If a tree falls in a forest

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

See, you haven't really contemplated the question carefully enough- in the tradition from which that question proceeds, the empirical attributes of the descending tree are only the first step to the consideration of the question.

I did contemplate the question.

The question can be applied to all sense perceptions.

Did the tree exist before everyone saw it?

Either it did or it did not, but "It is what it is(or not)" is an idea that this tradition is not able to digest since it came from a different tradition.

 

[Telephone]

If you define sound as the electrical activity in the auditory cortex:

The tree falls and you are not there.

The tree makes no sound.

The tree falls and you are there.

The tree makes sound.


If you define sound as pressure waves travelling through the air (or other):

The tree falls and you are not there.

The tree makes sound.

The tree falls and you are there.

The tree makes sound.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I did contemplate the question.

The question can be applied to all sense perceptions.

Did the tree exist before everyone saw it?

Either it did or it did not, but "It is what it is(or not)" is an idea that this tradition is not able to digest since it came from a different tradition.

I wasn't referring to your post actually, but to the OP. Or other responses like telephone's, above.

 

[CalUWxBill]

What does the tree, the forest or the sound have to do with anything? It's a philosophical question about reality. Does reality lie in our own experiences or are we just a part of reality? If reality can only be defined through our own experiences then the tree never made a sound, but if reality is separate from our own experiences then the tree did make a sound.

 

[aca_rev55]

Reality sucks.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Reality sucks.

It did, for me, until about a month ago.
Now I got a job, so it has become bearable.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

I wasn't referring to your post actually, but to the OP. Or other responses like telephone's, above.

Oh! ok.

 

[seekthetruth909]

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make any sound?

This question is what I would consider to be one of the most antagonizing questions I've ever heard, because the arguments about it consist primarily of, "If nobody can hear it, then there is no sound" and "It creates the vibrations, therefore there is sound".

Instantly, we have a problem in that we haven't defined "sound". The former defines sound as the perception of the vibrations, while the latter defines sound as the vibrations themselves. Without a clear definition of the word "sound", there's bound to be problems.

From Merriam-Webster, sound is defined as "mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air)". If we follow the Merriam-Webster definition, then indeed the falling tree would cause a sound.

Take that you filthy heathens.

According to the principles of Quantum Physics it would not make a sound. The tree would not exist at all as a solid object of particles without an observer.

Quantum Physics 101

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

According to the principles of Quantum Physics it would not make a sound. The tree would not exist at all as a solid object of particles without an observer.

Quantum Physics 101

So the observer is the cause of the tree's existence, is it?

Even an uncaused event does not take place without an observer, and hence can I say that the observer is the cause(may be not material cause) for that so-called uncaused event, simply because it doesn't take place without him.

I'd really appreciate your answer.

 

[sbhaden]

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make any sound?

This question is what I would consider to be one of the most antagonizing questions I've ever heard, because the arguments about it consist primarily of, "If nobody can hear it, then there is no sound" and "It creates the vibrations, therefore there is sound".

Instantly, we have a problem in that we haven't defined "sound". The former defines sound as the perception of the vibrations, while the latter defines sound as the vibrations themselves. Without a clear definition of the word "sound", there's bound to be problems.

From Merriam-Webster, sound is defined as "mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air)". If we follow the Merriam-Webster definition, then indeed the falling tree would cause a sound.

Take that you filthy heathens.

Of course there's sound. If it's a forest, there's always something around to hear it. Birds, animals, insects...

 

[GreenDragon]

According to the principles of Quantum Physics it would not make a sound. The tree would not exist at all as a solid object of particles without an observer.

Quantum Physics 101

Not exactly. Decoherence says that a macroscopic object interacts with its environment so much that its wavefunction collapses whether there is an observer or not. So, just like Schrodinger's Cat, the tree does make a sound if it falls, even if no one is around to hear it.

I suppose that's Quantum Physics 102...

 

[one love]

Sound is the propogation of a wave through a medium. If the tree is falling, it is slicing through the atmosphere causing a wave to propogate through the atmosphere, once it has hit, it then unleashes a greater sound, and the crack of the tree also unleashes a sound.

It is very conceited to state that a tree falling to the ground will not make a sound, simply because a human is not around to hear it. Likewise, no such force has been discovered that would make the statement coherent or true. It is the equivalent of saying 'If an astronomer discovers a star, did the star exist before it was discovered'. Again, conceited and also very semantical. Again, no such force exist that would make the statement coherent or true.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Not exactly. Decoherence says that a macroscopic object interacts with its environment so much that its wavefunction collapses whether there is an observer or not. So, just like Schrodinger's Cat, the tree does make a sound if it falls, even if no one is around to hear it.

I suppose that's Quantum Physics 102...

Interesting. Can't wait to see what Quantum Physics 103 is all about.

 

[NewToLife]

So the observer is the cause of the tree's existence, is it?

Even an uncaused event does not take place without an observer, and hence can I say that the observer is the cause(may be not material cause) for that so-called uncaused event, simply because it doesn't take place without him.

I'd really appreciate your answer.

The greek for god is Theos, Theos literally means 'the one who observes'. A strange coincidence perhaps.

 

[AFallingStar]

A tree can fall and no one can hear it, but that does not mean that it does not necessarily make sound. The fact that it does or does not make sound does not depend on other people hearing it.

 

[Gardenia]

Trees don't fall when no one is around, because then who would they crush? (Trees are out to get us! )

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Trees don't fall when no one is around, because then who would they crush? (Trees are out to get us! )

Or, 'Trees don't fall when no one is around, because then who is there to cut them?'

...Environmentalism rocks!