Originally posted by Ogami IttoThe point of this exercise is to show you can't be sure something exists, if no one knows it. Or the opposite, some religious crap anyway.
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 😂
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Classic Debate: If a tree falls in the woods...
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Except we can only infer that things exist when we aren't around to directly perceive them. Even setting up a tape recorder begs the question "Would it still make a sound if there was nothing to record it?". The philosophical ***** of the question is that some answers we will simply never know. Human knowledge cannot, by its very nature, be absolute.
I agree best with this.
[i]Except we can only infer that things exist when we aren't around to directly perceive them. Even setting up a tape recorder begs the question "Would it still make a sound if there was nothing to record it?". The philosophical ***** of the question is that some answers we will simply never know. Human knowledge cannot, by its very nature, be absolute. [/B]
yeah I agree with the above statement. Of course its logical to assume there would be a noise but you can't prove it
Originally posted by debbiejoTechnically, since it wasn't heard it's not sound. Sound is something that is heard. But answering the question is not the point, the point is not everything can be proven even if you know the answer.
The tree makes a sound Because all vibrations are measurable even if not heard by us and emits a frequency that affects the inviroment.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Technically, since it wasn't heard it's not sound. Sound is something that is heard. But answering the question is not the point, the point is not everything can be proven even if you know the answer.
Depends on the definition. Sound can also refer to the waves, which might be existent without someone perceiving. All very Berkeley.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Sound is not the wave, but the perception thereof.
No, it can refer to both. Which makes these arguments so funny.
sound1  /saʊnd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sound] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.
Think I did thrice during your absence actually. Are you here to stay for longer?
Maybe. I work a lot, so I come on seldom. Perhaps once or twice a week.
The tree makes a sound Because all vibrations are measurable even if not heard by us and emits a frequency that affects the inviroment.
You're being lost with the semantics here: sound is defined as being perceived; the crux of this argument is that there is no perception of the sound itself by anyone. Or, to reiterate it- no one has any proof whatsoever of the sound save for inferences made on past experiences. No recordings. No one sensed the change of vibrations. Nothing.
And what that bottoms down to is that... we can't KNOW that there was sound emitted. Mostly because knowledge in this case implies experience of a tree falling without any witnesses at all, and that is impossible.
No, it can refer to both. Which makes these arguments so funny.
sound, any disturbance that travels through an elastic medium such as air, ground, or water to be heard by the human ear.