A Tree Falls In The Woods

[Goshin]

A tree falls in the woods. There's nobody around to hear it. Does it make a sound?

Why?

Sound is vibration through a medium, whether gaseous liquid or solid.

Since a tree falling inevitably creates vibration in surrounding media, then yes a falling tree makes a sound whether anyone (or anything) is present to hear it or not.


Of course, some of the more esoteric branches of quantum theory hold that all reality is observer-dependent... that is, that reality exists only as a cloud of potential until observation by a thinking mind forces it to adopt a specific state. If that is the case, then the answer is Yes and No and Maybe.


So since common sense and most science say Yes, and radical quantum theory says Yes/No/Maybe/Depends, the preponderance of evidence suggests that Yes, a tree falling makes noise regardless.

 

[Grand Mal]

It makes the sound of one hand clapping.

 

[Grand Mal]

If a man speaks in the forest and there's not a woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

If a man speaks in the forest and there's not a woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?

:lol:

 

[joG]

A tree falls in the woods. There's nobody around to hear it. Does it make a sound?

Why?

We just don't know and will never and can never. But we have some evidence that points to its making the same racket it does, when you are there.

 

[joG]

Does anyone really believe sound existing is dependent on someone being around to hear it? Are people really that stupid? Yes, the tree makes a sound when it falls regardless of people being around to hear it.

The thing is that you do not know. All you have is a strong suspicion.

 

[Henrin]

The thing is that you do not know. All you have is a strong suspicion.

Sure....ok.

*backs away slowly*

 

[jet57]

A tree falls in the woods. There's nobody around to hear it. Does it make a sound?

Why?

What's the political question to this?

 

[Grand Mal]

What's the political question to this?

Must be why it's under the 'non-political' heading.

 

[zyzygy]

The thing is that you do not know. All you have is a strong suspicion.

So the Earth was silent during the early period in its history when it was bombarded by meteors for twenty million years?

 

[jet57]

Must be why it's under the 'non-political' heading.

Yeah, that has to be it.

 

[the_recruit]

The sensation, the qualia, that we describe as 'sound' is not present, no. No more than the sensation that we describe as "delicious" or "sweet" is present in ice cream when it's not being tasted. These sensations, experiences are produced by physical happenings in the brain. Without those physical happenings occuring no sensory experience is present.

When a tree falls in the woods, there are vibrations of air molecules. But the experience in our minds that we know as 'sound' that vibrations of molecules trigger by stimulating a chain reaction of neural activity is not.

When light of a particular wavelength stimulates my optic nerve and causes me to experience the sensation we describe as 'yellow', this is not intrinsic to light of a particular wavelength. It is intrinsic to particular circuitry of my brain that causes the sensation. A being could have a different circuitry so that when light of that same wavelength stimulates their optic nerve, their brain produces a completely different experience - maybe what we happen to call 'red' or 'pain' or 'smelly' or some other sensation we've never experienced. It isn't intrinsic to the photons.

 

[CanadaJohn]

A tree falls in the woods. There's nobody around to hear it. Does it make a sound?

Why?

I voted other.

If it was a liberal tree, it would make a lot of noise until someone created a program to right it.

If it was a conservative tree, it would quietly dust off it's bark, lop off damaged limbs, and work on righting itself.

If it was an independent tree, it would rot while trying to decide which way to go.

 

[joG]

So the Earth was silent during the early period in its history when it was bombarded by meteors for twenty million years?

Quiet as a mouse. Not a squeak.

 

[VanceMack]

There are many different perspectives but people tend to get lost in the philosophical question (which isnt really about sound at all). But strictly from a physical perspective, the sound occurs in the moment. Whether or not there is 'communication' or someone to hear it is another matter.

Consider a radio transmitter. It can send a signal all day long but it is only half the communication process. Without a receiver, it isnt fulfilled...BUT it IS nonetheless transmitting.

If there are 6 people in the woods, all of them deaf...the 'sound' was still created...but the receivers failed to detect it.

 

[nota bene]

A tree falls in the woods. There's nobody around to hear it. Does it make a sound?

Why?

If I set my alarm clock for 4 P.M. rather than 5 P.M., does it make a sound when it goes off at 4 P.M. even though I'm at work/not there?

 

[Manc Skipper]

If a man expresses an opinion without a woman present, is he still wrong?

 

[the_recruit]

It's the height of semanticism. Of course there is a sound.

There would be a vibration of molecules, yes. But no 'sound'. What we know as 'noise' is a particular sensation, a sensory experience, that is produced by happenings in the brain - it is not 'out there' in the happenings of the tree falling. This is how we can have things like synesthesia. Or how some people can see the dress as white/gold and others see it as blue/black. The sensory experience is inherent to the circuitry of of a person's brain, it is not inherent to the wavelength of the light or the frequency of the vibration of air molecules. It's akin to asking whether the turning of a key in your car ignition produces power whether an engine happens to be under the hood or not. Of course not. A sensation is not produced if there is no brain around to produce it anymore than power is produced when you turn the key in your ignition if no engine is present under the hood. The power isn't inherent to the turning of the key. It's inherent to the happenings inside the engine, which is only triggered by the turning of the ignition.

A being could have a brain wired such that vibrations of air molecules (that would normally cause in a human the experience of the sensation we call 'f-sharp') cause him/her to experience the sensation that we call saltiness. Would you say that saltiness is present in the falling of a tree when such a being is not around to 'taste' the vibrations?

The trouble people have with this - and why it's such an infamous question - is that they have such a hard time separating a sensation felt that is triggered by an external phenomenon with the external phenomenon itself. They are not the same (though one causes the other). External phenomenon can (and are) experienced in different ways, ways that depend on the wiring of the brain, of the sensory organ that produces the sensation. There is not one 'true' sensation of a given phenomenon, there are many. This does not mean there is no external phenomenon. There is indeed a tree. And when it falls it behaves exactly the same way whether a person is around or not. It does not produce a 'sound' whether a human is present or not. The production of 'sound' is a matter of sensory organs/brains, not falling trees.

 

[William Rea]

There would be a vibration of molecules, yes. But no 'sound'. What we know as 'noise' is a particular sensation, a sensory experience, that is produced by happenings in the brain - it is not 'out there' in the happenings of the tree falling. This is how we can have things like synesthesia. Or how some people can see the dress as white/gold and others see it as blue/black. The sensory experience is inherent to the circuitry of of a person's brain, it is not inherent to the wavelength of the light or the frequency of the vibration of air molecules. It's akin to asking whether the turning of a key in your car ignition produces power whether an engine happens to be under the hood or not. Of course not. A sensation is not produced if there is no brain around to produce it anymore than power is produced when you turn the key in your ignition if no engine is present under the hood. The power isn't inherent to the turning of the key. It's inherent to the happenings inside the engine, which is only triggered by the turning of the ignition.

A being could have a brain wired such that vibrations of air molecules (that would normally cause in a human the experience of the sensation we call 'f-sharp') cause him/her to experience the sensation that we call saltiness. Would you say that saltiness is present in the falling of a tree when such a being is not around to 'taste' the vibrations?

The trouble people have with this - and why it's such an infamous question - is that they have such a hard time separating a sensation felt that is triggered by an external phenomenon with the external phenomenon itself. They are not the same (though one causes the other). External phenomenon can (and are) experienced in different ways, ways that depend on the wiring of the brain, of the sensory organ that produces the sensation. There is not one 'true' sensation of a given phenomenon, there are many. This does not mean there is no external phenomenon. There is indeed a tree. And when it falls it behaves exactly the same way whether a person is around or not. It does not produce a 'sound' whether a human is present or not. The production of 'sound' is a matter of sensory organs/brains, not falling trees.

I disagree, sound is a wave compression of molecules in matter and it is there regardless of whether the sensor picks it up or not. The Universe does not cease to exist if we block all our senses to it, all we have done is ceased to experience it, it has not ceased to exist. Condensing physical phenomenon into a set of 'human experiences' does not make the phenomenon any less real such that radio waves do not exist until we turn on the radio receiver and hear them as sound, we know that radio waves are out there.

 

[zyzygy]

I disagree, sound is a wave compression of molecules in matter and it is there regardless of whether the sensor picks it up or not. The Universe does not cease to exist if we block all our senses to it, all we have done is ceased to experience it, it has not ceased to exist. Condensing physical phenomenon into a set of 'human experiences' does not make the phenomenon any less real such that radio waves do not exist until we turn on the radio receiver and hear them as sound, we know that radio waves are out there.

True. Who was the first philosopher with nothing better to do who concocted that sophistic claptrap?

 

[Ikari]

A tree falls in the woods. There's nobody around to hear it. Does it make a sound?

Why?

As far as creating compression waves in atmosphere, then yes.

 

[NoC_T]

A tree falls in the woods. There's nobody around to hear it. Does it make a sound?

Why?

This one's always good to read. Since the relevant definitions seem to hinge upon the necessity of an audience, I have to go with physics. In my opinion, it makes a noise.

 

[zyzygy]

Idea of Plants Hearing and Talking Takes Root | Plants

Can plants hear? In a study, vibrations prompt some to boost their defenses - The Washington Post

 

[the_recruit]

I disagree, sound is a wave compression of molecules in matter and it is there regardless of whether the sensor picks it up or not. The Universe does not cease to exist if we block all our senses to it, all we have done is ceased to experience it, it has not ceased to exist. Condensing physical phenomenon into a set of 'human experiences' does not make the phenomenon any less real such that radio waves do not exist until we turn on the radio receiver and hear them as sound, we know that radio waves are out there.

You're not disagreeing with me. Yes, the physical phenomenon is real. Yes, the physical phenomenon happens regardless of whether someone is there. The point of the question, though, is to not conflate the external phenomenon with the internal experience that it triggers. If you stick your hand in fire, it causes you to feel pain. The pain isn't out there in the fire, the fire isn't still 'painful' if nobody is around with their hand in the fire feeling the pain. If nobody has there hand in the fire, the fire is still there, but the pain is not. The pain has ceased to exist.

It is exactly the same with all of our senses - including sight and sound. People have a much harder time separating the sensation of sound or, especially, the sensation of sight from the physical phenomenon that's causing the sensation. It's pretty damn hard (impossible I would say) to try to conceive of, say, a tree without referring to the sensations it causes in us. When someone says "tree" I think of the image of a tree, I think of what its bark feels like, of the noise of its leaves rustling in the wind. But these are all just sensations internal to us caused by the tree, they are not the tree itself. Intuitively, we tend to think of these sensations as actually being the tree. The point of the "falling tree" question is to show they are not.

 

[Hard Truth]

Defining sound as motion of the air (or other medium) at a rate between 20hz and 20Khz, the falling tree still makes a sound even if it is not perceived by anyone.