Printable View
Back in my college days I took a number of philosophy courses. One of the questions we studied had to do with the age old question of whether, if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it makes a noise? I ended up convinced it does not.
As my professor would say: "Care to discuss?"
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.
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
If it had already left the atmosphere,then no, it did not make any sound when it exploded. Sound cannot travel in a vacuum.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
I first saw the one hand clapping koan posted in the window of a storefront on Haight Street in SF in the '60s. That and "Buy Free Things". I thought about those until my head hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
I've heard the tree falling thing but I was older then and knew enough not to let it bother me. :) I ride off road singletrack bike trails through woods. I've done a lap and on the second lap a tree had fallen that wasn't down on lap one. If it had fallen on anyone it would've flattened them. :eek: When your number is up ......
So, did you hear anything?????Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
+1, that's my reasoning, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
Not a sound. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
If you guys check the Wiki article, you'll see there is a differentiation between the idea of whether or not the sound part relates to "a sound a person can hear" or a "disturbance of air." The wiki seemed to suggest the question was posed without considering this technecality, and would suggest the second interpretation is what was intended. My understanding is that the core question is, when x is not observed by anyone/anything, does x still exist.
You could ask "If there is a tree that is not observed, does the tree exist."
Sort of a Schrodinger's cat type thing going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
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
if you.........you may be a symantisistQuote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
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...
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by mainaman
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
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.
:OT: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 :deadhorse:
I can make it almost the same :)Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
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. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
If two problems share the exact same Hilbert space and Hamiltonian, are they the same problem, or different ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
I think the silliness and arrogance of these types of questions is easily evaluated by simply taking it one step further . . .
If I personally don't hear something than it couldn't have possibly existed. Because the entire world evolves around me.
I think the better question is "What other things happen in the universe that we are blind to simply because of our self-centered view of reality?"
I'm gonna go ahead and coin the phrase "Darwinian slip". :DQuote:
Originally Posted by AFDavis11
Edit: ...or not. Darn you, Google.
Interesting ideas about "proving" something (regarding the sunlight). I know that most people feel that our direct observation of something is proof enough that it exists, but you could always be a brain in a jar in the far future, being tricked into believing that whatever you're experiencing is real. If so, I wish they'd trick me up a minty Wonderedge or two...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
Yep, thats my reasoning as well!
And the sound of one hand clapping is "cl"
:D
I think you can have a fairly solid running hypothesis that when a tree falls and you are not present it makes a sound. You can only base this truth on the face that when you are present, the tree makes a sound, and there is nothing to suggest this would stop happening becuase you were not there.
You guys have it all wrong.
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees....
;)
As far as SHrondinger's cat. Perhaps the tree is the same. Until observed, the tree is both standing and has fallen.
Billyjeff2, if something is not heard then it does not make a noise (or a sound)
oh great another evolutionist :DQuote:
Originally Posted by AFDavis11
Evolution is proven ...... :)
the truest statement for this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
The question has two answers:
Global answer:there is sound because the laws of Physics dictate that.
Local answer:there is no sound because if one is not there one can't experience the sound waves.
The real question is if a tree falls in the forest and it hits a mime, would he make a noise..?
Hehe! :-)
The classic philosophical, as opposed to scientific, response to the question is: What makes man so arrogant to think that an event cannot produce a noise without his presence?
Now the real question is: If a married man makes a decision while alone in a forest, is the decision still wrong?
No, that just means it wasn't heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
same thing - if God didn't hear it then it didn't make a sound :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
If Hoglahoo doesn't listen to the things I've said, did I say them in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
I took some introductory acoustics classes in college and my take is that it would producs sound in the sense that sound-waves are produced, however I think in order to classify as noise it must be heard. So sound yes, noise no.
That depends. Does his wife allow him to make decisions alone in the forest? If no, the decision is wrong of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye5
If you do not believe me, ask your wife. :)
Just 2 thoughts here.
We as humans are designed to perceive our world a certain way. When we look at a white wall we see a white wall some organisms see all colors of the rainbow. Maybe what our brains interpret is all wrong and our physical world is all wrong.
The other thing is we as humans are pompous to think if we don't experience a manifestation it simply doesn't exist because we don't define it. Things have been going on in this world long before people walked the earth and will continue long after we're gone.
I haven't read the thread but here is my two cents:Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
The answer to this is wholly dependent upon your definition of "noise."
If you definition of "noise" is the perception of the sound by a living being, then do it does not.
If your definition of "noise" is the movement of sound waves through the atmosphere, without taking into account whether or not those sound waves were perceived by anyone, then yes it does.
Every argument is dependent upon definitions of key terms.
Matt
I don't think it's a question of arrogance at all. Quite the opposite actually, in a way.
I got started on questions like this in an epistemology course in college. In what was at first an exercise in which we attempted to define knowledge, I came to find that it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to "know" something with absolute certainty. The trouble is that it's very difficult to prove something, and the spirit of the question is about whether you can prove something more than it is about what exists. So, in a way, questions such as the one contained in the OP are exactly the opposite of arrogant because answering "no" is equivelant to stating "I cannot prove it" - where I come from, admitting you cannot do something is not arrogant.
I would encourage everyone to read the posts about the intended spirit of the question (not about the technicalities of a sound vs a noise - substitute in "if you cannot observe a tree in any way, does the tree exist" if you like) and discuss. If you answer yes, please take an honest shot an proving it.