|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 20, 2021 21:52:53 GMT
I am having an issue with this and was wondering if anyone who is interested in these types of questions can help me.
I think NO is the answer, but I am not sure.
Sound is produced by vibrations, but can sound in the way we experience it actually exist if every living thing in the universe ceased to exist?
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Jul 20, 2021 22:01:20 GMT
Sound is produced by vibrations, but can sound in the way we experience it actually exist if every living thing in the universe ceased to exist? Yes. A Tree falling does create specific vibrations... But how those vibrations interact with our ear drums... and how that information is sent to our brain... is how we interpret it as a tree falling, instead of someone, let's say: honking a car horn. If there is no one around, then it remains just the vibrations from a tree falling. Does it make vibrations? Yes. Does it make a sound? No.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Jul 20, 2021 22:02:06 GMT
I would say that a noise is produced but without a human ear to hear it a specific way that sound as we know it in terms of human frequencies of hearing and all is not produced. I don't know how likely it is that at least some animal is not around to hear the tree falling, at the very least a bug.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 20, 2021 22:15:25 GMT
I would say that a noise is produced but without a human ear to hear it a specific way that sound as we know it in terms of human frequencies of hearing and all is not produced. I don't know how likely it is that at least some animal is not around to hear the tree falling, at the very least a bug.The real point of the question still remains intact though. It is hypothetical.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Jul 20, 2021 22:18:09 GMT
I would say that a noise is produced but without a human ear to hear it a specific way that sound as we know it in terms of human frequencies of hearing and all is not produced. I don't know how likely it is that at least some animal is not around to hear the tree falling, at the very least a bug.The real point of the question still remains intact though. It is hypothetical. I suppose then you'd hear one answer from atheists and another from theists. According to atheists the answer would be no and according to theists the answer would be yes.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 20, 2021 22:27:25 GMT
The real point of the question still remains intact though. It is hypothetical. I suppose then you'd hear one answer from atheists and another from theists. According to atheists the answer would be no and according to theists the answer would be yes. I guess. I think it would depend very much on what type of atheist or theist you were asking.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Jul 20, 2021 22:35:15 GMT
There is only one other scenario that I can think of. That is that somebody, maybe from another universe, sees the motion of the molecules from a distance and is able to reproduce how the sound would have felt. I think that MCDemuth answered it about as well as anybody could have. I typed my answer before knowing they'd beat me to the punch.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 21, 2021 3:20:28 GMT
Sound is produced by vibrations, but can sound in the way we experience it actually exist if every living thing in the universe ceased to exist? Yes. A Tree falling does create specific vibrations... But how those vibrations interact with our ear drums... and how that information is sent to our brain... is how we interpret it as a tree falling, instead of someone, let's say: honking a car horn. If there is no one around, then it remains just the vibrations from a tree falling. Does it make vibrations? Yes. Does it make a sound? No. ...except that according to the laws of physics, if the tree was previously upright and then fell down, it MUST have made a noise, even if there was no-one there to hear it. Just because no one heard it, it doesn't mean that a noise/vibration etc didn't occur. There will be physical evidence of a broken or smashed tree that could not fall without the requisite physical result.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jul 21, 2021 5:47:54 GMT
I always took this as a thought experiment to ponder whether "sound" is the physical waves produced by the falling tree, or whether it is the brain's perception and interpretation of those waves. Humans are egotistical enough to believe that their perceptions of reality are objective and universal, but other creatures might perceive the same sound very differently. I find it more interesting to think of sound as the interpretation of the stimuli, rather than just the stimuli itself, although there is no right or wrong answer.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jul 21, 2021 14:41:34 GMT
The 18th century philosopher George, Bishop Berkeley developed a theory of reality he called "immaterialism.” As Wikipedia sums it up, the theory “contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are ideas perceived by the minds and, as a result, cannot exist without being perceived.”
In the case of the question under consideration in this thread, it is hearing rather than sight that produces existence.
In 1924, Ronald Knox penned this limerick.
“There was a young man who said "God Must find it exceedingly odd To think that the tree Should continue to be When there's no one about in the quad."
Of course “sound” exists even if no one hears it. Also, the tree falls even if the event is not perceived by sight.
To be fair, a Berkeley supporter answered Knox with this:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd; I am always about in the quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.”
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 23, 2021 3:31:21 GMT
I always took this as a thought experiment to ponder whether "sound" is the physical waves produced by the falling tree, or whether it is the brain's perception and interpretation of those waves. Humans are egotistical enough to believe that their perceptions of reality are objective and universal, but other creatures might perceive the same sound very differently. I find it more interesting to think of sound as the interpretation of the stimuli, rather than just the stimuli itself, although there is no right or wrong answer. It is. I believe it is about our perception of what is real vs. what is actually real.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 23, 2021 3:43:53 GMT
The 18th century philosopher George, Bishop Berkeley developed a theory of reality he called "immaterialism.” As Wikipedia sums it up, the theory “contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are ideas perceived by the minds and, as a result, cannot exist without being perceived.” In the case of the question under consideration in this thread, it is hearing rather than sight that produces existence. In 1924, Ronald Knox penned this limerick. “There was a young man who said "God Must find it exceedingly odd To think that the tree Should continue to be When there's no one about in the quad." Of course “sound” exists even if no one hears it. Also, the tree falls even if the event is not perceived by sight. To be fair, a Berkeley supporter answered Knox with this: "Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd; I am always about in the quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.” This is where I get confused. Something exists whether there is any living thing to experience it. The part I get hung up on with sound is that it seems to need ears for the vibrations of the falling tree to interact with in order for the actual sound that we hear to be a thing. Meaning that the actual sound the tree makes to us when it falls, might not be an actual thing if there are no living things. Whereas what we see seems different to me. I agree that a tree falls whether there is anyone to know it fell, but that is an action that doesn't need a living being to experience it in order for it to happen, just like the vibrations it makes is something that happens regardless if there is an living being to pick up on it. I think I might be overthinking this.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 23, 2021 3:47:15 GMT
I always took this as a thought experiment to ponder whether "sound" is the physical waves produced by the falling tree, or whether it is the brain's perception and interpretation of those waves. Humans are egotistical enough to believe that their perceptions of reality are objective and universal, but other creatures might perceive the same sound very differently. I find it more interesting to think of sound as the interpretation of the stimuli, rather than just the stimuli itself, although there is no right or wrong answer. That is what I am thinking and I know the same can be said for every other sense as well, but the sound one seems a bit different to me for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 23, 2021 3:49:11 GMT
Yes. A Tree falling does create specific vibrations... But how those vibrations interact with our ear drums... and how that information is sent to our brain... is how we interpret it as a tree falling, instead of someone, let's say: honking a car horn. If there is no one around, then it remains just the vibrations from a tree falling. Does it make vibrations? Yes. Does it make a sound? No. ...except that according to the laws of physics, if the tree was previously upright and then fell down, it MUST have made a noise, even if there was no-one there to hear it. Just because no one heard it, it doesn't mean that a noise/vibration etc didn't occur. There will be physical evidence of a broken or smashed tree that could not fall without the requisite physical result. The question I think is "what is sound" absent a living being to experience it.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Jul 23, 2021 3:52:34 GMT
I suppose then you'd hear one answer from atheists and another from theists. According to atheists the answer would be no and according to theists the answer would be yes. Wrong. I should have said many atheists and theists. Particularly those who distinguish between the noise that one hears and the sound that the produced from the event happening regardless of frame of reference. I should have clarified that a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jul 23, 2021 5:50:45 GMT
Whereas what we see seems different to me. I agree that a tree falls whether there is anyone to know it fell, but that is an action that doesn't need a living being to experience it in order for it to happen, just like the vibrations it makes is something that happens regardless if there is an living being to pick up on it. I think I might be overthinking this. It's true. It all comes down to how you define "sound." Is it the vibrations or the effect of those vibrations on the ear? Take your choice.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 23, 2021 5:56:18 GMT
I always took this as a thought experiment to ponder whether "sound" is the physical waves produced by the falling tree, or whether it is the brain's perception and interpretation of those waves. Humans are egotistical enough to believe that their perceptions of reality are objective and universal, but other creatures might perceive the same sound very differently. I find it more interesting to think of sound as the interpretation of the stimuli, rather than just the stimuli itself, although there is no right or wrong answer. It is. I believe it is about our perception of what is real vs. what is actually real. So is there a tree that has fallen on the floor of the forest? or is there only a souns that you didn;t hear as it fell?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 23, 2021 5:57:58 GMT
Whereas what we see seems different to me. I agree that a tree falls whether there is anyone to know it fell, but that is an action that doesn't need a living being to experience it in order for it to happen, just like the vibrations it makes is something that happens regardless if there is an living being to pick up on it. I think I might be overthinking this. It's true. It all comes down to how you define "sound." Is it the vibrations or the effect of those vibrations on the ear? Take your choice. Thank you (and everyone else). It was the definition aspect I was having an issue with and I think you and some others have helped clear it up for me.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 23, 2021 6:17:23 GMT
It is. I believe it is about our perception of what is real vs. what is actually real. So is there a tree that has fallen on the floor of the forest? or is there only a souns that you didn;t hear as it fell? I should have just read this and I wouldn't have needed to ask here, but I like to discuss these kinds of things. Can something exist without being perceived by consciousness? – e.g. "is sound only sound if a person hears it?" The most immediate philosophical topic that the riddle introduces involves the existence of the tree (and the sound it produces) outside of human perception. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be said to exist? What is it to say that it exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists.[9] It is human beings that are able to perceive it.[9] George Berkeley in the 18th century developed subjective idealism, a metaphysical theory to respond to these questions, coined famously as "to be is to be perceived". Today, meta-physicists are split. According to substance theory, a substance is distinct from its properties, while according to bundle theory, an object is merely its sense data. The definition of sound, simplified, is a hearable noise. The tree will make a sound, even if nobody heard it, simply because it could have been heard.
The answer to this question depends on the definition of sound. We can define sound as our perception of air vibrations. Therefore, sound does not exist if we do not hear it. When a tree falls, the motion disturbs the air and sends off air waves. This physical phenomenon, which can be measured by instruments other than our ears, exists regardless of human perception (seeing or hearing) of it. Putting together, although the tree falling on the island sends off air waves, it does not produce sound if no human is within the distance where the air waves are strong enough for a human to perceive them. However, if we define sound as the waves themselves. Then sound would be produced.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jul 23, 2021 12:02:40 GMT
I always took this as a thought experiment to ponder whether "sound" is the physical waves produced by the falling tree, or whether it is the brain's perception and interpretation of those waves. Humans are egotistical enough to believe that their perceptions of reality are objective and universal, but other creatures might perceive the same sound very differently. I find it more interesting to think of sound as the interpretation of the stimuli, rather than just the stimuli itself, although there is no right or wrong answer. That is what I am thinking and I know the same can be said for every other sense as well, but the sound one seems a bit different to me for some reason. Birds can see different colors than we do, because they can perceive parts of the UV spectrum that are invisible to us. I think that's pretty incredible. Most animals have a far superior sense of smell than humans, and that's even how they identify their young. Many animals can hear sounds outside the range of human hearing. Our perception is really quite limited. I find it humbling and fascinating to ponder what we might be missing, simply because we don't have the appropriate hardware to observe it.
|
|