• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Case Against Reality...

Russell797 said:
The only thing which exists are pressure waves traversing the ground and air. Our ears and brains interpret the waves as sound. The low frequency waves can be felt throughout our bodies as movement. So, no, in the absence of an observer there is no sound when the tree falls.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the energy of those waves do have an effect on the surrounding. It will make minor changes to the environment, minute to be sure, but there never the less.

So, there is sound when there is no intelligent observer.
 
RAMOSS said:
On the contrary, the energy of those waves do have an effect on the surrounding. It will make minor changes to the environment, minute to be sure, but there never the less.

So, there is sound when there is no intelligent observer.
Click to expand...

All that exists are the waves. The waves have various frequencies, some of which are audible, some not. The waves are a propagation of energy as you say and they cause vibrations in the surroundings. The waves exist and the vibrations those waves cause in other things exists. In order for there to be sound however, an ear and a brain are required to interpret the vibrations. No ear or brain no sound. Only waves and vibrations.
 
Russell797 said:
All that exists are the waves. The waves have various frequencies, some of which are audible, some not. The waves are a propagation of energy as you say and they cause vibrations in the surroundings. The waves exist and the vibrations those waves cause in other things exists. In order for there to be sound however, an ear and a brain are required to interpret the vibrations. No ear or brain no sound. Only waves and vibrations.
Click to expand...

And here is the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'... Sound is waves and vibration. SOund is energy being transmniitted via waves and vibrations though the medium of air. No brain is needed to interpret it.
 
Riveroaks said:
...That started with Galileo actually in 1600 AD.
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of it did, but a way lot more of it started with the pre-Socratics that actually figured out a lot of nature up to 2,000 years before Galileo.



No one has every topped Descartes, or Leibniz, or Kant ... ever.
Click to expand...

Even Democritos did. Not to mention Epicuros or Parmenides! :)

The only thing that the 20th Century has brought us is atheism and agnosticism.
Click to expand...

Which are the results of - finally - applying reason and logic to examine the world around us, instead of superstition... see: religion.


... note that there is NOTHING that the 21st Century has brought us in philosophy at all.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't. Philosophy is dead - the way most people define it. It's often interesting and valuable to examine philosophy in societies without advanced scientific knowledge. But since we are now where we are, when we know that human beings are irrelevant to the universe (Cosmological Theory (tm) Axiom No 1), then a particular behavior pattern - if I may - called Philosophy, is just not useful any more, other than for its academic interest.
 
RAMOSS said:
And here is the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'... Sound is waves and vibration. SOund is energy being transmniitted via waves and vibrations though the medium of air. No brain is needed to interpret it.
Click to expand...

Not all waves are interpreted as sound by our ear to brain system of nerves. Sound is a product of our body's response to the waves and the attendant vibrations induced in our ears. Dogs hear those waves differently. Their sound (what they hear) is not the same as ours even though the existing waves are identical. A rock on the ground experiences the vibrations but it does not hear anything. It does not experience "sound".

Same thing applies to light waves. Other animals "see" the same light waves differently than do we humans. The light waves are identical, they exist, but are interpreted as seeing by our eye to brain connections. There is no "seeing" or "hearing (sound)" without an observer. Only the waves and the vibrations exist.
 
Russell797 said:
The only thing which exists are pressure waves traversing the ground and air. Our ears and brains interpret the waves as sound. The low frequency waves can be felt throughout our bodies as movement. So, no, in the absence of an observer there is no sound when the tree falls.
Click to expand...

..except that the "pressure waves traversing the ground and air" still exist rather or not someone is there to interpret the resulting sound.
 
Riveroaks said:
According to George Berkeley (1685 - 1753) if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes, God is there to hear it.

You should read more.

You should read philosophy.
Click to expand...

Forest animals have ears.
 
Cally said:
..except that the "pressure waves traversing the ground and air" still exist rather or not someone is there to interpret the resulting sound.
Click to expand...

That's right. All that exist are moving waves dissipating energy through a medium. No different than waves moving through water, except the waves moving through the air which we hear are of a much higher frequency.
 
In high school I had a very good friend who was deaf. During a pep rally we were kicking a hacky sack behind the bleachers. When the crowd started stomping their feet he could the loud sound waves hitting him.


FFS sound is real whether it is heard or not. This isnt the 1800's we know better now.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
In high school I had a very good friend who was deaf. During a pep rally we were kicking a hacky sack behind the bleachers. When the crowd started stomping their feet he could the loud sound waves hitting him.


FFS sound is real whether it is heard or not. This isnt the 1800's we know better now.
Click to expand...

The waves are real whether they are heard or not. For your friend the waves were not sound, they were felt as waves impacted his body, and he only felt the lower frequency waves being oblivious to the higher frequency waves.
 
Russell797 said:
The waves are real whether they are heard or not. For your friend the waves were not sound, they were felt as waves impacted his body, and he only felt the lower frequency waves being oblivious to the higher frequency waves.
Click to expand...

True. And I knew that as it happened in high school. I know it falls under being observed still.

But here is the answer to the riddle about trees falling unobserved in forests and if they make sound. The assumption in the riddle is that a tree exists in a forest. This important since the riddle establishes existence of a object that has been observed before (ie we all know what a tree is). We can observe trees and document observations of a tree in a forest falling over and hitting the ground. Al observable trees make a sound when they strike the ground. The only difference between a observable tree and a observable tree is its location. Remember it was established in the riddle that it was a tree in a forest. Giving that information the riddle solves itself. Of course the tree makes a sound since all observable trees make a sound therefor there is no logical reason why one not being observed would be any different other than there being no one to know it since it was unobserved.

We can assume that observed and explained physics does not change reality if it isnt observed. The simplicity of that assumption is that the universe would be going haywire if the unobserved was any different than the observable. . It would alter reality.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
True. And I knew that as it happened in high school. I know it falls under being observed still.

But here is the answer to the riddle about trees falling unobserved in forests and if they make sound. The assumption in the riddle is that a tree exists in a forest. This important since the riddle establishes existence of a object that has been observed before (ie we all know what a tree is). We can observe trees and document observations of a tree in a forest falling over and hitting the ground. Al observable trees make a sound when they strike the ground. The only difference between a observable tree and a observable tree is its location. Remember it was established in the riddle that it was a tree in a forest. Giving that information the riddle solves itself. Of course the tree makes a sound since all observable trees make a sound therefor there is no logical reason why one not being observed would be any different other than there being no one to know it since it was unobserved.

We can assume that observed and explained physics does not change reality if it isnt observed. The simplicity of that assumption is that the universe would be going haywire if the unobserved was any different than the observable. . It would alter reality.
Click to expand...

All that is true for the macro universe and objects we encounter near our own scale and larger. For the very, very small, at the scale of atoms and smaller, observation does alter or dictate what appears "real". The uncertainty of quantum mechanics and the quantum scale is one line of reasoning for the idea of the infinite multiverse where all possible outcomes do in fact occur.

Anyway, back up were we reside the laws of nature appear to hold everywhere and at all times. That seeming reality allows for us to do science because the universe is rendered predictable. When a tree falls to the ground there will always be vibrations induced in the ground and air. If there were no air there would be no sound when the tree fell, although you would still feel the ground shake as the vibrational waves moved past you. In the air all there is are waves which our ears and brains interpret as sound as the waves pass by us.
 
Russell797 said:
All that is true for the macro universe and objects we encounter near our own scale and larger. For the very, very small, at the scale of atoms and smaller, observation does alter or dictate what appears "real". The uncertainty of quantum mechanics and the quantum scale is one line of reasoning for the idea of the infinite multiverse where all possible outcomes do in fact occur.
Click to expand...
What no mention of cats?

I didnt mention quantum mechanics because its a hypothetical tree in a forest.

Anyway, back up were we reside the laws of nature appear to hold everywhere and at all times. That seeming reality allows for us to do science because the universe is rendered predictable. When a tree falls to the ground there will always be vibrations induced in the ground and air. If there were no air there would be no sound when the tree fell, although you would still feel the ground shake as the vibrational waves moved past you. In the air all there is are waves which our ears and brains interpret as sound as the waves pass by us.
Click to expand...

If one doesnt accept that sound is sound waves then what is it? In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as a typically audible mechanical wave of pressure and displacement, through a medium such as air or water. SO when that energy from the impact of the tree hitting the ground it transfers through the air (and water if any is near) as sound waves.

So remember the laws of thermodynamics dictates that the energy of the fall must go somewhere. Most is adsorbed by the ground some bounces back into the wood and some goes into the air as sound waves. It would be impossible for the sounds waves to not be present at that time. Which is why modern day philosophers dont bother talking about trees in forests making sound. Which is usually covered by the instructor in any basic level philosophy class.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
What no mention of cats?

I didnt mention quantum mechanics because its a hypothetical tree in a forest.



If one doesnt accept that sound is sound waves then what is it? In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as a typically audible mechanical wave of pressure and displacement, through a medium such as air or water. SO when that energy from the impact of the tree hitting the ground it transfers through the air (and water if any is near) as sound waves.

So remember the laws of thermodynamics dictates that the energy of the fall must go somewhere. Most is adsorbed by the ground some bounces back into the wood and some goes into the air as sound waves. It would be impossible for the sounds waves to not be present at that time. Which is why modern day philosophers dont bother talking about trees in forests making sound. Which is usually covered by the instructor in any basic level philosophy class.
Click to expand...

All that is true and I not contesting any of it. What I am saying is that sound is a function of our ears and brains in how the pressure waves are interpreted. What about the waves outside the spectrum of frequency that can not be heard which are also present above and below the audible range? They are just waves no different from the ones we can hear, but they are not "sound waves" for humans, because we can not hear them. Some of them may be sound waves for dogs and cats however!
 
Russell797 said:
All that is true and I not contesting any of it. What I am saying is that sound is a function of our ears and brains in how the pressure waves are interpreted. What about the waves outside the spectrum of frequency that can not be heard which are also present above and below the audible range? They are just waves no different from the ones we can hear, but they are not "sound waves" for humans, because we can not hear them. Some of them may be sound waves for dogs and cats however!
Click to expand...

Sound is sound waves and will continue being sound waves without ears to hear it. The human ear has no effect on the tree impacting the ground and the resulting sound waves emitted (no matter the frequency). The human ear only deciphers sound waves it doesnt create them.

There is this thing called inaudible sound. It is just inaudible to humans not instruments that can record sound waves. The human generally can hear sound waves 20 and 20,000 hertz range. Our perception of sound indeed comes from human auditory organs in our head. But sound waves exist because of the sound source (ie a tree falling and hitting the ground).
 
Russell797 said:
All that is true and I not contesting any of it. What I am saying is that sound is a function of our ears and brains in how the pressure waves are interpreted. What about the waves outside the spectrum of frequency that can not be heard which are also present above and below the audible range? They are just waves no different from the ones we can hear, but they are not "sound waves" for humans, because we can not hear them. Some of them may be sound waves for dogs and cats however!
Click to expand...

I think you are conflating 'SOUND' and "NOISE'
 
If a tree falls down in the forest and there is nobody there to see it is it still standing up?
 
zyzygy said:
If a tree falls down in the forest and there is nobody there to see it is it still standing up?
Click to expand...

Waves moving through the air and ground are not sound and electromagnetic waves passing through space are not vision. You do not see the tree, you see the light waves travelling from the tree to your eyes and interpreted by your brain. People seem not to be able to grasp this concept. You can never see or hear the tree when it falls, your eyes and ears capture the vibrations as they later pass you by and your brain interprets the vibrations as sound or vision.
 
Russell797 said:
Waves moving through the air and ground are not sound and electromagnetic waves passing through space are not vision. You do not see the tree, you see the light waves travelling from the tree to your eyes and interpreted by your brain. People seem not to be able to grasp this concept. You can never see or hear the tree when it falls, your eyes and ears capture the vibrations as they later pass you by and your brain interprets the vibrations as sound or vision.
Click to expand...

I thinned out some trees in my garden last week and I definitely saw and heard them falling.
 
shagg said:
He defines something that I think a lot of people get a vague sense of at some point in their life. For me, it was when I was around 3. My uncle was reviewing colors with me, which I had down pretty well at the time. And it suddenly occurred to me. What if he sees blue the way I see red? What if, if I could use his eyes for a minute, the sky looked red and apples looked blue? What would be correct? If I see the apple as red, and someone elses red looks blue to me, what is the apple really? Years later I figured it was impossible to tell and in the end wouldn't really matter anyway. It's pretty cool he never gave up and found a way to apply less fallible science to the problem, on top of defining the problem better than I ever could. It ties in to the brain in the vat / Deus Deceptor / The Matrix type problems, but in a way you can pit science against it and there's a chance for real answers.

A friend of mine referred me to the Double Slit Experiment (it's G rated, I swear), and my first reaction was to deny that it was even possible for such an anomaly to happen, never mind be predictably reproducible. The only logical conclusion is that the very act of perceiving reality has an impact on reality somehow. Which would mean that there's a whole lot of stuff we are really clueless about as a species.
Click to expand...

OK - I love the double slit experiment. And I need to share with you something that takes it a step further into "WTF IS GOING ON HERE?!". Check out the experiments done with entangled particles. The "Quantum Eraser" it's frequently called. It seems that a twin particle, being viewed AFTER it's twin went through a slit, affects what happened to its twin before it went through its slit. In other words, a present event changed the past... or a future event changes the present. Either way, Mind Blown.
 
zyzygy said:
I thinned out some trees in my garden last week and I definitely saw and heard them falling.
Click to expand...

What you saw and heard were energy waves as they passed by you. You can not 'see' or 'hear' them fall. You see and hear the waves they produce in the vacuum and the air. It takes time for those waves to reach you, so you did not see the fall or hear the sound the instant the tree fell. The time difference may be so small that you don't notice it, but it's there.
 
fredmertzz said:
OK - I love the double slit experiment. And I need to share with you something that takes it a step further into "WTF IS GOING ON HERE?!". Check out the experiments done with entangled particles. The "Quantum Eraser" it's frequently called. It seems that a twin particle, being viewed AFTER it's twin went through a slit, affects what happened to its twin before it went through its slit. In other words, a present event changed the past... or a future event changes the present. Either way, Mind Blown.
Click to expand...

The thing is though that nothing happened to the twin particle "before" the particle went through the slit. It existed as a wave form capable of being in either state. The past was not changed because neither of the entangled particles had a discreet identity until one of them was observed.
 
Last edited:
Russell797 said:
What you saw and heard were energy waves as they passed by you. You can not 'see' or 'hear' them fall. You see and hear the waves they produce in the vacuum and the air. It takes time for those waves to reach you, so you did not see the fall or hear the sound the instant the tree fell. The time difference may be so small that you don't notice it, but it's there.
Click to expand...

It's the same thing for all practical purposes. Bishop Berkeley will be of no help to you if a tree falls on your head.
 
zyzygy said:
It's the same thing for all practical purposes. Bishop Berkeley will be of no help to you if a tree falls on your head.
Click to expand...

The point is though that pressure waves passing through the air are not sound. Our ears and brains interpret the impact of those waves as what we call sound. Absent an observer capable of interpreting the energy passing them by, all that exists are the waves. Waves are everywhere, but we can't necessarily hear them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom