Okay I don't know if you making a straw man arguement or if I went of the beaten track, but the point is no-one hears it. Therefore saying you are observing it through a satellite still means you are hearing it.Captain_Caveman said:
Poll: If a Tree falls in a forest...
- Thread starter almaster88
- Start date
I'm sorry why exactly am I being lectured? I never said anything about animals being incapable of hearing things, I was stating that by the post that I quoted's logic sound doesn't exist at all and carried on to mention my own opinion that its just another case of erroneous definitions,.Captain_Caveman said:
The more correct question IMO should be "can a tree fall when I am not around to observe it?"
The question one of solipsism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism]; everyone who is appealing to the laws of physics to reject it, or arguing semantics over the definition of whether sound is heard vibrations or just vibrations, is entirely missing the point. It's intended to make you think about the idead that "my mind is the only thing that I know exists."
The question one of solipsism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism]; everyone who is appealing to the laws of physics to reject it, or arguing semantics over the definition of whether sound is heard vibrations or just vibrations, is entirely missing the point. It's intended to make you think about the idead that "my mind is the only thing that I know exists."
Well you kinda got my point, I'm really arguing you can't prove that I do or don't. (time to shoehorn this arguement in) Take Shroedingers cat, the idea is that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, (an analogy for how sub-atomic particles travel from point a-b by taking every possible path availible.)While this can't be true it can only be disproved when you observe that it's dead. But at one point you cannot tell one way or another. So in your case unless we actually see each other you can't tell whether or not I'm just a computer program.Redingold said:
Edit: To make my point clear, you can't prove it one way or the other.
A zillion to one is still a non-zero probability. Thus there is still a superposition of states, the tree both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound.Captain_Caveman said:
Of course that's just for if you're arguing based on laws of physics or the definition of what sound is, which completely misses the point about the whole thing.
A straw man argument is when someone presents misleading evidence. Just because I used an analogy doesn't mean it's a straw man argument.bad rider said:
Look, it's this simple. You're saying that sound is the physical act of air pressure making your eardrums vibrate is the only proof that it exists. I would argue that sensors are more accurate because they cant be fooled. the human mind can be fooled into thinking it's hearing things. So if anything my argument is more sensical. Either sound is only observable by human ears or it's not. If a sensor is sending visual data to a monitor as proof of sound, that is not hearing sound. But it is proof that sound exists.
To say that it's equiv and you can never know if it made sound unless observing it in some manner is to say that you can never know anything. Because by the same logic you can never know the quantum state of your own brain & how accurate your thoughts are. Again, when theory becomes law it is assumed to be true in all known circumstances; including when it's not being observed. Is water in the middle of the ocean not liquid because it's not being observed? Is the sun not shining during night?
It's basically an argument of existentialism vs science.
The objective is not to prove anything, obviously. Just to make you realise that it's unprovable, that your own mind is the only thing that you know for sure really exists. And then to get you thinking about what exactly is "existence" anyway :-Dbad rider said:
Technically yes, but I don't think that's what the question is really asking. I think it's more of a perception vs. reality type of thing. Like if no one knows something exists then does it really exist or is it even relevant to anything else?
That definition that you posted said it could be capable of making a sound. Just because no one heard it didn't mean it didn't happen.
First off "You're saying that sound is the physical act of air pressure making your eardrums vibrate is the only proof that it exists."Captain_Caveman said:
I'm saying if there is no-one to observe it (in any form or manner) it should happen, you can't prove it did so it both does and dosen't exsist making it both, so how do sensors help? It's again observer predence except this time instead of a man in a lab coat it's a security camera. Apart from that, yes you get the idea. You cannot say something exsists without proof we can speculate as much as we want but end of the day it's unprovable.
However I would say It's more theory vs evidence
Theory says it should, evidence says it shouldn't, I say we have no way of knowing.
I hate questions that at first seem shallow, then deep, then re-affirm themselves as shallow...
Again though. By that same logic, there's the same uncertaintny over if you actually are hearing sound. Auditory hallucinations are not uncommon. Just because people perceive things doesnt mean they exist. If you were to take LSD and started seeing the world melting and everyone sounded like clapping hands it doesn't mean that's reality.bad rider said:
The whole argument boils down to personal belief. In existentialism or provable laws of nature. I lean towards laws of nature mainly because through existentialism the very idea of existentialism is unstable. And without stability there's nothing to build on. So it boils down to either nothing exists or things exist.
BTW just so no-one is confused while I argue that it's unprovable, I do believe things exsist beyond my own senses. AKA I do believe that sound is made I just can't prove it. Even puppy's learn that when the ball goes behind the sofa it continues to be there despite no proof that it does.Captain_Caveman said:
Not on the same basis, but the philosopical arguement can.Redingold said:
Edit: Oh I only went through the arguement so that people who observe know, and people who are better aquainted have a chance to throw stuff at me if I missed the point.
But it still made the vibration. Just because there isn't a receiver doesn't mean the vibration won't occur. In order to argue that it doesn't, you need to prove that the ear itself causes the vibration.bad rider said:
It's a rhetorical question. You're not supposed to answer yes or no. To believe the question has merit as a philosophical quandary is not to believe that an unobserved falling tree might make no sound.
"No you idiots, it obviously makes a sound! Science says so." <-- epic missing the point
"But the definition of sound is something that is heard." <-- even more epic missing the point
"No you idiots, it obviously makes a sound! Science says so." <-- epic missing the point
"But the definition of sound is something that is heard." <-- even more epic missing the point