I thought I would start a thread on the tree falling in the woods in the physics section, so as to discuss it from a purely scientific stand point. :)

If the bear shitting in the woods is nearby, won't he hear it?

Without an atmosphere as the medium, all one could go on were the vibrations through terra firma.

So with an atmosphere? The atmosphere would be vibrated causing a wave form! a wave form we define as a sound wave. Thus a tree falling in the woods will make(MAKE! not be percieved as) a sound no matter if anyone is there to hear it or not!

So, you believe that by asking the question in a physics subforum as opposed to a philosophy subforum that it mysteriously transforms the question into a scientific question as opposed to philosophical?

That's an interesting philosophical stance you have there.

I'm curious as to inductive chain of experience which leads you to this conclusion.


Let me make this simple for you.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it?
It's not science.

So, you believe that by asking the question in a physics subforum as opposed to a philosophy subforum that it mysteriously transforms the question into a scientific question as opposed to philosophical?

That's an interesting philosophical stance you have there.

I'm curious as to inductive chain of experience which leads you to this conclusion.


Let me make this simple for you.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it?
It's not science.
Piss off quere!

Be careful, little boy. This is James' stomping ground. You're most likely going to get banned if you don't watch your step.
By the way you've been carrying on, I don't think it'll be much of a loss though. You've been just barking madly of late anyway.

Anyway.
Before you're banned.
I'd like to ask you again what is up with this homosexual accusation thing you've got going here. I don't think I've ever seen you use 'queer' as a general ad hom before (although I must admit to not following your posts in any sense of the word).
Just for the record, I'm not gay.

Anyway.
Maybe someday you'll study a bit more and realize your critical mistakes.
Until then.

Define sound.

Actually, this is an interesting subject, although it probably should be in philosophy. I have thought for some time now there is no such thing as a paradox, only paradoxical questions cause by the imprecision of language, and that almost any paradox can be cleared up by careful definition of the terms in which it is stated.

There is a long rambling thread on this in the philosophy forum. Our boy Imaplanck doesn't seem to comprehend the philosophical nature of it. He also has problems comprehending the problem of induction and several other philosophical issues.

He thinks this is... science.
Can you imagine?
Ha!

Anyway.
I brought up exactly what you just said in that other thread. It is, in many ways, a semantic issue.

Have you ever read Wittgenstein, by any chance? Philosophical Investigations moreso than Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. That is one of the themes that he writes about. The impreciseness of language and how it lends itself to philosophical paradox.

No, I haven't. I'll have to check that out, thanks. Personally, I haven't spent that much time on reading philosophy. Much prefer science and math, mostly for this very reason. Put bluntly, my personal philosophy could be stated:

Philosophy is crap.
A lot of it is fun or interesting crap.
A tiny percentage of it is usefull crap.
But it's all crap.

;)

Wheres the paradox? It's so simply that even a layman could understand. It takes a fucking good fearing prick to complicate this simple kindergarden premise so.

Imaplanck,

Wheres the paradox?

I don't think it's technically a paradox as much as it is a semantic issue. And one which has been gone over too many times to repeat again.

It's also a philsophical issue that encompasses epistemology (i.e. the justification of knowledge) and the problem of induction.

One thing for sure. It's not science....

It takes a fucking good fearing prick to complicate this simple kindergarden premise so.

I take it you meant to say "god fearing"?
In which case, it seems you've made a complete non sequitur.
What does god have to do with anything?
Seems like you're just thrashing about in a blind stupor. Railing against all the stereotypical things which the debunkers love to rail against.
Pity you don't do it very well.
Well. There's plenty of debunkers anyway. No need for another one in the mix.


Kevin,

Philosophy is crap.
A lot of it is fun or interesting crap.
A tiny percentage of it is usefull crap.
But it's all crap.

Science is derived from philosophy and owes its structure and continued objectivism to it.
There is a philosophy of science, you know?
Philosophy of logic.
Philosophy of math.

Philosophy is, in many respects, a meta-subject. That is, it discusses science and its methods rather than simply utilizing science.

Science needs to be discussed as its methods are far from perfect. Calling philosophy crap is the surest way to consign science to the keeping of the absolutists.
Like Imaplanck is shaping up to be.

There is no paradox, that is my point. It all centers around the definition of sound. Is sound the propagation of acoutic waves or is it the physiological experience of a person hearing these waves? The question is worded deliberately to cloud the definition of sound, and my point is that most "paradox" are of this nature. Apparently some gentleman by the name of Wittgenstein agrees. I'll have to check him out. Thanks again invert_nexus.

By the way. Speaking of Wittgenstein and your disdain for philosophy.
The Tractatus is a rigidly structured treatise. It has seven sections and each of these is further subdivided into subsections.
A purely logical undertaking.

These are the prime sections: 1 The world is everything that is the case.

2 What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts.

3 The logical picture of the facts is the thought.

4 The thought is the significant proposition.

5 Propositions are truth-functions of elementary propositions.
(An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)

6 The general form of truth-function is: [ p-bar , xi-bar , N( xi-bar )].
This is the general form of proposition.

7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

In other words, he concludes that if you don't know what you're talking about, then shutup. Basically, he concludes that philosophy is mostly useless and that man should stick with science and pure logic instead.
Of course, he came to later rethink these stark and drastic views but never finished his thoughts before his death. Philosophical Investigations was published posthumously.

Here's the Tractatus online: http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/tlph.html
It's somewhat tricky to read because of it's structure...
I've always meant to start a thread analyzing it line by line.

Yeah this is nonretards, this is serious physicists only ;)

Sorry, I was being a little flip. My disdain for philosophy is mostly for areas such as sociology, psychology, etc. Trying to apply logic to human behavior is pretty much a lost cause. There is also what I think of as the thesaurus effect. A chain of reasoning each step of which is very nearly true, but which arrives at a ridiculous conclusion. Like when you look up a synonym in a thesaurus and the last word in the list has very little to do with the first.

Imaplanck,

Then you should be quick and bring in something to do with physics.
FAST!!
Let's see some Newtonian equations on trees falling in the woods.
Do you think that Maxwell's equations might be useful?
What about Lorentz? Poincare?
Do you think uncertainty might play a useful role in determining the answer?

Let's see what you got, Einstein.

imaplanck: you have gone a bit strange lately.

Or maybe you've always been strange.

Since I don't know you from Adam, either is possible.

wow

imaplanck: you have gone a bit strange lately.

Or maybe you've always been strange.

Since I don't know you from Adam, either is possible.

Iv'e always been strange Eve. :D

From first post: I thought I would start a thread on the tree falling in the woods in the physics section, so as to discuss it from a purely scientific stand point. :)As this has not been done, perhaps I can help, with a question.

is it true that some trees, if stripped of all their branches first (just a straight tall trunk remaining) would break before hitting the ground (like all tall chimneys do)

I.e. a sufficient tall rigid pole will have the top part's velocity extremely fast as it falls because the velocity of each section is a linear function of the distance from the base as it falls. If you think it possible how tall would the "stripped tree" need to be? Use reasonable valuables for the "beam bending" as it falls and compare the max surface stress (which will be on the side closest to the ground) to the tensile strength of wood. If that stress exceeds the tensile strength then a crack will start at the surface and rapidly propagate into the tree, snapping the top off before it hits the ground.
I know how (or at least did years ago) to calculate all this, assuming the stripped tree is a circular cylinder of constant cross section to the top end, (Not you typical tree but one resembling those "frictionless pulleys and perfect ropes I talked about when teaching)

Anyone want to try to do what this thread was intended for?

If a photon passes through a double slit barrier, and no one is there to measure it, does it act like a wave or a particle? Why should the observer make a difference?

I contend that the tree lies in a state of superposition, neither up nor down, until someone notices it, and then it resolves itself retroactively into one of two possible states.

I contend that the tree lies in a state of superposition, neither up nor down, until someone notices it, and then it resolves itself retroactively into one of two possible states.
Egomaniac.

...I contend that the tree lies in a state of superposition, neither up nor down, until someone notices it, and then it resolves itself retroactively into one of two possible states.to illustare how silly this is i will ask a question.

Lets suppose your view were correct and after the big wind storm no one looked at the tree for a week and five minutes after it went from the "pure upright" position or pre-storm position it had taken because back then somone had looked at it. So a week after and three minutes after the storm the tree is in this mix state, up and down on the ground. At minute 4 after (and a week) you are strolling thru the woods and just happen to stop to rest exactly in the path that the tree falls thru if that is the state you force it to take by being at week+5 minutes the first person to look at the tree. My question is did you loss conssiousness/ die at minute 4 when you enterred the fall path, or at week plus 5 when you saw the tree on the ground, it having (magically?) passed thru you willout killing you?

Please comment on how your view copes with the retoractive killing of the observer that make the observation later than his death. Sort of the time travel problem of going back and killing all you grand parents.

The overall point being that macro scale objects are not quantized and do not have distinct wave equations as a whole and are therefore not subject to "superposition".

The overall point being that macro scale objects are not quantized and do not have distinct wave equations as a whole and are therefore not subject to "superposition".

Oh?
Maybe not a tree. But getting closer.

Quantum physics: Observing and the observed p154

Quantum mechanics states that the measurement process can fundamentally alter what is being measured. This 'back-action' has been observed on the macroscopic scale — in the vibrations of a tiny mechanical device.
Nature, Sept. !4th (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/index.html).

Oh?
Maybe not a tree. But getting closer.
Well fuck me.

Oh? .. In your post, you quote:

"Quantum mechanics states that the measurement process can fundamentally alter what is being measured. ..."

But I could not find that statement previously posted. None the less, I want to correct it as that was true long before anything was known of quantum physics (and is NOT what the uncertainity principle of QM states). For example, if you want to measure the temperature of a thimble of water (or a bath tub full - no different in principle) the insertion of the thermometer is likely to change the temperature of what is being measured.

Quantum physics did not say what your quote says it does, but something entirely new. I.e. that certain PAIRS of observables can not both measured with complete accuracy as a matter of principle (a fundamental limitation of nature). These pairs are those that do not "commute" under the Hamiltonian. (I know most here do not have the slightest idea what that means - I only mention it to illustrate that this is entirely new contribution of QM with precisely specified conditions.)

The two most important "non-commuting" pairs are:
Time and energy - (If you know exactly when some event happend you can know nothing about its energy.)
And
Linear momentum and position - (If you know exactly where someting is, you can know nothing about its momentum.)

However, because time and position do commute, you can know exactly both where something is and when it was there, (at least "in principle," but "in practice" the classical problem about the measurement effort distrubing the results of one or both of the measurements still applies). The uncertainity principle is not just the classical problem that measurement distrubs the thing you are measuring - it is more fundamental than that.

I just screamed at the top of my lungs but nobody was here to hear me. Did I still scream?

I dunno, are you deaf?

partially

No it does not make a sound. No perception = no reality. Sound only exists if there are lifeforms to percieve it.

If there were no lifeforms to percieve it, it would be as if it were from another dimension entirely. Form exists, space creates form, and energy exists, waves exist, and consciousness exists. However, our perception is limited to the 3+1 dimensions, 3rd visual and 4th dimensional movement/time. This is perception, but the universe itself may have as many as 11 dimensions. We are limited by our perception, we don't know what dark matter is, or anti matter, we don't know how many dimensions there are.

It's safe to say, that if a tree falls and there is no one to hear it, it does not make a sound, just as if there were a God and no one could see it, people would assume it did not exist.

If a photon passes through a double slit barrier, and no one is there to measure it, does it act like a wave or a particle? Why should the observer make a difference?

I contend that the tree lies in a state of superposition, neither up nor down, until someone notices it, and then it resolves itself retroactively into one of two possible states.

Observation actually changes wave into particle, it brings form to matter. So perception is reality, and without it reality might not even exist.

partially

Then you only screamed a little bit. More of a shout, really.

to illustare how silly this is i will ask a question.

Lets suppose your view were correct and after the big wind storm no one looked at the tree for a week and five minutes after it went from the "pure upright" position or pre-storm position it had taken because back then somone had looked at it. So a week after and three minutes after the storm the tree is in this mix state, up and down on the ground. ...
It doesn't fall when you observe it, it resolves into the fallen state, as if it fell at the time of the storm.
Maybe?

It's safe to say, that if a tree falls and there is no one to hear it, it does not make a sound, just as if there were a God and no one could see it, people would assume it did not exist.
Nice hedge at the end with "people would assume", as opposed to "it would not exist".

Sniffy - your incredibly powerful vocalization was converted (by magic) into a pressure wave of quite a reasonable volume, of course.

From first post: As this has not been done, perhaps I can help, with a question.

is it true that some trees, if stripped of all their branches first (just a straight tall trunk remaining) would break before hitting the ground (like all tall chimneys do)

I.e. a sufficient tall rigid pole will have the top part's velocity extremely fast as it falls because the velocity of each section is a linear function of the distance from the base as it falls. If you think it possible how tall would the "stripped tree" need to be? Use reasonable valuables for the "beam bending" as it falls and compare the max surface stress (which will be on the side closest to the ground) to the tensile strength of wood. If that stress exceeds the tensile strength then a crack will start at the surface and rapidly propagate into the tree, snapping the top off before it hits the ground.
I know how (or at least did years ago) to calculate all this, assuming the stripped tree is a circular cylinder of constant cross section to the top end, (Not you typical tree but one resembling those "frictionless pulleys and perfect ropes I talked about when teaching)

Anyone want to try to do what this thread was intended for?
Would there be any point? To be honest I couldn't be bothered to calculate this even if I could remember how. It means little to the proposition anyway. Physically the tree falling generates soundwaves thus its perfectly valid to describe said process as making a sound. No calculations make any difference or are required!

It doesn't fall when you observe it, it resolves into the fallen state, as if it fell at the time of the storm.
Maybe?I do not understand either your" resolves" or your "as if"

If pre storm the tree was seen by MR.A to be standing and a week later by Mr B to be on the ground, clearly it fell at some point in time, presumably during the "big storm" which happened (lets say) 3 day after Mr A saw it standing. in this "story" what does your "as if" mean? when did the tree actually fall? when did it "resolve" If it actually fell on day 3 during the "big storm" what is being resolved by Mr. B seeing it on day 7, if that is when it is "resolved"? Could a deer running thru the forest or an ant crawling thru the forest (blind of course) on day 5 pass thru the tree or would it need to jump/ crawl over it? Does it make any difference if he deer is blind? Can you make any consistent story up about all this (Mr A & B, the deer and the ant and the tree)?

How can you talk about a tree hypothetically falling in the woods and take the philosophy out of it.
What's that noise? Oh it's only me screaming again.....

They say that a butterfly’s wing beat can cause a storm on the other side of the world. Everything is heard, it’s just that we lose its cause.

I can hear a million year old ant fart as a drop of water falls on my roof today.

How can you talk about a tree hypothetically falling in the woods and take the philosophy out of it.
What's that noise? Oh it's only me screaming again.....
Maybe because we are not talking hypothetical trees anymore, we I are talking about real physical trees making a sound in the absence of a perciever.

I do not understand either your" resolves" or your "as if"

If pre storm the tree was seen by MR.A to be standing and a week later by Mr B to be on the ground, clearly it fell at some point in time, presumably during the "big storm" which happened (lets say) 3 day after Mr A saw it standing. in this "story" what does your "as if" mean? when did the tree actually fall? when did it "resolve" If it actually fell on day 3 during the "big storm" what is being resolved by Mr. B seeing it on day 7, if that is when it is "resolved"? Could a deer running thru the forest or an ant crawling thru the forest (blind of course) on day 5 pass thru the tree or would it need to jump/ crawl over it? Does it make any difference if he deer is blind? Can you make any consistent story up about all this (Mr A & B, the deer and the ant and the tree)?
If someone observes it, it fell during the storm. I'm trying to make an analogy to quantum theory, which I don't understand, so I think I'm going to stop defending my orginal notion. The behavior of the universe on a quantum level seems to defy logic.

Fact is, if no one hears it, or observes it in any other fashion, there is no way to tell if it fell or not.

Ahh but there is! If someone went there and observed a fallen tree some time after it had fallen. Superposition resolved!

Even if you see the tree fall, you can't be absolutely sure it fell. You have your memory, but you don't have access to the past itself. What if that experience/memory was implanted in your brain by some aliens, then you'd be totally fooled!

...The behavior of the universe on a quantum level seems to defy logic. NOT QUITE ACCURATE. Math is basically logic and there is no other field of knowledge that can calculate results to an accuracy (compared to the results of very precise experiments) to more than 10 decimal places!

What I think you wanted to say is the quantum physics is not compatible with human intuitive understanding of the universe / world (or even only a two slit light beam experiment done at such low intensity that there is never more than one photon present at the same time, yet it "goes thru both slits" ETC.

...Fact is, if no one hears it, or observes it in any other fashion, there is no way to tell if it fell or not.that is true in one sense, but an automatic camera would detect and record when it fell. Point being no human need observe its fall to establish when it fell. You should simply retract your statement that the tree is in some "unresolved" state until a human looks at it. As I pointed out a few post back, there are old cosmic ray experiment plates that have not been examined for more than 70 years, yet the QM events recorded in them took place while the balloon had lifted them high into the upper atmosphere, not at some future date, if ever, when some humans looks at them.