If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[ArcWinter]

The vibrations you are talking about are sound. You just may or may not interpret them. It's very simple, although it could get confusing if you tried to make it complicated.

I'm not glaring accusingly at you or anything.

 

[Russian_Assassin]

according to quantum mechanics, the act of observing a phenomena changes it.
if it is unobserved then it must be doing both simultaneously, so not only is it loud and silent, it is also still standing and collapsed at the same time, until somebody or something observes it, at which point it is EITHER standing OR collapsed.

therefore, as nobody is around, it is both making a noise, and perfectly silent, whilst collapsed AND standing.

IS YOUR MIND BLOWN YET?

 

[Dangernick42]

It makes sound waves but no actual 'sound'

 

[happysock]

I tell you what set up recording equipment near a tree you suspect will fall down soon, go to the pub for a while and come back when it's fallen over. Check the sound equipment is there a noise? Technically no one was around and I can guarantee it will make a freaking sound.

 

[Reaperman64]

Sound is vibrations in the air and will exist whether we are there or not.
its like asking if the stars that are light years away are hot because we dont get all toasty

Well no, because that is a plain old-fashioned stupid question based on technical misunderstanding. What this question is for is to spur debate on the topic of qualia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia). It's a question of whether you think 'sound' should be interpreted as referring to the vibration in the air, or the quale produced when that vibration is interpreted by a conscious perceiver.

Depends on what you beleive really
as a mathematician i tend to side with it is what it is, merely having a conscious being perceive it doesnt change the nature of it

 

[Hexenwolf]

Hahaha.

It's funny seeing you try to use pseudo-science for this. Sound isn't "the interpretation of vibrations" it's "vibrations." Period.

So yes, it does make a sound.

Bah, alright, this was posted while I was posting my last comment. 'Sound' and 'vibrations' are not the same thing. They are obviously different words, with obviously different meanings. Not all vibrations are sound. Whether all sound is vibration itself, or whether it is an effect of vibration, is the question being posed here. I'm inclined to say that sound is a quale rather than a physical phenomenon in itself, because as far as I'm aware the only thing separating the definitions of 'sound' and 'random vibrations' is that sound is necessarily audible. That's what the word means, so it's referring specifically to the sensory experience of hearing.

Ah, that is much more interesting, I wish that had been in the opening post.

I would contend that sound is not random vibrations, it is necessary that the vibrations have a frequency, but that's rather a moot point as all vibrations have a frequency. Therefore I would also submit that all vibrations are a sound, regardless of our ability to hear them. For a very simple example, think of a dog whistle. It makes a sound, no? One that we cannot hear, but it is still accepted as a sound.

 

[ntw3001]

Hahaha.

It's funny seeing you try to use pseudo-science for this. Sound isn't "the interpretation of vibrations" it's "vibrations." Period.

So yes, it does make a sound.

Bah, alright, this was posted while I was posting my last comment. 'Sound' and 'vibrations' are not the same thing. They are obviously different words, with obviously different meanings. Not all vibrations are sound. Whether all sound is vibration itself, or whether it is an effect of vibration, is the question being posed here. I'm inclined to say that sound is a quale rather than a physical phenomenon in itself, because as far as I'm aware the only thing separating the definitions of 'sound' and 'random vibrations' is that sound is necessarily audible. That's what the word means, so it's referring specifically to the sensory experience of hearing.

Ah, that is much more interesting, I wish that had been in the opening post.

I would contend that sound is not random vibrations, it is necessary that the vibrations have a frequency, but that's rather a moot point as all vibrations have a frequency. Therefore I would also submit that all vibrations are a sound, regardless of our ability to hear them. For a very simple example, think of a dog whistle. It makes a sound, no? One that we cannot hear, but it is still accepted as a sound.

That's a pretty good response. It's fair to say that inaudible vibrations should be considered 'sound'. I guess my position is that 'sound' refers to the sensory reaction that either is produced in response to vibration, or could be produced with the appropriate sensory equipment.

But then, that brings up a problem with the original question. If a dog whistle isn't audible, but is still sound, should the tree falling inaudibly not also be sound? Well, I guess I haven't really tried to answer the question yet, so I'll tentatively say that I'd consider it to produce a sound. I'm not entirely comfortable with that, but I can't see any other answer that's consistent with my given definition.

Actually, I guess there is a difference between the two situations. With the tree, there is no entity present with the potential to experience sound, whereas with the dog whistle it's just that the sound isn't audible to the hearer (I'm assuming the hearer in question is human). I don't see any reason to revise my opinion because of that distinction, but I guess it might be worth noting.

 

[Trotgar]

What came first, the chicken of the egg?

The egg. If evolution is true (which I believe) there were no chickens, just some chicken-like creatures, They slowly evolved, and then one day one of them laid the egg which hatched to be a chicken as we know them.

 

[FalloutJack]

Yes. It does make a sound. Even if you argue it, the tree is still a tree and the intersteller mute button doesn't exist. Do you argue that nobody could be throwing a rock at you if you didn't see it? Can you talk down a flammable gas because you can't smell it? Do you deny your own mind - as opposed to gooey brain-matter - because you can't touch it.

If you said yes to any of these things, then welcome to the world of impractical philosophy that can't be put into practice in real life, where things happen. The world doesn't care if you can balance a dozen angels on the head of a pin. If it decided to erupt a volcano in your area, all the debate in the world would not stop you from being dead.

I always thought these contemplations were all kinda' silly, and I LIKE philosophy.

 

[McNinja]

Just because no one is there to hear it doesn't mean it doesn't make a sound.

The answer is yes, it does make a sound.