The "If a tree falls in a forest ..." riddle

[elsbeth]

I have a science background, and I've always found that question ridiculous. Does it make a sound? OF COURSE! It's just so egocentric to think that the sound (the vibrations) has to be heard to be real.
On a different note: here's my personal favorite version-
If a man speaks in a forest, and there's no woman to hear him, is he still wrong? (Women usually give a resounding YES).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I have a science background, and I've always found that question ridiculous. Does it make a sound? OF COURSE! It's just so egocentric to think that the sound (the vibrations) has to be heard to be real.
On a different note: here's my personal favorite version-
If a man speaks in a forest, and there's no woman to hear him, is he still wrong? (Women usually give a resounding YES).

You beat me to the 'man in the forest' one.

The answer to the op must be 'no'. Consider the sound waves coming from the fallen tree as waves of the sea coming in to break noisily on the shore; the shore being our ears. If there were no shore for the waves to break upon there can be no sound. The waves would just spread out and diminish quietly until they disappeared. Implicit in the word 'sound' is audibility, which depends on the collision between the wave and the sensory apparatus. No collision, no sound.

 

[elcapitan]

You beat me to the 'man in the forest' one.

The answer to the op must be 'no'. Consider the sound waves coming from the fallen tree as waves of the sea coming in to break noisily on the shore; the shore being our ears. If there were no shore for the waves to break upon there can be no sound. The waves would just spread out and diminish quietly until they disappeared. Implicit in the word 'sound' is audibility, which depends on the collision between the wave and the sensory apparatus. No collision, no sound.

You should invest in a dictionary, because you seem to have confused "sound" and "hearing". If that's not the case, you should probably re-take your physics classes. Sound (i.e. pressure waves) still exists without the sensory apparatus, they just aren't heard. Just because sound waves would diminish doesn't mean they didn't exist.

In this case, audibility is not necessarily implicit in the word "sound". There are frequences (<20Hz, >20kHz) that are definitely sound waves, but are not audible.

QED

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You should invest in a dictionary, because you seem to have confused "sound" and "hearing". If that's not the case, you should probably re-take your physics classes. Sound (i.e. pressure waves) still exists without the sensory apparatus, they just aren't heard. Just because sound waves would diminish doesn't mean they didn't exist.

In this case, audibility is not necessarily implicit in the word "sound". There are frequences (<20Hz, >20kHz) that are definitely sound waves, but are not audible.

QED

I think most folks here understand what I meant.

 

[elcapitan]

I think most folks here understand what I meant.

So do I.

 

[elsbeth]

as to the meaning of "sound"- I DID check the dictionary, and it has both meanings- definitions which do refer to hearing, AND a definition which only speaks to the vibrations.

 

[metherion]

So then would that make the answer both? One defintion of sound (the waves) is fulfilled, yet another (something that is heard) is not.

Metherion

 

[Rick Otto]

I thought it went:
If a tree falls in the forest & no-one is around to hear it, can my wife still blame me for it?

Does the definition of sound require perception might be a correct distillation of the question.

Then, does the definition of perception require more than the reception &/or recording of sound that other trees constituting the forest might achieve?

 

[DerSchweik]

Well, does the generation of sound need our presence for it to exist?

If a tree falls in a forest and one person is nearby to experience it while another person is on the other side of the world and cannot experience it, does it make half the sound it would if both were present to experience it?

The question is a bit silly, don't you think?

 

[Rick Otto]

It "sounds" silly to me.
Siwwy, but not wiwwy.
BTW, my wife says she can still blame me.

 

[DerSchweik]

It "sounds" silly to me.
Siwwy, but not wiwwy.
BTW, my wife says she can still blame me.

Your thpouth and my thpouth mutht meet thomeday - wiwwy.