Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum
|Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.
Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.
If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.
Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
a tree in the forest.
Posted 03 December 2007 - 11:12 PM
The obvious answer would be yes.
But I argue that it doesn't.
Sure, there would be a TON of vibrations.
But our ears convert vibrations into sound.
So if our ears aren't there to convert it.
There wouldn't be any sound
Posted 03 December 2007 - 11:40 PM
Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:04 AM
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
I assume you meant "...and no one was there to hear it..."
"Sound is generally known as vibrational transmission of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave (through fluids as a compression wave, and through solids as both compression and shear waves) that is audibly perceived by a living organism through its sense of hearing." [url:8b0be]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound[/url]
And since it's pretty darn unlikely that a forest has no living organisms with a sense of hearing to audibly perceive the waves, I'd say yes, it does make a sound - not sure how to prove it though....
cogito ergo sum
Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:19 AM
And yeah, I couldn't imagine a forest without any organisms
Posted 04 December 2007 - 07:36 AM
If we look at the first two entries for sound in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, the answer to your question is no if you prefer the first definition and yes if the second:
1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.
In short, the answer is dependent upon semantics.
Posted 05 December 2007 - 12:48 AM
I always love hearing I wasn't completely wrong
Posted 07 December 2007 - 07:45 PM
Posted 10 December 2007 - 06:22 AM
The orginal configuration of this proposition predated the concept that Mankind was somehow animalistic and also was prior to the discovery of the concept of sound waves. Therefore, the proposition that a different animal could discern the sound waves or that sound waves were part of the question didn't occur to the ancient propositioner. More modern examples say "and no animal were around to hear it" - thus getting back to the point of the question, which is a entry into discussion between perception and reality. If you observe X, is it real? (What about hallucination or illusion?) What about things that you can't observe? Are they real? (Thus the tree in the lonely forest.) How far does one affect the other? At all? Does reality depend upon perception at all? What if 100% of all people exactly mis-perceive an event the wrong way? Say they all saw and report X, when really Y happened? Which is reality? Would any of the people believe you if you reported Y? How could you prove it as reality?
Posted 24 December 2007 - 06:37 AM
If you can say that the tree fell, without an observer to confirm it;
I will say with equal certainty that it made a sound, without an observer to confirm it.
If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?
Vidi vici veni.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users