"Are you trying to baffle me with BS? I can't even understand what you said in that post. "
I'm afraid that is the nature of this sort of topic and exactly my point!
In any meaningful discussion we have to agree terms and the meaning of words. The problem here is that many appear to be using their own private definitions thus defeating any productive exchange.
Frankly, I'd prefer the tree to remain standing!
Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
SensuousCosmos
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 69
United Kingdom
Forum
So you want noise to be a subset of sound? Sound that is there whatever where you now appear to be arguing about the categorisation of that sound. How many angels are there on a pinhead by the way?
If you are actually saying that the lack of categorisation of a sound being a noise or not eliminates its existence - good luck with that one!
I have already explained that the 'tree in a vacuum' argument is fatuous as sound (noise) will propagate through the wood as branches collide together even if there is no fluid (air or similar [air is considered a fluid by physicists]) present around the tree.
Following your assertion: If nothing exists until perceived by YOU, you are ALONE in "???", we can't even call it the Universe! Perhaps there really is nothing at all but, where is the fun in that? Personally I prefer the illusion of existence!
If you are actually saying that the lack of categorisation of a sound being a noise or not eliminates its existence - good luck with that one!
I have already explained that the 'tree in a vacuum' argument is fatuous as sound (noise) will propagate through the wood as branches collide together even if there is no fluid (air or similar [air is considered a fluid by physicists]) present around the tree.
Following your assertion: If nothing exists until perceived by YOU, you are ALONE in "???", we can't even call it the Universe! Perhaps there really is nothing at all but, where is the fun in that? Personally I prefer the illusion of existence!
We cannot write one third completely as a decimal but we can as a fraction. Just because one particular notational system can't entirely describe a number tells us nothing about the number itself just the limitations of that numbering system.
If we have not yet devised a good way to describe certain numbers - so what? Understanding the Universe and all that is in it may take us some time!
If we have not yet devised a good way to describe certain numbers - so what? Understanding the Universe and all that is in it may take us some time!
In the manner the question is asked, yes it does and no it doesn't! It's a matter of interpretation of the question.
As any detection device (eg and ear) moves in sympathy with longitudinal air waves, clearly the sound must exist when it is on its way from the tree to the ear as sound moves relatively slowly in air (roughly 700 miles-per-hour) and takes time to get there. The point here is that sound is not spontaneously created simply because it reaches an ear. If there was no sound when the tree fell, there would be nothing for the ear to hear at a later time.
On the other hand, it could be argued that if there was no ear there was no sound.
Consider this though: Sound-waves inter-react with other matter that can be changed or damaged by that sound-wave. This means that all matter might be considered a means of receiving sound (this includes air molecules) so, if all matter is an 'ear' there will always be sound when there is a sound-generating event and a medium (air for example) to transport it.
If you still doubt the above, what breaks a window when a sonic-boom arrives from a distant super-sonic aircraft if no animal (ear) also hears the sound? Is the proposition that, when not heard by an ear, the window isn't really broken? A sonic-boom is sound and the window certainly heard it!
Obviously then, sound-waves (sound) exists whether heard by an ear or not!
If the tree was in a vacuum and not connected to the Earth then, you could argue, there is no sound but, what does it then crash into when it falls? If it strikes the Earth even if there was a vacuum, sound will then travel through the earth. Further, if the tree's own branches crash together as it falls, even in a vacuum and away from the Earth, there is still sound within the matter of the tree. Sorry about that!
As any detection device (eg and ear) moves in sympathy with longitudinal air waves, clearly the sound must exist when it is on its way from the tree to the ear as sound moves relatively slowly in air (roughly 700 miles-per-hour) and takes time to get there. The point here is that sound is not spontaneously created simply because it reaches an ear. If there was no sound when the tree fell, there would be nothing for the ear to hear at a later time.
On the other hand, it could be argued that if there was no ear there was no sound.
Consider this though: Sound-waves inter-react with other matter that can be changed or damaged by that sound-wave. This means that all matter might be considered a means of receiving sound (this includes air molecules) so, if all matter is an 'ear' there will always be sound when there is a sound-generating event and a medium (air for example) to transport it.
If you still doubt the above, what breaks a window when a sonic-boom arrives from a distant super-sonic aircraft if no animal (ear) also hears the sound? Is the proposition that, when not heard by an ear, the window isn't really broken? A sonic-boom is sound and the window certainly heard it!
Obviously then, sound-waves (sound) exists whether heard by an ear or not!
If the tree was in a vacuum and not connected to the Earth then, you could argue, there is no sound but, what does it then crash into when it falls? If it strikes the Earth even if there was a vacuum, sound will then travel through the earth. Further, if the tree's own branches crash together as it falls, even in a vacuum and away from the Earth, there is still sound within the matter of the tree. Sorry about that!
Hi gorgeous all.
I'm single again after a long marriage and trying to find the confidence to start dating again but, I just can't make that first step.
I guess it's fear of rejection or some self-esteem issue or something. Do women fantasize about that first encounter and how men make an approach? What ideas do you have that might help me?
Thanks and kisses
I'm single again after a long marriage and trying to find the confidence to start dating again but, I just can't make that first step.
I guess it's fear of rejection or some self-esteem issue or something. Do women fantasize about that first encounter and how men make an approach? What ideas do you have that might help me?
Thanks and kisses