'd be called a lie.....

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

How would you define truth if it is not something that can be proved?

There are two theories of truth, the correspondence theory and the coherence theory.

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.