this is about the classical problem.

If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?

what do yall think?

:D SAM put you up to this didnt she?

yes it does make a sound. Everything on Earth makes a sound because air is a media which reacts to every action on it and waves that propagate due to energy transferred are acoustic.

i think it does..
but i like this question better..

if a man speaks in the forest and there is no woman there to hear him.. is he still wrong?

hahaha :D

I believe it doesnt make a sound.

the question really depends on your definition of sound. if sound is something that's heard, then the tree doesnt make a sound because no one is there to hear it.

It depends whether we are talking Physical discussion only.:roflmao:

yet the acoustic waves are released, but sound is actually an interpretation of those waves by the sense of hearing, and so if no one is there to interpret those waves into a sound, then the sound didnt exist.

My definition of sound is the emission of pressure waves across air.

your definition is a physical definition of how the phenomena occurs, but that is not the complete definition of sound.

close your ears and see if you hear the emission of pressure waves. you wont. sound is the interpretation of those emitted pressure waves as interpreted by the human sense of hearing.

Sound waves are the variety of those pressure waves.

The interpretation of the sound waves is simply hearing not "sound".

the interpretation process is hearing. the interpreted result is the sound.

the interpretation process is hearing. the interpreted result is the sound.

Even using your definition it still makes a sound. Humans are not the only organisms capable of hearing, what about the forest animals ? Its pretty unthinkable that absolutely no animal capable of hearing is around to hear the tree fall.

the interpretation process is hearing. the interpreted result is the sound.Maybe philosophically thats so.

But philosophy is little more than arguing the toss for the sake of arguing the toss IMO.

You wouldn't necessarily hear something fall unless the overall resistance was great enough to create atmospheric resistance, the only time you'd actually hear the tree 'Fall' other than that is when it hits other tree branches on the way down or some squirrel in it's branches lets fate know of it's untimely demise. Once it's 'Felled' it's no longer falling, so the crash when it hits the ground wouldn't actually count as hearing it 'fall'.

Since you are also implying that 'no one was there to hear it' then 'No sound was heard' doesn't of course mean 'there was no sound to be heard'.

It does make a sound.
If you placed a tape recorder in the forest, no-one would hear it fall, but if you then played back the recording you could verify that it had made a noise.

It does make a sound.
If you placed a tape recorder in the forest, no-one would hear it fall, but if you then played back the recording you could verify that it had made a noise.

But was the sound recorded before you actually played it back ? ;)

But was the sound recorded before you actually played it back ? ;)

You need not listen to it at all.
You could test the tape with a magnetic reader, and it would show that sounds had been recorded.

yet the acoustic waves are released, but sound is actually an interpretation of those waves by the sense of hearing, and so if no one is there to interpret those waves into a sound, then the sound didnt exist.

Then I suppose you've never heard of ultrasound? The frequency of which is beyond the range of human hearing?

Your statement above is silly right on the face of it. "Sound" is simply a longitudinal wave - the alternations of compression and rarefaction of molecules - and it occurs with or without a "hearer" just as in the case of ultrasonic sound.

And the ONLY thing classical about this question is the degree of ignorance it exposes on the part of the one asking the question.

You need not listen to it at all.
You could test the tape with a magnetic reader, and it would show that sounds had been recorded.

Yeah, I know. Was just joking ;)
Still the same could be said for the magnetic patterns, were they there before you tested for them.. ? :p
(Don't take this serious though...)

Yeah, I know. Was just joking ;)
Still the same could be said for the magnetic patterns, were they there before you tested for them.. ? :p
(Don't take this serious though...)

What if every forest with no human listening has a Schrodinger cat in it?

Actually, the original topic (the question) was a joke when it was first brought up YEARS ago. And those who don't get the joke are just showing how little they know about the nature of sound.

Actually, the original topic (the question) was a joke when it was first brought up YEARS ago. And those who don't get the joke are just showing how little they know about the nature of sound.
Anyone who thinks they have a cut and dried answer are only showing how little they have thought about it.:D

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58276

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58324

:D SAM put you up to this didnt she?

It depends whether we are talking Physical discussion only.:roflmao:

Sorry, not guilty; just one of those odd things (like that tree in the forest, the philosophical one):p

Anyone who thinks they have a cut and dried answer are only showing how little they have thought about it.:D

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58276

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58324

Can't read all that old Guff, (See Word of the day post)
Can'you give a condensed version?

Anyone who thinks they have a cut and dried answer are only showing how little they have thought about it.:D

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58276

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58324

Actually, anyone who has to spend more than 10 seconds thinking about it are showing how little they really know about it. It's very, very cut-and-dried indeed! :D

http://www.comics.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2007081527618.gif

Can't read all that old Guff, (See Word of the day post)
Can'you give a condensed version?

Actually, anyone who has to spend more than 10 seconds thinking about it are showing how little they really know about it. It's very, very cut-and-dried indeed! :D

Well, if you are going to base your conclusions on stuff that you haven't read (or, like the philosophical tree, heard), there is not much more that can be said, is there?:cool:

http://www.comics.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2007081527618.gif

Heh, yesterday's strip. Sounds like that tree had some really powerful influential properties.

And the ONLY thing classical about this question is the degree of ignorance it exposes on the part of the one asking the question.God, Read-Only, you're such a bore. Hint: this is a philosophical forum.

If the tree made no sound as it fell, then how could we possibly, eventually, hear a tree fall?

Just like in a dream: you create all the sounds and trees, so if no one is in the forest, the forest doesn't even exist, so there are no trees which can fall, let alone make sounds.

God, Read-Only, you're such a bore. Hint: this is a philosophical forum.[quote]

So what? Facts are facts.

[quote]If the tree made no sound as it fell, then how could we possibly, eventually, hear a tree fall?

Precisely the point - it MAKES a sound.

And by the way, I'm STILL waiting for you to prove your claim that I've attacked/abused/whatever you in any way? can't do it, can you????:bugeye:

"Scientists have been dealing with the problem of natural tree falls (and the sound they make--or don't make) for quite some time and have drawn some rather surprising conclusions.

If a tree falls and there is a person around the sound is easily recognized.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody nearby, the sound that it makes is very different and often not recognized as the sound of a tree falling.

Either way, there is a sound.


Even though plants do not show any changes to the naked (or lensed) eye, when a human is in their presence systemic biological changes have been discovered that have grave effects on plant life when a person is within 300 meters. This effect is called "human stress syndrome".

Apparently, when a tree is about to fall, if it senses a human nearby the biological stresses of human presence cause the cell walls in the plant to become brittle and it is the cell brittleness responsible for the familiar sound we know as that of a tree fall. The cell brittleness also has significant effects to the quality of the lumber, making it much more suitable for use in construction (see below).

Through the miracle of recording tape, we are able to provide a sound recording of an actual tree falling without human presence. "

http://www.getodd.com/stuf/treesound1.wav

Just like in a dream: you create all the sounds and trees, so if no one is in the forest, the forest doesn't even exist, so there are no trees which can fall, let alone make sounds.
So then we're living a dream? You know, I've seen houses built on the edge of a forest. And I've spent summer holidays in such a house. And I remember waking to the sounds of the forest, the smell of the forest, the sight of a forest. Why then now, in the suburbs, don't I hear, smell, see that same forest? Isn't it because I'm not there? If I had created it in the first place, why can't I summon it at will?

Precisely the point - it MAKES a sound.So then express that instead of mud slinging.

And by the way, I'm STILL waiting for you to prove your claim that I've attacked/abused/whatever you in any way? can't do it, can you????:bugeye:Like I said, you're a bore.

So then express that instead of mud slinging.

I've expressed exactly that - in several different ways already.

Like I said, you're a bore.

Really? I consider you to be a dishonest troll because you've made a claim that you cannot substantiate. Pure fantasy on your part, it would seem.

So then we're living a dream?

life is a sort of dream, the difference is that life is more physical. in dreams there is no auto-save function so you usually don't continue from where you dreamt before (unless you save manually). in life you always continue from the same place.

you can never prove that something exists when you're not conscious of it, so it's illogical to assume that things exist outside consciousness.

physical means that it is outside.
mental or spiritual means that it is inside.

the outside is an illusion because it is actually inside. thoughts separate.

You know, I've seen houses built on the edge of a forest. And I've spent summer holidays in such a house. And I remember waking to the sounds of the forest, the smell of the forest, the sight of a forest. Why then now, in the suburbs, don't I hear, smell, see that same forest? Isn't it because I'm not there? If I had created it in the first place, why can't I summon it at will?

you can summon it at will. just go there and it will be created.

when you become more awake in this dream, like buddha or something, you can summon it much faster by teleporting yourself there.

because life is more physical than dreams, things take a little more time to manifest.

What if every forest with no human listening has a Schrodinger cat in it?

:eek: Good point... :scratchin:

Here's the way I see it. If lightening strikes & I don't see it because it's too far away, my eyes are closed, or there are buildings/hills/topographic objects in the way, does it still make a sound? Sure. We all know it's thunder. Just because a tree doesn't make as big of a boom doesn't mean it doesn't make a sound, which is a release of energy creating force upon air molecules.

Cheers.

yet the acoustic waves are released, but sound is actually an interpretation of those waves by the sense of hearing, and so if no one is there to interpret those waves into a sound, then the sound didnt exist.

Not that simple. What is a 'sound'? That word is based on our experience. So is 'waves' 'acoustic'. To use those words to describe something not experienced is to misuse them.

Not that simple. What is a 'sound'? That word is based on our experience. So is 'waves' 'acoustic'. To use those words to describe something not experienced is to misuse them.

I guess on a more philosophical plane of linguistics, one must first hear the sound of the word for it to ever have any contextual meaning, and unless the word is first spoken, placed in context, and defined, you can never experience what the word means. To me, words do more than explain, they enlighten by building upon other words or concepts previously learned.

There's an old saying that the broader your vocabulary the deeper your mental and emotional horizons. If it's not an old saying, it should be. On an even broader scale, one can travel through London through the eyes of Charles Dickens or William Wordsworth without ever having been there.

All trees that fall make a sound, however indistinct or different from another.

As this is a philosophical question, this has nothing to do at all with pressure waves, or whether or not they hit your ear.
It is not a scientific question, thus these notions are meaningless in this context.

My answer: Butterfly effect. Whether or not you (or any person) is present to witness an event, it still did happen, as the future is irrevocably changed by the event, and the effects run far and wide and fanning out exponentially, affecting everything behind it.
Yes. It most certainly makes a sound.
One tree falling changes the world.

Thats a hard one........wait...............give me some more time!!!

My answer: Butterfly effect. Whether or not you (or any person) is present to witness an event, it still did happen

Any words you describe that event are misleading however. To say it made a sound is misleading. The words were made to describe situations where subject and object are present. They lose meaning when referring to a situation where there was no experiencer. To paraphrase Wittgenstein: we oughtta be silent about it.

Any words you describe that event are misleading however. To say it made a sound is misleading. The words were made to describe situations where subject and object are present. They lose meaning when referring to a situation where there was no experiencer. To paraphrase Wittgenstein: we oughtta be silent about it.

So. If there's no one present to hear the eruption of a volcano (or the blast like resulted from the meteror/comet in the Ukrane) then the pressure wave created has NO effect. Right? After all, it was just sound and no one heard it. :bugeye:

Semantics, shemantics.

Arguing over what the word "sound" means is pretty pointless.

How about "noise", "flash", and "light"?
If lightning strikes and no one is there to hear it or see it...
Does it make a flash?
Does it make light?
Does it make noise?

Now there's a useful discussion. :rolleyes:

this is about the classical problem.

If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?

what do yall think?
well, here's my 2 cents worth:
no, the tree doesn't make a sound but it does produce the sound waves.
how's that?

As this is a philosophical question, this has nothing to do at all with pressure waves, or whether or not they hit your ear.
It is not a scientific question, thus these notions are meaningless in this context.

My answer: Butterfly effect. Whether or not you (or any person) is present to witness an event, it still did happen, as the future is irrevocably changed by the event, and the effects run far and wide and fanning out exponentially, affecting everything behind it.
Yes. It most certainly makes a sound.
One tree falling changes the world.

That is your OPINION not everyones.

That is your OPINION not everyones.

:rolleyes:

I would think that was quite obvious (if you notice, I did not claim otherwise) and being that this is a discussion forum, I decided to join in the discussion and share my opinion.
That is what a discussion IS - the sharing and conversing about differing opinions.
Do you have a problem with me taking part in this discussion?

Not at all but you seem to think that your view is a view that is widely held. I do believe that many other views are just as good as yours and just wanted to mention it.

Not at all but you seem to think that your view is a view that is widely held. I do believe that many other views are just as good as yours and just wanted to mention it.

I do think it is widely held - in fact I am quite sure of it - that does not mean that other opinions are not valid, or even that I am "right" if there even can be a "right" in a philosophical discussion.

Semantics, shemantics.

Arguing over what the word "sound" means is pretty pointless.

How about "noise", "flash", and "light"?
If lightning strikes and no one is there to hear it or see it...
Does it make a flash?
Does it make light?
Does it make noise?

Now there's a useful discussion. :rolleyes:

It doesnt matter the dick will still argue the toss for the sake of it. Even the ones that can differentiate with summation.

Do you have a problem with me taking part in this discussion?
yeah, that avatar of yours is vile, disgusting, evil, unpaid for, nasty, ugly, fat, and looks hideous.

yeah, that avatar of yours is vile, disgusting, evil, unpaid for, nasty, ugly, fat, and looks hideous.

"Unpaid for"?
What do you mean by that?

Charles Manson may have been vile, disgusting, evil, nasty, ugly and hideous looking, but he wasn't fat.

"Unpaid for"?
What do you mean by that?
huh? did i say something?

Charles Manson may have been vile, disgusting, evil, nasty, ugly and hideous looking, but he wasn't fat.
charles manson !? who's that?
well it doesn't matter.
that avatar looks like a clown throwup.
it smells like unwashed 10 day old underwear.
gag, puke, snort.

huh? did i say something?


charles manson !? who's that?
well it doesn't matter.
that avatar looks like a clown throwup.
it smells like unwashed 10 day old underwear.
gag, puke, snort.

Well, thanks for your valuable input into this discussion.

Well, thanks for your valuable input into this discussion.
why thank you kind sir!
may your avatar eat shit and die. :D

My answer: Butterfly effect. Whether or not you (or any person) is present to witness an event, it still did happen, as the future is irrevocably changed by the event, and the effects run far and wide and fanning out exponentially, affecting everything behind it.
Yes. It most certainly makes a sound.
One tree falling changes the world.That is your OPINION not everyones.

Actually, Raven is right, Cosmos. A few years ago I became "emotionally" attached to a lone tree standing high in a field overlooking the airfield here, where I live. I'm not sure how it happened, perhaps it was when I climbed her many years earlier, and experienced again the thrill of youth. But a few years ago, after I had moved here and began visiting the airfield again, she had lost the branch that had once enabled me to reach up and pull myself over. But I use to visit her anyway, or acknowledge her presence whenever I passed by in the vicinity. She was beautiful, and I always felt an exuberance or peaceful reassurance whenever I saw her.

Then one day, a bulldozer uprooted her, making way for a parking lot. I never saw her fall. My world changed. Forever.

Reminds me of the short story called "The Giving Tree" ever read it?

If a leaf falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

I catch it before it hits and use it as toilet paper! :D

If you don't pocket it, but throw it away, does it make a noise?

btw, you should use grass, as in

In days of old,
when men were bold,
And paper was not invented;
Man wiped his arse,
With a blade of grass,
And walked away contented

Fig tree leaves are the best, they are sooooo soft and wide, one wipe and I'm through. It doesn't make a sound when i throw it to the ground for its just a leaf don't you see, its not a tree! :D

Fig tree leaves are the best, they are sooooo soft and wide, one wipe and I'm through. It doesn't make a sound when i throw it to the ground for its just a leaf don't you see, its not a tree! :D

Are you absolutely positively certain the arse wipe leaf makes absolutely positively no sound when you dump it?

The best answer I have ever heard to this question is that it makes a sound(transfer of energy through air molecules) but it does not make a noise(the interpretation of sound by an organism or device)

Are you absolutely positively certain the arse wipe leaf makes absolutely positively no sound when you dump it?

I can't hear anything do you want to come and hear for yourself?;)

Reminds me of the short story called "The Giving Tree" ever read it?

A wonderful book by a wonderful author.

yea it's liek the question of if a fat girl falls over in a forest do the trees luagh

yea it's liek the question of if a fat girl falls over in a forest do the trees luaghI like that. And that reminds me to introduce a whole new earshot: the wind.

this is about the classical problem.

If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?

what do yall think?

This is a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

Here's a better question for you: If a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody there to see it, what color is it?

That reminds me of a very long and verbose discussion prompted by the question "What colour is an orange in the dark?"

which way to the mulberry bush?

So. If there's no one present to hear the eruption of a volcano (or the blast like resulted from the meteror/comet in the Ukrane) then the pressure wave created has NO effect. Right? After all, it was just sound and no one heard it. :bugeye:

I did not say that. I said that any language we use to describe what happened is misleading because all those words are made to describe phenomena that are experienced. We cannot really talk about such things. We could talk about what is found after. We could talk about what a subject might have experienced had one been there. But we cannot talk about not experienced phenomena without using metaphors and language built on metaphors that imply and are founded on experiencing subjects. Those descriptions are BS.

That reminds me of a very long and verbose discussion prompted by the question "What colour is an orange in the dark?"

Yea? What conclusion did you guys come up with?

I did not say that. I said that any language we use to describe what happened is misleading because all those words are made to describe phenomena that are experienced. We cannot really talk about such things. We could talk about what is found after. We could talk about what a subject might have experienced had one been there. But we cannot talk about not experienced phenomena without using metaphors and language built on metaphors that imply and are founded on experiencing subjects. Those descriptions are BS.

Nope, not at all. You're simply slicing and diceing semantics for no real purpose other than to argue. Sound is sound - simple as that. And if the sonic waves happen to encounter an ear they are registered as such. But even if they don't, any other results of their presence still indicates they had been present.

Put another way, simply because no one was around to see the meteor/comet strike does not affect the fact that it actually did. It's your circular and faulty logic that's the BS here. ;)

Yea? What conclusion did you guys come up with?
None, of course :)
The main camps (if I recall correctly) were:
The colour of something is what you see, so it's black
The colour of something is what is normally is, so it's orange
Colour is a meaningless attribute for something that can't be seen, so it's not really a meaningful question.

Essentially it was a semantics discussion, I think. All it established was what concepts people attach to the term "color".

Another superficially interesting and related question:
What colour is an orange that has been painted blue?

I would seem it makes a sound, but the sound has no meaning without observation.

That's what I told him, come and observe me take a shit and use the leaf.

Sound is sound - simple as that.

:bugeye:
And kwijibo is kwijibo... kind of circular, don't you think?

And if the sonic waves happen to encounter an ear they are registered as such. But even if they don't, any other results of their presence still indicates they had been present.Yeah, I think that just about makes it, except for one small detail:I would seem it makes a sound, but the sound has no meaning without observation.Oh, but can you imagine the beauty of such an indescribable sound!

uhm.

hmmmmmmmm.

yes, I think so.

crashing noise, I'm even imagining it with a "timmmmmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrr" in it for spice.

yup.

None, of course :)
The main camps (if I recall correctly) were:
The colour of something is what you see, so it's black
The colour of something is what is normally is, so it's orange
Colour is a meaningless attribute for something that can't be seen, so it's not really a meaningful question.
The continuous emission spectrum still peaks at certain visible wavelengths, no matter if no one is there to see it.

Essentially it was a semantics discussion, I think. All it established was what concepts people attach to the term "color".



More like a discussion of spastics!

The continuous emission spectrum still peaks at certain visible wavelengths, no matter if no one is there to see it.
In this case the question wasn't about whether anyone was there to see it.
It was about the color of an object in the absence of incident light.
But that reminds me (thankyou). Another camp suggested that the color of the orange in the dark is infrared - ie the peak of the orange's emission spectrum (assuming it's at room temperature).

More like a discussion of spastics!
No, semantics. We can discuss CP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy) if you like, but not in this thread.

uhm.

hmmmmmmmm.

yes, I think so.

crashing noise, I'm even imagining it with a "timmmmmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrr" in it for spice.

yup.You forgot to insert the sound between two layers of impenetrable silence, to which the proceeding layer is snuffing out the sound of the fall. It gives a whole new perspective to the image of a tree falling and progressively bearing its full weight to the ground.

this is about the classical problem.

If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?

what do yall think?

Before reading other responses I offer the following. If what you mean by sound is the motion of air molecules strking the ear drum of an organic being and that all such eared organic beings were not around the falling tree, then by definition there would be no sound. This does not change the physics of the problem as there would still be significant amounts of vibrating air generted by the tree crashing to the ground that would spread outward from the various points on the surface of the tree trunk.

All physical entities, eared or otherwise, within the effective "blast radius" of the falling tree would sense the effect of air vibration in some manner, depending on the physical structure of the entity under consideration. Effective blast radius here is defined within a maximum distance from the tree where any measurable affect of vibrating air on that entity was recorded or recordable, other than the tree itself, such as bark from other trees, leaves, hair, liquids, dirt, gasses etc. If outiside the blast radius (which is different for different substances of course) then no sound.:shrug: