[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?

[Guest]

So no forest is devoid of people.

You're on the right track. Can you take it a little farther?

For trees to survive, there must be some kind of animal around (otherwise there would be no carbon dioxide to breathe).

[curr3nt]

@Molly Mae - But if the sound was not heard then the falling was not seen. How can you argue the sound without perception without questioning the event without the same perception?

[Molly Mae]

@curr3nt: That's actually interesting.

Situation........Your argument.........My counter

If not observed, and no sound is made, the tree never fell.

If not observed, and sound is made, the tree fell.

If observed, and no sound is made, the tree never fell.

If observed, and sound is made, the tree fell.

[bonanova]

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?

Yes. This is precisely Alex's position.

Without anyone present to verify, you say there is a tree.

Without anyone present to witness, you say the tree fell.

Without anyone present to hear, I say it made a sound.

All statements stand on equal logical and philosophical footing.

Nice one!

[curr3nt]

Situation........Your argument.........My counter

If not observed, and no sound is made, the tree never fell. - agreed

If not observed, and sound is made, the tree fell. - the tree falling can not be proven, the sound could have come from something else

If observed, and sound is made, the tree fell. - agreed

If observed, and no sound is made,...

This is the essence of the question. To know the tree fell it would have to be observed. This contradicts the question when it says no one was around to hear it.

edit - bonanova said it better

Edited February 9, 2011 by curr3nt

[phaze]

Alex believes that a tree that falls in the woods with no-one around who can hear it still makes a sound. The reason being is that he is sure of the answer whereas philosophers who contend that it is possible for the tree to make no sound would still not be sure of the answer. This is because none of them have observed a tree fall in the woods where there is no observer, so it cannot be empirically tested. I advise that unless you wish to be insulted that you claim that it made a sound.

[OmegaScales]

You say a tree fell, but there was noone there to hear it. It obviously made a sound, since you did, unknowingly, say there was sound as noone heard it. It's like a deaf man talking to himself: he produces sound, but can't hear it.

[bonanova]

You say a tree fell, but there was noone there to hear it. It obviously made a sound, since you did, unknowingly, say there was sound as noone heard it. It's like a deaf man talking to himself: he produces sound, but can't hear it.

.

1. The premise is that a tree falls in the forest.
2. Whether there was a sound was not stated, it was asked.
3. "no one is there to hear" does not suppose there is sound.

.

Otherwise everyone who walks in a forest and who is not deaf perceives a sound.

[OmegaScales]

Let me rephrase that. People see things that the brain doesn't process. For example, someone may have a hair in front of their eye, thereby seeing it, but the brain doesn't process it, so they would say they don't see it. The same thing can be be said for other senses. A sound is heard, but noone processes hearing it, like a dog whistle. Using this logic, you can say that even if someone is around to hear the tree fall, they might not process hearing it, thereby, noone is around to hear the sound it makes.

[Guest]

I havent read all replies here, but here is my argument. (sorry, that spoiler thing is foriegn). Someone or no one or nobody does not exclude animals. Its accepted animals hear. A sound recording device in the woods is the same as "someone". A video device without sound is not. Its also accepted birds will fly the roost when startled by a loud noise. So, lets place by beastmaster techniques a flock of blackbirds in a tree next to a tree precut so precise that a very small and silent servo motor will tip it over. We will also stun or paralyze all living things within a 100 miles radius of the tree with our future stun gun. The wind and nature have been conquered and all is absolutely quiet. Lets also place a freaking excellent camera (we are in the future ) out of the woods with no sound recording capabilities. We then activate the silent servo to tip the tree over and record without sound the reaction of the birds. What is the conclusion?

[Molly Mae]

I havent read all replies here, but here is my argument. (sorry, that spoiler thing is foriegn). Someone or no one or nobody does not exclude animals. Its accepted animals hear. A sound recording device in the woods is the same as "someone". A video device without sound is not. Its also accepted birds will fly the roost when startled by a loud noise. So, lets place by beastmaster techniques a flock of blackbirds in a tree next to a tree precut so precise that a very small and silent servo motor will tip it over. We will also stun or paralyze all living things within a 100 miles radius of the tree with our future stun gun. The wind and nature have been conquered and all is absolutely quiet. Lets also place a freaking excellent camera (we are in the future ) out of the woods with no sound recording capabilities. We then activate the silent servo to tip the tree over and record without sound the reaction of the birds. What is the conclusion?

The conclusion is the outcome or result of a process or act.

Note: This is a bad joke.

[Guest]

The conclusion is the outcome or result of a process or act.

Note: This is a bad joke.

A bad joke enjoyed.

[Guest]

"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?

If OP asks that question, it would not qualify as "past experience"... as the situation has changed.

The act of directly observing falling trees making a sound is a required condition for "past experience". We need this data, with an observer present. After it can be reasonably assumed that a falling tree makes noise (at least when an observer is present), we can deduce that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it (but from the data that tree as fallen we can suppose the presence of an observer), there will be noise.

The fundamental assumption is, that trees do not suddenly start behaving differently.

I throw a ball up in the air and it comes down. I repeat it 100 times, it comes down every time. If I throw it up again 101^th time, can I be sure it will come down? I'm assuming yes.

A related but little off topic post: http://www.thedoghousediaries.com/?p=2543

[Guest]

I agree that it will act no different as it still follows the same laws of physics and physics doesn't change depending on whether someone is near or not. Otherwise, when we leave a plant alone in a room, why doesn't it die because it comes out of existence?

You said that the answer was to do with the fact that it is not possible to verify that the tree fell if there is no observers, just as it is not possible to deduce that there was a sound, but the tree can be seen fallen after the situation. However, sound, unless loud enough to damage objects, cannot be seen after its occurrence. An action of an object falling however, can.

I throw a ball up in the air and it comes down. I repeat it 100 times, it comes down every time. If I throw it up again 101th time, can I be sure it will come down? I'm assuming yes.

1) And following your theory, if you dropped the ball down and it bounced 100 times in a row (a very bouncy ball), and as it was in the air you left the room, you can assume that it will continue to make another bounce, as physics applies to any place regardless of whether there are observers to see it. Of course it can be questioned as to how this can be proven, but an observer cannot determine the physics of the world.

2) It's 101st

Edited February 22, 2011 by Shortdude3000

[benjer3]

If a tree falls in a forest and makes a sound, that sound will affect everything in the surrounding environment, even if it is on a molecular scale. This is true for any action: every action anywhere in the universe affects everything else, no matter how slightly, due to changes in the collective of fundamental forces. Therefore, the ultimate question being asked--whether a tree falling will make a sound in a forest with no observers, meaning anything that could detect sound--is invalid. The only way for there to be no sound is for the tree and forest to not exist, in which case the tree could not fall in the first place. If the tree and forest do exist and the tree does fall, then everything in the universe would react to, or "observe," the sound of the tree falling.

[Guest]

Alex believes that a tree that falls in the woods with no-one around who can hear it still makes a sound. The reason being is that he is sure of the answer whereas philosophers who contend that it is possible for the tree to make no sound would still not be sure of the answer. This is because none of them have observed a tree fall in the woods where there is no observer, so it cannot be empirically tested. I advise that unless you wish to be insulted that you claim that it made a sound.

I think phaze's answer has got to be it.