Squarez said:
Caligulove said:
One of my favorite exchanges from college.
Friend 1, "Ian": Hey, well... could God make another God, since he's all powerful and all knowing?"
Friend 2, "Charlie": "....shut the fuck up, Ian"
ANYTIME someone asks the question of
"if a tree falls and no ones around to hear it, does it make a sound???" *deep, wide eyed look of a "wise saying*
... of course it fucking does.
*a lot of philosophy majors I know in college... most are just quiet hipster jack offs who think that a goatee and pursuit of a useless degree makes them deep
Well, technically no. If a tree falls in the forest (or any other place for that matter), it makes high frequency vibrations in the air, if there's nothing to interpret those vibrations as a sound, it's not really a sound, just meaningless vibration.
EDIT: It appears that I have been ninja'd...about 3 pages ago. Ahem...
But that's not 'technically', it's the opposite of that. Those meaningless vibrations are exactly what sound is. We talk about say, 'the speed of sound', not in reference to how quickly we interpret sound waves, but as how fast they travel through the air. To be more precise about the whole thing, the answer depends on what question you're actually asking - does the tree cause the physical phenomena known as sound, or can that sound be interpreted? In the former case, absolutely - in the latter, no, as there's nothing that can actually detect that sound (presuming 'no one' refers to literally any one body that could interpret or record the sound).
Actually, my opinion on the whole question is that it probably stems from a time before we (or at least the person who thought of the question) had a good understanding of what sound physically is - it's a question about how can we prove the unprovable (which is rendered moot by modern understanding of sound, as we can indeed knock a tree over with something that senses sound with nobody anywhere near it). Today the question has largely been reduced to a semantic discussion over what sound actually is, i.e. is it the physical phenomenon or is it our interpretation of that phenomenon? - which are two different questions, both with definitive answers.
Or to put it more bluntly: ambiguously asking both 'does the tree cause the physical phenomenon of sound' and 'could the tree be heard?' as the same question, expecting one yes or no answer, is indeed stupid.