
If a Tree Falls
#1
Posted 06 May 2011 - 04:27 PM
The help you receive here is free.
If you wish, you may Donate to help keep us online.
May your day be blessed by those you love and those you love be blessed by HIM ;-)
Register to Remove
#2
Posted 06 May 2011 - 04:41 PM
It mostly depends on your view on reality and your own perception of it. From a purely scientific point of view, any object impacting with another object will create some form of vibration. If air is present, then these vibrations will emit from the source of the impact and the difference in air pressures (and the specific frequency and magnitude of these pressure differences) creates "sound".
We can prove that any object impacting with another object transfers force and you end up getting wasted energy, either as heat or sound.
The only way we know that, however, is by observing the world. We can not draw any rules or laws on the unobserved world. A great example of that is the behaviour of electrons and photons. If we observe them directly, and we are acutely aware of their existence, they behave in a particular way. If we choose not to observe them, however, they behave in a completely illogical and irrational way. Watch this video to get a better understanding :
http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded
This therefore suggests that there is a difference between observing a particular event and observing the end result of a particular event. So, in the case of the falling tree, if we were there we would hear it make noise and we would see it on the floor. We know it makes noise because we heard it and we saw how it made noise. However, if all we see is a tree on the floor without seeing or hearing it fall, how can we be sure that it got there in the same manner?
My view is that we can't be sure that the tree would adhere to the same rules when we don't observe it. Evidence is only ever a strong indicator of an event, rather than an infallible explanation of it.
Visiting Tech
@jamescpegg | FreeTrakr
The help you receive here is free.
If you wish, you may Donate to help keep us online..
#3
Posted 06 May 2011 - 05:00 PM






Edited by Jimbo1, 06 May 2011 - 05:02 PM.
The help you receive here is free.
If you wish, you may Donate to help keep us online.
May your day be blessed by those you love and those you love be blessed by HIM ;-)
#4
Posted 06 May 2011 - 06:10 PM


Edited by terry1966, 06 May 2011 - 06:12 PM.
#5
Posted 06 May 2011 - 09:37 PM


#6
Posted 06 May 2011 - 11:45 PM
The question stipulates "no one is around to hear it..."
This implies that no person is around to hear it.... making it a bad question.
Basically, what Nahumi said is correct. However, sound is not actually a function of the "sound waves". The waves may be the cause... but sound is the effect. Sound does not exist if there is no ear to hear it, though "sound waves" will still be there. The ear converts the waves into what we call sounds.
Therefore, the question should have been... "If a tree falls in the woods and there is no ear to hear it, does it make a noise?" The answer to that question is no.
The ear does not have to be human. It is virtually impossible to have a forest where a tree could fall and there not be an ear in the vicinity.
If you want to delve deeply into this, you might want to consider the fact that not all ears are able to covert the same waves into sound. Some are just not sensitive enough. Truthfully, most ears are more sensitive than the organism that it belongs to is able to "acknowledge" the sound the wave is converted to. Let's talk specifically humans. Everybody knows that dogs are able to perceive higher pitched "sounds" than humans... though the sensitivity of the human varies widely. However, well above the range that a human is able to interpret the sound that is created when the wave hits the tympanic membrane, sound is actually made. The sound is actually "heard", but the brain barely perceives it. Often this manifests in the subject as an "uncomfortable" feeling. A common example of this is the ballast in fluorescent lights. Most people, even if they try, cannot consciously "hear" them. Yet it is not at all uncommon for that sound to cause a similar reaction, though exponentially smaller, to that garnered from someone dragging their fingernails down a blackboard.
------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft MVP 2010-2014
#7
Posted 07 May 2011 - 06:48 AM
We can not draw any rules or laws on the unobserved world.
No observer, no ear, no sound, no tree, no woods.
#8
Posted 07 May 2011 - 01:39 PM
We can not draw any rules or laws on the unobserved world.
No observer, no ear, no sound, no tree, no woods.
Exactly.
This brings us onto quite a nice point about the proof of reality, which is best summed up as :
Cogito ergo sum
I think, therefore I am - Descartes
Yeah...I know, it's an overused philosophical quote, but it's quite fitting. Most of the internet literature (in this case Wikipedia) claims that Descartes is implying that the simple act of thinking is proof of your existence. It's actually a bit more complicated than that if you delve into the subject further. What Descartes actually meant is that his own thoughts and his own existence was the only thing he had irrefutable proof of. Therefore everything else which wasn't his own mind had the potential of being non-existent, or at least a doubtful existence. If you actually read Descartes' Meditations, you see how he becomes increasingly aware of his assumptions that his own reality is true. In the end the only thing he can conclude is that his thoughts are real, which means he is real, but the reality of everything else is somewhat dubious.
So going back to the falling tree, even if you were there and you "heard" it fall, and you saw it fall, this in itself is only a perception of what you think is reality. But your eyesight can be deceived, as can your hearing, so therefore your perception of the falling tree making noise has the potential of being false.
Visiting Tech
@jamescpegg | FreeTrakr
The help you receive here is free.
If you wish, you may Donate to help keep us online..
#9
Posted 07 May 2011 - 07:35 PM

ELIZABETH CLARE
Proud WTT Member
#10
Posted 08 May 2011 - 02:06 PM
I say, the answer to the question is yes.
For those who need proof... try a tape recorder or video equipment.
I was hoping that one of the fair gender would bring up this contention of extended observation, if only to beg the larger question, which is...
If a man is alone in the woods, and he speaks out loud, and there is no woman around to hear him..... Is he still wrong?

If you wish, you may Donate to help keep us online.
Register to Remove
#11
Posted 08 May 2011 - 06:23 PM


#12
Posted 08 May 2011 - 09:53 PM
No discussion or explanation required.If a man is alone in the woods, and he speaks out loud, and there is no woman around to hear him..... Is he still wrong?
YES!

------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft MVP 2010-2014
#13
Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:11 AM
Blessed is he who induces laughter in she!

Amen, amen I say to thee!

Here's why:
Man = (xy)
AND
Woman = (xx)
AND
(x) = {a pictoral (><)} =
{ 2 separate pictorals (>) + (<) each depicting a long gene (Lg) }
AND
(Lg) = amount of genetic matter (M) generally existing in a (Lg)
AND
(M) = a lot
AND
(z) = potential amount of inherently stored information, ability, sensitivity, potentiality, survival instincts, sensory perceptions, etc. =
potential for Wisdom
AND
(z)(M) = (Lg)
AND
(y) = a pictoral (>~) =
{ 2 separate pictorals (>) + (~) }
AND
(~) = (<)(0.5)
SO, THEREFORE...
Man = xy = [ (>) + (<) ] + [ (>) + (>)(0.5) ] =
[ (Lg) + (Lg) ] + [ (Lg) + (Lg)(0.5) ] =
2Lg + Lg + Lg/2 =
3Lg + 1/2Lg = 3.5 Lg =
3.5 Mz = Mz 3.5 =
(a lot of potential for Wisdom)(3.5) = xy =
Man = (a lot of potential for Wisdom)(3.5)
AND
Woman = xx =
[ Lg + Lg ] + [ Lg + Lg ] =
2Lg + 2Lg = 4Lg = 4 Mz = Mz 4
(a lot of potential for Wisdom)(4) = xx =
Woman = (a lot of potential for Wisdom)(4)
SO...
{ Man = (a lot of potential for Wisdom)(3.5) } < { Woman = (a lot of potential for Wisdom)(4) }
In otherwords, men's xy chromosome is made up of 3.5 genes whereas women's xx chromsome is made up of 4 genes. It works well this way 'cuz women instinctually MUST have that "6th" or "7th" sensitive sense in order to woo and attract those "hard to read" males for mating and then further... to be armed and equipped to protect a babe in her womb or a child she is raising or a mate that she loves by using a mother's innate abilities needed for her, her child and her mate's survival at any given moment.
ok... time for this xx to go to bed!
ELIZABETH CLARE
Proud WTT Member
#14
Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:19 AM

The free advice, opinions and sentiments expressed here are mine only, so you can safely assume I have no software or OS company patrons or any other benefactors when I post in this forum.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users