Dumb Question About Trees Falling in a Fores

Thats because you have a problem with the sentence 'make a sound'.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No that is garbage, the question should be "Does the trasmitter produce E-M waves?" in this simile.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

imaplank
maybe you need to learn the difference in sound and sound wave.
sound wave is a vibration of air molecules in the range of 20 cps to 20,000 cps.

sound is what the brain interprets sound waves as.

my original assertion stands.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No you need to learn there is no difference! 'Make M M A A K K E E Make a sound', as in emit a compression wave! Did you get that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that question is completely different.

A similar question would be. "does a radio station produce a radio broadcast, if there is no radio around to decode the broadcast, and the answer is yes.

Also, sound recording equipment records sound. There is no reason to say we hear sound as opposed to sound waves, and say sound recording devices detect sound waves, not sound. That is just wordplay.

 

If the variance is completely, and ridiculously, minimal, or probably non-existent, it is statistically safe to say that you "know".

You may as well ask, "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, will golden monkeys fly out of the tree and dance a jig?"

But nobody is bandying that question about, praising it up and down as "confusing".

 

then you've completely missed the point of the question.

induction can't be justified through what has already happened, as it is being used to infer what will happen. Just read the problem of induction, its a real problem which is simply ignored for the sake of rationality... but briefly stated, any attempt to justify induction will be flawed because it will beg the question.

It is NOT statistically safe to say that you "know', and you don't have any idea if the "variance is completely minimal". You may make the inductive leap and assume that the future will continue as it has in the past... but this leap cannot be justified by experience. In another way which this this question might be interpreted, one cannot deductively justify what is beyond one's experience using one's experience... it is illogical; and inductive justification is not sufficient under any definition of "knowledge" to count.

One last time: read up on the problem of induction.

I mentioned QM in a previous post... if anything at all, this actually lends weight to the idea that the universe might suddenly completely change, at any moment... indeed, all the "knowledge" we have gained through experience over the eons might be useless a few instants from now.

I thought this was a philosophy forum, ffs

edit: by the way, who said it was confusing? Perhaps the original poster was confused, but its actually a simple question and i'm pretty sure its used in most introductory philosophy classes to highlight not only what i've said, but also of a common philosophical process.

 

i disagree.
the answer is no
without a radio the broadcast will never be produced

i also disagree with this.
sound recording equipment records the sound waves not the sound.

a similar situation exists with light waves.
light waves are in essence very high frequency radio waves.
our eyes interpret them as light.

you seem to think i am denying the existence of sound waves. i am not.

 

Does any philosophical discussion ever lead to any sort of satisfying conclusion? Oh, wait. This is sciforums. Discussions never lead to any sort of conclusion, satisfying or otherwise.

Anyway, if "sound" in this case is defined as cyclic pressure variations in air, then, by definition, any object moving through the air with sufficient speed to produce turbulence and additional pressure variations due to impacting other obgects (other trees, leaves, twigs, the ground...) will produce a sound. This can be and is proven.

If the quantum nature of the universe suddenly changes such that this does not occurr, then the tacit assumptions behind the question make the question pointless (and our very existence suspect...).

If by "sound" you mean the human perception of pressure variations in air, then no, the tree makes no "sound". But this is rather silly semantic game-playing. Clearly the point of the question is to make philosophy students start rambling in the same way as we are doing now, in an effort to spin their intellects off into new directions.

 

I know, that's what's so hilarious about it.

I'm not a philopohsy student - I gut chickens for a living.

But anyway, I'm with the 'perception' school. So no, the tree doesn't make a 'sound'.

 

Now that was good. That's the clearest way of expressing the ambiguity (and resolving it) I have yet read.

Somehow that seems to be an occupation that lies at the very heart of philosophy.

 

It doesn't resolve anything. It's just a parallel analogy.

 

The original question is also resolved. The analogy simply makes the resolution clearer by providing a second example of the general class.

 

Oh right.

So do they make a sound, or don't they?

 

No.

 

its a problem of definition. does the tree obey the laws of physics? if yes, it produces a sound wave, if it does not, then there is no telling what it will do.

also, it is a general assumption in physics that the same laws of physics apply everywhere, so yes it makes a sound according to physics.

 

I agree.

So does anyone think they make a sound - or don't they?

 

It makes a sound wave. This isn't the same as a sound. Sound requires human perception of the wave.

 

where is it so unambiguously defined as such? You cant just assert something you've made up and expect to not be challenged!

 

is there anything around to perceive it? I would say that anything that can perceive the sound wave would qualify, not just a human. it would be a strange forest (perhaps a fores?) if there were no creature that could perceive a sound wave in one way or another.

but if you define that there is nothing able to perceive the wave and you define the wave as having to be perceive to be sound, then by definition, it did not make a sound. its like saying "is the invisible thing viable?"

or 2!=1, does 2=1? ("!=" should be read as "not equal" like in C code)

 

That doesn't change my point.
In the context of questioning the idea of inductive knowledge, the question, "if a tree falls... does it make a sound?", is only as valid as the question, "if a tree falls in the forest, will golden monkeys fly out of it, and do a jig?"