The Reason "If A Tree Falls....... " is Totally Stupid

FreedomFromAll said:

FFS dude get off your high horse and stop with the condescending BS. I used the word semantics properly, whether you are able to understand it or not. And no one established a what if question as anything other than a what if question. You can pretend all that you want that it isnt a what if question that you want, but that wont change it from a what if question.

Click to expand...

No you did not. All you did was manage to demonstrate a lack of comprehension about language.

Firstly semantics is a branch of philosophy. So in post #12 your saying, "So it isn't a philosophical argument it is just semantics." This tells me already that the person i am dealing with does not edit his work before publishing. You did not think that statement through at all.

Secondly, your saying, "And if we define all the words and use them properly there is nothing to discuss."
That translates to you saying that if we all agree then the discussion is finished. Yet i have never come across a thought experiment where everyone could agree, that being the essence of a thought experiment, to invoke discussion, not agreement.

To answer this post, yes it is a "what if" question. But unfortunately for you that is also a "so what" statement. Thank you for stating the obvious. My pointing out that a thought experiment serves the purpose suitable to psychology does not negate what i would assume be your insistence that your physics answer is the proper use. Nor did i suggest there is no other uses for the thought experiment.

The entire pseudo philosophy question is silly. And no serious philosopher is bothering to discuss it. The only people that are discussing are arm chair philosophers or first year students.

Click to expand...

Which begs the question that as you are actually in this discussion then on which side do you fall on, the first year student or the armchair philosopher?

Captain Adverse said:

I beg to differ. Do not the animals that live in the forest "hear" the sound.

Unless you are arguing that while sound waves exist, there really is no "sound" to be heard even if nothing with the ability to hear it is there when the sound is made?

The fact is, a sound is created whether or not anything is present to hear it.

Click to expand...

This is a common misunderstanding of what the question is getting at. It's not asking about the presence of pressure waves - surely that happens. It's asking about the presence of the conscious experience that we call 'sound'. This conscious experience is not (obviously) ontologically identical to air molecules vibrating. The vibrating air causes the conscious experience. Not is the conscious experience.

Here is a better example for those who struggle seeing this distinction. When you put your hand in a fire, you experience pain. Is the pain 'out there' in the fire? Is there still pain present in the fire when nobody's hand is in the fire? The relationship of our sensory experience of touch to the world is no different than the relationship of our sensory experience of sound to the world.

rhinefire said:

Take the stupid question "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to witness, does it fall"? It is supposed to be the brick wall for many philosophical debates.
Now compare that to this, "Does a bear crap in the woods"? which means the answer is positively yes, it does. If neither is witnessed yet the bear question is used to declare a positive yes then the tree question is therefore also a resounding yes.

Click to expand...

If it is not heard, then there is no "sound." There are only sound waves, which may or may not disturb something in the surroundings, assuming there is air or other medium in which the sound waves may travel from A to B. However, since it is virtually impossible for there not to be some living creature in the immediate vicinity which would sense those waves, i.e. hear them; it's a dumb question---just like your thread title implies.

soylentgreen said:

No you did not. All you did was manage to demonstrate a lack of comprehension about language.

Firstly semantics is a branch of philosophy. So in post #12 your saying, "So it isn't a philosophical argument it is just semantics." This tells me already that the person i am dealing with does not edit his work before publishing. You did not think that statement through at all.

Secondly, your saying, "And if we define all the words and use them properly there is nothing to discuss."
That translates to you saying that if we all agree then the discussion is finished. Yet i have never come across a thought experiment where everyone could agree, that being the essence of a thought experiment, to invoke discussion, not agreement.

To answer this post, yes it is a "what if" question. But unfortunately for you that is also a "so what" statement. Thank you for stating the obvious. My pointing out that a thought experiment serves the purpose suitable to psychology does not negate what i would assume be your insistence that your physics answer is the proper use. Nor did i suggest there is no other uses for the thought experiment.



Which begs the question that as you are actually in this discussion then on which side do you fall on, the first year student or the armchair philosopher?

Click to expand...

FFS dude you are out in left field. The fact is that the tree falling crap has been put to rest a long time ago. The only people still talking about it are people who dont know much about philosophy or physics. The tree riddle is easily answered through the laws of physics. That is because the question is old and the answer wasnt readily available like it is now, when dealing with the physics of a tree falling in the woods somewhere on this planet.


A better way to address the philosophical problem is to ask: "How can we know something is real unless we can perceive it?" Cue the cat in a box. And also cue the bias. There are those that want a specific unknowable answer to this question, to pad their belief system. They will go on about how you cannot know something that you cannot perceive and blah blah blah. They will avoid the other problem that they created: If they cannot perceive it then how can they perceive the question? It then circles around to something they made up; fantasy. But there are methods of perceiving something that we cannot see, hear, touch, smell using a specialized device/tool. The device/toll in every case uses the laws of physics to do its job. Outside of that we use figures and representations. The tree is something that can be defined. Not only defined but disturbed in great detail all the way down to the quantum level. Also a typical forest can be defined in the same manner. The question is only philosophical if you ignore the physical world. Including the revised question that I posed. See first we have to define what we are talking about that is "real" and if it can be "perceived" and by what methods.

But I suspect you dont care about all that you are just here to troll the people that you disagree with.

the_recruit said:

This is a common misunderstanding of what the question is getting at. It's not asking about the presence of pressure waves - surely that happens. It's asking about the presence of the conscious experience that we call 'sound'. This conscious experience is not (obviously) ontologically identical to air molecules vibrating. The vibrating air causes the conscious experience. Not is the conscious experience.

Here is a better example for those who struggle seeing this distinction. When you put your hand in a fire, you experience pain. Is the pain 'out there' in the fire? Is there still pain present in the fire when nobody's hand is in the fire? The relationship of our sensory experience of touch to the world is no different than the relationship of our sensory experience of sound to the world.

Click to expand...

Then it's a very badly worded argument because it doesn't say "conscious experience", it says "sound." So it's stupid regardless.

Cephus said:

Then it's a very badly worded argument because it doesn't say "conscious experience", it says "sound."

Click to expand...

Not at all. Colloquially we often use the string of characters "s-o-u-n-d" to describe a type experience we have. People used the word "sound" (or some other string of characters) to have this meaning long before we knew that it is caused by vibrations in the air stimulating features of our inner ear. Or people with tinnitus, for example, hear a ringing sound. Yet there is no corresponding vibration of air happening within their ears.

You can only ever understand the question of the OP by understanding this distinction. Saying that "yes, the falling tree produces waves of air pressure" doesn't answer the question at all; it doesn't even understand what has been asked.

Cephus said:

The question is not "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it", it's does it make a sound and the answer is yes because we know how sound operates.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the discussion then involves two very different definitions of the word "sound," a physical vibration and a mental sensory perception. Does the second definition exist for a deaf person?

FreedomFromAll said:

FFS dude you are out in left field. The fact is that the tree falling crap has been put to rest a long time ago. The only people still talking about it are people who dont know much about philosophy or physics. The tree riddle is easily answered through the laws of physics. That is because the question is old and the answer wasnt readily available like it is now, when dealing with the physics of a tree falling in the woods somewhere on this planet.


A better way to address the philosophical problem is to ask: "How can we know something is real unless we can perceive it?" Cue the cat in a box. And also cue the bias. There are those that want a specific unknowable answer to this question, to pad their belief system. They will go on about how you cannot know something that you cannot perceive and blah blah blah. They will avoid the other problem that they created: If they cannot perceive it then how can they perceive the question? It then circles around to something they made up; fantasy. But there are methods of perceiving something that we cannot see, hear, touch, smell using a specialized device/tool. The device/toll in every case uses the laws of physics to do its job. Outside of that we use figures and representations. The tree is something that can be defined. Not only defined but disturbed in great detail all the way down to the quantum level. Also a typical forest can be defined in the same manner. The question is only philosophical if you ignore the physical world. Including the revised question that I posed. See first we have to define what we are talking about that is "real" and if it can be "perceived" and by what methods.

Click to expand...

It is not a riddle. You seem to have real difficulty understanding a simple concept. A riddle has an answer, thought experiments do not. Thought experiments are there to engineer variables of answers. A riddle is to pose a question so that the answer is not obvious. And i have already explained why i question your understanding of sound as explained by physics.

Also you appear to lack the required amount of imagination needed to actually define the words accurately. Or just an inability to understand when you contradict yourself, not sure which.
Your first use of the word perceive to tell us that it is not possible to perceive. Then in your second use you come up with a way to perceive, which contradicts your first that there is no way. Very narrow minded of you to think philosophers must only use their natural senses when not only is the question one of interest in science but that there is no rule a philosopher cannot make use any item of knowledge.

The cat thought experiment is relevant only to quantum physics not macro. So is not a question asked if you want to know about something where human senses are only used to perceive anyway. That which is on a quantum level can only be perceived through machinery.

See first we have to define what we are talking about that is "real" and if it can be "perceived" and by what methods.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree with this. What i disagree with is that you insist that your method is the way to define " real" or perceived.

But I suspect you dont care about all that you are just here to troll the people that you disagree with.

Click to expand...

If pointing out errors in your thinking is trolling then so be it.

JohnPaul said:

Yes, but the discussion then involves two very different definitions of the word "sound," a physical vibration and a mental sensory perception. Does the second definition exist for a deaf person?

Click to expand...

No, because the experiment is not meant for a deaf person. Again that meaning of sound is that there has to be a person to hear it. A person who cannot hear nullifies the experiment, not falsify it.
If i asked you to measure which was faster, the speed of light or a turtle and than gave you a turtle and a torch that did not work.... the outcome will be an off the chart statistical anomaly.

It does not give two different definitions. It gives you two definitions from different sources. But both definitions are the ones that are agreed upon by those in the field of those definitions. And there is no real good reason not agree with the definitions. It is the source of the definition that brings about disagreement

soylentgreen said:

The cat thought experiment is relevant only to quantum physics not macro. So is not a question asked if you want to know about something where human senses are only used to perceive anyway. That which is on a quantum level can only be perceived through machinery.

Click to expand...

The point of the cat experiment is that a quantum event in a single particle determines the life or death of the cat, so the result could be perceived as a macro event.

soylentgreen said:

It is not a riddle. You seem to have real difficulty understanding a simple concept. A riddle has an answer, thought experiments do not. Thought experiments are there to engineer variables of answers. A riddle is to pose a question so that the answer is not obvious. And i have already explained why i question your understanding of sound as explained by physics.

Also you appear to lack the required amount of imagination needed to actually define the words accurately. Or just an inability to understand when you contradict yourself, not sure which.
Your first use of the word perceive to tell us that it is not possible to perceive. Then in your second use you come up with a way to perceive, which contradicts your first that there is no way. Very narrow minded of you to think philosophers must only use their natural senses when not only is the question one of interest in science but that there is no rule a philosopher cannot make use any item of knowledge.

The cat thought experiment is relevant only to quantum physics not macro. So is not a question asked if you want to know about something where human senses are only used to perceive anyway. That which is on a quantum level can only be perceived through machinery.


I do not disagree with this. What i disagree with is that you insist that your method is the way to define " real" or perceived.



If pointing out errors in your thinking is trolling then so be it.

Click to expand...

The problem with telling a debater what their position is/and or what they are saying/can understand is that in most cases you are going to be wrong. And it also just makes you sound condescending and very fallacious. I am sure that there is some type of psychological reason that a person would do that. But that is neither here or there.

Excuse me but, I find nothing to respond to in your post since it largely has nothing to do with anything other than you. If you want to debate a given subject please refrain from taking the argument to the person and painting that person as inept in a attempt to deflect an argument that you were unable to refute.

EDIT: Also note that this subject has been gone over countless times in other posts. My treatment of the subject reflects those conversations.

The only way a falling tree makes no sound is if it crashes down in a vacuum. Otherwise, a sound it will make.

the_recruit said:

This is a common misunderstanding of what the question is getting at. It's not asking about the presence of pressure waves - surely that happens. It's asking about the presence of the conscious experience that we call 'sound'. This conscious experience is not (obviously) ontologically identical to air molecules vibrating. The vibrating air causes the conscious experience. Not is the conscious experience.

Here is a better example for those who struggle seeing this distinction. When you put your hand in a fire, you experience pain. Is the pain 'out there' in the fire? Is there still pain present in the fire when nobody's hand is in the fire? The relationship of our sensory experience of touch to the world is no different than the relationship of our sensory experience of sound to the world.

Click to expand...

I see it a little differently.
If there is no one to hear the sound of the tree falling, does it matter if there is a sound or not? And how can we say, with any meaning, that something exists if its existence has no relevance?

JohnPaul said:

The point of the cat experiment is that a quantum event in a single particle determines the life or death of the cat, so the result could be perceived as a macro event.

Click to expand...

Actually, that is exactly the opposite of the intention of Schroeder. He was attempting to show that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is ridiculous, and came up with a scenario that obviously is false as an implication of the Copenhagen interpretation to try to refute it.

RAMOSS said:

Actually, that is exactly the opposite of the intention of Schroeder. He was attempting to show that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is ridiculous, and came up with a scenario that obviously is false as an implication of the Copenhagen interpretation to try to refute it.

Click to expand...

You beat me to it. A lot of people have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to Schrodinger's cat.

pinqy said:

I see it a little differently.
If there is no one to hear the sound of the tree falling, does it matter if there is a sound or not?

Click to expand...

It's philosophy. It matters insofar as someone is curious about the answer to the question, is curious about the nature of our perceptions and how they relate to reality. If this doesn't interest you the answer probably won't have any significant bearing on your life.

pinqy said:

And how can we say, with any meaning, that something exists if its existence has no relevance?

Click to expand...

Well, because 'to be' doesn't mean 'to be relevant'. Many things exist that aren't "relevant". We could point to some atom buried deep in the heart of, say, Pluto as being highly irrelevant to us. But it's still there.

the_recruit said:

It's philosophy. It matters insofar as someone is curious about the answer to the question, is curious about the nature of our perceptions and how they relate to reality. If this doesn't interest you the answer probably won't have any significant bearing on your life.

Click to expand...

I'm referring to the philosophy of the matter. If there is no one to hear the sound, then it doesn't make a difference if there was a sound or not. So does the concept of sound have any meaning in this context? That's a fundamental philosophical question on the nature of reality.

Well, because 'to be' doesn't mean 'to be relevant'. Many things exist that aren't "relevant". We could point to some atom buried deep in the heart of, say, Pluto as being highly irrelevant to us. But it's still there.

Click to expand...

I didn't say "relevant to us." The presence or absence of an atom in Pluto might well have an effect and interrelationship with surrounding particles. Change that one atom, and you change part of the makeup of Pluto, possibly to a large extent.

But if there is no difference between the sound of a tree falling and no sound....if you can substitute one for the other without any change at all, then what is them meaning and relevance of "sound" in this context?

JohnPaul said:

The point of the cat experiment is that a quantum event in a single particle determines the life or death of the cat, so the result could be perceived as a macro event.

Click to expand...

I may have heard this wrong then because that is not how i would describe it. In fact the reason for a cat is that it highlights the fact that this is of only a concern in quantum not in macro. After all, neither you or a cat or any object can be both at the same time dead and alive. They are one or the other.
And the atomic particle used by shrodinger to break the vial of poison is optional. Anything that kills and could be set to a random method is usable. The point is that the option of the cat being dead or alive is unpredictable. Not that an atomic particle decayed.

The quantum event being sought for here is not the decay of an atomic particle but what the state of existence is for the cat A.K.A. sub atomic particle.

Captain Adverse said:

The actual question is "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound." In your question all one has to do is go see the fallen tree to show it has fallen and where it fell from.

However, the old issue was is if you weren't there to hear it fall, did it make a sound when it did.

We now know that sound waves occur even if we aren't there to hear them, so it is no longer a point of argument.

Click to expand...

The question revolves around the semantic use of the word "sound".

Some say that a "sound" is a living being perception experience, thus if there was no one around to "hear" it, no "sound" occurred.

Others say, no, the word "sound" is simply the potential to stimulate auditory mechanisms were a living being with auditory mechanisms around, whether or not said being was actually around to "hear" the "sound".

Depends, I guess, on your point of view.

I prefer the former.

pinqy said:

I'm referring to the philosophy of the matter. If there is no one to hear the sound, then it doesn't make a difference if there was a sound or not. So does the concept of sound have any meaning in this context? That's a fundamental philosophical question on the nature of reality.

Click to expand...

While your statement is true, it only represents one side of the philosophical discussion on the nature of reality. You have represented the side that says without consciousness the universe is just meaningless mechanics while the other side of the debate is that the universes very existence with or without consciousness is meaning enough.
The good thing about this thought experiment is that as soon as a person starts to lean towards a concept. That concept itself becomes a philosophical question.

pinqy said:

I'm referring to the philosophy of the matter. If there is no one to hear the sound, then it doesn't make a difference if there was a sound or not.

Click to expand...

Sure it does. The difference would be 'sound is present' vs 'sound is not present'.

pinqy said:

So does the concept of sound have any meaning in this context?

Click to expand...

Yes. It has the meaning I've been describing. Do you understand what a friend means when they say to you "I hear a ringing sound"? I don't intend to be condescending here - I know you understand it. My point is just that if you understand the meaning there, then you also understand what someone who asks the tree-falling question means by the string of characters "s-o-u-n-d".

You're suspicious that 'sound' may be meaningless....but actually you understand its meaning just fine. This confusion pops up in philosophy discussion a lot, especially surrounding anything consciousness/conscious experience.

pinqy said:

But if there is no difference between the sound of a tree falling and no sound....if you can substitute one for the other without any change at all

Click to expand...

But these aren't interchangeable. Sound is present =/= sound is not present. And this doesn't have anything to do with the meaning of 'sound'. It has to do with the meaning of 'not'. "X is present" =/= "X is not present" regardless of what X means.

pinqy said:

then what is them meaning and relevance of "sound" in this context?

Click to expand...

Again, it's the meaning that I've been describing. It hasn't changed while you were typing.

the_recruit said:

Sure it does. The difference would be 'sound is present' vs 'sound is not present'.

Click to expand...

And how does this difference affect anything?

Yes. It has the meaning I've been describing. Do you understand what a friend means when they say to you "I hear a ringing sound"? I don't intend to be condescending here - I know you understand it. My point is just that if you understand the meaning there, then you also understand what someone who asks the tree-falling question means by the string of characters "s-o-u-n-d".

Click to expand...

I said the CONCEPT of sound, specifically in the context.

But these aren't interchangeable. Sound is present =/= sound is not present. And this doesn't have anything to do with the meaning of 'sound'. It has to do with the meaning of 'not'. "X is present" =/= "X is not present" regardless of what X means.

Click to expand...

IF A, then X, AND IF B, then X. A and B are interchangeable and identical as far as X is concerned.
If there is a listener than a sound gives a stimuli to the listener and if there is no sound, then there is null effect.
If there is no listener, then the effect is null regardless of whether a "sound" is generated or not.

"Sound" is a meaningless concept if there is no listener because the effects are the same either way.

Oh, when I'm using the word "meaning" I'm not talking semantic meaning, I'm talking about importance, relevance, usefulness.

One more example...
Let's say you are connected by wires to a battery and a switch. In the OFF position, you will NOT receive an electric shock. In the ON position, you will. We can agree the switch, battery, and wires have importance and meaning and their presence/absence makes a difference.

But what if the switch did nothing. In the OFF position, no shock, in the ON position, no shock. The presence or absence of the switch, battery, and wires is now moot. The wires could now be made out of silk. The battery could now be a chunk of wood.

So objects have significance only as far as their effect.

pinqy said:

And how does this difference affect anything?

Click to expand...

It doesn’t have to. Whether there is a difference and whether this difference causes something else to be different are separate questions. One doesn’t entail the other. A difference that doesn’t lead to something else being different is still, itself, a difference (by definition, this is just a truism).

You’re conflating X with the effects of X. Which is a profound confusion surrounding being and causality.

pinqy said:

I said the CONCEPT of sound, specifically in the context.

Click to expand...

So is your friend when he speaks of hearing a ringing sound. He’s communicating that he’s experiencing a particular instantiation (I’m hearing a ringing sound) of the generalized concept we refer to as sound.

pinqy said:

IF A, then X, AND IF B, then X. A and B are interchangeable and identical as far as X is concerned.

Click to expand...

But the falling tree question isn’t asking about how the presence/lack of presence of sound affects X. It’s simply asking about the presence/lack of presence of sound. It’s asking is the case A or is the case B, not asking how A vs B affects X. There’s nothing meaningless about this question.

The following statements are perfectly self-consistent.

(1) If A, then X
(2) If B, then X
(3) A =/= B

You keep trying to insist that (1) and (2) mean that A is no different than B. This is simply mistaken reasoning. There is (or can be) a difference between A and B.

pinqy said:

Oh, when I'm using the word "meaning" I'm not talking semantic meaning, I'm talking about importance, relevance, usefulness.

Click to expand...

Your confusion here is equating “Importance/relevance/usefulness” with “affects something else”. That’s not what these words mean at all. These are normative, ethical notions. For example, the random atom in the center of Pluto is something that affects other things but is not at all important, relevant, or useful.

Just because X produces effects doesn’t mean X matters. It only follows from this that X matters if the effects of X matter!

This is why a random atom in the middle of Pluto doesn’t matter – the tiny effects it has on its neighboring atoms (and so on down the causal chain) don’t matter any more than the presence of the atom itself matters. Whereas someone punching you in the face produces effects that do matter (experiencing pain for instance). This is why we’re not concerned with the whereabouts of every single atom on Pluto but we are concerned with getting socked in the face.

I’ve already conceded that the answer to the falling-tree question isn’t meaningful in such a sense. But the question isn’t asking about the presence of this kind of significance, it’s asking about the presence of sound. Not whether the presence of sound produces effects that are important/relevant/useful.

pinqy said:

One more example...
Let's say you are connected by wires to a battery and a switch. In the OFF position, you will NOT receive an electric shock. In the ON position, you will. We can agree the switch, battery, and wires have importance and meaning and their presence/absence makes a difference.

But what if the switch did nothing. In the OFF position, no shock, in the ON position, no shock. The presence or absence of the switch, battery, and wires is now moot. The wires could now be made out of silk. The battery could now be a chunk of wood.

Click to expand...

See above.

RAMOSS said:

Actually, that is exactly the opposite of the intention of Schroeder. He was attempting to show that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is ridiculous, and came up with a scenario that obviously is false as an implication of the Copenhagen interpretation to try to refute it.

Click to expand...

That may have been Schroedinger's intention back then, but the "Multiverse" interpretation is taken very seriously now by String Theory and also by Everett's 1957 "Many Worlds" interpretation.