If a tree falls in a forest...

[Gunn]

Well, does it make a sound?

Yes. Sound wave generation isn't reliant upon an audience. Hakeen already killed the Immaterialism idea; it's an outdated theory.

 

[Miz en Scène]

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.

The general question states that nothing is around to feel/perceive it.

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.

Basically that means we are perceiving black holes through its effects on other objects and therefore can perceive it in some way...

Yes. Sound wave generation isn't reliant upon an audience. Hakeen already killed the Immaterialism idea; it's an outdated theory.

Sound is only considered sound when it is detected by something. Sound waves are the vibration of particles.Of course it's an outdated theory I'm just wondering what the general public thought of it. I could evoke Schrodinger's Cat if you wanted...

 

[♣Gawain♣]

The general question states that nothing is around to feel/perceive it.

Basically that means we are perceiving black holes through its effects on other objects and therefore can perceive it in some way...

Oh well, cancel out the "animal part". XD Still, I still considered it controversial...

And that's the only way to study black holes, through its effects. Since they have only mass, magnetic charge and angular momentum, as stated part of the no-hair theory...

 

[Miz en Scène]

Oh well, cancel out the "animal part". XD Still, I still considered it controversial...

And that's the only way to study black holes, through its effects. Since they have only mass, magnetic charge and angular momentum, as stated part of the no-hair theory...

Yep, this topic is controversial. :P

And, by studying a black hole through that way you are technically perceiving it in some way such as feeling wind even though you can't see it, or thinking about your spouse even though you can't see her.

 

[Luck]

You have to use analogies to make it work.
If a man dies in the middle of nowhere, does it mean that he didn't die?
Just because humans with their extremely limited knowledge didn't notice it does not mean that what isn't noticed by species like us doesn't exist.
Something can exist without it being perceived, it's just that we won't know about its existence, just like how we think things exist when they most likely don't. Unless of course, you can show me evidence of the existence of snufflecrombabats.

 

[Feign]

There are two theories on this.

Either something can only exist because we think of it, or because it exists outside of our own cognition, in and of itself.

Take your pick :P

 

[Anxiety.]

The particles still vibrate when it hits the ground, they just have nowhere to vibrate too, so the particles just disapear?

No, that cant be right. Nothing just 'Disappears', that's illogical.

 

[Nich'ya]

Just because something isn't observed, that doesn't mean it doesn't funtion/exist.

Neptune exists, but we haven't always known about it.

Humans are the only known animals that perceive. The world doesn't revolve around our species. Saying something doesn't exist because it wasn't perceived is just plain stupidity.

 

[Luck]

Just because something isn't observed, that doesn't mean it doesn't funtion/exist.

Neptune exists, but we haven't always known about it.

Humans are the only known animals that perceive. The world doesn't revolve around our species. Saying something doesn't exist because it wasn't perceived is just plain stupidity.

It is much more complex than that.
If it exists, but no one knows that it exists, then how can you say that it exists if you don't know of its existence? And even then, if you did know if its existence, then it wouldn't be such an enigma, would it?

Although putting limits on existence when using human knowledge is stupid, it is the only thing we can rely on. We have never seen atoms, but we know that they fit perfectly in the science curriculum.

 

[.little monster]

It is much more complex than that.
If it exists, but no one knows that it exists, then how can you say that it exists if you don't know of its existence? And even then, if you did know if its existence, then it wouldn't be such an enigma, would it?

Although putting limits on existence when using human knowledge is stupid, it is the only thing we can rely on. We have never seen atoms, but we know that they fit perfectly in the science curriculum.

It still exists if no one knows, the only difference is that no one knows about it. It's stupid to say "The only things that exist are things we know about." Which is what you're saying when you said you have to know about it for it to actually exist.

 

[Gunn]

Sound is only considered sound when it is detected by something. Sound waves are the vibration of particles.Of course it's an outdated theory I'm just wondering what the general public thought of it. I could evoke Schrodinger's Cat if you wanted...

I think this is another dumb question. They obviously didn't have a lot to do during the 18th century.

 

[I Laugh at your Misfortune!]

Surely it depends on what you define sound as?

If sound is simply the vibration of particles, then surely, it will still make a sound.

However, if we take sound to be the experience of hearing something - or, if you prefer, the vibrating particles causing a response in our bodies, then it cannot make a sound unless it is perceived to make a sound.

 

[lx_theo]

Perceptions do not exist without being perceived. Though that probably would seem obvious, it does matter quite a bit. Simply put I don't think perception defines existence. In that same train of thought, existence doesn't define perception either. Like someone said in a different language, I think, therefore I am. It poses the idea that we can only really certify our own existence through our conscious thought. That is something we can't certify its existence, but would be safe enough to assume most of the outside world you perceive is real enough. Now getting to the point, is there a sound... Yes and No. It all depends on how you define sound. Based on your definition and several others gained from dictionary websites, there are two relevant definitions of sound. One being the vibrations of matter as you spoke of, and the other being the perceived sensation in a human or animal. With no one around to hear it (I assume animals included), it can not be perceived, yet at the same time the vibrations still exist based on the assumption that there is a tree and it did fall in the forest. So... Yes and No.

 

[twocows]

Yes. Existence isn't relative, just our perception of it is. If I set a tape recorder in the woods and a tree falls near it, nobody is around to hear it, yet a sound is still recorded. At least it is if you define sound scientifically, like any sane person will do.

 

[NarutoActor]

yes it makes a sound weather your there or not like there might be alians wether we know or not there are some things in science we chack up to mystery.

 

[Azonic]

Depends on your perspective. It's a controversial topic, and there really isn't a solid answer; it can't be proven nor falsified. There's going to be arguments for every reason given.

My interpretation of this whole topic? I think that the sound does exist, because even if we didn't perceive it, it was still possible to perceive it in some way. The tree is unheard, but the particles still have vibrated creating a "sound" possible to be heard. Existence is not determined by whether it is perceived or not, but whether it's possible to perceive in some way. All in my opinion though. People can interpret sound and existence differently, and I'm not gonna argue. :<

 

[Bagel]

Ok, Firsy off, i didnt read any of the above but the first post.

Ok. Yes, it does. Even if there isnt anyone there to hear, the tree still makes, in simple terms, sound waves.

These kinds of questions bother me. though there not about the same thing, they sem similar to questions like "What came first, the chicken or the egg." or "What is the sound of one hand clapping."

Nice thread though. Something very fun to talk about.

 

[Åzurε]

Existence is not relative, the individual's perception is.

Unless you propose that things just out of sight disappear and reappear upon coming into range of perception. It makes a limited amount of sense if you consider our minds unconsciously recording and "living out" a scenario for each imagined object or being, with a set of natural laws and reactions of every kind, understood or not, applying seemingly universally to every instance of action and reaction.

But it's much simpler to believe you exist in a shared reality with limited understanding (according to one user, Occam's Razor). And it makes me less lonely. =3

 

[SethMetal37]

If there's no one there to hear it then it kinda don't exist right? I mean if court, if you don't bring your paperwork you need then, in the judges opinion, it doesn't exist. So whats different than that being sound waves..

 

[lx_theo]

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.

c. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.

Just thought I'd post a quote of some definitions for everyone, with bolded words that I think are key.

From... https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound