if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around does it make a sound

[demoniac93]

Hallelujah! the first good darned answer so far mentioned, chariot you're my hero!

[Antipathy]

Well that's a very interesting question. Now I have one for you.

If I shove my foot so far up your ass, that it comes out of your mouth, where is my foot?

Chew on that Mr Philosophiser.

[N. Escalona]

This isn't about whether we knew it fell. The fact that it fell is a premise of the entire problem.

Are people even reading my post.
Sound isn't vibration. Sound is sensation!

[The Geologist]

Just a sensation no one is around to hear.

[ds dude]

We know it fell because it says so in the f**king riddle.

I was probably not clear, but I meant sound.

[excruciator]

This isn't about whether we knew it fell. The fact that it fell is a premise of the entire problem.

Are people even reading my post.
Sound isn't vibration. Sound is sensation!

The definition is vibration in medium at a audible range. The key word is audible, not heard.

Doesn't matter if anyone is there to hear it.
If the tree fell with 100db then it's a sound, regardless whether people around are not.

[Xxypher]

For all we know, there are strange and surreal things happening directly behind us, and the act of observing makes these things go away. We can't know for sure. That what makes these discussions so fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

That is FUCKED UP!
I have to watch MORE of these!

[N. Escalona]

This isn't about whether we knew it fell. The fact that it fell is a premise of the entire problem.

Are people even reading my post.
Sound isn't vibration. Sound is sensation!

The definition is vibration in medium at a audible range. The key word is audible, not heard.

Doesn't matter if anyone is there to hear it.
If the tree fell with 100db then it's a sound, regardless whether people around are not.

But you made that definition up!

Sensation with no one around to hear doesn't make sense; sensation cannot be without senses.

[GSx_Major]

But you made that definition up!

No, he didn't. It means both things.

[scarface09]

No it does not make a sound because nothing is there to hear it. How can you base a prediction or observation on which you don't know where as there is no evidence to support it. Although if you were actually there in that period of time it will defeat the purpose which also includes using technology. To summarize this proposition, the tree falls in the forest...nobody is there to hear it...how does it make a sound? You don't know do you, so technically it does not make a sound. For all of you who think so...think otherwise.

[Hair|Trigger]

lol at people taking this riddle seriously >.>

[GSx_Major]

No it does not make a sound because nothing is there to hear it. How can you base a prediction or observation on which you don't know where as there is no evidence to support it. Although if you were actually there in that period of time it will defeat the purpose which also includes using technology. To summarize this proposition, the tree falls in the forest...nobody is there to hear it...how does it make a sound? You don't know do you, so technically it does not make a sound. For all of you who think so...think otherwise.

So essentially, if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist.

[demoniac93]

yes, speaking from the view of the person not attending the event, it didn't happen, so there was no sound. done.

[Lord Frunkamunch]

No it does not make a sound because nothing is there to hear it. How can you base a prediction or observation on which you don't know where as there is no evidence to support it. Although if you were actually there in that period of time it will defeat the purpose which also includes using technology. To summarize this proposition, the tree falls in the forest...nobody is there to hear it...how does it make a sound? You don't know do you, so technically it does not make a sound. For all of you who think so...think otherwise.

...So if you aren't aware of something, it doesn't exist? Brilliant reasoning there. You could have said that it is uncertain whether or not it makes a sound, but your current flawed line of thinking could work both ways: I know the tree fell (that's an established absolute in the riddle), but I don't know for sure that the tree didn't make a sound. Therefore, it must have.

[demoniac93]

Good point Frunkamuch, and correct one too, the riddle itself states that the tree fell, and falling usually makes sound right? so the question is, what did it fall on? bags of cotton? rocks? that's what you should be thinking, you don't always have to make every single question complex like the goddamn proton accelerator ;/

[Smegma]

Good point Frunkamuch, and correct one too, the riddle itself states that the tree fell, and falling usually makes sound right? so the question is, what did it fall on? bags of cotton? rocks? that's what you should be thinking, you don't always have to make every single question complex like the goddamn proton accelerator ;/

No, because the point of the original riddle is to point to the potential inconsistencies of empirical evidence.

[demoniac93]

Good point Frunkamuch, and correct one too, the riddle itself states that the tree fell, and falling usually makes sound right? so the question is, what did it fall on? bags of cotton? rocks? that's what you should be thinking, you don't always have to make every single question complex like the goddamn proton accelerator ;/

No, because the point of the original riddle is to point to the potential inconsistencies of empirical evidence.

But the quote said "if a tree falls" however in this sentence it isn't a conditional...it states that at the event of a tree falling, (known fact) does it make sound or not? i guess since no one hears it it's not a sound, but the effects of the happening like vibrations rising IS A FACT, so it both does and does not make sound, from the logical and the superficial explanations...

[Kazuki]

What Smegma is saying is that there is no way to prove a priori that a falling tree will make a sound. We can only assume so because every existing observation of a falling tree states that it does make a sound. I guess it all depends on whether or not you take the laws of physics to be universally true a priori or not.

[demoniac93]

hmmm, i guess you're right kazuki, thanks for proving me wrong

[Kazuki]

Haha, I wasn't trying to prove you wrong or anything. I was more so trying to build upon Smegma's statement. It's true that physics is based upon empirical evidence (evidence through experience) and it may very well be like quantum physics, where the mere observation of an atom is enough to change its properties, and therefore there is no way to observe the true properties of the atom.

As far as I'm concerned, however, my entire life experience will be governed by these laws, even if they only apply to things that I can currently experience. Saying that a tree doesn't make a sound when no one is around is like saying that you're invisible only when no one is looking at you. Even if it's true, it serves no purpose and does not affect anyone in any way.