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

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

This is my understanding as well. A bit like the experience of "sweet" (or "salty"). Is sugar sweet without anyone tasting it? Or is "sweetness" the phenomenon that happens when certain chemicals present in sugar come into contact with our taste buds, which then transmit a neurologic signal that culminates with the experience of "sweetness" as perceived by our brain (or something like this)? Just as no one would argue that there is an independent characteristic of "sharpness" that exists within a pin, "sweetness" does exist within sugar. And when tree falls, there is no "sound" unless there's a receiver there to hear. So I agree with Chris...who may not truly exist since I've never seen him....

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Sort of a Schrodinger's cat type thing going on.

Similar, but not exactly the same. During the time the cat is not observed, while there is a probability that it is dead and a probability that it is alive, the Copenhagen interpretation says that the cat exists in a hybrid state which contains both the alive and the dead states.

Billy might say that there is no cat, because it is not observed, whereas the CH says that the cat exists in the hybrid state until it is observed and it's state "collapses" into either the alive or dead state.

The key difference is that the CH does not doubt the existence of the cat. In a way, they do the opposite by introducing the hybrid state that includes two possible states for the cat. Maybe Billy would say that a third state, one of nonexistence, should be included as well ;-p

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I'm going to say that it does make a noise. I'm not familiral with the philosophical approach to the question, but I have always enjoyed philosophy and I would love to hear your reasoning when you are ready to share it.

Though I don't know anything about your reasoning yet, I would love if you could, in talking about why the tree does not make a sound, address the question - "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does a tree fall in the forest?" I'm not sure how the answer to one question could be no and the other yes.

I've done some reading, and answered my question in that second section. It seems to me to be a misleading question, with regards to the deeper questions it seeks to probe. Maybe only misleading when taken out of context. Anyhow, philosophically, I am a skeptic - I differentiate between "knowledge" and "functional knowledge" and do not think there is any true "knowledge." "Functional knowledge" would encompass those things that those who believe there is knowledge would call knowledge, and I stick in "functional" because, whether or not this is true knowledge, it allows us to function in our day to day lives.

if you.........you may be a symantisist

I don't know what a symantist is, and google didn't help at all.

I know that I am quite pedantic - I think it's my science and philosophy background. I both areas, one must be very clear and precise with one's language. I also find it helps to avoid misunderstandings. If I had the skill with the English language, I would choose words with the appropriate subtext and nuance to really articulate what I want to say. I do not think that is a skill that I possess, so I tend to be rather verbose and explicit instead.

Just because you do not hear the falling three it does not mean it will not produce a sound. This is the same as saying at night I do not see the sun there for it is not emitting light...

Originally Posted by mainaman

Just because you do not hear the falling three it does not mean it will not produce a sound. This is the same as saying at night I do not see the sun there for it is not emitting light...

It gets fun when someone asks you to prove it. For example, can you prove the sun is emitting light when you cannot detect that light in any way, not even indirectly (so using the reflection off the moon counts as detecting light from the sun).

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

It gets fun when someone asks you to prove it. For example, can you prove the sun is emitting light when you cannot detect that light in any way, not even indirectly (so using the reflection off the moon counts as detecting light from the sun).

if the moon is shadowed by clouds you can't see the reflected light. How about 1/4 moon does that mean the sun is only 1/4 glowing? In a cloudy day you are not seeing the sun does that mean the sun does not glow?
The falling tree will produce sound waves, that is universal truth, same with the Sun it always glows, no mater if you see it or not.
The Shroedinger thought experiment was designed to describe the fact that a system is a superposition of a number of quantum states, and it is not in a single quantum state at any time. This just a consequence of the uncertainty principle.

Yes, the Schroedinger thought experiment is something else all together.

With regards to the sun and the trees, you have not proved anything. It's all well and good to say "the sun is always burning because it is true" or "I know the sun is glowing because it is glowing" - but aside from observation, how can you prove it? This is one of those threads where waving your arms around (or wiggling your fingers) and providing tautologies or generalizations will not get you anywhere. If you actually want to prove something that is not being observed exists, then please take an honest shot at it. If you don't want to, that's cool too. And please don't think I'm being rude or picking on you - that is not my intent at all.

:I don't expect that many will try, much the same as my science vs pseudoscience thread failed - most responses were the equivelant of "science is what scientists do, and it is science because scientists say it is." But that's just

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

Similar, but not exactly the same.

I can make it almost the same
The cat is just the vacuum and the life and death of the cat are the excitations of that vacuum. Analogous to the pressure waves in the forest air.
How's that?

Originally Posted by gugi

I can make it almost the same
The cat is just the vacuum and the life and death of the cat are the excitations of that vacuum. Analogous to the pressure waves in the forest air.
How's that?

Similar, but not exactly the same. :-)