I though you were a Chemist? Although physics and chemistry are related, chemistry doesn't have much to do with metaphysics from a laymens standpoint.
I am a Chemist. That makes me a scientist. I argue with scientific evidence and logic. Your argument is metaphysics, but yet you speak as a scientist would, just ignoring the logic. You can not bring science into this debate and then, seemingly out of the blue, say, "And now there's nothing there to hear it, so it doesn't make a sound." Coming from a scientist, this debate is, to put it bluntly, absurd.
Sound 1 (sound)n.1. a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.
b. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
c. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
d. Such sensations considered as a group.
Nope, I never said that the thing which created the sound never existed. I merely stated that there was nothing to perceive the sound to make it become classified as sound. In fact, I also said that
which means that the kinetic energy is still present and just was transferred elsewhere. Unless I'm missing something from the fact that you used the word syllogism that I have only heard of today. In which case, do explain.
This has really just given me the upper hand. Pay close attention to that which is bolded. It's not about the tree making a sound or not, it's about something being able to hear it or not. As I've said before, and you even agree with, the vibrations are still there. Perhaps its not enough to say that the vibration causes the sound. In fact, the vibration
is the sound.
And syllogism is a form of logic that many people don't take too seriously. You may have seen it on the SATs; it goes like:
If [A = B], and [B = C], then [A = C] always.
It works for the social sciences, but for us dealing with the physical sciences, it holds no real credence.
Exactly. I do not exist from the trees perspective. But from my perspective, Cogito ergo Sum, I do exist but not in the trees perceptive area(I refrain from using the words personal universe in this context) because it has no awareness over my presence. :D
Ah, but the question arises:
can the tree perceive? If not, then you don't exist in general. :-P haha. Remember that old law of science, that I'm sure was drilled into your head back in high school chemistry? It goes like this:
matter can not be created or destroyed, only converted. Now, don't go into the idea of anti-matter, or Einstein's E = mc^2 (mass being converted into energy), otherwise we're in a whole new boat of physics that can really only be shown through higher calculus.
Main Entry:
per·ceive
Pronunciation: \pər-ˈsēv\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
per·ceived;
per·ceiv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French
perceivre, from Latin
percipere, from
per- thoroughly +
capere to take — more at
heave
Date: 14th century
1 a : to attain awareness or understanding of
b : to regard as being such <
perceived threats> <was
perceived as a loser>
2 : to become aware of through the senses;
especially
From the perspective of someone who lives under a rock, there are an infinite number of possibilities(in his area of perception) that could have happened. But to the people who experienced it, it was real enough for them.
As far as the definition of perception goes, I rest my case. And again, I ask: just because someone doesn't know about a
measurable, and I stress
measurable thing, that it doesn't exist? Again, you're breaking the rules of science.
Didn't I just say that in passing? I'm actually arguing from two different standpoints at once, though I'm not sure if that's what it sounds like because I've been pretty vague recently.
And as I said above, it's impossible to combine the two under these circumstances. If you want to combine them, stick with cosmology. Because in cosmology, things are very hard to
measure. I keep stressing that word, because we can
measure the vibration a tree creates when it falls. If we can measure it, it exists. It's as simple as that.
Same thing. There are an infinite number of possibilities that might happen before anything is actually perceived. This one, I think is a grey-line between meta-physics and actual physics.
Which applies here that the tree may or may not make a sound. Also, I did imply that the theory might not apply her at all. I admit that.
Yeah, but Copenhagen was a douche. 'Nuff said.
