tree falls, anyone hear it? <--Stop Getting it wrong!!!!

majet76 · Post by **majet76** » 19 Apr 2005 19:12

You know what I despise hearing? When somebody asks the question, “If a tree falls, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” Cause almost always there’s a kid that thinks he or she knows the answer but has in fact COMPLETELY missed the point of the question. The kid’s response usually runs along the line of, “When the tree hits the floor it releases energy in the form of sound waves as well as other forms of energy such as heat etc. Thus, even if there is no one to hear the sound wave, a sound is still produced.” I usually want to say something to the effect of, “No. Shut up. You’re stupid. Stop it now before your idiocy infects others around you!” but I’m not the type of person that enjoys drama. So I let it go.

When you hear this question you’re supposed to stop and think. Reflect. You’re supposed to ask yourself, “What is a sound?”

Answer: It’s something that I perceive (keyword: PERCIEVE) with my senses. The only way I perceive sound is with my ability to hear it using my ears. Thus, if I didn’t have ears including the rest of the world and the question was posed to me, I would respond that there would be no sound because I don’t acknowledge its existence as a result of having no way of perceiving it. From this idea of having no ears, consequently, I would ask myself, “How many things in this universe go unnoticed as a result of my inability to perceive it?” Typically, one stops there and accepts his or her ignorance. Just like Socrates. YaY Socrates.

But now that I finished writing what I wanted to say the word “god” is floating around my head. Hmmmm…. “god.”

Is “god” what we cannot perceive?
In order to get closer to “god” does one need to transcend his or her human form of existence and become something “greater?” Some form that can perceive things that the ordinary human form cannot?
If so, how do we transcend? Technology?....

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 19 Apr 2005 19:27

I'm glad you got that out of your system. Thanks for enlightening us as to what the true answer is.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 19 Apr 2005 19:47

Yeah I agree that it is a frustrating question.

However personally I believe that sound is not definied as what we percieve - but rather it's the energy being passed through air in small vibrations etc.

I believe that while we only see realty from our perspective - that a reality exists outside of human consciousness that is how things are - regardless of how we think of them or understand them. I believe that a sound can exist when nobody hears it because sound does not describe our perception, but rather a phenenomen that continues to occure regardless of our presence.

The universe does not revolve around humanity or any other life form - it happens because that's its nature - there is no reason or purpose to it - we are just groups of atoms, mainly controlled by chemical reactions in our brains that we have no control over.

Basically I think that a sound does occure if we define sound as what physically happens - rather than using the word in it's relation to what happens to us when the vibrations reach our ears. If we realise that we are the same as everything else then I think our langauge should reflect this - rather than using words that are specific to our personal perceptions, otherwise we get to stage where we question the existence of anything apart from our own perceptions.

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 19 Apr 2005 20:07

yeah, i agree with jeremy. philosophy is all well and good, but asking if something makes a sound even though nobody hears it is like asking whether light is reflected from an object even though nobody is there to see it. physical properties are intrisic and not defined by perception.

on the other hand, if you were to ask "when fired at two slots, does a photon pass through one slot like a particle or both slots like a wave" then the answer DOES depend on whether you percieved the passage or not. trying to understand quantum theory will keep you awake at night, i guarantee it.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 19 Apr 2005 20:14

Through the hubble telescope we have seen images of the universe as it existed billions of years ago. The farther we gaze into the universe the closer we get to observing the start of the universe.

What would we see if the scope was rotated to point the opposite direction ?

crazydwarf · Post by **crazydwarf** » 19 Apr 2005 20:42

Well, it doesn't really work for a tree falling in a forest, because if there's a forest then obviously something perseaves the tree falling, but... Shrodeners (major SP) cat expirement is kind of like this. In the expirement the scientist puts a cat in a box so no one can see it, they then rig a device up to a radioactive molecule and so as soon as the molecule decays poison is released into the box killing the cat. At any moment there is a 50-50 chance that the molecule will have decayed. At this moment of uncertanty it is proven that the cat is neither alive nor dead. That's kind of how I see this problem, if no one at all heard the tree then it doesn't necessarily fall. I do know what you mean about how it can be annoying when people take questions that arn't supposed to be scientific scientificly, like I just did

. I probably got a lot of little details of the story wrong, so if anyone who know's what I'm talking about could clarify that'd be cool.

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 19 Apr 2005 20:55

well, the experiment was entirely theoretical but that's pretty much it. it's supposed to demonstrate quantum indeterminancy or superposition of states, but I think it confuses the issue more than it clarifies it. also, nuts to Schrodinger.

I've always felt that trying to figure out what quantum states have to do with macroscopic physical properties was about as useful as calculating your own wavelength using the planck equation. Since they're only really in effect at a sub-molecular level - and things at that level can only be described rationally using mathematics which differ greatly from the newtonian model - there just doesn't seem to be that much point.

crazydwarf · Post by **crazydwarf** » 19 Apr 2005 21:02

well, the experiment was entirely theoretical but that's pretty much it. it's supposed to demonstrate quantum indeterminancy or superposition of states, but I think it confuses the issue more than it clarifies it. also, nuts to Schrodinger.

Ah, that's how you spell it, thank you. Thanks for filling in my gaps, and I forgot to mention that it was theoretical. If it wasn't what would the animal right's activists think. They'd be, like "you killed the cat! but he'd be like, "hell no! that cat is neither alive or dead." Then they'd be all confused and probably yell at him any way.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 19 Apr 2005 21:38

Why would a tree be in a forest ANYWAYS.

Sheez.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Apr 2005 01:12

Tsiangkun wrote:Through the hubble telescope we have seen images of the universe as it existed billions of years ago. The farther we gaze into the universe the closer we get to observing the start of the universe.

What would we see if the scope was rotated to point the opposite direction ?

Some nerd looking at the stars?

Or we'd see things that existed billions of years ago too since what we're seeing is really old because it takes a long time for the light to travel from where the object is - if the light isn't going towards earth we can't see anything...

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 20 Apr 2005 14:18

The colour spectrum is VAST, yet we only see a portion of it. Other creatures' vision allows them to see different segments of the entirety of all "colour". Ultra-violet is a colour range that humans cannot percieve through sight -- penguins can see ultra-violet. Humans can only, even, percieve less than half of the multiple variants of the colour red. These other colours exist, but we cannot see them.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 20 Apr 2005 14:29

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 20 Apr 2005 14:43

Your completlely missing the point, lol the future. It's a good thoought experiement to play out the meaning of looking back in time through a telescope. It brings the ideas of relativity to a commonsense level of understand.

Looking far enough away through the scope you would see the exact same thing, no matter the direction, because there is only one thing.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 20 Apr 2005 14:45

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 20 Apr 2005 14:50

If a man says something in the woods and there isn't a woman around to hear it, is he still wrong?

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 20 Apr 2005 14:55

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 20 Apr 2005 15:26

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

Also reminds me of the statement O'Brein poses to Winston, "If I wished, I could float off this floor like a soap bubble." or if O'Brein thinks he floats off the floor, and simultaneously Winston thinks he see's him do it, then it happened.

Humans are in a weird place in that we're the only personal beings in a largely impersonal enviornment.

I wonder what Kafka would say.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 20 Apr 2005 18:30

There are just way too many things that we, humans, cannot even fathom in life. Try to imagine how life would exist without you to percieve it -- you can't (at least I sure don't come anywhere close). If you didn't exist, there would be no you and therefore nothing would be (TO YOU). Life would carry on and nobody would think twice if YOU were never born, but to you.......NOTHING IS. You wouldn't realize it because you would not exist to realize it.

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 20 Apr 2005 18:31

Majet said re: "sound":
"Answer: It’s something that I perceive (keyword: PERCIEVE) with my senses. The only way I perceive sound is with my ability to hear it using my ears. Thus, if I didn’t have ears including the rest of the world and the question was posed to me, I would respond that there would be no sound because I don’t acknowledge its existence as a result of having no way of perceiving it. From this idea of having no ears, consequently, I would ask myself, “How many things in this universe go unnoticed as a result of my inability to perceive it?” Typically, one stops there and accepts his or her ignorance. Just like Socrates. YaY Socrates."

Sorry bud, but you're wrong. To say that sound is something that only YOU perceive is wrong. First off, different people have different ranges of hearing. Some people can hear beyond 20,000 Hz, but i doubt you can. If you and a person were standing next to that tree when if fell and the vibrations it produced were out of your range of hearing but well within the other person's, would you still say it made no sound? Even if this other person heard it???

Secondly, we perceive sound through haptic sensation (touch) as well. Our organs of hearing work regardless of whether the vibrations released by some source make it into our ear through the ear canal. if the signal is great enough, it will vibrotactily (sp?) stimulate our cochleas so that whether or not we "hear" the sound, we still hear the sound.

Also, I just find it interesting that you believe so strongly about this issue yet I doubt you actually know what structures your "ears" consist of, where they are located in your body, and how they work. Maybe if you did, you would view this issue differently . . . maybe not. And, if by chance you Do know these things, then forgive me, as i have overstepped by bounds.

majet76 · Post by **majet76** » 20 Apr 2005 19:59

Jeremy, junkyardjew, I understand what you’re saying, and I do agree with you guys. The cliche, the sun will rise and set with or without you, nicely sums up both your points. But, in general, the whole point of the question (or at least what I get from the question) is to open your mind and think, and hopefully understand that humans are in some ways limited in perception and our understanding of the world. Erik Chan made an excellent point about our limited perception of color. We don’t have the same capability to experience what a penguin experiences when it sees. The whole point of the question isn’t for someone to come up with a yes or a no. It’s to make you think in a broader sense and not just only about sound. In my opinion when you do start thinking about the possibilities of perception you then realize, to some extent, your limitations of perception.
And thanks to technology we are able to perceive things we normally aren’t able to perceive due to our immediate physical limitations.
I don’t mean to downplay mankind. We totally kick ass, and we have so much potential. I’m sure people at one point thought flight was impossible for man. But we all know that we can fly through man’s understanding of avionics. So my point is that even though we might not be able to do something right now we, humans, might be able to accomplish that “something” later on in the future with the help of science and technology.

Tsiangkun, I’m not sure what you meant with your last post. Could you elaborate? So what if “Looking far enough away through the scope you would see the exact same thing, no matter the direction, because there is only one thing.”

Jeremy wrote: “Some nerd looking at the stars?”
lol. Two props.

FlexThis wrote: “I love how you chimed in yet have not responded back.”
What do you mean? That I haven’t immediately responded back to the posts? Well, if that’s the case, know that I don’t like to immeaditately respond back because I like to hear a few opinions and comments before I post. Please elaborate what you meant.

FlexThis wrote: “In my opinion you are selfish to think that human perception defines sound. Or that somehow without the presense of humans, physics would not exist.”
If you don’t want to think that perception shapes reality then that’s fine by me. I’m not saying perception changes the truth because I do believe that the truth is the truth and nothing can change the truth, but I am saying that one’s interpretation of the truth might be different or skewed due to his/her perception of it.

Senor Grommet, could you elaborate this sentence for me? “To say that sound is something that only YOU perceive is wrong.” I’m getting the sense that you read my post after the “Answer:” part from the wrong point-of-view.

Lastly, huge ultra mega props to Erik Chan. You took the words right out of my mouth on you last post. It’s clear that we share the same train of thought on this topic.