If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,

So a deaf man screaming for help is not screaming if no one hears him?

Screaming is not defined by the sound, but the act of attempting to make that sound, even if that attempt fails.

-- Updated April 12th, 2012, 4:11 pm to add the following --

Sound is traveling energy vibrations - If two people share a home and one is a hearing person and the other one is deaf, and there was a home invasion, the hearing person heard it but the deaf person did not - was there a sound????

Sound does not have to be heard to be sound - just like a tree (or anything else) does not have to be seen to exist.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around does it make a sound? This a common sense question.

The intensity of the sound when heard of course depends on the quality of the receiver(s).

I am going to do my best to explain this. I had the same problem with this too. When you imagine a vibration, do you see it as something as a different colour than what is actually being vibrated? I used to. But you have to realize it is actually the shaking of the object itself.

Could you give a definition of common sense?

Screaming is not defined by the sound? What are you on about? There is sound and no one heard it . That does not indicate that no sound was made. It only indicates no one heard it.

So a deaf man screaming for help is not screaming if no one hears him?

Screaming is not defined by the sound, but the act of attempting to make that sound, even if that attempt fails.

-- Updated April 12th, 2012, 4:11 pm to add the following --

Sound is traveling energy vibrations - If two people share a home and one is a hearing person and the other one is deaf, and there was a home invasion, the hearing person heard it but the deaf person did not - was there a sound????

Sound does not have to be heard to be sound - just like a tree (or anything else) does not have to be seen to exist.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around does it make a sound? This a common sense question.

The intensity of the sound when heard of course depends on the quality of the receiver(s).

I am going to do my best to explain this. I had the same problem with this too. When you imagine a vibration, do you see it as something as a different colour than what is actually being vibrated? I used to. But you have to realize it is actually the shaking of the object itself.

Could you give a definition of common sense?

And your point is?? Why don't you give a definition of common sense - I already what it means

My point is that you are dissmissing something without truly understanding the argument.

If I ask for your definition of something, it is because I wish to know how you percieve it to be. My definition of common sense is something you just know intuitively.

-- Updated April 13th, 2012, 9:59 am to add the following --

Screaming is not defined by the sound? What are you on about? There is sound and no one heard it . That does not indicate that no sound was made. It only indicates no one heard it.

Screaming is defined by someone's perception of the scream. It could be a deaf person seeing someone's face contort into the shape of a scream, or to hear the scream itself. The blind man knows he is screaming. I think Shrodinger hit the nail on the head.

My point is that you are dissmissing something without truly understanding the argument.

If I ask for your definition of something, it is because I wish to know how you percieve it to be. My definition of common sense is something you just know intuitively.

-- Updated April 13th, 2012, 9:59 am to add the following --

Screaming is not defined by the sound? What are you on about? There is sound and no one heard it . That does not indicate that no sound was made. It only indicates no one heard it.

Screaming is defined by someone's perception of the scream. It could be a deaf person seeing someone's face contort into the shape of a scream, or to hear the scream itself. The blind man knows he is screaming. I think Shrodinger hit the nail on the head.

Scream is defined by the noise nothing else. If a deaf man screams and no one hears it you are actually saying he did not scream. I think you have let the cat out of the bag.

[quote="Kingkool"]My point is that you are dissmissing something without truly understanding the argument.

If I ask for your definition of something, it is because I wish to know how you percieve it to be. My definition of common sense is something you just know intuitively.


The dictionary says -intuitively, means instinctive knowledge, or the ability to know things instinctively. - instinct, an pattern of behavior. Animals have natural instinct - mankind has to learn to be intuitive. My definition of common sense: practical knowledge and judgement Sound is a hearable noise whether heard or not, Hear means to perceive a sound - so if sound did not exist first it could not be heard. What have I dismissed? How have I not understood this age old argument?

If there was no life in the universe, there would be nothing to percieve the vibrations as sound. Therefore, it would be just vibrations. You can't hear all vibrations, but all that you can hear is vibrations. Everything is constantly vibrating, but you can't always hear it. In space, where there is nothing to be vibrated, there is no sound.

Obviously we've reached a stalemate. We can't agree on the definition of sound, therefore we cannot argue productively any further. So how about w talk about the deeper meaning of this question. If an event happens, and no conscious thing is around to percieve it, did it really happen? This goes to Shrodinger's cat: if you place a cat in a box with a vile of poison, and then bury the box and never check it, the cat is niether dead, nor alive.

[quote="Kingkool"]

Obviously we've reached a stalemate. We can't agree on the definition of sound, therefore we cannot argue productively any further. So how about w talk about the deeper meaning of this question. If an event happens, and no conscious thing is around to percieve it, did it really happen? This goes to Shrodinger's cat: if you place a cat in a box with a vile of poison, and then bury the box and never check it, the cat is niether dead, nor alive.[/quote

Your sentence "If an event happens" indicates an event did happen so the rest of your sentence makes no sense.

The cat scenario is too stupid to contemplate.

Obviously we've reached a stalemate. We can't agree on the definition of sound, therefore we cannot argue productively any further.

You've hit the nail on the head, Kingkool. I learned long ago that it is fruitless trying to get people to understand that common definitions don't include that big picture necessary for those definitions to even be meaningful. For whatever it's worth, you are correct in my book. No ear to convert compressed airwaves into auditory nerve impulses? Then no sound. No mind to interpret the nerve impulses? Then no sound.

But if you want to continue trying to reach the kind of entity who calls Schrodinger's Cat (one of the most seminal metaphors in quantum mechanics), "too stupid to contemplate," I leave you to it. Good luck.

Obviously we've reached a stalemate. We can't agree on the definition of sound, therefore we cannot argue productively any further.

You've hit the nail on the head, Kingkool. I learned long ago that it is fruitless trying to get people to understand that common definitions don't include that big picture necessary for those definitions to even be meaningful. For whatever it's worth, you are correct in my book. No ear to convert compressed airwaves into auditory nerve impulses? Then no sound. No mind to interpret the nerve impulses? Then no sound.

But if you want to continue trying to reach the kind of entity who calls Schrodinger's Cat (one of the most seminal metaphors in quantum mechanics), "too stupid to contemplate," I leave you to it. Good luck.

A very simple concept that maintains a superior being such as a human is essential to receive the sound waves from a falling tree to make a sound. With this strange idea light is not travelling from the sun if everyone closes their eyes and there is no dog crap on my shoe till I smell it. The cat in the box has no relation to a tree falling. The tree has fallen, is the cat dead or alive?

If there was no life in the universe, there would be nothing to percieve the vibrations as sound. Therefore, it would be just vibrations. You can't hear all vibrations, but all that you can hear is vibrations. Everything is constantly vibrating, but you can't always hear it. In space, where there is nothing to be vibrated, there is no sound.

Obviously we've reached a stalemate. We can't agree on the definition of sound, therefore we cannot argue productively any further. So how about w talk about the deeper meaning of this question. If an event happens, and no conscious thing is around to percieve it, did it really happen? This goes to Shrodinger's cat: if you place a cat in a box with a vile of poison, and then bury the box and never check it, the cat is niether dead, nor alive.

"and bury the box and NEVER check it" could be a clue the cat died. You think??

Does this mean that scientist have been wrong all along about the 'big bang' ? How could it be a bang at all if no one was around to observe or hear it? Maybe it was a silent bang - but then we don't know because it was not observed and no one was around to not hear it.

The key to the cat story is 1) it depends on how long the cat is left in the box and buried -did it smother? 2) or did the poison kill it 3)maybe it had a heart attack 4)or died of fright 5) or just maybe it was using one of it's 9 lives providing it still had one left. It would be interesting to do this experiment again but with current technology added - a camera - to see how long it takes the cat to die. Can we use your cat? Why does a vile of poison have to be in the box? Just bury the cat in a box and don't check on it and one can pretend he is alive or dead depending on how one feels that day. If a person dies but no one sees them die - are they really dead? Maybe there is something to the name 'mad' scientist after all --I stand corrected.

Misty, the fact that you have never heard of Shrodinger's cat means you don't understand the theory, and therefore should not be casting judgements on it as being "too stupid to contemplate". The point is no one knows. The cat could have become immortal by some supernatural power. The cat is neither dead, nor alive. If you flip a coin, and never know what side is up, then it is neither heads, nor tails. It seems far-fetched, but many theories do.

-- Updated April 14th, 2012, 9:47 am to add the following --

If there was no life in the universe, there would be nothing to percieve the vibrations as sound. Therefore, it would be just vibrations. You can't hear all vibrations, but all that you can hear is vibrations. Everything is constantly vibrating, but you can't always hear it. In space, where there is nothing to be vibrated, there is no sound.

Obviously we've reached a stalemate. We can't agree on the definition of sound, therefore we cannot argue productively any further. So how about w talk about the deeper meaning of this question. If an event happens, and no conscious thing is around to percieve it, did it really happen? This goes to Shrodinger's cat: if you place a cat in a box with a vile of poison, and then bury the box and never check it, the cat is niether dead, nor alive.

"and bury the box and NEVER check it" could be a clue the cat died. You think??

Does this mean that scientist have been wrong all along about the 'big bang' ? How could it be a bang at all if no one was around to observe or hear it? Maybe it was a silent bang - but then we don't know because it was not observed and no one was around to not hear it.

a) if the big bang theory was correct, then it was a silent bang because there was no gas to carry the vibrations. b) scientists could be wrong about everything from the big bang, to evolution, to photosynthesis. No one can possibly know how the universe works, just make educated guesses based on other educated guesses.

"and bury the box and NEVER check it" could be a clue the cat died. You think??

Does this mean that scientist have been wrong all along about the 'big bang' ? How could it be a bang at all if no one was around to observe or hear it? Maybe it was a silent bang - but then we don't know because it was not observed and no one was around to not hear it.

The key to the cat story is 1) it depends on how long the cat is left in the box and buried -did it smother? 2) or did the poison kill it 3)maybe it had a heart attack 4)or died of fright 5) or just maybe it was using one of it's 9 lives providing it still had one left. It would be interesting to do this experiment again but with current technology added - a camera - to see how long it takes the cat to die. Can we use your cat? Why does a vile of poison have to be in the box? Just bury the cat in a box and don't check on it and one can pretend he is alive or dead depending on how one feels that day. If a person dies but no one sees them die - are they really dead? Maybe there is something to the name 'mad' scientist after all --I stand corrected.

Hi Misty,

If my memory serves me properly, the whole "cat in the box paradox" wasn't meant to prove that the cat truly exists in some kind of eternal suspension between life and death until someone opened the box to check, for common sense knows that the cat will eventually die one way or another.

It was meant more as a visualization tool to highlight the "absurdity" of the ideas emerging from experiments with quantum mechanics.

If the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Bohr, Heisenberg) is true, then the fundamental underpinning of matter (when unobserved) appears to exist in a form that Heisenberg called a "ghostly raw potentia," standing somewhere between real (a 3-D object) and not-real (a field of energy).

The theory suggests that "unobserved" reality appears to consist of spread-out waves of some kind of coded and correlated informational substance that isn't quite "real" itself, but is capable of becoming something real once it is "observed" by a conscious entity.

Allegedly, the act of observation is what "collapses the quantum wave function" and explicates reality (whatever the waves of information represent -- the cat's body, for example) into objectivity.

And therein lies the crux of the "cat in the box paradox":

Without observation of the conditions hidden inside the box, the collapse of the quantum waves composing the cat's body will not occur, thus leading Schrödinger to pose an illustration to demonstrate how "crazy" reality must be if quantum theory is true.

(All of which of course applies to the subject of this thread regarding the unobserved tree falling in the forest question.)

seeds

I will object to the idea that the cat is relevant to this question. The said cat in the box is only indicating we are ignorant of the cats condition because we can not determine the quantum universe. This question is not doubting the condition of the tree it is simply asking what I consider is a rather naive and silly question. If no one is around to hear it fall does it make a sound. Bets gentlemen please. The answer is yes it does, no ifs or buts. There is no human to hear it but I am certain the little mouse that got crushed heard it.

Kingkool,

You are right that I had not heard of Shrodlinger's cat until you mentioned it, so I went online and read about it. After I read it it still seemed silly to me. Anyone can makeup these kinds of scenarios -don't have to be a scientist. I don't agree about the quarter either. It will land one side up be it heads or tails. Thanks for saying all theory is just that. I don't see the experiment saying the cat is neither dead or alive, but is one or the other unobserved.

Seeds,

Thank you for your explanation of why the experiment was done. It is still hard to get - at least for me. It is like saying because I don't share in your experiences or you mine that they don't exist. Just because I personally don't see, hear, feel, experience all things in the world does mean things aren't real and happening. Isn't that why news is shared throughout the world? Sorry if I sound ignorant but I tend to think what makes sense and not in riddles. I could be wrong.

-- Updated Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:24 am to add the following --

Xris,

I agree. Sound has to exist before it CAN be heard, but does not have to be heard to exist.