If a tree falls in an empty wood.

[Soldier_Of_The_White_Army]

Does it make any sound?

Sound is the reaction of an eardrum to the movement of air against it, so if there is no eardrum around there is no sound. So as the wood is empty there is no sound.

I see no necessity for ears in this definition:

Sound is a disturbance of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave. Sound is characterized by the properties of waves, which are frequency, wavelength, period, amplitude, and speed.

Humans perceive sound by the sense of hearing.

Sound is only a concept created by the action of those waves on a receptor e.g. the eardrum, microphone. Without any receptor then it is just a soundwave which continues until dissipating, like a ripple in a pool when you drop a stone in it.

Quite. And had there been a receptor there then those waves would have made the necessary vibrations on it to fall under your category of sound. Therefore, removing the receptor does not remove the sound, just the receptor.

No the wave exists not the sound. Sound is a concept, it does not exist in its own right, it only exists in the brain. Take away the receptor it doesn't exist, a wave does. So if a tree falls in a wood and there's no receptor, there is no noise.

Debate yourselves silly!

[cowdrill]

yes

[Puskas]

Debate yourselves silly!

Is this a mass debate?

[Nozza]

Yes it does.

Just because no-one is around to hear the sound, doesn't mean it doesn't make one.

[cowdrill]

yea


like, doesnt sounds start avalanches?


and mountains cant hear


i think


im confused

[boltonben]

Does it make any sound?

I see no necessity for ears in this definition:

Sound is only a concept created by the action of those waves on a receptor e.g. the eardrum, microphone. Without any receptor then it is just a soundwave which continues until dissipating, like a ripple in a pool when you drop a stone in it.

Quite. And had there been a receptor there then those waves would have made the necessary vibrations on it to fall under your category of sound. Therefore, removing the receptor does not remove the sound, just the receptor.

No the wave exists not the sound. Sound is a concept, it does not exist in its own right, it only exists in the brain. Take away the receptor it doesn't exist, a wave does. So if a tree falls in a wood and there's no receptor, there is no noise.

Debate yourselves silly!

In Physics "Sound" is a defined as a type of wave (a mechanical wave) characterised by the fact that it exerts a pressure on the medium through which it travels. (Different from an electromagnetic wave e.g. a radio wave).
It is always a sound wave (it doesn't change into a different type of wave when it hits a receptor).
Some sound waves can be detected by different receptors and others not (some frequencies are unperceptible to the human ear). The fact that they are not detected by the receptor does not change the fact that they are sounds.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/sound/U11L1a.html

[blurred]

It depends if you define sound as alternating compressions and rarefactions travelling though air. Or if you define sound as the sensation detected and interpreted by those neurons connected to the hairs in your inner ear which are sensitive to the aformentioned compressions and rarefations of air.

[boltonben]

It depends if you define sound as alternating compressions and rarefactions travelling though air. Or if you define sound as the sensation detected and interpreted by those neurons connected to the hairs in your inner ear which are sensitive to the aformentioned compressions and rarefations of air.

I would say that as sound is not particular to humans, (there are frequencies of the same wave type that we cannot detect), that it should be the former.

[Muse]

Yes because God hears everything

[Puskas]

Yes because God hears everything

Are you Bishop Berkeley in disguise?

[Muse]

Yes because God hears everything

Are you Bishop Berkeley in disguise?

I would say yes but i have no idea who that is

[Puskas]

Yes because God hears everything

Are you Bishop Berkeley in disguise?

I would say yes but i have no idea who that is

He was a bishop and philosopher, author of "Principle of Human Knowledge" (amongst other things), nowadays thought of as the "middle" of the three great early British Empiricist philosophers - Locke, Berkeley and Hume. He argued against Locke's idea that inanimate matter existed outside of the mind, claiming that all of existence was either spirits (minds) or the ideas of spirits - famously wrote "Esse is pecipi" - to be is to be perceived, thus nothing could exist without being perceived (perceiving oneself counts in this sense). Given that this is rather open to the argument that, for example, the room you had just left would cease to exist if you left it, he tended to argue (although not, it has to be said exclusively) that since everything was perceived by God at all times, nothing would cease to exist - they would always be ideas in the mind of God.
Sorry, that went on a bit, didn't it?
Anyway, skip him and read Hume - the greatest of the British Empiricists.

[Muse]

Yes because God hears everything

Are you Bishop Berkeley in disguise?

I would say yes but i have no idea who that is

He was a bishop and philosopher, author of "Principle of Human Knowledge" (amongst other things), nowadays thought of as the "middle" of the three great early British Empiricist philosophers - Locke, Berkeley and Hume. He argued against Locke's idea that inanimate matter existed outside of the mind, claiming that all of existence was either spirits (minds) or the ideas of spirits - famously wrote "Esse is pecipi" - to be is to be perceived, thus nothing could exist without being perceived (perceiving oneself counts in this sense). Given that this is rather open to the argument that, for example, the room you had just left would cease to exist if you left it, he tended to argue (although not, it has to be said exclusively) that since everything was perceived by God at all times, nothing would cease to exist - they would always be ideas in the mind of God.
Sorry, that went on a bit, didn't it?
Anyway, skip him and read Hume - the greatest of the British Empiricists.

Cheers for that, I will read up on them, I like reading about all theories about existance and god. I'm just rather suprised that I have never come across them before, having done religious studies through most of my educational life.

[InsaneApache]

No. The simple act of observing something changes the way that the object behaves. Part of the theory of quantum mechanics and superpositioning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDIqNTDi96I

[communistworkethic]

It makes a soundwave not a noise. The key element inthe hypothesis is "hearing". There's a soundwave but no "crash" "crack" "bang" "boing" or "wallop" "splosh" "splish", "kabam" "kapow" or "skerdump". These are all merely conceptualisations of the differing pitch tone and frequency of the soundwave on the timpanic membrane via the malleaus incus and stapes through the auditory nerve into the brain.

It's that simple.

[CrazyHorse]

Surely if there is no one around to hear/not hear it make/not make a noise then the tree hasn't actually fallen over in the first place? No one witnessed it; therefore we can't prove it ever happened.

[TANGODANCER]

If it's an empty wood, what's a tree doing there?

[blurred]

If it's an empty wood, what's a tree doing there?

Falling

[Daxter]

Surely if there is no one around to hear/not hear it make/not make a noise then the tree hasn't actually fallen over in the first place? No one witnessed it; therefore we can't prove it ever happened.

Just film it.

[InsaneApache]

Surely if there is no one around to hear/not hear it make/not make a noise then the tree hasn't actually fallen over in the first place? No one witnessed it; therefore we can't prove it ever happened.

Just film it.

The simple act of observing something changes the way that the object behaves.