8Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIf a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
August 2nd, 2012, 09:58 AM
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
It displaces air, therefore absolutely, it makes a sound.Originally Posted by Wise Man
Not quite so. If the sound must be perceived to be said to have been created, then there would be no such perception for this is in a forest. The question really is: If a tree falls in a forest, can it be said to have fallen?
Reality exists objectively. Based on what we know about trees and the environment they typically exist in (soil, atmosphere, energy source), when it falls it will displace atmosphere and soil. This displacement will create a sound wave in both.
But if the sound is a type of perception, it makes no sense to say: there was a sound made.
"Sound is 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, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations." Sound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your ears perceive sound, the variation in pressure, thus arbitrary. Seismographs can also detect and record the variation in pressure without a mind being present at the event.
So, if your question was "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, is it heard? The answer would be no.
It objectively creates a sound (wave) regardless of anyone being there.
This is a very paradoxiacal question, I believe we can't just simply apply science rules to it.
I agree.
Wise Man's question was "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?", of which the answer is Yes, it does make a sound.
If Wise Man's question was "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, is it heard?", of which the answer is No, because there wasn't anyone around to hear it.
I have encountered this trick question more than once, and each time my answer will depend on how the question is structured.
We'r forgetting that there probably was a bird nesting in the tree along with various smal criters that would have percieved the sound.
This is a silly question...
We can look at this question in a different format.
If a deaf person blows on a whistle, does the whistle make a sound?
If a deaf person blows on a whistle, does this person hear a sound?
"If we are not looking, does the moon still exist?" -Einstein asked this (for real!)*
Similar to: "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" -unknown
Einstein asked this during the time when quantum mechanic is new, and when people start to question whether the world only existed when someone is looking at it (to explain some of the weird property of quantum world).
Quantum Mysticism: Gone but Not Forgotten
The idea is that: stuff you didn't see might not happen. So if a tree fall in the forest... if nobody sees & nobody knows, so it might not happen... It happen only while you look at it.
*Einstein doesn't accept quantum physic, so he might be sarcastic.
Last edited by msafwan; August 3rd, 2012 at 01:22 PM.
It's not a paradoxical question, it's a very straightforward one. We understand what sound is. Something moves, it causes the air to move around it, this forms waves in the air and thus generates sound. If someone is there, these waves impact the eardrum, which converts these sounds to electrical signals that are interpreted by the brain. Sound does not require hearing to exist. Remove the listener and you still have sound because the physics that generate sound still exist.
I still believe it doesn't make a sound, or it is unknown. For if you state that a sound was made, we must be able to verify that, but if we cannot be there, how do you know for sure that it makes a sound. ALL scientific claims are based on experiment. In this case we are forbidden from experimenting, thus is is unknown whether it makes a sound or not.
Can you cite any experiment where a tree falls, and it doesn't make a sound as it travels through air and hit the ground?
Can you asserting that the tree we are talking about here must 100% of chance make a sound? Can you divise an experiment where no perciever (experimenter) is involved, and the outcome of it can be known?
See post #.6.
Seismographs/seismometers can also detect and record the variation in pressure without a mind being present at the event. Can one be finely tuned to detect a single tree hitting the ground? I don't know the answer to that, it isn't my expertise.
As for asserting 100% if it makes a sound wave, yes based on the body of common knowledge of how sound waves are generated when two or more objects collide.
This really isn't a difficult question scientifically. I'm not sure why you can't see this. Are you confusing hearing with sound?
Think of it this way:
Q: If no one was on planet Earth, would the sun still rise on the eastern horizon?
A: Yes. We have knowledge rotation and obit of Earth in our solar system. Barring some external influence, Earth would keep rotating on its axis regardless of a witness.
Ok. Let me put it this way. I have an alarm clock, I sat by it, waiting for it to ring. But it did not ring, why? Because it was put in vacum, the sound waves did not reach me, so according to me there was no sound. Now in the case of the tree, you cannot state that it MUST make a sound (considering some sort of disturbance prevented vibrations), when you can't be there to test it.
As for seismographs, that's the same thing as having a person there. The situation is: no one should be there, meaning no perceiver
( in whatever form, whether he is in a helicopter or watching from it TV 100 km away ) can witness the tree falling.
Thus, whether the tree makes a sound or not is unknown, and there are no ways to prove that it does make a sound or doesn't, it's simply unknown.
I have no interest in a heated debate about a simple question about reality and the natural world. If you have to prove your point of view by fabricating random vacuum fields between your bed and night stand, then we shall diagree.I live in a the natual universe where sounds waves exists without people being able to hear them, and you live in a place where random vacuum pockets stop vibrations in the atmosphere, ground, and the tree itself.
I don't have to verify that a star of a particular size, when it reaches a particular stage in it's lifespan, will explode into a hypernova and then contract into a black hole. We understand the physics. The physics are universal. They do not change.
Besides, it's very simple to test whether or not it makes a sound, just put a microphone there. Go back later and listen to the recording. Bet you anything there will be a sound recorded.
Seeing this debate between Mojo and Wise Man, I think you're both correct, within your own individual approaches to the question. Disagree with each other if you you'd like but each of you have totally different background assumptions so it's silly to argue over any differences.
I don't have to verify that a star of a particular size, when it reaches a particular stage in it's lifespan, will explode into a hypernova and then contract into a black hole. We understand the physics. The physics are universal. They do not change.
Besides, it's very simple to test whether or not it makes a sound, just put a microphone there. Go back later and listen to the recording. Bet you anything there will be a sound recorded.
What is your problem? I have again and again emphasised the point: You cannot put any detectors, or in other words, this event: the tree falling, mustn’t be witnessed whatsoever, it's a completely isolated event that occurred for goodness knows where.
The problem is, you're making a claim, saying prove there's a sound, then defining the situation so it is utterly impossible in any way, shape or form to prove that there's a sound.
You're inventing a self-justifying claim by removing the possibility of demonstrating it false.
Not me, but the classical question itself. I did not invent this question ok? And besides, in mathematica, some problems can neither be proven wrong or right. So in physics such problems exist too.
It's a classical question, but it was one that was posed at a time when it wasn't possible to prove. Today, that's not true. We can absolutely and without a doubt prove that sound exists without a human observer. Some of the classical questions of mathematics, things that have not been provable in the past, like Fermat's Last Theorem, people are still trying to solve and one day someone will. Just being a classical question doesn't make it one that can't be demonstrated, only that hasn't yet been demonstrated.
So tell me, without an observer ( whether human or robot or whatever ) how you make any claims about the outcome of any experiment?
Fermats last theorem was solved in 1995 by Andrew WilesIt's a classical question, but it was one that was posed at a time when it wasn't possible to prove. Today, that's not true. We can absolutely and without a doubt prove that sound exists without a human observer. Some of the classical questions of mathematics, things that have not been provable in the past, like Fermat's Last Theorem, people are still trying to solve and one day someone will. Just being a classical question doesn't make it one that can't be demonstrated, only that hasn't yet been demonstrated.
No the question is not paradoxical, it is not altogether well defined. Either "sound" means something thats heard or it means something that may be heard... when its clear what is meant no paradox is derivable.
Do you mean that we should make an experiment and then not observe the outcome?
What kind of experiment is that?
Some people want to use this as a philosophical mind-bender, but in reality, as stated, it's not difficult to demonstrate at all. It states "no one" is around. It mentions nothing about scientific equipment. Since it doesn't specifically exclude anyone but a conscious observer, we can use whatever other methods we wish to make a determination and that determination is very easily made.No the question is not paradoxical, it is not altogether well defined. Either "sound" means something thats heard or it means something that may be heard... when its clear what is meant no paradox is derivable.
It's like "what is the sound of one hand clapping"? If you really want to know, pull out a very sensitive microphone and you can find out. If you're trying to use it as a metaphor, then don't ask the question of rational people.
Thus it is not a scientific experiments, hence scientific rules do not apply.Do you mean that we should make an experiment and then not observe the outcome?
What kind of experiment is that?
Science is about finding causes and forming natural laws... If a tree is falling it is a sufficient cause for producing effects that in turn would be the caus(es) for an observer hearing a sound would he be present. This we know. No further experimenting is necessary. Science says if a tree falls and if somebody is there then he hears a sound. Period.Thus it is not a scientific experiments, hence scientific rules do not apply.Do you mean that we should make an experiment and then not observe the outcome?
What kind of experiment is that?
As stated, it absolutely is a science experiment. Just because it's also a philosophical mind-game doesn't mean that, as described, it's not open to scientific evaluation. You're posting on THE SCIENCE FORUMS. If you don't like science, go find The Philosophy Forums.
I had enough of this!!! OK! A tree fell to the ground on a planet called 'Gudeu' 10000 light years away, does it make a sound? You may attempt to observe it, go ahead! IT CANNOT BE OBSERVED!
It doesn't have to be observed, the physical laws of the universe are universal and act the same under the same conditions everywhere. Here. In Africa. On the moon. On planet Gudeu. It doesn't matter. Assuming similar physical characteristics on planet Gudeu, the existence of air, etc., it will operate exactly the same there as it will here. If you're going to declare that there is no air there, you also cannot have trees because a tree is defined as a plant which requires air to survive.
We cannot make any claims about a phenomenon unless we are able to verify it. Physics is based on experiment, not on speculation. What happens on Gudeu cannot be seen, thus whatever happens there is unknown.
Is the correct context.We cannot make any claims about a phenomenon we know nothing about unless we are able to verify it.
The point is, we already Know how sound waves work, all you need is vibration and a medium that can transmit them . I've never been to Victoria Falls, but I know that when water is rushing over an elevation and hits a mixture of rocks and water it makes a sound.
You can't claim ignorance when you have knowledge.
To answer the question you have posed us directly, the following are some of my observations of it. If they aren't accurate, please feel free to amend them accordingly.
-------------------------------Location: Planet Earth aka the planet we live on. (a safe assumption that this is the place where your "tree in a forest" fell)
Tree(s) - a form of plant life that is/are comprised of component parts, such as roots and a trunk, and depending on the season of the year and state of health; leaves and possibly flowers. Widely known to require nutrients such as water and minerals it draws from the earth, additionally requiring air from it's environment and energy from the Sun.
Forest - an area where there are an abundance of trees.
Fall/falling - an object in motion that is under the influence of gravity.
Sound - Caused by the displacement of air such as an object falling, and by an object striking another object or surface with sufficient force producing a vibratory effect moving though either mediums.
-------------------------------Your question "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?"
Answer: Yes, it does or will make a sound. Period! All the elements are there to safely say that a sound will be made.
Your question did not ask should a tree that falls in a forest; is it Heard?, which indicates that an observing presence will be required. Learn to answer the question based on how it is structured.
Ok then. Take me as a stupid 4 year old, I know nothing about vibrations, I all want is direct proof to why a tree in a forest, when it falls, makes a sound. I want direct proof.
( Note: no one knows how electron behave in reality, we can only estimate, which gave us an electron probability cloud, for as soon as we observe, we disturb its motion. It is a similar scenario here.)
Simple. I'd take said 4 year old and demonstrate with pieces of wood, of varying sizes and density, the sound generated as it cuts through air.
I'd repeat with a demonstration of said collection of woods hitting the ground.
Finally, I'd have this 4 year cover his eyes and ears and place his hands on a wooden table top and ask if he could feel the vibrations through his hands as I hit the table top with pieces of wood.
This last demonstration will allow him/her to actually feel the vibrations without hearing them.
Update: Feeling With Your Ears and Hearing With Your Hands - Jeffery M. Yau, J. Bryce Olenczak, Sliman J. Bensmaia.
Last edited by MrMojo1; August 17th, 2012 at 05:52 PM.
If you're in the middle of a group of animals that communicate using infrasound (frequencies below the lower limit of human audibility) then do they make a sound? Now if you're situated somewhere outside the forest where these animals live then do they still make a sound? Now if an infrasonic creature uses sound to catch prey and you observe it when it's a 10 year old adult then did it make a sound while growing up even if you were in the forest or not? All I'm saying is it's like listening to infrasonic animals, you don't have to be there or not even hear it to know falling trees make a sound.
A tree is not at all like an electron...
An electron is elementary (thats why we have problems in answering questions about it.)
But a tree is composed by things that in turn are composed by.... well you get the difference? We know more of composed things... for simplifying lets say the tree is composed by electrons. Then we use statistic methods to predict what will happen. So your comparisation of an electron to a tree is basically unsound. We dont treat them with the same "medicine". Meaning its not as easy to disturb a crowd as to disturb an electron! WE know what you would hear if you bothered ever to decide to go there to check if sound is there when you are there. Then stay there until you are convinced that ANY falling tree produces a noticeable sound when it falls. You should verify for yourself that it ALWAYS happens so that you need not check every tree to be sure.
Perhaps your wood is small? Why not prove that there is no whiskey bottle behind any tree. And ahem...after checking every tree how do you KNOW that theres no bottle behind the first checked tree... Perhaps there are ghosts in the wood? You must really wait and convince yourself about that matter before you try to prove the next thing entering your mind because you will never give up the idea of being absolutely sure will you?
Last edited by sigurdW; August 17th, 2012 at 06:45 PM.
is this whole thread a joke?
I think so. Or the op seriously demands absolute knowledge before a decision is made by him.
You will have to rephrase your original question from "Does it make a sound?" to "Is it heard?" if you want direct proof.
Seriously, I do not know what the fuss is all about. It's like you understand the processes of the human reproductive system, and have possibly seen a pregnant woman given birth to a new born baby. But doubt you were born in very much the same way simply because you were not able to observe your mother going into labor and giving birth to you.
According to Quantum Mechanics, a car has a chance to 'leak' out of a garage, seriously, I am not making this up. So maybe when a tree falls, it has a chance to not make a sound? (due to some destructive interference)
I will consider your argument:According to Quantum Mechanics, a car has a chance to 'leak' out of a garage, seriously, I am not making this up. So maybe when a tree falls, it has a chance to not make a sound? (due to some destructive interference)
I pointed out a difference between macro and micro,
but I see how to strenghten your argument.
Edit: Your strenghtened argument is:
How do we know that the next falling tree
will produce the conditions needed
to hear a sound were we there to listen.
Answer: We have tried and failed to verify that a tree can fall without producing soundwaves.
So we accept the PRINCIPLE that falling trees produce soundwaves.
And asks you if you can disprove our principle.
And mind you: We want your proof, not your belief.
Last edited by sigurdW; August 19th, 2012 at 08:31 AM.
Look in our world, miracles pretty much never happen, but that doesn't mean they won't really ever happen. Go read about radioactive matter, about the protons escaping from the potential barrier. A car may leak out of a garage, and a destructive interference may have a chance to eliminate the sound. You never know. That's why I say unless you can verify, you cannot assert.
Testing. Apparently I am not yet suspended or banned.
Just read the thread. The question has been well answered. If course it makes a sound. "Sound" is compressed air waves, whether they are heard or not, and the question was not whether or not the sound is heard.
The reason it is considered a "classical question" is because it asks whether or not phenomena exist without being observed or measured. Of course they do. But the OP wants to know how we know they do without observation (hearing in this case.) The thread has thoroughly answered that question.
Your argument is:
How do we know that the next falling tree
will produce the conditions needed
to hear a sound were we there to listen.
We have tried and failed to verify that a tree can fall without producing soundwaves.
So we accept the PRINCIPLE that the next falling tree will produce soundwaves.
And asks you if you can disprove our principle.
And mind you: We want proof, not your opinion.
mikiel and sigurdW, then can you give proof to how a tree when unobserved, makes a sound. Why can't there be a 0.000000000000000001 chance that that for goodness know what tree may violate the principles of science? Have you heard of the Maxwell's demon? Maxwell's demon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Entropy tends to be high, but there is a chance that the law of thermodynamics may be VIOLATED!!! A cup of water may be frozen at the bottom and boil at the top! GO READ IT!
If you want to argue please be polite. You are being extremely exasperating!
It seems to me you are just arguing for argument sake. Rejecting any and all scientific knowledge gained throughout history.
Suppose I posed the question that "If a deaf person blows on a whistle, does it make a sound?", what will your answer be?
Yes, very good. And maybe the sun won't rise tomorrow. Maybe gravity will start working in reverse on Tuesday afternoons between 15:00 and 16:00. Maybe the Royal Family really are lizards. Maybe unicorns really do exist.
Meanwhile, back in the real world...
Not wishing to get involved too much in this thread, yet you should consider that the answer to that question depends on how you define "sound".
In my native tongue we have two completely different words for the English term "sound" - one refers to the purely mechanical pressure waves in air, the other one refers to the result of the process of perception through your ears. According to the first definition the answer to your question is yes. The second definition yields a no answer.
Wikipedia also specifically states that the word sound can refer to both of these phenomena - you need to decide which definition is applicable here, before giving an answer.
Exactly. It is not so much a puzzle, and even less a paradox, it is just a bad pun.
If this particular deaf person doesn't have any apparatus that can detect sound waves or vibrations, then it is unknown whether his whistle makes a sound or no.
My argument:
1. All scientific knowledge is gained through observation or experiment.
2. All knowledge is useless without an experiment and an experimenter that can verify it. (The higgs boson was predicted year ago, but back then we could not prove it using experiment, thus we made no claim. Even now, we still don't have sufficient evidence, although theory seems to be promising)
3. In this case one of this experiment restrictions is that no experimenter may witness the experiment, making it impossible to declare the outcome of the experiment.
Convinced?
Also by sound I mean vibrations, not sily fary tell unicorn nonsense.
Not at all. You seem to be ignoring the process of induction (if that is the right word).
For example, diamond is a form of carbon. This is known because some number of diamonds have been analysed and diamonds have been synthesized. (In the same way that we know that some trees have been observed to fall and, in agreement with known physics, they make sound.)
Your argument is equivalent to, "we don't know that all diamonds are made of carbon because we haven't checked every single one".
This defies the scientific method. And common sense. It is unbelievable that anyone would seriously make such an argument. (And unicorns make more sense than this argument.)
This is the sort of anti-science attitude that people use when they argue that, "science doesn't know everything with 100% certainty, therefore this theory I just made up is just as likely to be right as your vague science".
Answer the question please. Does it make it sound?
Do you have trouble uunderstanding? It's unknown.Answer the question please. Does it make it sound?
Yes but in the case of diamond one can always test the diamond's content. But here we cannot observe the tree falling, making it impossible to collect evidence that all trees when unobserved, makes a sound or not.Not at all. You seem to be ignoring the process of induction (if that is the right word).
For example, diamond is a form of carbon. This is known because some number of diamonds have been analysed and diamonds have been synthesized. (In the same way that we know that some trees have been observed to fall and, in agreement with known physics, they make sound.)
Your argument is equivalent to, "we don't know that all diamonds are made of carbon because we haven't checked every single one".
This defies the scientific method. And common sense. It is unbelievable that anyone would seriously make such an argument. (And unicorns make more sense than this argument.)
This is the sort of anti-science attitude that people use when they argue that, "science doesn't know everything with 100% certainty, therefore this theory I just made up is just as likely to be right as your vague science".
Already read!
Its not news!
If we dont observe you will you still post?
Pathetic. So if I don't let you test this diamond here, it magically turns into unicorn poo instead of carbon? How can not observing a tree change the laws of physics? Does the universe cease to exist when you close your eyes?
I assume you are about 14 or so. I suppose we used to find this sort of thing vaguely amusing when we were at school.
Anyway, enjoy your fantasy. I'm off.
Strange, what you've said is preposterous. All I am saying is that the observer and the phenomenon are connected, the observer is not isolated. Quantum mechanics has it that a watched pot never boils; until someone observes, the cat cannot be determined dead or alive.
Listen, I'll ask you this: When you die, does the world still exist? When you are in a dream, does the dream world seem more real does this world seem more real to you?
Do you know why we can't settle this arguement? Because our common ground is radically different. Nothing can be settled.
I am tired of this, I'm off as well.
This question has long been settled. It seems you have a difficultly understanding perceived reality and objective reality.
Ironically, a question that you claim isn't scientific, can't be answered based on a scientific explanation. Our world will continue to exist after you die (for how long is another question).
Dont tempt him to return! Start a new thread instead.
When you speak of 'your' world, you are assuming you are alive. But when you die, or in a dream, where the hell is your world?
That's all I have to say, I will never return to this thread.
I think he has provided evidence that he is alive, so no assumption is required.
Still there. Obviously. It was there before you (or I, or anyone else) were born and it will still be there after we are all dead. Or asleep.But when you die, or in a dream, where the hell is your world?
Do you really think the world ceases to exist when you fall asleep? Wow. How can anyone hang on to such a primitive belief?
Still where it was left.When you speak of 'your' world, you are assuming you are alive. But when you die, or in a dream, where the hell is your world?
That's all I have to say, I will never return to this thread.
He is a solipsist?I think he has provided evidence that he is alive, so no assumption is required.
Still there. Obviously. It was there before you (or I, or anyone else) were born and it will still be there after we are all dead. Or asleep.But when you die, or in a dream, where the hell is your world?
Do you really think the world ceases to exist when you fall asleep? Wow. How can anyone hang on to such a primitive belief?
If so, he is alone in that.
Then we could get rich by trapping him in a cageIf so, he is alone in that.
and let Universities pay for showing him to the philosophy students
Cant see no morally wrong in that since he would only accuse himself of doing it to himself.
I think Wise Man is perfectly correct scientifically speaking, we can say that there is a probability it will make what we understand to be a sound based upon previous learned knowledge, but however without someone there to actually hear it there is no way to know for certain.Do you have trouble uunderstanding? It's unknown.Answer the question please. Does it make it sound?
Also we have to consider if the term 'sound' should be applied to the movement of air when 'not' heard as well as when actually heard. Sound is normally the name we give to something we can hear. If things are beyond our range of hearing we may sometimes say they didn't make a sound and this is purely because we couldn't hear them, so we have to consider this as the falling tree would be beyond everyone's hearing.
But finally to finnish I really liked this quote off the wiki page:
"Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind. One said, "The flag moves." The other said, "The wind moves." They argued back and forth but could not agree.The Sixth Ancestor said, "Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves." The two monks were struck with awe."- The Mumonkan Case 29, translation by Robert Aitken
Not really. We develop laws of physics and assume they apply everywhere (this is one of the foundations of relativity, for example). That seems to be the way reality works.
If you start assuming they might not apply if my eyes are shut, or when I stand on one leg next Tuesday, then you might as well throw the whole thing out. Science is a pointless exercise built on a house of cards; it is just a coincidence that the universe is the same everyday. It can't last.
Not really. We develop laws of physics and assume they apply everywhere (this is one of the foundations of relativity, for example). That seems to be the way reality works.
If you start assuming they might not apply if my eyes are shut, or when I stand on one leg next Tuesday, then you might as well throw the whole thing out. Science is a pointless exercise built on a house of cards; it is just a coincidence that the universe is the same everyday. It can't last.
I would argue the opposite, that blindly relying on previous learning in the belief of absolute certainty that things will turn out the way we expect is dangerous and would eventually one day lead to disaster as there is one constant state, things change, so relying on things always coming out the same is foolish.
One of the reasons for the financial crisis was economists relying on things always being the same a mistake we are all paying for.
Luckily however science is not usually so arrogant as state things with absolute certainty as to execlude the possibility that something might not go as they expect.
The unexpected does sometimes happen, I guess that's why it's the unexpected.
If things always went as expected what would be the point of the word unexpected?
But economics isn't really a science.
But similar things happen in other areas. Like the Millennium Bridge in London. That revealed a whole new mode of behaviour that wasn't known before.
But we rely on evidence of unexpected things. We can then use that evidence to investigate the unexpected thing and incorporate into the world of expected things.Luckily however science is not usually so arrogant as state things with absolute certainty as to execlude the possibility that something might not go as they expect.
The unexpected does sometimes happen, I guess that's why it's the unexpected.
We don't just assume that they happen when we are not looking. Like the moon disappearing when you close your eyes. Or trees turning into feathers when there is no one around. That is not science. Or even philosophy.
If things always went as expected what would be the point of the word unexpected?
Reminds me of an episode of Dinosaurs(*) when they were talking about one of their favourite foods becoming extinct; one of them is in denial and says "of course there will always be more, that is what 'more' means."
(*) The Jim Henson series, not the documentary!
Well I think if that's your round about way in accepting that we can't always know for certain then you and I are in agreement.
Why bother about trees? Whenever I am not observing you...do you exist?
When you return I may ask you, and you will say: yes I existed all the time?
But couldnt you say the same thing whether you existed in between or not?
Why should I believe you?!
Must I not follow you ALL the time to be sure that
you dont disappear if Im not looking?
I disagree. In that Wise Man may be justified (in his own way) in saying that it is an "unknown", but there are several factors that we will have to discard in-order for his reasons to be justified; such as the accumulated scientific knowledge that has been gained through the ages.
Since Wise Man's original question: "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" does not give any indication that the tree, the forest, and sound behaves any differently from those that we are familiar with, I'd say that the answer is pretty much a straightforward; Yes, and the answer isn't an unknown or No.
If a blind man were to drop a baby straight into the mouth of an active Volcano, will this baby die? Is it an unknown? Is it a No?
Yes, but the question posed to us isn't if it is heard. It is however "does it make a sound?"
Just because a deaf person can't hear, should he blows a whistle, will you contest that the whistle did not make a sound? Or perhaps says that it is an unknown?
It is known! Based on our understanding on what sound is and the science behind it.
Last edited by scoobydoo1; August 21st, 2012 at 12:26 PM.
The larger “classical” philosophical question still remains. As I said in post 49:
“The reason it is considered a 'classical question' is because it asks whether or not phenomena exist without being observed or measured.”
At the risk of provoking continuing shark attacks, as in my closed threads, I must point out that this question applies to the length contraction part of relativity theory. Do phenomena (trees, planets, stars... sound waves) exist in and of themselves (Kant’s “thing in itself”) or does their “reality “ depend on observation as per Berkeley and Hume... classical idealism?
If the latter, then objects have no existence or intrinsic properties independent of observation. Do planets change shape if they are observed/measured to be flattened rather than spherical, as from relativity’s “classical” example of observing objects from a very fast fly-by frame of reference? This is the same question, argued in this thread, as the one for which my threads were closed. Same principle. Same philosophical question.
As always, the question is: as measured by whom? And as explained there, the universe would still continue on in a relativistic manor whether there were intelligences around to make measurements or not, as it did before life on earth was formed. It is not so much about what measurements are taken, as what is experienced at a certain point in terms of forces, energy, etc. The "intrinsic properties" argument is a fallacy, in that frames of reference larger than single points are necessarily taken at an average and/or as falling within the margins of error possible or relevant to the specific phenomena considered. Earth has a certain diameter as measured from any point on its surface to within an error margin.
This is the fully objective scientific reality independent of any considerations of what an individual might philosophically decide constitutes a unit/body/identity/event. In other words, in order to talk about "the earth" or "the sun" you have to arbitrarily draw a line in scale and define an object, while objectively, apart from human dispositions, all "objects" are made up of "parts" and the whole of the "body" is experienced differently from each newly defined "part". Thus, claiming absolute properties for arbitrarily defined "bodies" is logically untenable.
Last edited by KALSTER; August 21st, 2012 at 06:23 PM.
KALSTER:
" As always, the question is: as measured by whom? "
That is, of course, the bottom line question for relativity, assuming that there is no "reality" independent of the frames of reference from which a given phenomenon is measured.
That is not the "classical question" posed as the example which is the subject of this thread.
The question is, "Does a falling tree make a sound if no one, no observer, is there to hear it? The answer to the question as posed is "yes," that the existence of compressed air waves (sound) does not depend on ears hearing the sound to exist. Likewise planet earth exists, "as is" (Kant's "the thing in itself") independent of whether or not it is observed (like the tree) and certainly independent of variations in how it is observed.
Wow, mikiel must be a real laugh at parties. Only one subject of conversation. Like a broken record.
I gave up somewhere in the middle of reading this. I came to no conclusion other than that there is a funny partAs always, the question is: as measured by whom? And as explained there, the universe would still continue on in a relativistic manor whether there were intelligences around to make measurements or not, as it did before life on earth was formed. It is not so much about what measurements are taken, as what is experienced at a certain point in terms of forces, energy, etc. The "intrinsic properties" argument is a fallacy, in that frames of reference larger than single points are necessarily taken at an average and/or as falling within the margins of error possible or relevant to the specific phenomena considered. Earth has a certain diameter as measured from any point on its surface to within an error margin. This is the fully objective scientific reality independent of any considerations of what an individual might philosophically decide constitutes a unit/body/identity/event. In other words, in order to talk about "the earth" or "the sun" you have to arbitrarily draw a line in scale and define an object, while objectively, apart from human dispositions, all "objects" are made up of "parts" and the whole of the "body" is experienced differently from each newly defined "part". Thus, claiming absolute properties for arbitrarily defined "bodies" is logically untenable.
caused by poor proof reading the universe would still continue on in a relativistic manor
Repeat: Your text looks interesting... im convinced it also is! But it is slightly compact, and I have trouble understanding it.
Its lacking redundance: if one letter is dameged in passing the media used then the total picture is threatened.
Sometimes its an advantage to repeat thins in a slightly different way so meaning always can get resurected. Respectfully: sW
Mikiel:
Of course, nothing has changed. Ignoring my point about point reference frames and that larger ones are necessarily averaged. I can feel the headache coming already. No more relativity talk in this thread.
If you are not allowed to discuss your relativity hangups any more, will you be taking part in other ways on this forum at all?
I might have made some kind of grammatical error. English is not my first language. What is wrong with what I said?
If you want to know where this came from, have a look at Mikiel's thread, now in the Trash.
I think you mean:"manner"I might have made some kind of grammatical error. English is not my first language. What is wrong with what I said?
If you want to know where this came from, have a look at Mikiel's thread, now in the Trash.
A "manor" is (I think) a house where gentry live in.
Really kind of apt: the relativicians go there to pray and get communion?
Since English is my second language I may be wrong.
Why should I look at trash...My confidence in your integrity is absolute.
You didnt put me there I will give you no reason to do so,
ergo: YOU will not put me there.
Well then I dont trust you enough to insult you (yet)
so let "Absolute" be read as "Absolut",
and:CHEERS!
PS what then ISS your first language?
Damn. Manor/manner; stupid mistake. I'm Afrikaans, but that is no excuse.
His thread is here: http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash...ntraction.html. It is locked, but you'll get the gist. No discussing it further here though. That thread was quite enough.
I was sticking to the thread subject as applied to earth... another example similar to whether a sound exists if it is not heard. Yes, of course earth exists independently of whether or how it is observed! and its intrinsic shape does not depend on how it is observed. Very straightforward and in line with the classical question posed by this thread. Insisting that earth does not change shapes with changes in frames of reference from which it is observed is not a "relativity hangup" but a legitimate philosophical criticism of the idealism upon which the claim is based. I taught university level philosophy of science on that subject in particular. Too bad the subject is now censored here.
If the gag rule forbids me from mentioning relativity again in this context, I will reluctantly comply.
Readers of this thread should know however that Einstein, the father of relativity, said the following, as quoted in my closed thread:
Clearly the reality/existence of sound of the falling tree would be denied,i.e., not be real "for Einstein" unless/until it is heard.It appears to me that “real” is an empty meaningless category (drawer) whose
immense importance lies only in that I place certain things inside it and not
certain others.
Taken to the logical conclusion, this philosophy must also deny the existence of any/all parts of the cosmos which we can not observe and measure. Likewise "the world" disappears "for every observer" each time s/he blinks.
Does anyone here subscribe to that nonsense?
Apparently, some people do. The person who started this thread has started another one promoting exactly that idea. Based on some weird solipsistic spiritualism.
Oh, that someone is who may I ask?
Here is my theory's postulates:
1. There's only one observer, according to the observer, and that's him/her self.
2. A phenomenon relies on an observer to be said to exist, without an observer, to speak of a isolated phenomenon is meaningless.
3. One can only observe at the present moment, past and future are meaning less.
4. To observe means to perceive with one or more of the 5 senses.
Re #1: Does s/he not observe others also observing? Was s/he not born of a mother, also an observer?
Re#2: Cosmos obviously existed before observers observed even parts of it. How did you, the "only observer" get here if not through the process of evolution and birth on a planet which has existed long before life evolved?
Re#3: I observed all kinds of things yesterday. I am observing today, and I will still be observing tomorrow if I don't die first. Of course "now" IS the ongoing present, but that does not make what has happened and what will happen "meaningless."
Re#4: ... and all the technological extensions of those senses which science and engineering have devised. Yet things do exist whether or not they are observed, and their intrinsic ** properties when observed do not depend on variations in how they are observed.
The further away from the falling tree, the lower will be the measured decibel level. That does not mean that the sound *at the tree* varies in loudness just because it is measured differently from different distances.
**Those not familiar with what intrinsic means should look it up.
I know you are, like, super smart and all, but we are not that dumb.
Re.Re#1: Yes, he or she observes others observing, but that's part of his or her observation. He or she is still the only observer. His or her mother did not exist until he or she was born, his or her observation was all that's needed.Re #1: Does s/he not observe others also observing? Was s/he not born of a mother, also an observer?
Re#2: Cosmos obviously existed before observers observed even parts of it. How did you, the "only observer" get here if not through the process of evolution and birth on a planet which has existed long before life evolved?
Re#3: I observed all kinds of things yesterday. I am observing today, and I will still be observing tomorrow if I don't die first. Of course "now" IS the ongoing present, but that does not make what has happened and what will happen "meaningless."
Re#4: ... and all the technological extensions of those senses which science and engineering have devised. Yet things do exist whether or not they are observed, and their intrinsic ** properties when observed do not depend on variations in how they are observed.
The further away from the falling tree, the lower will be the measured decibel level. That does not mean that the sound *at the tree* varies in loudness just because it is measured differently from different distances.
**Those not familiar with what intrinsic means should look it up.
Re.Re#2: The entire universe was created through the observer's observation, the observer came from nothing. It just happened, nothing can be said about it, the process is unknown and shouldn't be discussed.
Re.Re#3: Nothing that you observed yesterday will ever happen again, what happens in the future hasn't happened, thus both are meaningless.
Re.Re#4: Technological senses are part a observation that involves observing through technological senses. You do not see the real thing.
I see 6 as 6, if you stand opposite to me you see it as 9. Their intrinsic properties ( their numerical value ) have changed according to the observer.
Phenomenon varies according to the observer.
It was not intended as an insult. Rather just a clarification of "intrinsic properties" of objects, which you philosophically deny that objects in and of themselves possess.I know you are, like, super smart and all, but we are not that dumb.
(Punctuation edit.)
Last edited by mikiel; August 23rd, 2012 at 01:17 PM.
So, KALSTER,
Assuming that you do know what intrinsic means, do you agree with my statement or not?:
"Yet things do exist whether or not they are observed, and their intrinsic ** properties when observed do not depend on variations in how they are observed."
I'm thinking, "not," from what you've said before, but philosophically how do you think physical things change with changes in how they are observed... or not exist unless they are observed, like the sound in this thread's example?
Wise Man:
As a retired psychologist my professional opinion is that you are seriously confused if not clinically delusional.Re.Re#1: Yes, he or she observes others observing, but that's part of his or her observation. He or she is still the only observer. His or her mother did not exist until he or she was born, his or her observation was all that's needed.
Re.Re#2: The entire universe was created through the observer's observation, the observer came from nothing. It just happened, nothing can be said about it, the process is unknown and shouldn't be discussed.
Re.Re#3: Nothing that you observed yesterday will ever happen again, what happens in the future hasn't happened, thus both are meaningless.
Re.Re#4: Technological senses are part a observation that involves observing through technological senses. You do not see the real thing.
I see 6 as 6, if you stand opposite to me you see it as 9. Their intrinsic properties ( their numerical value ) have changed according to the observer.
Phenomenon varies according to the observer.
You are not “the only observer.” You even deny what you observe when you observe others observing, thinking, apparently, that they are not really there but created by your act of observing them. Delusional.
Your mother was born and existed before she gave birth to you, just for your information.
“The entire universe was created through the observer's observation...” (that would be you)... is a statement indicating a delusion of grandeur, a symptom of schizophrenia.
Likewise with your statement that you... “ came from nothing. It just happened, nothing can be said about it, the process is unknown and shouldn't be discussed.” You deny cause and effect and assert that an unknown should not be discussed... a fanatically anti-science statement.
The facts that the past “will not happen again” and that the future hasn’t yet happened does not make both past and future tenses “meaningless.”
Re “You do not see the real thing.”:
Of course we “see” images of things carried by light. The things we see do not actually enter our visual cortex. This does not mean that only their images in our brain exist, negating the actual existence of objects themselves.
Re “Phenomenon varies according to the observer. “:
Images and all sensory data vary with the observer. “The thing in itself” (Kant) does not vary with variations in perception of it.
Ps: I will see your 6 as a backward six, not as a 9, unless I am standing on my head.
The universe is different for every arbitrarily chosen point. So logically, there can't be an absolutely precise definition of "intrinsic" properties for a body in this context. Only when you define averaged parameters for a set of comoving points can you then talk about how that set of points experience the universe and itself. BUT, this is NECESSARILY only an approximation. This is physical reality and what you seem incapable of understanding.
You steadfastly hold to a philosophical stance equivalent to a world from a Newtonian perspective, which is NOT precisely correct in a physical sense.
How difficult can that be to understand? Honestly?
The universe is different for every arbitrarily chosen point. So logically, there can't be an absolutely precise definition of "intrinsic" properties for a body in this context. Only when you define averaged parameters for a set of comoving points can you then talk about how that set of points experience the universe and itself. BUT, this is NECESSARILY only an approximation. This is physical reality and what you seem incapable of understanding.
You steadfastly hold to a philosophical stance equivalent to a world from a Newtonian perspective, which is NOT precisely correct in a physical sense.
How difficult can that be to understand? Honestly?
The “Classical Question” basically asks the question, “Does the world exist independently of whether or how it is observed?”
As soon as you say “for” this frame of reference the world IS one way (size, shape, etc.) and “for” another frame of reference, the same world (object, distance, property, etc.) IS another way... then you *assume* the philosophy of idealism, in which there are no objects with intrinsic properties independent of how they are observed from whatever frame of reference.
Realism is not a “Newtonian perspective.” I have said many times that relativity is an improvement in predictive gravitational theory over Newtonian physics, and yet, earth has a shape of its own, independent of the infinite number of points as frames from which it might be observed differently.
According to Wiki (my bold):
“Observers” in this context are abstract frames of reference not requiring a literal intelligent life form as an observer. These frames include “every arbitrarily chosen point” you keep hammering on.Philosophical realism, (is) the belief that reality exists independently of observers.” (It goes on to say) :
Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
“...How (a given) set of points experience the universe and itself” does not in any case determine the intrinsic properties of any part thereof according to realism, in direct opposition to idealism, which claims that observation (measurement from various frames) determines the reality and properties of the object in question.
As you said: “How difficult can that be to understand? Honestly?”
This IS the Philosophy section, and the "classical question" IS the debate between idealism and realism. Claiming that frames of reference determine reality IS idealism. Repeating that 'it all depends on frame of reference' does not win the argument for idealism! Honestly! I taught this stuff to university students. It's not that I don't understand you. I disagree with your idealism-based philosophy that frames of reference determine reality.
I accpt the principle that every cause has a non identical cause...
But not that every observation is observed!
Are you really claiming that the observation of x causes the existence of x?
How then can the non existing object x ever catch the eye of the observer?
Since you quote Wiki, I'll do the same for Idealism: "In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing. In a sociological sense, idealism emphasizes how human ideas — especially beliefs and values — shape society. [1] As an ontological doctrine, idealism goes further, asserting that all entities are composed of mind or spirit"
You say you taught this stuff? How in god's name can you conflate what I have been saying with the above description? I NEVER asserted anything about the mind shaping reality. The universe ticks along and have been doing so without minds for most of it's existence. Nor does relativity have anything to do with minds. It is about how each point experiences the universe around it, which, as experimentally verified, is different for each point.
Now read this bit from Philosophy of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"Two central questions about science are (1) what are the aims of science and (2) how should one interpret the results of science? Scientific realists claim that science aims at truth and that one ought to regard scientific theories as true, approximately true, or likely true. Conversely, a scientific antirealist or instrumentalist argues that science does not aim (or at least does not succeed) at truth and that we should not regard scientific theories as true.[6] Some antirealists claim that scientific theories aim at being instrumentally useful and should only be regarded as useful, but not true, descriptions of the world.[7]"
In this context, it would appear that you are the scientific anti-realist, in that you deny the realism of relativity. Your insistence on the concept of "intrinsic properties" is a direct denial that each point experiences a different universe. By making claims about the intrinsic properties of your arbitrarily defined objects, you impose truths upon the universe by using concepts generated by your mind alone, which makes you more of an idealist than me. In fact, had you been a bit more demented, you could argue from this that "intrinsic properties" are caused by the mind of god.
By boldly making claims, like "I have said many times that relativity is an improvement in predictive gravitational theory over Newtonian physics, and yet, earth has a shape of its own, independent of the infinite number of points as frames from which it might be observed differently", your position almost perfectly reflects that of anti-realists, in that you sit to one side making claims generated by your mind alone, while relativity has a huge body of experimental evidence backing it up in it's position.
Your position, apparently, is borne out of a cognitive dissidence, in that you see these claims made by science, but refuse to believe that the universe apparently should not conform at all times to what amounts to "common sense" for humans. Why would you think the universe needs to make intuitive sense? During our evolution we never dealt directly with things that were outside our direct experience, so we can't have a good intuitive understanding of things we never directly experienced. The concept of curvature in a 4D universe with no edge or centre must have you up in arms as well? Yet that is what currently works the best, what conforms the most with our experiments. If you looked into the weird world of quantum mechanics, you'll no doubt make a large volume of claims from ignorance about "intrinsic properties" and whatnot, while that concept is in direct conflict with what the science actually says and experimentally so. This has been apparent to all of us from the start and why your repeated rendition of your accolades and intellectual prowess has been met with so much ridicule. Your views are naive, but worse is that your belief in your own abilities is actually preventing you from understanding. And you have not understood what we have been saying, judging from your responses.
Last edited by KALSTER; August 28th, 2012 at 03:52 AM.
| « $10000 question: Is reality digital or analog? | A rather odd question » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
