If a tree falls... Your theory.

Active Ink Slinger

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Philosophy is nice, but we are speaking of two things here. Sound as a sensation does not exist if it's not registred by a living being. Sound as a natural phenomenon does, even if no living soul notices it.

Quote by TheAngryishLover
Vibrations doesn't equal sound

That is like saying animal does not equal cow, which is true of course, but that is twisting things around. Cows ARE animals after all. And by the very definition of it sound (as a natural phenomenon) IS a specific kind of vibration. Again , our definition of sound does not require, that the vibration is registred. Therefore, if that specific type of vibration exists, sound exists.

If you feel, that is not true, I'd suggest you start trying to convince quite a few scientists, as well as the publishers of the major dictionaries and encyclopedia to change it in their publications.

A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i

Lurker

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

you misunderstand sounds. I've just googled sound, and the first page is wiki. This is what it says:

Sound
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about audible acoustic waves. For other uses, see Sound (disambiguation).

In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as a typically audible mechanical wave of pressure and displacement, through a medium such as air or water. In physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain.[1]

Active Ink Slinger

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Nope, you just confirmed, what I wrote:

Quote by TheAngryishLover
In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as a typically audible mechanical wave of pressure and displacement, through a medium such as air or water.

This perfectly describes the natural phenomenon. And agian, it does not include the requirement, that it is actually heard. Audible means it CAN be heard, not that it MUST be heard. If that specific type of vibration exists, by this definition too, sound exists.

Quote by TheAngryishLover
In physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain.[1]

And this is about the sensation of sound, the way we experience it. And yes, the sensation does not exist if no sound (the phenomenon) reaches an eardrum.

A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i

Lurker

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

If a bear shits in the woods and there is no one there , does it still stink? The answer is how childish do you have to argue over such triviality? Get a life.........

Lurker

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by secretgypsy
If a bear shits in the woods and there is no one there , does it still stink? The answer is how childish do you have to argue over such triviality? Get a life.........

I'm sure I could argue all day long about how un trivial science is

It might not interest you, so don't comment on it. I'm not falling out with anyone here, and I hope no one is falling out with me, but I have a passion for debates like this- and I have a real passion for science like this.

I think the sad thing to do is to comment on things that you don't care about.

But that's my opinion

Lurker

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by patokl
Nope, you just confirmed, what I wrote:

And this is about the sensation of sound, the way we experience it. And yes, the sensation does not exist if no sound (the phenomenon) reaches an eardrum.

The ear senses the different pressures and waves hitting it, and depending on the pressure and/or wave it tells the brain how 'loud' or 'close' something it. It is the ear converting that wave into sound, that makes a sound.

I'm only repeating what I've already said, and so this is my last post on the matter as either you can't grasp or disagree with what I'm saying, but....

The effects of a tree falling down will result in the potential for someone to hear it should they be there or not. But sound is a perception. Sound is your brain trying to make sense of the world. Sound itself isn't a something that happens naturally. Sound only becomes apparent in the minds of someone who can experience it.

As I said, other creatures would take that same vibration, from the tree falling, and be able to see it. Not hear it, but see it, because their brain manipulates the shock waves differently.

Everything that happens, to the air and ground, would happen exactly the same if a person was there or not. But it takes a person, or creature, with the ability to convert those movements into sound, that creates sound.

Sound isn't a pysical thing that happens, sound is a result of our ears manipulating those physical changes around us into sound. Therefore, no us and no sound

Verbal

Gravelly-Voiced Fucker

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by TheAngryishLover

I'm sure I could argue all day long about how un trivial science is

It might not interest you, so don't comment on it. I'm not falling out with anyone here, and I hope no one is falling out with me, but I have a passion for debates like this- and I have a real passion for science like this.

I think the sad thing to do is to comment on things that you don't care about.

But that's my opinion

I agree. I love this thread. It's like wrestling with a greased pig.

To continue the tree=Schrodinger's cat idea, it is not simply a matter of the cat being either alive or dead but we won't know until we look, but that the cat is simultaneously dead and alive, until its state is pinned down by observation.

So, the sound both is and isn't there. To continue down the rabbit hole, according to the multiverse theory (and this is only theory), there is a universe where the sound is heard, and a universe where the sound is not heard. There is also a universe where the tree is on fire. And one where the tree floats into the air. is And one where the tree is a sentient being. And one where the tree is a member of Lush, currently reading this thread.

Jen_

Active Ink Slinger

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by trinket
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a noise?

What is your answer and theory behind it?

Well it depends on tree to tree. So which tree are you talking about ? smile

Active Ink Slinger

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by TheAngryishLover

The ear senses the different pressures and waves hitting it, and depending on the pressure and/or wave it tells the brain how 'loud' or 'close' something it. It is the ear converting that wave into sound, that makes a sound.

I'm only repeating what I've already said, and so this is my last post on the matter as either you can't grasp or disagree with what I'm saying, but....

The effects of a tree falling down will result in the potential for someone to hear it should they be there or not. But sound is a perception. Sound is your brain trying to make sense of the world. Sound itself isn't a something that happens naturally. Sound only becomes apparent in the minds of someone who can experience it.

As I said, other creatures would take that same vibration, from the tree falling, and be able to see it. Not hear it, but see it, because their brain manipulates the shock waves differently.

Everything that happens, to the air and ground, would happen exactly the same if a person was there or not. But it takes a person, or creature, with the ability to convert those movements into sound, that creates sound.

Sound isn't a pysical thing that happens, sound is a result of our ears manipulating those physical changes around us into sound. Therefore, no us and no sound

Simply ignoring a definition does not make it go away. We humans defined sound as a physical phenomenon. We decided to call a specific kind of vibration, or waves if you like, within a certain frequencyrange, sound. Of course we did that, because we could sense their existence; we heard them. But we heard them, because they existed. They existed, and we decided to call them sound. And the fact that they exist too in places, where no living being will ever experience them, does not make them non-existent there, nor does it make the name we gave them invalid.

A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i

Lurker

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by TheAngryishLover

I'm sure I could argue all day long about how un trivial science is

It might not interest you, so don't comment on it. I'm not falling out with anyone here, and I hope no one is falling out with me, but I have a passion for debates like this- and I have a real passion for science like this.

I think the sad thing to do is to comment on things that you don't care about.

But that's my opinion

There is a difference between a sound and a sound/pressure wave. If there is a deaf person were there, then no sound, just the pressure wave.

I think the argument is semantics not physical science, but a do appreciate your passion and I think it is great if you enjoy it.

Yes it was your opinion and that is mine. I like mine better, but I'm not so arrogant as to not believe your opinion is just as acceptable as mine.

I meant it to be light-hearted, not hypercritical.

flower

Simmerdownchick

Creator

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

This thread is making my head explode....I understand the idea behind the Heisenberg theroy, but, my rational mind cannot except it. It's been proven that particals will change their behavior if there is someone is just looking at them, or watching. That is the Heisenberg theory in a nutshell. It doesn't make sense to be, but there it is.

On another note...what came first? The chicken or the egg? Or, is the universe round, or does it just go on forever in all directions? If it's round, then we can bend space, but does that mean a black hole will truly take the other side of the universe?

I'm feeling very small in the universe right about now, lol!

I have three famous stories, 2 recommended reads and have come in the top ten in two competitions~ Come in and make yourself at home.

"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by Milik_the_Red
Yes. But what I was getting at is, it's impossible to know, as per the uncertainty principle, if it made a sound as it is impossible to know if it's actually fallen. If one assumes it did fall, a completely hypothetical thought unless it is observed, than yes, one would have to conclude it would have made the commensurate effects of the fall, including the sound.

Edit. For clarity, I say sound because in assuming the tree has fallen, we must accept it was observed. That's physics. Without observation, one cannot conclude the action happened.

We can be asolutely sure about the falling of the tree, because the context of the question was that it falls, so it's a given. You're trying to answer a different question.

=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===

Internet Philosopher

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by BiMale73

We can be asolutely sure about the falling of the tree, because the context of the question was that it falls, so it's a given. You're trying to answer a different question.

No, if I was simply trying to answer a different question, I wouldn't have written this

"If one assumes it did fall, a completely hypothetical thought unless it is observed, than yes, one would have to conclude it would have made the commensurate effects of the fall, including the sound."

That quote, which appears in the very text you quoted, proves I am addressing it. So, my answer is, if you assume the tree has fallen, you must assume that all the parameters of the fall took place. I.E. The physical impact on the ground, damage to the branches and anything it hypothetically fell on etc. The op also asked if nobody was there to hear it. She does not say 'nothing', she said nobody.

She does not say it fell in a sterile surrounding. Were there insects on it or on the ground? Mice? A dear munching on the leaves twenty meters away? Do only humans have ears, or are we the only ones who count? Surely there was an ant, spider or even a bird around to hear the fall?

So yes, I am answering the question. The uncertainty principle is satisfied, and it did make a sound.

Active Ink Slinger

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by Simmerdownchick
what came first? The chicken or the egg?

That one is simple. The chicken has a long line of evolutionary ancestors. The last one in that line laid an egg with a genetic change that produced the chicken. Altbough the egg was not laid by s chicken but by an ancestor, it was the first chicken egg, out of which the first chicken hatched. So, the egg was first.

A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i

Internet Philosopher

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by patokl

That one is simple. The chicken has a long line of evolutionary ancestors. The last one in that line laid an egg with a genetic change that produced the chicken. Altbough the egg was not laid by s chicken but by an ancestor, it was the first chicken egg, out of which the first chicken hatched. So, the egg was first.

Um, wouldn't the proto-chicken's egg be a proto-chicken egg, regardless if it happen to contain the first, mutant chicken? Then that mutant chicken would have laid the first chicken egg? I wonder, does one describe the egg by who laid it. Or by what came out? Think

Internet Philosopher

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by patokl
Philosophy is nice, but we are speaking of two things here. Sound as a sensation does not exist if it's not registred by a living being. Sound as a natural phenomenon does, even if no living soul notices it.

That is like saying animal does not equal cow, which is true of course, but that is twisting things around. Cows ARE animals after all. And by the very definition of it sound (as a natural phenomenon) IS a specific kind of vibration. Again , our definition of sound does not require, that the vibration is registred. Therefore, if that specific type of vibration exists, sound exists.

If you feel, that is not true, I'd suggest you start trying to convince quite a few scientists, as well as the publishers of the major dictionaries and encyclopedia to change it in their publications.

Thread winner notworthy

=d>

Active Ink Slinger

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by Milik_the_Red

Um, wouldn't the proto-chicken's egg be a proto-chicken egg, regardless if it happen to contain the first, mutant chicken? Then that mutant chicken would have laid the first chicken egg? I wonder, does one describe the egg by who laid it. Or by what came out?

I guess you could argue about that, but let's pretend we found that egg, without knowing who laid it.
If we'd want to know what kind of egg it was, we'd have one option: let it hatch and see what comes out. What would we conclude?
And whether it was a proto-chicken egg or a chicken-egg, the chicken would not have existed without that egg, but the egg did exist without a chicken. Ergo, the egg was first.

A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i

"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by patokl

I guess you could argue about that, but let's pretend we found that egg, without knowing who laid it.
If we'd want to know what kind of egg it was, we'd have one option: let it hatch and see what comes out. What would we conclude?
And whether it was a proto-chicken egg or a chicken-egg, the chicken would not have existed without that egg, but the egg did exist without a chicken. Ergo, the egg was first.

Weird that you would recognize the bird as a chicken, but not its egg as a chicken's egg Think

No, like I mentioned earlier, it's whether you define a chicken's egg as an egg laid by a chicken or an egg from which a chicken hatches.
Sure, there were plenty of eggs before chickens: dinosaur/reptilian/amphibian/fish eggs etc. But I don't think those are the eggs that are referred to in the question.

Same with the question about sound: do you define sound as the perception (what happens in ones ear) or the potential (the audible waves)?

=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===

Active Ink Slinger

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by BiMale73
do you define sound as the perception (what happens in ones ear) or the potential (the audible waves)?

Both are valid and neither excludes the other.

A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i

Active Ink Slinger

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by BiMale73

Weird that you would recognize the bird as a chicken, but not its egg as a chicken's egg
No, like I mentioned earlier, it's whether you define a chicken's egg as an egg laid by a chicken or an egg from which a chicken hatches.
Sure, there were plenty of eggs before chickens: dinosaur/reptilian/amphibian/fish eggs etc. But I don't think those are the eggs that are referred to in the question.

It's not a chicken's egg, because it was not laid by a chicken, but it is a chicken egg, because it contains a chicken(embryo).

A little kindness can be so valuable, yet costs almost nothing

In many countries being gay is a crime, and even in modern societies, politicians try to legalise discrimination. Your voice can make a difference. Have a look at All Out to find out how.

Hey... pssst.... that's an l (as in luscious) at the end of my name, not an i

"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by Milik_the_Red

No, if I was simply trying to answer a different question, I wouldn't have written this

"If one assumes it did fall, a completely hypothetical thought unless it is observed, than yes, one would have to conclude it would have made the commensurate effects of the fall, including the sound."

That quote, which appears in the very text you quoted, proves I am addressing it. So, my answer is, if you assume the tree has fallen, you must assume that all the parameters of the fall took place. I.E. The physical impact on the ground, damage to the branches and anything it hypothetically fell on etc. The op also asked if nobody was there to hear it. She does not say 'nothing', she said nobody.

She does not say it fell in a sterile surrounding. Were there insects on it or on the ground? Mice? A dear munching on the leaves twenty meters away? Do only humans have ears, or are we the only ones who count? Surely there was an ant, spider or even a bird around to hear the fall?

So yes, I am answering the question. The uncertainty principle is satisfied, and it did make a sound.

In my understanding, and with a hypothetical question like this, 'nobody' stands for the absense of any sentient being.

=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===

"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by patokl
It's not a chicken's egg, because it was not laid by a chicken, but it is a chicken egg, because it contains a chicken(embryo).

'Chicken's egg' is what came out of the translator I used, because I was not sure whether it was chicken egg or chicken's egg. I now see that, like you, Google Translate does not agree ;)
If what you say is true (I don't think that the name necessarily holds the answer though) about what a chicken egg exactly is, then you're right that the egg must have been there first, in theory.

In reality there's actually no real answer as it's just a fun but silly question, because it assumes that there ever was a first chicken and a first chicken egg. And that's simply not the case. Evolution is far to gradual for that. But that's also not aswering the question (or answering a different one) ;)

=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===

"insensitive prick!" – Danielle Algo

0 likes 21 Jan 2016

Quote by Verbal
..., according to the multiverse theory (and this is only theory), ...

I believe it's still a hypothesis even.

=== Not ALL LIVES MATTER until BLACK LIVES MATTER ===

Internet Philosopher

0 likes 22 Jan 2016

Quote by BiMale73

In my understanding, and with a hypothetical question like this, 'nobody' stands for the absense of any sentient being.

I understand, but that begs the question, how do you define sentience?

Ignoring that then, your claim is that, as nothing alive is there, it makes no sound? So, the rovers on Mars make no sound as they roll on the rocks? The 1200 mile an hour winds on Neptune are silent? Shoemaker levy 9 made no sound as it exploded in Jupiter's atmosphere?

Sorry, but to argue that is just word play. Semantics. Nothing more. Google 'the sounds of Mars' my guess is that neither Nasa or the ESA is interested in calling the wind on Mars a vibration.vuv2gqC9gdi0TT4P

Internet Philosopher

0 likes 22 Jan 2016

Quote by patokl

I guess you could argue about that, but let's pretend we found that egg, without knowing who laid it.
If we'd want to know what kind of egg it was, we'd have one option: let it hatch and see what comes out. What would we conclude?
And whether it was a proto-chicken egg or a chicken-egg, the chicken would not have existed without that egg, but the egg did exist without a chicken. Ergo, the egg was first.

I concede the point.