bonanova Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 It's been a while from our last visit to Mortys. Last night the discussion waxed philosophical. And Alex, the resident guru of all things logical, and who usually loves to hear himself pontificate, was a different person. This time Alex minced no words. He never used many on incompetents. It's OK to insult an incompetent, he often would say, sometimes it's the only way to get rid of them. But when they pose as scholars, they've gone way too far! Jamie and Davey had spotted him on the way in, and Ian was now joining the group at Alex's favorite table, in the far back corner. Wondering what was on his mind this time, they waited patiently, as one would sit quietly at the feet of his master, to learn the lesson of the evening. Well, I'd heard the question posed many a time, he began, but I never thought anyone took it seriously. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear, does it make a sound? But last night I heard these two intellectuals, they called 'em, actually debating the thing! Not sure if that was a signal to speak, they continued to listen. But that was it. Nothing else. So after only a brief pause, Davey ventured, So? Alex raised an eyebrow. So? you say? Well mateys, there is only one answer. And it's so logical and clear I would have thought even you all would have it. And once you understand, it really can't be debated, now, can it? But this time they didn't understand. No one ventured an answer; although Davey, as always, did stroke his beard. What was Alex's answer to this age-old question, and what was his insight, based only on logic, that gives it undebatable certainty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Aaryan Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Yes. According to science, the vibrations in the air are indeed there. i.e. If there is recording equipment there sound is, officially there. If I'm wrong, its because I had a drink too many. You know, I did kind of wake up with a headache this morning... Edited February 7, 2011 by Aaryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 bonanova Posted February 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Yes. According to science, the vibrations in the air are indeed there. i.e. If there is recording equipment there sound is, officially there. If I'm wrong, its because I had a drink too many. You know, I did kind of wake up with a headache this morning... But the recording equipment in this case becomes the observer. This is not a quibble about human vs. non-human observation, it goes to the question of whether the universe needs an observer to exist. The question in the OP is different from that, but the answer here is to be based on logic rather than physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Aaryan Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 interesting. After a while, if nobody gets it, can you tell us? I really want to know. Going to be mulling over it all night. Gonna bomb Science for this one... proves I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Sound-the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. Therefore, if there is no one around to hear it, then it is by definition not a sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 bonanova Posted February 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Sound-the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. Therefore, if there is no one around to hear it, then it is by definition not a sound. Dictionary doesn't support the notion that sound is the perception of something. While it mentions that one can perceive it, it is the it, not the perception, that is the sound. onelook.com for example gives this: Quick definitions from Macmillan sound noun â–¸ something that you can hear more... â–¸ energy that travels through air or water and that a human ear can hear more... â–¸ the music, talking, and other noises that come from a radio, television, movie, etc. more... â–¸ the loudness of a radio, television, etc. more... â–¸ the particular musical style of a person, band, or place more... â–¸ a long narrow area of water that connects two larger areas of water more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear, does it make a sound? "If a tree falls in the woods".. that is a important part of the statement - how do we know a tree has fallen? There should be an observer (perhaps a mute one, as there is no one to hear). The observer can hence infer that a sound is accompanying.. Put in other way, "If I'm out in bright sun, and I can't (obviously) see ultra violet rays, am I still absorbing UV rays?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 bonanova Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear, does it make a sound? "If a tree falls in the woods".. that is a important part of the statement - how do we know a tree has fallen? There should be an observer (perhaps a mute one, as there is no one to hear). The observer can hence infer that a sound is accompanying.. Put in other way, "If I'm out in bright sun, and I can't (obviously) see ultra violet rays, am I still absorbing UV rays?" Good observation. Is the question logically consistent? Can we derive a logically consistent yes or no answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Good observation. Is the question logically consistent? Can we derive a logically consistent yes or no answer? Based on: a. We know that a tree has fallen - the statement asks us to assume that b. We know (a priori, from past experience) that trees only grow in places that have air c. We know (a priori, from past experience) that trees do make considerable noise when the fall, and this travels through air, if only for limited distance. I have been led to believe that the falling trees can even say a few words in English (like "timber") So, yes - we can conclude a sound was produced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 plasmid Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Take the statement "If a tree falls in the woods then it makes a sound", which we know to be true (if anyone wants to debate that basic fact, then bring it on) Call that an "if A (a tree falls in the woods) then B (it makes a sound)" statement. Then we're given "a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear" We know that statement A (a tree falls in the woods) implies B (it makes a sound) regardless of the state of C (no one is there to hear). So, if A (a tree falls in the woods) and C (no one is there to hear), then B (it makes a sound) is true. It depends on what "sound" is. If sound is vibration in the air, then yes, it makes a sound. If sound is the way a mind perceives such vibrations, then the tree causes no such perception because no one is there to hear, and therefore makes no sound. Suppose there's no one around to hear. Well, YOU might know that. And I might know that. But the TREE doesn't know that. So it still bothers to make a sound out of ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Could you post a solution? I'm dying to hear the answer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear, does it make a sound? well: If there are no "observers" around to hear it, then there is really no way to know 100% if a tree that falls in a forest will make a sound under these conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Please clarify for my feeble mind: The Tree is mature (not a sapling bending or falling via the wind or gravity) and electronic devices are the same as "someone". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 YES ...not putting in a spoiler, as this can be built over... Tree's making a sound, and your reception of the same are two different events. Here, second event may be dependent on first (if there is no other source), but first is independent of second. In fact there is also a 0th event which is falling of the tree. So, so long as all constituents to produce the sound are there, tree makes a sound. Where there is some receptor for the same or not is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Or taking from your definition: energy that travels through air or water and that a human ear can hear Note the use of 'can' instead of 'must'. I rest my case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 bonanova Posted February 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Take the statement "If a tree falls in the woods then it makes a sound", which we know to be true (if anyone wants to debate that basic fact, then bring it on) Call that an "if A (a tree falls in the woods) then B (it makes a sound)" statement. Then we're given "a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear" We know that statement A (a tree falls in the woods) implies B (it makes a sound) regardless of the state of C (no one is there to hear). So, if A (a tree falls in the woods) and C (no one is there to hear), then B (it makes a sound) is true. It depends on what "sound" is. If sound is vibration in the air, then yes, it makes a sound. If sound is the way a mind perceives such vibrations, then the tree causes no such perception because no one is there to hear, and therefore makes no sound. Suppose there's no one around to hear. Well, YOU might know that. And I might know that. But the TREE doesn't know that. So it still bothers to make a sound out of ignorance. Hmmm .. bring it on? [first spoiler] But that's the puzzle. Affirmation of the result is not proof: it's circular reasoning. How's that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 bonanova Posted February 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Based on: a. We know that a tree has fallen - the statement asks us to assume that b. We know (a priori, from past experience) that trees only grow in places that have air c. We know (a priori, from past experience) that trees do make considerable noise when the fall, and this travels through air, if only for limited distance. I have been led to believe that the falling trees can even say a few words in English (like "timber") So, yes - we can conclude a sound was produced. "We know from past experience" translates to "in the past we have attended events of falling trees, and in each case we heard a sound." The question in the OP could equally ask - in those cases, would a sound have been made if you had not been there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 bonanova Posted February 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Or taking from your definition: energy that travels through air or water and that a human ear can hear Note the use of 'can' instead of 'must'. I rest my case. "Can." Agreed. But what about "Did"? Without someone to hear, "did" did not happen. So [1] "no sound," that "can't" be heard, and [2] "sound," which "can be, but wasn't," heard still have not been distinguished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 "A tree in the woods..." - the tree is not alone, there are other trees around it. As most people should know, trees are living beings. Also, trees have senses with which they can detect sound - they can hear (sort of). So one of the statements - "A tree in the woods" or "no one is there" - must be false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Molly Mae Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 The biggest part of the problem is trying to combine philosophy and logic, as they are mutually exclusive. =P I must agree with plasmid, though. Whether or not you are there to observe, events A (a tree falls) and B (it makes a sound) cannot be separated, whether event C (while an observer is present) is true or false.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 bonanova Posted February 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 The biggest part of the problem is trying to combine philosophy and logic, as they are mutually exclusive. =P On the atomic scale, measuring a system changes it, and you observe the changed state. At some level, the state of the real world does depend on whether it was observed. Translate: there is no such thing as passive observation; unavoidably, the observer interacts. Some thinkers extend that thought to postulate the need of an observer for things to exist. I must agree with plasmid, though. Whether or not you are there to observe, events A (a tree falls) and B (it makes a sound) cannot be separated, whether event C (while an observer is present) is true or false.. Asserting something is true is not proving something is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 bonanova Posted February 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 "A tree in the woods..." - the tree is not alone, there are other trees around it. As most people should know, trees are living beings. Also, trees have senses with which they can detect sound - they can hear (sort of). So one of the statements - "A tree in the woods" or "no one is there" - must be false. So no forest is devoid of people. You're on the right track. Can you take it a little farther? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 k-man Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Some thinkers extend that thought to postulate the need of an observer for things to exist. Hmm... so when I exit the room, and there is no one else in the room, then everything in the room ceases to exist -disappears? But when I come back everything is back in its place exactly as I left it? Wouldn't the content of the room be subjective to the observer in this case? Kind of like a dream? Different people would see different things when they enter the room? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Molly Mae Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Someone help. Bonanova is messing with my mind. @B: My first point was just a below-the-belt against philosophy. The tree both makes a noise and it does not make a noise. We will never know which until we observe the woods and hear (or don't hear) what's left of the tree falling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 curr3nt Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 If you can't prove the sound exists because no one was there to hear it then how can you prove the tree fell in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Molly Mae Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 @curr3nt: Occam's razor. =P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
bonanova
It's been a while from our last visit to Mortys. Last night
the discussion waxed philosophical. And Alex, the resident
guru of all things logical, and who usually loves to hear
himself pontificate, was a different person.
This time Alex minced no words. He never used many on
incompetents. It's OK to insult an incompetent, he often
would say, sometimes it's the only way to get rid of them.
But when they pose as scholars, they've gone way too far!
Jamie and Davey had spotted him on the way in, and Ian
was now joining the group at Alex's favorite table, in the
far back corner. Wondering what was on his mind this time,
they waited patiently, as one would sit quietly at the feet
of his master, to learn the lesson of the evening.
Well, I'd heard the question posed many a time, he began,
but I never thought anyone took it seriously. If a tree falls
in the woods and no one is there to hear, does it make
a sound? But last night I heard these two intellectuals,
they called 'em, actually debating the thing!
Not sure if that was a signal to speak, they continued
to listen. But that was it. Nothing else. So after only a
brief pause, Davey ventured, So?
Alex raised an eyebrow. So? you say? Well mateys,
there is only one answer. And it's so logical and clear
I would have thought even you all would have it. And
once you understand, it really can't be debated, now,
can it?
But this time they didn't understand. No one ventured an
answer; although Davey, as always, did stroke his beard.
What was Alex's answer to this age-old question, and
what was his insight, based only on logic, that gives
it undebatable certainty?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
41 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.