Tree

[Charles]

[QUOTE=Bláse][size=1][color=slategray]Err...

Anyway. The squirrels are sure as hell going to hear it. More than likely, that was their damn home. And if you don't consider squirrels to count as part of "no one", then that's racist and I'm calling PETA on your ***.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]

Hm, being an anti-squirrel person, it sounds to me like you're[B] barking up the wrong tree[/B] with that argument. haha!

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']I see no meaning in trying to rewrite everything I've said in this thread just so you can then call the rewrites equally incomprehensible, declare victory, and give yourself a big pat on the back for taking down another "pseudo-philosopher." [/quote]

Hey, come on FosterKid, you shouldn't give up and let Papa Smurf walk all over you like a pair of [b]Timber[/b]land boots. Pull out your [b]trunk[/b] card. After all, he lives in a mushroom hut so he's not a tree expert!

[Papa Smurf]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']I see no meaning in trying to rewrite everything I've said in this thread just so you can then call the rewrites equally incomprehensible, declare victory, and give yourself a big pat on the back for taking down another "pseudo-philosopher."[/quote] Where did I ever say anything about victory? Oh, you mean about you not giving me a challenge? That wasn't gloating, my good man. That was the truth.

[quote]I don't have the time or the temper for it, and I don't see how it can result in anyone learning a damn thing.[/quote] So let me get this straight. You expect people to learn something from your needlessly, hopelessly, annoyingly long-winded pseudo-philosophical babble that you slop down wherever you can, and yet the moment someone steps up and tells you to actually say something relevant or shut your mouth, you take offense?

Then you tell me how you don't have "the time or the temper" to actually counter my points with concise sentences, and to summarize your own multiple page posts into an easily constructed two sentences?

Fosterkid, I'm sorry, but if that's the case, then you're acting like a total douchebag and it's no wonder you're acting like someone just ripped out your testicles even when that person just happened to put you on the spot.

[quote]If you're interested in knowing what I think (and I doubt you are), then please reread my first three posts more carefully. Everything relevant is already there if you're willing to put some effort in (also doubtful), and I'm not going to continue this.[/quote] Your first three posts don't exist, Fosterkid. Either drop the fake ego and summarize your position in one to two sentences or drop the fake ego, shut your mouth, and stop ranting at me. The choice is yours. I'd advise you to make the right decision.

[quote]If you'd really like to, you can even write down in your little record that you totally kicked my ***. One more pseudo-philosopher showed up! Respectable and realistic wins the day, mindshatting crawls back into its hole! High five!!! Beers for everyone!![/QUOTE] I'm sorry, did I piss you off or something? I find this bit just a tad amusing, since throughout the thread you've attempted to flaunt (yes, flaunt) some high intellect, but I'm starting to think it was all a facade, as nothing in my latest post warranted your little temper tantrum; all I did was request that you summarize your entire answer into one sentence.

And yet you didn't. From that, I reach one of two conclusions.

One, you can't condense your posts and are so sensitive about it that you react like a child when someone requests that you do.

Or two, you won't condense your posts because you think slopping out three to four pages worth of that drivel makes you look better than you really are, and gives you some sort of satisfaction because somewhere in your head, you think that people are going to learn something from slogging through four pages of circular rhetoric and non-existent logic.

And interestingly enough, I'm seeing a combination of those two conclusions at work here. So what's the deal, Fosterkid? Are you inferior or do you think you're some intellectual gift and that makes you too good to write clearly?

[center][color=Red]***EDIT***[color=Black]
[/color][/color] [left]
Since Faginahead apparently isn't going to even begin to consider summarizing his position, whether he can't or won't (my bet is on the latter), whether it's incompetence or self-absorbed egomania (again, my bet is on the latter), I'm going to do it for him, to show him it can be done. And in fact, I'm going to quote one of his later posts as I do it.

[quote name='FarcicalKid]Whether we talk about sound or noise or air waves of varying pressure levels, there's [i]still[/i'] no getting around the fact that we aren't there to know what the hell's going on.[/quote]
Run a word count on that. It's 32 words, which isn't terribly more than the 25 word limit I set for him. Note in the above quote, there's a single comma, and there are no semi-colons.

I summarized Farquadhead's four posts into one sentence taken directly from one of his replies.

Summarization is difficult or impossible? Bull****

Can't summarize or won't? He [i]won't[/i].

Why? Can anyone say falsely inflated sense of self-worth?
[/left]
[color=Red][color=Black][/color][/color][/center]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=RoyalBlue][B]Papa Smurf[/B] and [B]Fasteriskhead[/B], although your discussion is interesting in how you are arguing over the semantics of posting habits and the usage of the word noise vs. sound, at this point both of you are way off topic and are instead focusing on arguing with each other and bashing the other person?s posting style. At this point both of you need to drop it and get back on topic. And since both of you disagree then I suggest you just agree to disagree and leave it at that. I?d hate to have to close the thread but if this continues that?s exactly what will happen.

As for the topic, one would think that it?s rather obvious that unless the tree was in some sort of vacuum of course there is a noise associated with it?s falling. All you would have to do is place some type of recording device in a forest and later view it to see that pretty much any event like a tree falling has some sort of noise associated with it. The idea that something has to be around to hear it to make it real is pointless as such things have been happening long before there was anything around to hear it. It may not be real to us since we didn?t personally view or hear it, but it still happened just the same and arguing over it won?t change that. The noise exists whether or not anything was around to hear it. [/COLOR]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Onix][COLOR=SlateGray][SIZE=1]Better question: A tree falls on a mime in a forest and no one's around to hear it. Does anyone care?[/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]

[SIZE=1]I think not. However this question does raise a further question, would the mime make a sound, intentional or no, as the tree falls on him/her ? Examples might be "Oh ****" or even the sound of his bones being crushed by a heavy object.

As for does a tree falling in the woods make noise if nobody is around to hear it, well if there's no life to the forest, then it raises the question, what killed all life in said forest and left the trees intact ? Anyway to answer the pointless question, I'm siding with "Yes it does make a sound" and Ken's great interpretation of what that sound would sound like. [/SIZE]

[musical_kitten]

[QUOTE=Bláse][size=1][color=slategray]Err...

Anyway. The squirrels are sure as hell going to hear it. More than likely, that was their damn home. And if you don't consider squirrels to count as part of "no one", then that's racist and I'm calling PETA on your ***.

Gloves are weird.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]
Yay Bláse! for trying to stay on topic. That's usually why I try to post early in on these threads.

And, of course, the only reason for reading the posts is to look for Charles and his posts. Who knew there were so many bad tree puns?

And, just to stay on topic myself, I still say that a sound is made, and it is heard, just because its physically impossible for no one to be in a forest. People probably live in the forest, just maybe not the deepest, darkest places. And there will always be animals and bugs (squirrels included, Bláse) so... yeah. I'm sure you got the point.

Now, can everyone each agree with someone else and lets go have a cookie?

[Adahn]

I apologize if I'm repeating something that's already been said, but I'm not going to read through two whole pages of replies to this sort of topic.

Sound is a wave, yes? It is caused by a vibration. In giving the initial condition, "A tree falls in the woods," one must assume that such a disruption would cause vibrations, and thus, sound.

Now, let's consider vibrations. There are many vibrations that cause sounds that are out of the human range of hearing, but with sensitive equipment, we can detect them. Once the vibration is detected, do we not refer to it as sound thereafter? Before we could detect the 'sounds' bats and whales and such made, it was assumed that they were silent. With what we have today, however, we know that they have always made those sounds.

This question has the not the potential to be answered, but it has the potential to be made irrelevant (not that it's really relevant to anything). Theoretically, our technology could become so advanced that no wave caused by a vibration could escape it, every sound in the universe could be 'heard'.

The only way to make this question go away, therefore, is to invoke omniscience. Either there is an omnipresent entity that perceives the sound made by the falling tree, or our sound detection technology reaches perfection and detects it. At this point in time, however, neither of these can be confirmed to exist. Should one or both of these things become proven to be real, however, the answer to the question would be yes. For every moment of time that it was asked, the answer would have been yes. Right now, though, we can answer the question simply and truthfully.

[size=4]I don't know[/size]

[Fasteriskhead]

[quote name='SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue][B']All you would have to do is place some type of recording device in a forest and later view it to see that pretty much any event like a tree falling has some sort of noise associated with it.[/COLOR][/quote][SIZE=1]True, but this just defeats the spirit of the question by going through a loophole in the wording. I don't think this really approaches it fairly.

Assume the question isn't just asking about direct first-person hearing - i.e., that it extends to all possible forms of recording or measurement. Assume, in other words, that there's no way of getting evidence one way or another about this particular case. Is this unrealistic, given what's going on? You bet. But this isn't really a good objection, given that the kind of question we're asking about involves the nature of knowledge and its justification, and not just what's likely to happen.

Let me see if I can restate the first of my earlier points in a different way (or, if you like things brief: Adahn is basically right, although I don't know if invoking omniscience is necessary here). Scientific spheres have a notion called "falsifiability" (which stems from certain developments in 20th century philosophy that I won't get into). Falsifiability basically says that if one makes a general, universal statement based on one or more observations, that statement is scientifically valid (i.e. the statement can be [i]investigated[/i]) if it could concievably be falsified in the course of other observations. For example: after studying swans for awhile I make the general statement that "all swans are white." This statement is falsificable, because were I to go looking around the world long enough I may find swans of different colors (or, some guy might go and breed a pink one). The statement "all objects fall towards the earth at a speed of 9.8 meters per second" is also falsifiable, because it can be tested and verified over and over again. However, "ghosts exist which have no physical properties" is [i]not[/i] falsifiable, because there's no way of investigating these ghosts and determining if they really do exist or not - crucially, this is not to say outright that "ghosts don't exist," but only that they can [i]never be the object of observation[/i] and thus anything said about them stands outside the scope of responsible scientific thinking.

The statements "falling trees make noise" and "falling trees do not make noise" are falsifiable, because they can be investigated: we can go listen to (or otherwise measure) falling trees all day, and probably we'll learn pretty quickly that one of those claims isn't true. However, the question in the topic post is asking about a falling tree that cannot be heard; I am further assuming that all other methods of measurement are cheating the question, so they're out too. So, what about the statement "One particular falling tree makes noise that [i]can never be measured[/i]" and its reverse (that it doesn't make this noise)? Neither one, which everyone should recognize as the "yes" or "no" answers to the topic post's questions, can [i]ever[/i] be falsified, because we're talking about a noise which [i]by definition[/i] can't be observed, tested, measured, or anything else. Hence the question is not within the bounds of scientific knowledge (and all knowledge gained through observation is basically scientific). We can still talk about what is [i]likely[/i] to happen based on past observations of other falling things, but because this particular sound or lack of sound cannot be the object of investigation, properly speaking we can say nothing about it. In this sense, the correct answer is not to answer.

(Although if we wanted to keep ourselves honest we could admit that yes, it's extremely unlikely that this one tree will suddenly flout everything currently known in physics)

I do have a second thing to say in my posts, which is about the fact that the minute we hear the topic question we immediately have that crashing sound sneak into out heads. Or, to put it another way: when we hear about a falling tree, we're already associating a sound with it even if (properly speaking) the actual physical sound is unavailable. I find this extremely interesting, and it lies in a completely different sphere of questioning than my first point, but I'm not sure how to approach the issue. If I think of a way I'll post it here.[/SIZE]

[Papa Smurf]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']True, but this just defeats the spirit of the question by going through a loophole in the wording. I don't think this really approaches it fairly.[/quote]
There's no loophole in the wording. The recording device is a direct way to answer the question. And plus, as soon as we place that recording device out in that forest and prove that a falling tree still makes noise, even when no human is around to hear it, the question is answered (though it's already answered if one is realistic) and thus any more dodgy philosophizing gibberish would need to end.

[quote](Although if we wanted to keep ourselves honest we could admit that yes, it's extremely unlikely that this one tree will suddenly flout everything currently known in physics)[/QUOTE]
"Honesty is the best policy."

Plus, bringing in "honesty" is irrelevant here, because we're not talking about morality. We're not talking about fabrications and spin-doctoring. We're not talking about fake truths. There can only be a question of honesty and integrity when there's a clear problem with what one is saying, and to be clear, I've not seen any clear problems with what the "KREEEEPOW" group has been saying.

[Elk]

I believe that it does make a sound because why wouldn't in. The energy of the tree falling has to be converted into something, so there is the heat and sound energy that is transferred. That's what I think, but hey, what do I know?
Most people think I'm just a snot-faced kid, which I'm not, because I blow my nose. But, if you really think about it, why wouldn't it do what it normally does when people are around? When a cow is giving birth, does it matter if anyone around or not? It still gives birth no matter what? Ok, maybe that's a big difference from a tree, but whatever. You get my point.

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DeepSkyBlue][QUOTE=Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1]True, but this just defeats the spirit of the question by going through a loophole in the wording. I don't think this really approaches it fairly.

Assume the question isn't just asking about direct first-person hearing - i.e., that it extends to all possible forms of recording or measurement. Assume, in other words, that there's no way of getting evidence one way or another about this particular case. Is this unrealistic, given what's going on? You bet. But this isn't really a good objection, given that the kind of question we're asking about involves the nature of knowledge and its justification, and not just what's likely to happen.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]There is nothing special about this discussion. Nor is the analytical approach unfair. The concept of noise and sound is something that has been well proven. And the idea that a tree falling would make no sound if no one is around is a bit absurd considering the knowledge we posses. You are asking people to assume there is no evidence on a topic where there is. In my mind it?s a pointless mental exercise to follow this line of reasoning. We?d be better off arguing over whether or not trees have souls since the concept of a soul is something that at this point is not scientifically provable. [QUOTE=Fasteriskhead][SIZE=1]So, what about the statement "One particular falling tree makes noise that [i]can never be measured[/i]" and its reverse (that it doesn't make this noise)? Neither one, which everyone should recognize as the "yes" or "no" answers to the topic post's questions, can [i]ever[/i] be falsified, because we're talking about a noise which [i]by definition[/i] can't be observed, tested, measured, or anything else. Hence the question is not within the bounds of scientific knowledge (and all knowledge gained through observation is basically scientific). We can still talk about what is [i]likely[/i] to happen based on past observations of other falling things, but because this particular sound or lack of sound cannot be the object of investigation, properly speaking we can say nothing about it. In this sense, the correct answer is not to answer.

(Although if we wanted to keep ourselves honest we could admit that yes, it's extremely unlikely that this one tree will suddenly flout everything currently known in physics)[/SIZE][/QUOTE]You answered your own question here. The possibility of a tree that is somehow different than the millions of other trees is beyond unlikely. So again to discuss something as if its not provable when in fact it is just seems pointless. It?s like trying to regress and go back to being ignorant by pretending you lack knowledge about the said tree. About the only use I see for such a discussion is trying to understand how people who lacked the ability to verify the noise/sound, like say people from several hundred years ago, how would they have attempted to answer this very question. And even then our musings would be tainted as we lack the ability to simply forget what we have learned. The fact that due to actually hearing a tree fall or experiancing this event through other media, at some point in our lives, when someone tells us a tree has fallen our instant reaction of mentally thinking about the sound Kerpow is an indicator of how prevalent this knowledge is. It?s common. We know that it does indeed make a noise/sound.

So my stance is exactly the same as SunfallE, we already have the ability to verify that when a tree falls there is a sound/noise associated with it whether we are there to hear it or not. [/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[size=2]Physical improbabilities are not impossibilities. It is physically possible for a single atom to spontaneously cease to exist. The chance of this happening is infinitely small, but non-zero. It is also possible, but even more infinitely unlikely, that an entire tree, one moment after falling down in the woods, will cease to exist, thus making no crashing noise.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]If you are going to invoke physics, you must understand that all the rules we know apply on a large scale 99.9999etc....% of the time. Even with your recording device, and a machine that causes the tree to fall near enough to the device to be recorded, it is possible that no sound will be recorded. The only thing we can be certain of is that nothing is certain.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]The only way to be absolutely, 100% certain about the answer to this question is to qualify it.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]"If a tree falls down in the woods, and nobody's around to hear it, but I have a device that records sound, and the device records a sound that came from the tree falling, did the tree falling make a sound?"[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Never be certain of anything, never assume your assumptions will always be right. Ask yourself the question again, and answer differently.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]"I don't know that it makes a sound, but I sincerely hope and believe that it does."[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]If you have a need to claim knowledge of things unknowable, then I've got a club you can join. It's the, "I don't know, but I don't know I don't know" club. I've been to some of their meetings, and I've always walked away feeling like I never should have been there.[/size]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DeepSkyBlue][quote name='Adahn][size=2]Physical improbabilities are not impossibilities. It is physically possible for a single atom to spontaneously cease to exist. The chance of this happening is infinitely small, but non-zero. It is also possible, but even more infinitely unlikely, that an entire tree, one moment after falling down in the woods, will cease to exist, thus making no crashing noise.[/size][/QUOTE]True, but a tree is far more than a single atom, thus raising the probability of one ceasing to exist after falling even more unlikely. [QUOTE=Adahn][size=2']If you are going to invoke physics, you must understand that all the rules we know apply on a large scale 99.9999etc....% of the time. Even with your recording device, and a machine that causes the tree to fall near enough to the device to be recorded, it is possible that no sound will be recorded. The only thing we can be certain of is that nothing is certain.[/size][/quote]Again true, but it?s still a bit of a semantics issue as I can go out in to the forest and have someone randomly drop branches to simulate a tree falling over and every single time I will get a noise/sound. The statement of the only thing we can be certain of is that nothing is certain is a catch phrase designed to say that there are levels of science that we do not understand so we can?t not state that this is 100% true. But I suspect that if we were to find a tree that fell without making a noise then the physics surrounding the event would have to be radically different than what we already understand. And to be honest, I don?t see that happening anytime soon. [QUOTE=Adahn][size=2]Never be certain of anything, never assume your assumptions will always be right. Ask yourself the question again, and answer differently.

"I don't know that it makes a sound, but I sincerely hope and believe that it does."

If you have a need to claim knowledge of things unknowable, then I've got a club you can join. It's the, "I don't know, but I don't know I don't know" club. I've been to some of their meetings, and I've always walked away feeling like I never should have been there.[/size][/QUOTE]We are not talking about an assumption here. The fact that it does make a sound has been proven. In fact with the storm last month here I got to hear the sound first hand when we had several trees go down on my street.

By asking the question again and changing my answer I don?t accomplish anything as this is not something that is on the other end of the spectrum. Something that is 99.999% unknown, like the idea that trees have a soul, since the proof of a soul even in humans is not scientifically provable at this point. So in that circumstance changing your answer is a way to explore different methods of determining whether or not a soul is real.

So saying I don?t know if a person really has a soul, but I sincerely hope and believe that they do, is a more realistic use of this method.

I don?t have a need to claim knowledge of things unknowable, I?m only claiming knowledge of things that on a high level have been proven. And by high I mean anyone around the world can be next to a tree falling over and hear the sound/noise associated with it. Unless they happen to have the misfortune of being deaf. So even though the tree made a sound that I will hear, they will not. Though if they are close enough they will feel the vibration it makes when striking the ground.[/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[size=2]Since we are dealing with a hypothetical situation and asking for a single answer, we must consider all physical possibilities, however unlikely they may be. A tree ceasing to exist immediately after falling is one of those possibilities. All the matter in the universe ceasing to exist just before the tree hits the ground is another possibility.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]If a tree falls in the woods, and noone is around to hear it, does it make a sound?[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]It's possible for everything surrounding the tree to vibrate at such a frequency that all vibrations caused by the tree hitting the ground are 'cancelled out'. If an egg rolls off a counter and shatters on the floor, is it also possible for a broken egg on the floor to coalesce and fall up to the counter in one piece? Yes. Everything that can be done can be undone. That's how the real world has been proven to work.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]If you'd like to learn more, there is an interesting book I poked through that explains the less visible principles of physics in such a way that laymen like us can understand. Here's a [url="http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=3577188720963&isbn=0375727205"]link[/url].[/size]

[Tekkaman]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]Why do people take this question (and all others like it) too far? [color=navy]*Shakes head*[/color] I'll keep my answer simple and try not to use scientific probability, calculus, or any thing of the sort to make myself seem smarter. (because I honestly am not that smart. [also, I wasn't trying to undermine anyone's intelligence by saying the above.])[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]If a tree falls in a forest, it makes a sound, period. However, if nothing [or nobody at all] is around to hear the tree fall, then it doesn't make a sound.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]Why do I say this you ask? Because if nothing [whatsoever] is around to hear the sound, then the sound [technically] doesn't exist, that's why. [color=darkred]=][/color][/color][/size][/font]

[sakurasuka]

[QUOTE=Acheron]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]If a tree falls in a forest, it makes a sound, period. However, if nothing [or nobody at all] is around to hear the tree fall, then it doesn't make a sound.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]Why do I say this you ask? Because if nothing [whatsoever] is around to hear the sound, then the sound [technically] doesn't exist, that's why. [color=darkred]=][/color][/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE]

[size=1]That's not only an unfair assumption, but incorrect.

I do believe Fasterisk has gone over this quite enough, be a dear and re-read his posts if you haven't already.



Plus, what makes your opinion more plausable than ours? Why are we over-thinking it when you gave the same answer as many? That's extremely hypocritical, if you ask me.

Plus, we all know that is makes vibrations when it falls. Wheather or not it makes a 'sound' isn't relevant, it will always be a matter of opinion.



It all depends on your definition of 'sound' or 'noise'. If you see sound as vibration, then yes, it makes a sound.

If you see sound as vibrations that are recognised by human/animal/technological means, then no, it makes no sound.



Really. Think before you speak. This is all a matter of 'opinion' here.

[/size]

[Tekkaman]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkred][QUOTE=sakurasuka][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2]That's not only an unfair assumption, but incorrect.[/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkred][/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]How can you say my assumption is incorrect? Assumptions and opinions aren't incorrect, they're just different thoughts on the same question that are disputed by the many.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkred][QUOTE=sakurasuka][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2]I do believe [color=darkred]Fasterisk[/color] has gone over this quite enough, be a dear and re-read his posts if you haven't already.[/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkred][/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]True, I didn't read his thoughts on the matter. If it'll make you feel better, i'll go read it.[/color] [color=navy]*Goes to post*[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkred][QUOTE=sakurasuka][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2]Plus, what makes your opinion more plausable than ours? Why are we over-thinking it when you gave the same answer as many? That's extremely hypocritical, if you ask me.[/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkred][/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]Once again, because it's an opinion and my opinion isn't wrong, it's just a conclusion based on how I feel. Stop confusing '[color=darkred]opinion[/color]' with '[color=darkred]answer[/color]'. Yes my opinion can be argued, but i'm not wrong for giving it.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkred][QUOTE=sakurasuka][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2]Plus, we all know that is makes vibrations when it falls. Wheather or not it makes a 'sound' isn't relevant, [color=darkred][u]it will always be a matter of opinion[/u][/color][color=black].[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkred][/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]Wow... didn't I just say that?[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkred][QUOTE=sakurasuka][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2]It all depends on your definition of 'sound' or 'noise'. If you see sound as vibration, then yes, it makes a sound.[/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2]If you see sound as vibrations that are recognised by human/animal/technological means, then no, it makes no sound.[/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkred][/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]I think your 'opinion' makes lots of sense, [color=darkred]sakurasuka[/color].[/color][/size][/font]

[size=2][font=Palatino Linotype][color=darkred][QUOTE=sakurasuka][/color][/font][/size]
[size=2][font=Palatino Linotype]Really. Think before you speak. This is all a matter of 'opinion' here.[/font][/size]

[size=2][font=Palatino Linotype][color=darkred][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/size]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]Merriam-Webster Online [/color][/size][/font][url="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/opinion"][font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkred]http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/opinion[/color][/size][/font][/url]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkred]Opinion:[/color] [color=darkgreen]implies a conclusion [u][color=darkred]thought out[/color][/u] yet open to dispute[/color] [color=navy][/color][/size][/font]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]So, I did think. That's how I came up with my '[color=darkred]opinion[/color]' in the first place.[/color][/size][/font]

[Adahn]

[size=2]Bleh, all this bantering is a little exhaustive. I think I'll go off on my own line of thinking here. It never hurts to ask the question again.[/size]

[size=2]"If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"[/size]

[size=2]I'm going to follow the nature of the question, rather than the letter. I believe who ever came up with this question intended 'sound' to mean 'something somebody hears'. Now, without getting into all the physics, I find myself a little stumped.[/size]

[size=2]I'll look at it this way. This question doesn't say anything about nobody being around to [i]see[/i] the tree falling, so I'm going to place a theoretical deaf person, Jenna, at the scene. She's about 5'8", with flowing brown hair, big, beautiful dark eyes, soft, unblemished skin, and curves in all the right places with all the right proportions. She's wearing a seductively clingy red dress that is just decent enough to leave something to the imagination. Suddenly, something catches her eye, and she twists her head to look at it. A tall tree begins leaning to one side, and slowly falls to the ground, scattering leaves and branches. She feels the vibration lightly through the soles of her slippered feet, and a slight gust of wind causes her hair to flow, and her dress to ripple before it settles down. All of this passes in complete silence. She strides gracefully back to her camp, and signs to her translator, Juan, what happened. Juan signs that he didn't hear anything, and with a touch of hope, asks Jenna if she heard a sound. Jenna signs a question back to him. "What is sound?"[/size]

[size=2]Jenna was born deaf, and her perspective is just as valid as anyone else's. To her, there is no such thing as sound. If we step into her shoes and ask the question again: "If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" we can answer, "No, there is no such thing as sound."[/size]

[size=2]That's one example from one perspective that tells us a tree falling in the woods right in front of someone can make no sound at all; not even the smallest, slightest noise in a world of complete and utter silence.[/size]

[Tekkaman]

[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]I understand your opinion on the matter [color=darkred]Adahn[/color], but just focusing on a deaf person isn't enough [for me]. I understand that you were trying to put it in general terms regarding everybody via your last paragraph but there are other things you could put into your thoughts, if possible. I wouldn't know what type of scenario to add though; that's why I kept my opinion / previous post as simplistic as possible. [color=navy]=][/color][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=#006400][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Palatino Linotype][size=2][color=darkgreen]However, I totally agree with you on the deaf person ordeal. Great detail by the way.[/color][/size][/font]

[Delta]

[COLOR=#35425e]^ That was absolutely wonderful, Adahn. Was that a restatement of if it wasn't perceived, it wasn't there?[/COLOR]

[Derald]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=1][COLOR=Navy]Such heated debate over people's philosophies versus scientific fact...

Well, here's my point of view:

It's simple. It's all about object permanence.

People have established that a tree makes a sound when it falls, so even when they don't experience it first-hand, they can tell that a tree that has previously fallen has made a sound upon doing so.

Even children will tell you that a tree will make a sound when it falls, regardless of whether or not someone experienced it. Object permanence is an early developmental concept, and it is simple psychology.

As for the deaf woman, the same can be applied if she first experiences the event of a tree falling, and associates it with the ground vibrations, thus instating the question:

"If a tree falls, and no one is around to 'feel' it, does it make a vibration?"


So, in the end, this is destined to be an infinite, recurring discussion, because there are as many answers as there are opinions. So, I'll ask this question: "Does it matter? Will the fact of whether or not a tree makes a sound while falling really decide the outcome of your lives?" If your answer is "yes," then I suggest you get a life, so to speak.

Sorry, I was caught up in a rant. You can disregard any of the above if you wish.

Later.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Papa Smurf]

Derald, I like most of your post, but there's one thing I utterly disagree with:

[quote name='Derald'] So, in the end, this is destined to be an infinite, recurring discussion, because there are as many answers as there are opinions.[/quote]
There is only one actual answer to the question: that the tree will make a sound.

Everything else becomes stretched and forced pseudo-philosophical ramblings with little to no relevance at all that suggest downright stupid hypothetical scenarios totally ignorant of reality itself in an attempt to justify so-called "deeper thinking" that can never, ever be justified.

If people don't believe me, look at the crap certain people are throwing around here. Deaf women? Or calling that pseudo-philosophy just as plausible as hard physics? Opinion versus answer in a question that deals with hard physics rather than philosophical posturing?

Be sensible people.

The question deals with how our individual perceptions affect reality, but only on an emotional, reactive scale. It has absolutely nothing to do with trees and sound, because even if we don't perceive the tree falling, it's going to make a sound. Whip a friend in the head with a piece of sapling for an immediate example. Throw a 2x4 at other 2x4s (or at your friend) and hear what happens. Take a chainsaw to a tree in the forests near your house and hear the chaos. Take said sapling and start beating on an oak tree.

Or hell, take a trip out to the Jersey Pine Barrens and I'll take you kayaking. There we can do two things: go kayaking and enjoy the scenery, and ask the redneck bumf-cks "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If you think this "What do we know" philosophy is all that realistic, how about you try using it in reality? Guarantee that at least three of those redneck bumf-cks will drag you off into the woods and beat you mercilessly.

And then, you'll make a sound!

[quote name='sakurasuka'] Really. Think before you speak. This is all a matter of 'opinion' here.[/quote]
Honestly, sakura, I'd tell you to think before you speak. Had you thought a bit before chiming in, you wouldn't be saying this is all a matter of opinion, just like you would see that no matter if someone is using "sound" or "noise," they're still agreeing that an auditory event occurs when said tree falls.

In fact, despite your best efforts to provide some sort of counter to the "tree does make a sound/noise/auditory event" argument...you end up supporting it even further.

I'm starting to think that nobody here really knows anything about what they're talking about, especially those in the pretend philosophers club.

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Papa Smurf'] I'm starting to think that nobody here really knows anything about what they're talking about, especially those in the pretend philosophers club.[/quote]

[color=crimson]That's pretty much what OB is all about!

Pretend philosophers and pretend scientists calling out other pretend philosophers and pretend scientists on their pretend theories, hypothesis and opinions in a constant struggle for pretend dominance or pretend glory.

And you happen to be part of this show, Padre Smurf.

Great, eh?

Still, I agree with you the most in this thread. Fasterisk' and the others opinions are fun to read but not really going anywhere logical or realistic, lol.

The deaf woman story was a nice touch though.[/color]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]o_O Who would have thought that such a simple statement would have sparked so many different responses. I?ve heard the argument before, but only in fantasy books and since those often have different rules, well it didn?t conform to what I?ve learned. And it wouldn't really fit the discussion going on here.

Anyway, ignoring all the previous posts I?m of the opinion that if a tree falls yes it does make a sound/noise. I?ve heard it for myself when the old tree in our front yard one day just decided to fall over. It was so old that it had rotted inside. I remember it quite well as the tree is just outside my window, or rather it was, and when it fell the noise startled my dog and she barked furiously for several minutes.

As for the philosophy stuff, I?ll pass as most of it makes no sense to me anyway. o_O[/COLOR]

[Boo]

[size=1]It's a falling tree. Who cares? Try to keep it standing instead, so we all have a bit more air for a bit longer.[/size]

[Fasteriskhead]

Smurf, one of the "pretend philosophers" would like to ask you a question.

[quote name='Papa Smurf']Everything else becomes stretched and forced pseudo-philosophical ramblings with little to no relevance at all that suggest downright stupid hypothetical scenarios totally ignorant of reality itself in an attempt to justify so-called "deeper thinking" that can never, ever be justified.[/quote](It's interesting that you use the word "justified" here, as I seem to remember you ridiculing me for using the same term a little earlier)

If you're saying that all this "deeper thinking" is really unjustifiable, I take this to mean that your own point (and I think this last post is your best in the thread) [i]can[/i] be justified. I assume you hold that this is because "hard physics" is "reality itself," period. In which case, my question is: [i]how do you know this?[/i]

I'm not rhetorically asking this to be some skeptical smartass. I'm seriously looking for an answer. I'm asking for you to describe, as systematically as you can, how it is that you come to know all this stuff. Even if reality always goes by a set collection of determinable rules we still have to [i]learn[/i] things, assuming we don't get born into the world already knowing the sound made when a friend gets smacked in the head. So, how does this learning process happen?

[quote name='Papa Smurf][at the Jersey Pine Barrens'] we can do two things: go kayaking and enjoy the scenery, and ask the redneck bumf-cks "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If you think this "What do we know" philosophy is all that realistic, how about you try using it in reality? Guarantee that at least three of those redneck bumf-cks will drag you off into the woods and beat you mercilessly.[/quote]True, this discussion basically has no place in everyday "sensible" conversation. No one brings [url=http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1268996][u]Hume[/u][/url] to a party. But that doesn't necessarily make these kinds of questions completely irrelevant... unless, of course, for anything to be considered "relevant" at all it must immediately produce useful, practical results, in which case I have no reply and the entire thread fails the test miserably.