I think this question is more about if an event which we have no evidence of having happened or cannot obtain any data from it is still real, not a question about what sound is or whatever. Perhaps the question could be reformulated like :
"Be an event such as that no data or evidence of its existence can be obtained. Is an event like this still real ?"
I think the answer to this is the tree made a noise but technically not a sound because a sound is when you hear something, but on the other hand the tree made a "sound" it was so light you cant hear it but the tiny waves are around everywhere we can hear sounds from the other side of the country they are just so light you cant pick them up. So the tree made a sound its just so light noone could hear it.
Re: Classic Debate: If a tree falls in the woods...
Originally posted by buttafly
...and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? I've debated this with my friend and because her favourite subject is SCIENCE, she argues that sounds still exists even though no one else can hear it. What are you thoughts on this??
Talk about beating a dead horse....
Yes, yes it does...
Originally posted by Atlantis001
So an old thread returned !Well, in science what can´t be measured do not happen. This view is called empiricism. A tree that doesn´t affect the word in any way that can be measured is only an idea, its a metaphysical tree not a real(i. e. empirically real) tree.
On the contrary, it is science that recognizes a precedence (inductive reasoning). If I walk in the forest and perceive a tree falling, than to my satisfaction I hear a sound (the sound of it crashing). If tomorrow I walk in the forest and another tree falls, and I hear a similar crashing noise I begin to form a precedence. That if in case some one asks me the effects of a falling tree, I can, by precedence say that it crashes.
A second thing that science also supports is a loose form of I.R. (inductive reasoning). This reasoning (by my definition), is called Absent Reasoning, that if in case ONLY the effect is perceived, one can assume through the absence of presence a reasoning once again based on precedence (i.e. If walking in the forest I only hear a tree fall (effect), I can presume that a tree has fallen. The same goes for coming across a fallen tree. Based on the fact the tree has fallen (effect), I can presume it has made a noise (and taken some wildlife out in the process 😛)).
Now I think this 300 year old conundrum finds it's trickery in it's wording. The question asks does the tree make a sound, not does one perceive it. Philosophically, because it didn't make a sound for me, the sound never existed even so much to say that the falling tree never existed as well. Scientifically speaking, the tree makes a sound regardless of perception because science isn't relative. The same goes for some stranger millions of miles away. Just because we do not perceive them, does not mean they do not exist.
Makes a noise for sure!
So do you non-believers think that if you left a sound recording device next to said tree (assuming the tree didn't fall on the recording device) and left, that upon playback no sound would be heard because noone was there to percieve it?
typical humans - the world HAS to revolve around us 😂