If a tree falls in an empty wood.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:18 pm

blurred wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:If it's an empty wood, what's a tree doing there?
Falling

A "wood" is an area of trees. If it's empty, it can't be a wood. It also can't be empty if there's a tree there. It might be "empty" of people, in which case no one will hear it. It still will make a noise/sound/impact with a solid surface,ground.

blurred · Post by **blurred** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:46 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:A "wood" is an area of trees. If it's empty, it can't be a wood. It also can't be empty if there's a tree there. It might be "empty" of people, in which case no one will hear it. It still will make a noise/sound/impact with a solid surface,ground.

I was being facetious, and well aware of the point you were making.

The question should stipulate 'a wood devoid of human/animal life', naturally.

Mich Caine · Post by **Mich Caine** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:04 pm

Of course it makes a sound.

What a ridiculous question.

boltonben · Post by **boltonben** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:05 pm

InsaneApache wrote:
Daxter wrote:
CrazyHorse wrote: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.

Termed the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle...

boltonben · Post by **boltonben** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:08 pm

communistworkethic wrote: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.

That is the perception of the sound, not the sound itself.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/sound/U11L2d.html

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:14 pm

400 birds, four thousand butterflies, three foxes, a gazelle and a very annoyed night owl all say "yes"

InsaneApache · Post by **InsaneApache** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:19 pm

Butterflies have ears?

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:27 pm

Chines phylosophy is rarely wrong and often complex. I don't think it's about trees, noise and woods at all. More on the lines of "Just because you personally don't see/hear something happen, don't assume nothing does!". Just my opinion.

enfieldwhite · Post by **enfieldwhite** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:29 pm

InsaneApache wrote:Butterflies have ears?

On their feet

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:31 pm

enfieldwhite wrote:
InsaneApache wrote:Butterflies have ears?
On their feet

That'll be after they've hit the windscreen then.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:09 pm

Daxter wrote:
CrazyHorse wrote: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.

and if it's recorded there would be a receptor, just teh same as if there was a human being

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:59 pm

communistworkethic wrote:
Daxter wrote:
CrazyHorse wrote: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.
and if it's recorded there would be a receptor, just teh same as if there was a human being

Ah! But the sound is different and you can hear it here.

Daxter · Post by **Daxter** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:24 pm

communistworkethic wrote:
Daxter wrote:
CrazyHorse wrote: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.
and if it's recorded there would be a receptor, just teh same as if there was a human being

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:53 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
communistworkethic wrote:
Daxter wrote:
CrazyHorse wrote: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.
and if it's recorded there would be a receptor, just teh same as if there was a human being
Ah! But the sound is different and you can hear it here.

still a noise, still a receptor.

No recptor, no noise, just soundwave.

Anyway someone mention observing the system creates interference.. Schrodinger's Cat.

cowdrill · Post by **cowdrill** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:06 pm

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:17 am

Well the OED says:

sound n. 1 vibrations which travel through the air and are sensed by the ear. 2 a thing that can be heard

So, CWE, definition 1 covers your definition. Definition 2, however, contradicts you on the point that a receptor is necessary, as it only says the thing "can be" heard. Importantly it doesn't say the thing is necessarily heard. If you choose to restrict your definition of the word sound to only the first definition, that's fine too. We're just working from different axioms, though I'd trust the dictionary over you any day!

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:35 am

The original question is not "sound" but "noise". As a definition "sound" is inclusive of the wave, the brain interprets the action of that wave on the eardrum. It goes back to the interference of the observer on a system.

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:08 pm

communistworkethic wrote:The original question is not "sound" but "noise". As a definition "sound" is inclusive of the wave, the brain interprets the action of that wave on the eardrum. It goes back to the interference of the observer on a system.

Oh no! I'll have to to go back to the dictionary!

Anyway, I'm not letting you get away with the Schrodinger's cat bollocks. Because if you're using that as a defence, then the original question is paradoxical. The question states that the tree does actually fall. It says "If a tree falls in an empty forest...", therefore there must have been an observer, otherwise (like Schrodinger's cat) it is not determined whether or not the the tree actually fell (the analogue to the cat dying). Therefore the forest was non-empty and there must have been an observer. But the presence of the observer contradicts the premise that the forest is empty, so there is a contradiction and the problem has no solution.

But that's just if you're using the Uncertainty Principle as a defence. I'm no quantum physicist, but I don't even think it applies here, since the kind of measurements we can make of a sound wave will have very little effect on the soundwave (and certainly no measurable effect on the tree) itself.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:20 pm

ah no, I only raised shrodinger because someone mentioned interference with a system. the original suggestion is that the tree falls but there's nobody around. Now either there is no witness, so has it actually fallen ?- schrodinger applies, or has someone ventured in to the forrest after the event to see a fallen tree, therefore the tree fell at some point and the question is whether a noise was made - no schrodinger.

Mansell Way · Post by **Mansell Way** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:47 pm

there is no noise because the sound is being changed into noise by a ?receptor?
The sound is emitted but if it doesn't reach an ear there is no sound

Connect with your social network account

If a tree falls in an empty wood.

Who is online