If a tree falls and nobody is around, does it make a sound?

[Captain Squee]

Well, for the sake of the forums i wont link us up, ill copying and pasting, just like Shu said, cuz im a good boy....i saw this debate on a different forum site and, well it was an interesting one. so i wanna know if we all agree with the solution that they came up with. I was in this convo, i was demonology for the matter...

Just as the title says "If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" (a little different then the title, I didn't want to type the hole thing it might have been to long)This is a very good question and I love to see peoples answers. I have started this many times in my family and it always ends up in hour long discussions. So I thought I would be a perfect thing to try to bring some life to these threads.
Have fun!

Of course it does, and if you want to prove it, get a tape recorder and figure out a way to knock over a tree remotely.

The general idea is, in absence of an observer do natural phenomenon continue in the way we observe them, which science says yes, but is improvable as everything we know is based off of either observations, assumptions, or something logically derived from a combination of the first two. So take observations out of it, all you have are assumptions, which does not a good proof make. It's just a matter of if you believe the absence of the observer (outside of the effect of the observer) has no effect, which is an axiom (assumption) of modern science, but not of many philosophies. So in essence no matter how much you discuss it, no resolution can be made as it's just what you believe. Luckily, it doesn't matter as if no one can observe it, who cares?

Hmm, here is my answer to that.
In order for something to be preseived as "Sound" The vibrtions from the object must be picked up by something that can hear. So, the tree falling isn't making a sound unless someone preseived the vibrations as a sound.

That's actually not correct at all, blank. Sound is the result of particles moving back and forth (generally in a rapid manner). Regardless of whether or not someone 'perceives' the vibrations, technically a sound is still made. Just because there is no one around to observe a phenomenon doesn't mean that it fails to occur. Humans generally can't physically observe the destruction of stars, yet we know it happens... this is kind of like that.

No, it doesn't make sound, in fact, it doesn't exactly fall if there's no observer.

It only seems to have felt when the observer comes by to see it, but the action didn't took place, we were only able to see the "result".

As long as no observer is present, both things happen at the same time, the tree doesn't fall and falls. That's what some quantum physicists are trying to prove, an upgrade to Schrödinger's cat experiment.

Well, it must fall if we see the result. Whether we see or hear it fall is irrelevant, because when it does, we have proof that a reaction between nature and itself occured between the tree and whatever helped in it's falling. Thats like saying you walk out of a room that has a TV turned on, but then the power goes out. When you walk back in, and the power is back on, the TV is off. You know what happened. You have proof of the result.

Then again, it falls in our universe. The multiverse theory uses some complex quantum mechanics, and for every decision, there is multiple outcomes. Each outcome creates a new universe, where that outcome has changed the course of our life, aswell as many others. So if I throw out my lottery ticket in this universe, multiple universes are created. In these other universes, I may not have thrown out my ticket, and I might have even won the lottery. It's pretty amazing.

Great question

Well, it must fall if we see the result. Whether we see or hear it fall is irrelevant, because when it does, we have proof that a reaction between nature and itself occured between the tree and whatever helped in it's falling. Thats like saying you walk out of a room that has a TV turned on, but then the power goes out. When you walk back in, and the power is back on, the TV is off. You know what happened. You have proof of the result.

Then again, it falls in our universe. The multiverse theory uses some complex quantum mechanics, and for every decision, there is multiple outcomes. Each outcome creates a new universe, where that outcome has changed the course of our life, aswell as many others. So if I throw out my lottery ticket in this universe, multiple universes are created. In these other universes, I may not have thrown out my ticket, and I might have even won the lottery. It's pretty amazing.

Great question

The question isn't whether it falls, that's a given. It's whether upon hitting the ground does it make a sound, meaning it's not irrelevant as it's the question itself...

then at about here it becomes senselss babble, so ill skip the nonsense.

Sound- the disturbence of a force in a form of matter that can carry waves and clashes of molecules and particals, such as air or water. The disturbence comes from a force that is in motion but does not wish to be in motion and passed vibrations on to the surrounding matter if the matter surrounding the object can sustain waves and randome molecual collisions. The vibrations can be passed into other objects such as plants and animals. this can sometimes cause a disturbance in another still object and effect it in small, minor ways. Sound does not have to be heard to exist as long as there are vibrations being passed from one object to another.

Noise- A living organism picking up the transmition of waves in the area around it (water, air) known as sound. Noise does not exist if there is no organism to pick up the sound.

so you tell me, does it make a sound? or does it make noise?

thats the real question in my honest opinion.

There are plenty of living organisms in a forest.

Trees, spores, fungi, bacteria, insects, squirrels, various animals, The only place that has more life is a swamp.

the plants and fungi cant identify noise...but you both have points, and i was trying to prove it, you just made it obvious hahaha ^^;

and the rest is me showing off my intellegance while proving a point.

If water has flavor,then yes.

Actually water does have a distinct flavor, but our bodys and taste buds are so used to consuming water, since it is anything we drink and even eat, that is just as our scent is to Nitrogen Pure oxygen has its own smell, and we could recognize it if we smelled it, but natural air has so much Nitrogen that if we smelled pure Nitrogen, there is no difference, but it is only that our nerves have become too used to the smell and therefore seems like there is nothing there. Just as water. I cold even say the same about the 15 pounds or so (estimate) of air preassure as we walk, but I think I have proven my point.

Then you have spoken, the tree does indeed make sound!

 

[Gabranth]

Nah, sound is a form of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

[Mod Edit: Can you please elaborate on your post. This is a post count section. Thanks. =)]

 

[Zen]

The moment a person makes this about science, they have utterly missed the point. It's a philosophical question about the nature of existence and how we perceive the world.

On that philosophical note, due to chaos theory I would say that there is potential for any insignificant happening to have a significant effect on someone's life. If the tree fell on your favorite pet, then it's going to have an immediate effect on your life. If it falls on the coyote that was going to kill your favorite pet, it will have an effect you will probably never even recognize. Even if it falls on nothing, a deer having to take an extra 3 seconds to walk around might mean the difference between it being in a road causing an accident or walking by unscathed.

 

[Captain Squee]

If the tree fell on your favorite pet, then it's going to have an immediate effect on your life. If it falls on the coyote that was going to kill your favorite pet, it will have an effect you will probably never even recognize. Even if it falls on nothing, a deer having to take an extra 3 seconds to walk around might mean the difference between it being in a road causing an accident or walking by unscathed.

what does this have to do with sound? the question was sound not impact...

 

[blakstang98]

The moment a person makes this about science, they have utterly missed the point. It's a philosophical question about the nature of existence and how we perceive the world.

On that philosophical note, due to chaos theory.

Chaos theory is mathematical, which makes it scientific.

With that said, it can be analyzed scientifically and philosophically. From a science standpoint, sound exists by ear, not by eye, so it does exist in the physical world. So when the tree falls, it makes a sound, regardless of who or what may have heard it. Nobody can claim to have heard this happen and didn't bear witness to the event, but it made a sound.

From a philosophical standpoint, whether it made a sound or not, it doesn't matter because you didn't hear it. The only thing you care about is whether you heard the tree fall or not. Instead, one will make a rhetorical question about the tree falling and whether a person, an animal or some other form of living heard it. This open-ended question will spark such debates like "what came first, the chicken, or the egg?" and other questions like "why?".

The difference between both theories, one gives you a definitive answer, the other does not.

 

[M1ghty Mous3]

It does make a sound. Weather a person is nearby to hear it or not does not mean it hasn't happened. It simply means that no one is close enough to confirm the tree actually fell. Many things people can't hear, see, smell, touch, smell happen everyday. It doesn't mean that it's nonexistent because human reaction isn't there. Life was here before man was, and reactions still occured. So yes, a tree makes a sound when it falls. No is by to confirm it though, thats all.

 

[Zen]

what does this have to do with sound? the question was sound not impact...

The point is not about sound itself, but on the relevance of things that seem insignificant, and are not perceived by humans.

Chaos theory is mathematical, which makes it scientific.

Don't split hairs. The question is not about the branch of science we call physics. It's about philosophy. My answer, as you pointed out, was based on my understanding of chaos theory, but my answer is not the question.

 

[Tmoo]

i find this question irrelevant on both 'scientific' and 'philosophical' accounts. philosophically speaking, rather than ask a hard-to-answer question that makes one think, all this really does is attempt to tell us that things happen outside of the microcosms that comprise our perceptions...and that's it. we can splice it any which way to create other paradigms of attempted wisdom but it is the same as trying to find the meaning of life from a slice of cheese.

from a logical perspective (AKA scientific), common sense tells us that, yes, sound waves reverberate from the impact of the tree hitting the ground, whose movement through the air forms sound. hoo-rah.

*puts on coke-bottle glasses and dances the robot*

 

[der Astronom]

The point is not about sound itself, but on the relevance of things that seem insignificant, and are not perceived by humans.

A man will always find something insignificant, regardless of whether or not he perceives it.

A man who finds a fallen tree must conclude that it fell at one point. And because his experience indicates to him that a tree makes a sound when it falls, he may as well deduce that the tree he saw made a sound when it fell; he just happened not to be there when it did.

 

[Talbain]

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, and it lands on a mime, does anybody care?

In fact, why couldn't you just define sound at the beginning of this debate and save us a whole lot of unnecessary arguments? I mean, obviously if sound requires someone to hear it, the answer is "no", if it does NOT require someone to hear it, the answer it "yes". This business about a tree falling is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand, a better question would be more simply- "What is sound"?

Definition from Wikipedia: "Sound is a travelling wave which 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, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations."

Well, there you have it. Sound has the POTENTIAL to be heard, but does not actually require anyone to hear it. For example, if a balloon pops in China, just because you don't hear it doesn't mean it's not making any noise. By extension, if NOBODY is around the noise source, it's still going to make sound regardless.

We all know that when a tree falls, it's going to make a loud noise that is audible to anyone listening nearby. Therefore it does make a noise even if nobody is nearby it.

 

[Zen]

A man will always find something insignificant, regardless of whether or not he perceives it.

A man who finds a fallen tree must conclude that it fell at one point. And because his experience indicates to him that a tree makes a sound when it falls, he may as well deduce that the tree he saw made a sound when it fell; he just happened not to be there when it did.

This is true. However, the tree itself is just a metaphor. You could replace it with any object and any random circumstance. The heart of the question asks, "What value is something that no one can perceive, appreciate, or utilize? If something has absolutely no impact on the world around it at all, can it really be said to exist?". As I mentioned before, I do personally see inherent value in things such as those, but I do believe that is what the question is asking.

Mucho text

The question really isn't about sound at all.

 

[der Astronom]

I do not know if such an object exists.

If a man can perceive or think of an object which means nothing, then he can give it meaning by interpreting it; it has happened with nihilism. So the item in question may have meant absolutely nothing at one point. But because a man tends to put meaning into things that may not necessarily have meaning, it is almost impossible to conceive of a meaningless object that cannot impact the real world. But this does not prove or disprove anything; it just says a man is capable of giving meaning to objects, and that such meaningful objects, therefore, exist. The validity of the converse is unknown to me.

 

[Zen]

I do not know if such an object exists.

If a man can perceive or think of an object which means nothing, then he can give it meaning by interpreting it; it has happened with nihilism. So the item in question may have meant absolutely nothing at one point. But because a man tends to put meaning into things that may not necessarily have meaning, it is almost impossible to conceive of a meaningless object that cannot impact the real world. But this does not prove or disprove anything; it just says a man is capable of giving meaning to objects, and that such meaningful objects, therefore, exist. The validity of the converse is unknown to me.

But what about those he can't think of, or perceive?

 

[Dark Tidus]

The quote of blank is actually very right. A sound is vibrations that are "heard" by something living. While technically there is always something living to hear the sound anywhere when anything happens, for the sake of argument we'll say that isn't true. Vibrations are always caused by a falling tree. But the term sound is only when it is heard by something. Otherwise it's just excited molecules.

J is also very right though. Nothing has any value until a man gives it value.

 

[der Astronom]

But what about those he can't think of, or perceive?

I do not know. No frame of reference for them exists because a man needs to think about them in order for them to pertain to meaning--if he does not, it is impossible to distinguish between existing, but not worth anything ever, and not existing, and not worth anything.

Do you think it would be possible to resolve by asking if it is possible to give meaning to anything at all?

 

[lreal]

Yes, a philosophical question suitable for ivory tower discussion which has little to no relevance to the real world. A reason why I don't enjoy old/pure philosophy.

You can discuss all you want whether a sound was made or not, but really, who gives a shit? The sound is irrelevant since the thing that really impacts reality is the falling of the tree. Who cares whether a sound existed or not since the falling of the tree (which occurs in either case) is the only thing that matters.

 

[Kandy-Sugar]

The OP has created this thread in order to get opinions from people who would like to contribute to the topic with their own thoughts on the matter.

Whether certain people 'give a shit' or not does not really matter here. It's just a few people on a forum, discussing a topic and there is no need for anyone to shoot it down because they don't think it really matters.

Please continue posting as normal, with posts that contribute and not with posts that may put off other members from stating their thoughts as well.

Thank you.

 

[Captain Squee]

This is true. However, the tree itself is just a metaphor.

Not really, this is from a literal and critical standpoint, not the tree as a metophore. the tree symbolizes no other object than the tree.

The question really isn't about sound at all.

Your first mistake is trying to look deeper into the question than the answer can go.

I do not know if such an object exists.

If a man can perceive or think of an object which means nothing, then he can give it meaning by interpreting it; it has happened with nihilism. So the item in question may have meant absolutely nothing at one point. But because a man tends to put meaning into things that may not necessarily have meaning, it is almost impossible to conceive of a meaningless object that cannot impact the real world. But this does not prove or disprove anything; it just says a man is capable of giving meaning to objects, and that such meaningful objects, therefore, exist. The validity of the converse is unknown to me.

So you say if there is no man then there is no meaning? this universe is not centered around humans, it is centered around reality, and the tree is a very real object, wether it is seen or not.

I do not know. No frame of reference for them exists because a man needs to think about them in order for them to pertain to meaning--if he does not, it is impossible to distinguish between existing, but not worth anything ever, and not existing, and not worth anything.

Do you think it would be possible to resolve by asking if it is possible to give meaning to anything at all?

are we not thinking of the tree now? and as said above, this is a reality based universe, not human centered, so even if there is no mad, there is a tree. trees were here before mankind was, and it still made sounds due to vibrating molecules, wether it is sound or noise is what i see to be the true question.

 

[der Astronom]

So you say if there is no man then there is no meaning? this universe is not centered around humans, it is centered around reality, and the tree is a very real object, wether it is seen or not.



are we not thinking of the tree now? and as said above, this is a reality based universe, not human centered, so even if there is no mad, there is a tree. trees were here before mankind was, and it still made sounds due to vibrating molecules, wether it is sound or noise is what i see to be the true question.

No, I am saying I know nothing with respect to what we don't know to exist. Whether or not an object has no meaning and does not exist or has no meaning but does exist is indistinguishable.