If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

[heroalbert 2]

it would make a sound

even if no one is around to hear it

[lemmingllama]

You will find that your presence is not required through various, error free recording machines, And you will never see any data that points to the contrary.

You see, sound is vibrations that is percieved. A machine percieves the vibrations and records it as sound. So your argument is invalid

[CaNzCo]

You see, sound is vibrations that is percieved. A machine percieves the vibrations and records it as sound. So your argument is invalid

Why don't you take a look at the definition of sound. There is no part about perception whatsoever. It can be heard, but it doesn't have to. Right now you aren't arguing with me, you are trying to tell a dictionary it is wrong.

[gundam2z]

yeah it will definitely make sound

[lemmingllama]

Why don't you take a look at the definition of sound. There is no part about perception whatsoever. It can be heard, but it doesn't have to. Right now you aren't arguing with me, you are trying to tell a dictionary it is wrong.

Well sure in the normal dictionary then yes. But they have actually done studies on this and the purely scientific answer is what I am giving. If you look back, Rune said the same thing and he is the only other one on this forum that I know of that reads scientific journals. I agree with you in the fact that there are vibrations caused by the tree, I am just saying that those vibrations arent sound until something hears them. If we were all deaf, then we could see the tree fall and maybe even feel the vibrations caused, but without the complex machinery in our ears then we cant experience the sound.

[CaNzCo]

We can't experience sound, however it is still being emitted from the tree. If you can find a link to that super duper scientific journal, I will read it, but I doubt it exists, since currently sound is viewed as mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure, that is then transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas.

I am sure you can find a definition somewhere that says it is the stimulation of the organs used for hearing, but that isn't the only case of sound, and that is truly only explaining our brains interpretation of sound. When you "hear" something, it is actually just an electronic pulse in your brain. This pulse is created by the organs in your ear picking up the vibrations, but that is not the same "sound" of the tree, or whatever it is.

[Diabetus boy]

This is like multi dimensional theory in a way, there are other dimensions, but they cannot exist until we observe them, so how can they exist

Same with this hypothetical tree we know logically it makes noise and vibrations, but how can we know that these vibrations actually exist unless we observe them.

we don't hahahahahahahahaha!

I like to side with logic though.

[M4sturCheef]

It's the same with 'Schrödinger's cat'. It does make a sound, and the cat is dead!

[CaNzCo]

Well, Schrödinger's cat is really an experiment dealing with the reality over superposition. In this case the tree either makes a sound or doesn't, therefore there is only one possible outcome of a tree falling.

[Spacecreepkitan]

it makes a sound. You don't need anyone their to perceive the sound the vibrations ARE their, no you can't always hear it, but those vibrations can also effect things like dirt, dust, and leaves (you won't see them move either since you aren't there) and upon discovering this tree that fell in the woods without being heard you would see the area had been greatly disturbed and could reasonably conclude that it had produced in your absence a cacaphony of powerful and horrible sounds. Ofcourse this wouldn't serve as actual proof but rather something to reinforce your faith that trees that fall with noone around make sound. Also the energy from the tree falling has to go somewhere, you can't juss say the energy went away :/ that wouldn't be physically possible.

[lemmingllama]

We can't experience sound, however it is still being emitted from the tree. If you can find a link to that super duper scientific journal, I will read it, but I doubt it exists, since currently sound is viewed as mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure, that is then transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas.

I am sure you can find a definition somewhere that says it is the stimulation of the organs used for hearing, but that isn't the only case of sound, and that is truly only explaining our brains interpretation of sound. When you "hear" something, it is actually just an electronic pulse in your brain. This pulse is created by the organs in your ear picking up the vibrations, but that is not the same "sound" of the tree, or whatever it is.

Its as simple as Wikipedia if you wanted to look it up... I dont feel like finding the actual article.

Some years later, a similar question is posed. It is unknown whether the source of this question is Berkeley or not. In June 1883 in the magazine The Chautauquan, the question was put, "If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings would there be any sound?" They then went on to answer the query with, "No. Sound is the sensation excited in the ear when the air or other medium is set in motion."[3] This seems to imply that the question is posed not from a philosophical viewpoint, but from a purely scientific one. The magazine Scientific American corroborated the technical aspect of this question, while leaving out the philosophic side, a year later when they asked the question slightly reworded, "If a tree were to fall on an uninhabited island, would there be any sound?" And gave a more technical answer, "Sound is vibration, transmitted to our senses through the mechanism of the ear, and recognized as sound only at our nerve centers. The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest

[CaNzCo]

That is bringing the statement fully into the philosophy of reality without perception. I don't believe that reality is solely based on our perception anyways, since there is so much that we simply can't know yet, but it may be discovered later on. In this hypothetical forest, if people eventually came to discover this fallen tree, would they be wrong to assume it made a sound when it fell?

as for the claimed "scientific" definition of sound, it is still only one definition. That is like asking, "can a dog speak?" yet only use the definition that means using words to convey a notion. They may not use words, but I understand when my dog barks it needs to go outside to pee... or if a strange dog is barking it wants me to keep away from their home. You need to use the definition that applies to the object, otherwise you are simply stating the obvious.

If you are determined to make me give in, I will admit that a tree falling in the woods with no one around to hear it does not make a sound that stimulates a persons ear (obviously), however it does make a sound in the general sense.

[shyguysteve]

a lot of people are commenting on only two levels, the philosophical and physical. One defines the existences of sound to be only real when perceived while another explains sounds or vibrations to happen even without impact of an object hitting the ground.

think of a different but similar argument, to determine sound or vibrations. science explains it to be simple movement. consider the air or wind, we can't see this phenomenon but it makes sound and we are aware that it is real without ever seeing it.

I do not know the origins of this question "a tree falling in the woods" is either scientific or philosophy it is riddled with extreme anomalies of both types.

[lemmingllama]

@Canzco

That was what I was going for, just having fun to be nitpicky about it We could also just think philosophically, so I could be mean and say that there is no tree and therefore no sound. Or I could just be an egoist and say who cares, it doesnt affect me

[CaNzCo]

I kinda figured as much. I love debates, but it seems like people need to be at least be a little right or they'll never be satisfied.

[Kyle_Dimetri]

Nope, no sound is made. Nothing is there to precieve it, so in truth the tree itself doesn't even exist. Nothing does so unless percieved by another.

Also, katongo's explaination of sound isn't at all relevant in this conversation, ntm your definition is a little off. Again, this is a widely known philosophical question, not a science discussion.

Okay?.........

[CaNzCo]

Okay?.........

I suppose I could summarize this debate. Time to put on my impartial face and waste some time.

THE QUESTION: "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

This question has been feverishly discussed over two main points of interest. There is the philosophical debate, tackling the inner meaning of the question, and the scientific debate, focusing on the details and the wording of the question. These points of interest are the rationalizations for our answers to the question.

The philosophical portion of the debate is centered upon the perception of a persons reality (and it is the most common answer to this question). In this question, two contradicting beliefs are being discussed. The correlation to the question lies in the restriction part, I. E. "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it..." These two beliefs are listed below.

1, Reality encompass everything that is known by you, or in some opinions, what you will come to know in the future. For something to exist, it must be perceived, and make you aware of its existence in your reality. The tree falling makes a cannot be perceived, thus it cannot exist. This philosophy is typically a derivative of the belief that the human mind is a persons only world, and what our senses detect are just the shape it is modeled after. If this is the belief a person has, their answer would be no, it does not make a sound. This answer usually is meant to give guidance to people, stating that they should do things with an impact, otherwise whatever they do becomes the same as nothing at all.

2, There is only one reality, and this reality encompasses everything that actually occurs. Perception does not effect the existence of anything. In this hypothetical situation, a tree does fall, and therefore, it does what a typical tree would do. Vibrations would be made, and do exist, regardless of perception. This answer is generally considered the more "worldly" approach, therefore in order to make an answer, you need to follow the rules of the world. This is where the scientific debate starts.

If you believe in the second version of reality, you then need to further look into the details of the question itself, I. E. "...does it make a sound?" In order to answer this, a debate took place on what action is necessary to make a sound. There are two major differences in the common answers, both based on the definition of sound: (definitions taken straight from Wikipedia)

1, Sound: a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard. If this is the sound referred to in the question, a tree falling would indeed cause sound. A further argument would be if any definition of sound leads to a positive match, the answer must be confirmed in affirmation.

(another example of this is saying you have a white cat, when you have both a black cat and a white cat. One could say no, you have a black and a white cat, however this means you still have a white cat, and therefore your statement must be true)

2, Sound: the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by vibrations. With no one around to hear the tree fall, no organ of hearing can be stimulated by its vibrations, thus there is no sound. One can argue that this answer is implied, based on the absence of people being a stipulation in the question.

I am not going to add any of the common misconceptions, mostly because they have been proven inaccurate, but also because the people who wrote them may take offense. Other than that, this is our debate. If I left out anything or misrepresented anything, PM me the reason and I will change it... or you can yell at me in this thread...

[lemmingllama]

Just to short form, there are two sides with two sides, philosophical and scientific. First is philosophical, which says either the tree doesnt exist since noone can percieve it or the tree exists always. Scientific is whether sound is vibrations or the perception of vibrations.

[DrumRoll]

okay, but what if the tree was playing an electric guitar? Or someone watched it fall over but they were deaf?

[CaNzCo]

If a troll posts in a forum, and no one is online to read it, does it make a rage?