If a tree falls... Your theory.

Quote by Metilda
Yes.

Sound is the vibration that travels (soundwave) through matter.

Being heard is only what takes place after the recipient receives that soundwave.

Soundwaves do not stop being sound waves just because a human didn't receive it.

Quote by TheAngryishLover


Just saw this

I'm a bit of a science geek and this stuff interests me, so I'm not trying to sound argumentative or arrogant here, but 'sound' doesn't travel in air or matter, but rather shock waves travel through air and matter.

So you are right in that the shock waves will travel regardless of a human presence or not, but only when an ear, or a mechanical instrument capable of doing the same thing, converts those waves to sound, does it actually become a sound

Hence, if a tree fell and no one was around, would it make a sound?
No.

But, you could argue that even if a human wasn't there, then there would be plenty of other creatures able to convert the waves into sounds!

Quote by TheAngryishLover


Just saw this

I'm a bit of a science geek and this stuff interests me, so I'm not trying to sound argumentative or arrogant here, but 'sound' doesn't travel in air or matter, but rather shock waves travel through air and matter.

So you are right in that the shock waves will travel regardless of a human presence or not, but only when an ear, or a mechanical instrument capable of doing the same thing, converts those waves to sound, does it actually become a sound

Hence, if a tree fell and no one was around, would it make a sound?
No.

But, you could argue that even if a human wasn't there, then there would be plenty of other creatures able to convert the waves into sounds!

Quote by miketabcdefg


I would say that sound doesn't need a measuring device (ear or otherwise) to exist, excepting that we needed to have such devices to know that sound exists in the first place. This also accepting that sound will always occur when anything moves through a gas or the gas moves relative to other masses (of whatever matter phase). Also accepting that there isn't some as yet unforeseen phenomena that can provide an exception, such as something causing a vacuum around a falling tree. Ridiculously unlikely, just highlighting that nothing is ever 100% certain.

However the question was whether a tree makes a noise (which is not how the question is usually couched in terms of sound). A noise is an unpleasant sound. Unpleasantness is an intentional state requiring a conscious entity and so therefore if there is no intentional being around to detect the tree falling, and that also doesn't like the sound of the tree falling (a logger might quite enjoy it) then it won't make a noise, just an unrecognised or recognised pleasant sound.

But as per always with these type of arguments, they get bogged down in semantics.

Quote by miketabcdefg


I would say that sound doesn't need a measuring device (ear or otherwise) to exist, excepting that we needed to have such devices to know that sound exists in the first place. This also accepting that sound will always occur when anything moves through a gas or the gas moves relative to other masses (of whatever matter phase). Also accepting that there isn't some as yet unforeseen phenomena that can provide an exception, such as something causing a vacuum around a falling tree. Ridiculously unlikely, just highlighting that nothing is ever 100% certain.

However the question was whether a tree makes a noise (which is not how the question is usually couched in terms of sound). A noise is an unpleasant sound. Unpleasantness is an intentional state requiring a conscious entity and so therefore if there is no intentional being around to detect the tree falling, and that also doesn't like the sound of the tree falling (a logger might quite enjoy it) then it won't make a noise, just an unrecognised or recognised pleasant sound.

But as per always with these type of arguments, they get bogged down in semantics.

Quote by Magical_felix


I think the question is philosophical and not technical. Of course it technically makes a sound... but does it matter since no one heard it? Like a man's voice getting lost in a crowd of other voices and not being "heard". Or a musician writing the greatest song ever but only singing it to themselves while alone. A painter never finishing a masterpiece. Shit like that.

Quote by TheAngryishLover


Sorry magical....this really sounds arrogant, but I'm not THINKING about the answer, but I KNOW the answer.

The movement of air, from a falling tree, is a wave. A wave is not a sound. Sound is simply a perception of that moving air. So you would need something to convert that wave into sound, as above.

The use of the human is simply an illustration of something that can convert those moving particles of air. As I said earlier, even if a human wasn't there, SOMETHING would be converting to the waves into sound. But this is the meaning of question, and why it is an interesting one. And this isn't my theory, it's the answer....

Quote by Magical_felix


I understand that... That's why I said yes, technically, it makes it a sound. But that is not the point of the question. The question was first asked by a philosopher, not a scientist ;)

Quote by Magical_felix


I understand that... That's why I said yes, technically, it makes it a sound. But that is not the point of the question. The question was first asked by a philosopher, not a scientist ;)

Quote by TheAngryishLover


Technically, it doesn't make a sound unless someone, or thing, is there to hear it.

I don't know who first asked the question, but the scientific answer is no, it doesn't!

Quote by TheAngryishLover


Well you can say that if you want, but you are scientifically incorrect. Sound only occurs when you have something that can transform audible waves into a sound. Otherwise it's just vibration.

Humans use the vibration from a falling tree and turn into sounds. Some creatures use the vibrations of air/matter to 'see'. In either instance, it's simply a cause of the perception of the brain to transform those waves into sound or sight.

Another perfect example of this would be radio waves. The question could equally ask 'as a radio wave passed your house, if you didn't have a radio antenna would it make a sound?'

Of course it wouldn't. At any given moment, you've got 100's (potentially more?) of radio waves passing through your house, and you never hear it until you turn on the radio (and you can even see it, with the static of your TV being the cause of radio waves too- some even being the radio waves created from the big bang!)

So the falling of a tree is only turned into a sound when you have a 'radio antenna' (or ear) that turns it into a sound (or noise, if it's particularly unpleasant)

Quote by Magical_felix


Sorry, I meant that the technicalities don't matter. The scientific community actually have varying opinions on the answer, some say yes, some say no, some say its just conjecture. It's pretty interesting reading actually, from either standpoint.

Quote by RavenStar


Who originally asked the question doesn't matter. For the purposes of this thread, it was asked by Trinket, and she placed no limitation on the subject of the response.

So, TAL can be correct with his science and you can be correct with your philosophy.

WE'RE ALL WINNERS!!!!

Quote by TheAngryishLover


I'd love to know what scientist believes a sounds exists without an instrument to turn the wave into sound?
Please point them out to me....

Albert Einstein is reported to have asked his fellow physicist and friend Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, whether he realistically believed that 'the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it.' To this Bohr replied that however hard Einstein may try, he would not be able to prove that it does, thus giving the entire riddle the status of a kind of an infallible conjecture, one that cannot be either proved or disproved.

Quote by Magical_felix


I understand that... That's why I said yes, technically, it makes it a sound. But that is not the point of the question. The question was first asked by a philosopher, not a scientist ;)

Quote by Magical_felix


For the record, in no way was I implying that trinket is a philosopher. Let's just be clear about that. She's just poorly wording an interesting old question that still fascinates humans today. Not sure what your point is? Are you saying we shouldn't discuss the subject in an intelligent manner because trinket asked it?

Quote by TheAngryishLover


Well you can say that if you want, but you are scientifically incorrect. Sound only occurs when you have something that can transform audible waves into a sound. Otherwise it's just vibration.

Humans use the vibration from a falling tree and turn into sounds. Some creatures use the vibrations of air/matter to 'see'. In either instance, it's simply a cause of the perception of the brain to transform those waves into sound or sight.

Another perfect example of this would be radio waves. The question could equally ask 'as a radio wave passed your house, if you didn't have a radio antenna would it make a sound?'

Of course it wouldn't. At any given moment, you've got 100's (potentially more?) of radio waves passing through your house, and you never hear it until you turn on the radio (and you can even see it, with the static of your TV being the cause of radio waves too- some even being the radio waves created from the big bang!)

So the falling of a tree is only turned into a sound when you have a 'radio antenna' (or ear) that turns it into a sound (or noise, if it's particularly unpleasant)

Quote by miketabcdefg


Philosophy not underpinned by science, not underpinned by what we actually know about the world is cod philosophy, and not worth bothering with. The best philosophers always worked with the best science of the time.