Overly Complicated Conjecture About Common Issues

[The Sorrow]

There are little problems that bug everybody. Can we figure them out by confusing the hell out of everyone in hearing range?
First case: chicken and the egg.
According to Charles Darwin, the immediate genetic predecessor to the common chicken would have produced the egg which contained a chicken embryo.
Thus, egg before the chicken.
Anyone else got one?

 

[RetiarySword]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course it does! Just because someone isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

[theklng]

There are little problems that bug everybody. Can we figure them out by confusing the hell out of everyone in hearing range?
First case: chicken and the egg.
According to Charles Darwin, the immediate genetic predecessor to the common chicken would have produced the egg which contained a chicken embryo.
Thus, egg before the chicken.
Anyone else got one?

wait, so just because one person has a theory about how it works, it makes it an absolute truth?

darwin was a great man, you shouldn't make a mockery out of him like this.

 

[RetiarySword]

Ooh another one! What is the sound of one hand clapping. I know what it is, two of my mates can clap with one hand! They are going out so I think it was a querk of fate.

 

[Avatar Roku]

There are little problems that bug everybody. Can we figure them out by confusing the hell out of everyone in hearing range?
First case: chicken and the egg.
According to Charles Darwin, the immediate genetic predecessor to the common chicken would have produced the egg which contained a chicken embryo.
Thus, egg before the chicken.
Anyone else got one?

wait, so just because one person has a theory about how it works, it makes it an absolute truth?

darwin was a great man, you shouldn't make a mockery out of him like this.

I'm sorry, but what?

 

[theklng]

There are little problems that bug everybody. Can we figure them out by confusing the hell out of everyone in hearing range?
First case: chicken and the egg.
According to Charles Darwin, the immediate genetic predecessor to the common chicken would have produced the egg which contained a chicken embryo.
Thus, egg before the chicken.
Anyone else got one?

wait, so just because one person has a theory about how it works, it makes it an absolute truth?

darwin was a great man, you shouldn't make a mockery out of him like this.

I'm sorry, but what?

exactly what part of my post did you not understand?

 

[The Sorrow]

There are little problems that bug everybody. Can we figure them out by confusing the hell out of everyone in hearing range?
First case: chicken and the egg.
According to Charles Darwin, the immediate genetic predecessor to the common chicken would have produced the egg which contained a chicken embryo.
Thus, egg before the chicken.
Anyone else got one?

wait, so just because one person has a theory about how it works, it makes it an absolute truth?

darwin was a great man, you shouldn't make a mockery out of him like this.

I'm sorry, but what?

Seconded.
I had no idea that "he was right" was an insult.

 

[Avatar Roku]

There are little problems that bug everybody. Can we figure them out by confusing the hell out of everyone in hearing range?
First case: chicken and the egg.
According to Charles Darwin, the immediate genetic predecessor to the common chicken would have produced the egg which contained a chicken embryo.
Thus, egg before the chicken.
Anyone else got one?

wait, so just because one person has a theory about how it works, it makes it an absolute truth?

darwin was a great man, you shouldn't make a mockery out of him like this.

I'm sorry, but what?

exactly what part of my post did you not understand?

Your first line is completely contradicting your second.

 

[Good morning blues]

There are little problems that bug everybody. Can we figure them out by confusing the hell out of everyone in hearing range?
First case: chicken and the egg.
According to Charles Darwin, the immediate genetic predecessor to the common chicken would have produced the egg which contained a chicken embryo.
Thus, egg before the chicken.
Anyone else got one?

wait, so just because one person has a theory about how it works, it makes it an absolute truth?

darwin was a great man, you shouldn't make a mockery out of him like this.

You do realize that based upon the argument that you're making in this post, it is completely impossible to prove anything ever, right?

 

[Seldon2639]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course it does! Just because someone isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

The question is more how we define "sound". True, it would compress air, causing what would be interpreted by the human ear and brain as sound, but is that compression of air in and of itself "sound"? For sound to exist, don't the compressions in the air have to be "heard"? Otherwise it's just the movement of air? Or, maybe it isn't.

That's why it's a koan, dude.

Same thing with one-hand clapping. If we accept clapping as the result of air being pushed out from between two areas of skin (in order to include the slapping of ones fingers against the corresponding palm), then one-hand clapping is pretty easy. If I slap you, that's one-hand clapping. But, if we define clapping as the noise produced by both of a person's hands slapping together, the question becomes legitimately thought provoking. The point of it is what portion of the sound is made by one of the hands in clapping? Neither can clap by itself, so neither makes a true "portion" of the noise. The point is to get you thinking about the gestalt of clapping.

 

[theklng]

There are little problems that bug everybody. Can we figure them out by confusing the hell out of everyone in hearing range?
First case: chicken and the egg.
According to Charles Darwin, the immediate genetic predecessor to the common chicken would have produced the egg which contained a chicken embryo.
Thus, egg before the chicken.
Anyone else got one?

wait, so just because one person has a theory about how it works, it makes it an absolute truth?

darwin was a great man, you shouldn't make a mockery out of him like this.

You do realize that based upon the argument that you're making in this post, it is completely impossible to prove anything ever, right?

this is not true. you can prove a theory, but every theory is only proven relatively, because in our universe, absolutes are rare. the way you postulate your argument. isn't proper logic. you're forgetting that something laid down the egg of the chicken predecessor, and the egg before that etc; which still leaves the question open. furthermore, the question in itself is philosophical, and was never meant to have an answer in the first place.

also, how do you consider a relative opinion of a man contradictory to an argument that absolute theories needs absolute proof? i fail to see a connection whatsoever.

it really does seem that i am grossly overestimating the average populace of these forums.

 

[CapnGod]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course it does! Just because someone isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

As was stated above, it produces sound waves. It requires a hearer, though for it to be heard. Much like color. Color doesn't exist until it is seen and interpreted by a brain. Until then, it is merely differing wavelengths of light. It's also why what I see is red may vary from what you see as red. Neither of us is wrong, per se, but rather our brains interpret the light slightly differently.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course it does! Just because someone isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

As was stated above, it produces sound waves. It requires a hearer, though for it to be heard. Much like color. Color doesn't exist until it is seen and interpreted by a brain. Until then, it is merely differing wavelengths of light. It's also why what I see is red may vary from what you see as red. Neither of us is wrong, per se, but rather our brains interpret the light slightly differently.

But the question asks if it makes a sound, not if it is heard, seeing as it obviously would produce sound waves then yeah...

 

[The Sorrow]

There are little problems that bug everybody. Can we figure them out by confusing the hell out of everyone in hearing range?
First case: chicken and the egg.
According to Charles Darwin, the immediate genetic predecessor to the common chicken would have produced the egg which contained a chicken embryo.
Thus, egg before the chicken.
Anyone else got one?

wait, so just because one person has a theory about how it works, it makes it an absolute truth?

darwin was a great man, you shouldn't make a mockery out of him like this.

You do realize that based upon the argument that you're making in this post, it is completely impossible to prove anything ever, right?

this is not true. you can prove a theory, but every theory is only proven relatively, because in our universe, absolutes are rare. the way you postulate your argument. isn't proper logic. you're forgetting that something laid down the egg of the chicken predecessor, and the egg before that etc; which still leaves the question open. furthermore, the question in itself is philosophical, and was never meant to have an answer in the first place.

also, how do you consider a relative opinion of a man contradictory to an argument that absolute theories needs absolute proof? i fail to see a connection whatsoever.

it really does seem that i am grossly overestimating the average populace of these forums.

You know, not using capitalization AND being an arrogant ass isn't helping your case.

 

[CapnGod]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course it does! Just because someone isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

As was stated above, it produces sound waves. It requires a hearer, though for it to be heard. Much like color. Color doesn't exist until it is seen and interpreted by a brain. Until then, it is merely differing wavelengths of light. It's also why what I see is red may vary from what you see as red. Neither of us is wrong, per se, but rather our brains interpret the light slightly differently.

But the question asks if it makes a sound, not if it is heard, seeing as it obviously would produce sound waves then yeah...

It makes a sound wave. Something capable of being heard. But not something that necessarily is heard. There is a difference. There needs to be a someone there to perceive it, otherwise, how do you describe this sound that went unheard?

 

[Avatar Roku]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course it does! Just because someone isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

As was stated above, it produces sound waves. It requires a hearer, though for it to be heard. Much like color. Color doesn't exist until it is seen and interpreted by a brain. Until then, it is merely differing wavelengths of light. It's also why what I see is red may vary from what you see as red. Neither of us is wrong, per se, but rather our brains interpret the light slightly differently.

But the question asks if it makes a sound, not if it is heard, seeing as it obviously would produce sound waves then yeah...

It makes a sound wave. Something capable of being heard. But not something that necessarily is heard. There is a difference. There needs to be a someone there to perceive it, otherwise, how do you describe this sound that went unheard?

You don't need to. It would exist, that answers the question.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course it does! Just because someone isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

As was stated above, it produces sound waves. It requires a hearer, though for it to be heard. Much like color. Color doesn't exist until it is seen and interpreted by a brain. Until then, it is merely differing wavelengths of light. It's also why what I see is red may vary from what you see as red. Neither of us is wrong, per se, but rather our brains interpret the light slightly differently.

But the question asks if it makes a sound, not if it is heard, seeing as it obviously would produce sound waves then yeah...

It makes a sound wave. Something capable of being heard. But not something that necessarily is heard. There is a difference. There needs to be a someone there to perceive it, otherwise, how do you describe this sound that went unheard?

But soundwaves are made, therefore sound is produced, the question isn't specific enough. From a human perspective it could be argued no sound was made seeing as no one was there to perceive it. But from a scientific stance: it would make vibrations and therefore sound.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

But soundwaves are made, therefore sound is produced, the question isn't specific enough. From a human perspective it could be argued no sound was made seeing as no one was there to perceive it. But from a scientific stance: it would make vibrations and therefore sound.

If that little fella is on a mountainside but nobody is around to say "aaawwwwwww", is he still cute?

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

But soundwaves are made, therefore sound is produced, the question isn't specific enough. From a human perspective it could be argued no sound was made seeing as no one was there to perceive it. But from a scientific stance: it would make vibrations and therefore sound.

If that little fella is on a mountainside but nobody is around to say "aaawwwwwww", is he still cute?

Well seeing as cuteness is completely subjective and possibly an idea only humans possess I'd say no...

 

[Antidamacus]

Arguing on the internet: mindless fun/ideology or greatest scientific debate ever?

Example http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.103250

Conclusion: I love you guys.