If a tree falls in a forest...

[Miz en Scène]

This is not something to do with nature more than it is to do with science.

The question, as I'm sure some of you have heard at least once in your life is
"If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

It looks like a simple question though it carries a deeper meaning. "Can something exist without being perceived?" or "Can we assume the unobserved world functions the same as the observed world?"This is akin to the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment if it's easier for you to comprehend it that way.

Basically, sound is just the vibration of particles in the air that are caught by our eardrums and converted into nerve impulses which are detected by the brain and interpreted. Therefore, in the absence of the ear or any living body to experience the tree falling, did the tree even make a sound or fall in the first place? This theory is known as Immaterialism by the way.

Well, does it make a sound?

 

[Aberbecam]

Well how do peoples supposed to know that? When peoples are around while the tree falls peoples can hear it. So maybe yes and maybe no. When no peoples are around it might not make a sound, you never know. xD but seriously now, in my opinion i do think tree makes sounds while it falls in the forest whether peoples are around or not.

 

[Miz en Scène]

Well how do peoples supposed to know that? When peoples are around while the tree falls peoples can hear it. So maybe yes and maybe no. When no peoples are around it might not make a sound, you never know. xD but seriously now, in my opinion i do think tree makes sounds while it falls in the forest whether peoples are around or not.

I think you don't understand the question. :/

By scientific definition,

sound is just the vibration of particles in the air that are caught by our eardrums and converted into nerve impulses which are detected by the brain and interpreted

In the absence of a receiver, how can it be called sound when it's merely the vibration of matter?

 

[THIRTY-SIX]

Cogito ergo sum.

It makes a sound but nobody cares, especially if it doesn't affect them.

 

[Miz en Scène]

Cogito ergo sum.

It makes a sound but nobody cares, especially if it doesn't affect them.

Not the point... Trees do not think, scientifically speaking. Religiously speaking on the other hand...

Cogito ergo sum means, I think therefore I am. Which roughly translates to, I'm doing the thinking about whether I exist therefore I'm here. What does that have to do with what you just said?

Must I repeat the point?
Can something exist without being perceived?

 

[Guillermo]

Of course it would make a sound. Not that anyone would care, anyway.

And yes, something can exist without being perceived. It's all a matter of ones opinion on the thing existing. Like if something happens between a family and the father goes, "I don't have a son!" the son still exists, even if the father doesn't perceive him to.

 

[Ho-Oh]

If a camera was on record, and you came back later... you'd hear it when it's replayed. [/logic]

It wouldn't make a sound at that time, however.

 

[Miz en Scène]

If a camera was on record, and you came back later... you'd hear it when it's replayed. [/logic]

It wouldn't make a sound at that time, however.

That would mean that it was perceived by something or someone. The question is that if nothing perceives it does it exist?
Seriously, did all of you just tl:dr the first post?

And yes, something can exist without being perceived. It's all a matter of ones opinion on the thing existing. Like if something happens between a family and the father goes, "I don't have a son!" the son still exists, even if the father doesn't perceive him to.

The son however (cogito ergo sum) perceives that he exists therefore he exists...

 

[THIRTY-SIX]

Not the point... Trees do not think, scientifically speaking. Religiously speaking on the other hand...

Cogito ergo sum means, I think therefore I am. Which roughly translates to, I'm doing the thinking about whether I exist therefore I'm here. What does that have to do with what you just said?

Must I repeat the point?
Can something exist without being perceived?

Hey dumbass.. What it means is that just because you don't hear it doesn't mean it doesn't make a sound. :O

I think therefore I am.. can also be I think therefore you are.

 

[Miz en Scène]

Hey dumbass..

That hurt. ;_;

What it means is that just because you don't hear it doesn't mean it doesn't make a sound. :O

In the absence of a receiver, how can it be called sound when it's merely the vibration of matter?

I think therefore I am.. can also be I think therefore you are.

But then you perceive it to have existed when I asked if no one perceives it does it exist...

 

[Ho-Oh]

It would've existed at some point, but to humans, if they weren't there at that time they wouldn't have heard it? But yeah, I didn't tl;dr your first post, ... you're just complaining about all of our posts for no real reason. XD

 

[Miz en Scène]

It would've existed at some point, but to humans, if they weren't there at that time they wouldn't have heard it? But yeah, I didn't tl;dr your first post, ... you're just complaining about all of our posts for no real reason. XD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest

Read it...

And how am I complaining when I'm just countering what you said earlier?

 

[THIRTY-SIX]

Questioning an existence means you are perceiving it as to may have existed. Then someone says yes. Therefore it exists. :O

 

[Miz en Scène]

Questioning an existence means you are perceiving it as to may have existed. Then someone says yes. Therefore it exists. :O

Then it means you agree with the earlier statement so why must you counter me?

 

[THIRTY-SIX]

I'm saying just because you don't see it to exist doesn't mean it doesn't. .O

 

[Aberbecam]

Certainly it will produce sound waves, but is that all you mean by "sound"? If it is, then it absolutely does make a sound. If you take the position that sound is something which is experienced - that it is the sensation produced in a sentient being by sound waves - then it does not not make a sound. Where you draw the line is pretty arbitrary, so I don't think the question is really that interesting, though it certainly sounds interesting the first time you here it.

 

[Miz en Scène]

Certainly it will produce sound waves, but is that all you mean by "sound"? If it is, then it absolutely does make a sound. If you take the position that sound is something which is experienced - that it is the sensation produced in a sentient being by sound waves - then it does not not make a sound. Where you draw the line is pretty arbitrary, so I don't think the question is really that interesting, though it certainly sounds interesting the first time you here it.

Which is exactly the question that I'm trying to pose. Thank you for understanding. The point of this thread was to find out what you(the general public) thought of this idea based on your understanding...

 

[Ninja Caterpie]

I don't believe it's "sound" if nothing hears it.

But I would think there are many animals around it to hear it.

 

[Miz en Scène]

I don't believe it's sound if nothing hears it.

But I would think there are many animals around it to hear it.

If nothing perceives it.

But I think you get the general idea. XD

 

[♣Gawain♣]

Anything makes sound, but when we aren't there to hear it, could it be called "sound"? Animals without hearing organs may have "experience" it, but not through "sound" waves.

It's like observing black holes. We can't see black holes, but we know it existed because of it's disastrous effects on nearby celestial objects. We can undirectly observe it through that means.