|
Sound
Jan 7, 2018 23:18:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by thebigbado on Jan 7, 2018 23:18:28 GMT
This one has been discussed time and time again but I’m new here and wanted to see how I fair with something basic. The question, then: If a tree falls in an uninhabited forest where no creature live or ever costs, does it make a sound?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 8, 2018 2:05:33 GMT
Anything that ever falls makes a sound no matter how big or small the object may be. The question is whether or not we can hear it. If it is a tiny thing that falls like an ant we may or may not see it but won't hear it but the ant will feel a thud when it lands. If something of a decent size like a spoon, shoe, pet, or tree falls down then we will hear the sound unless we are way too far away from it. Our hearing only goes so far as well as our sight. We can't hear or see a plane far away crash but it will make a sound and if living things are there then they will see it and hear it.
|
|
|
Post by alexander1989420 on Jan 8, 2018 11:30:45 GMT
Anything that ever falls makes a sound no matter how big or small the object may be. The question is whether or not we can hear it. If it is a tiny thing that falls like an ant we may or may not see it but won't hear it but the ant will feel a thud when it lands. If something of a decent size like a spoon, shoe, pet, or tree falls down then we will hear the sound unless we are way too far away from it. Our hearing only goes so far as well as our sight. We can't hear or see a plane far away crash but it will make a sound and if living things are there then they will see it and hear it. What about the laws of physics? Like wave/particle dualtiy and the collapse of a wave function up observation? Also superposition plays a huge role in this situation. According the quantam physics a photon acts as a wave that exists in all possible states until the collapse of the wave function upon observation, then it behaves as a particle? If you aren't familiar research Shroedingers Cat.
|
|
|
Sound
Jan 8, 2018 11:47:35 GMT
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 8, 2018 11:47:35 GMT
Anything that ever falls makes a sound no matter how big or small the object may be. The question is whether or not we can hear it. If it is a tiny thing that falls like an ant we may or may not see it but won't hear it but the ant will feel a thud when it lands. If something of a decent size like a spoon, shoe, pet, or tree falls down then we will hear the sound unless we are way too far away from it. Our hearing only goes so far as well as our sight. We can't hear or see a plane far away crash but it will make a sound and if living things are there then they will see it and hear it. What about the laws of physics? Like wave/particle dualtiy and the collapse of a wave function up observation? Also superposition plays a huge role in this situation. According the quantam physics a photon acts as a wave that exists in all possible states until the collapse of the wave function upon observation, then it behaves as a particle? If you aren't familiar research Shroedingers Cat. Yes, but not all objects have waves. And in what terms would a tree falling act as a particle? You're more of a science than me so trying to see how this works here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 12:05:01 GMT
I'm a new too. So, don't blame me for some occasions, o'key?
First: Who's reciever? Does it make sound or not - there might be a somebody to hear something, 'cause 'sound' sounds like 'to hear smth. that is sound'. Second: If the place is forest there might be some kind of life (trees, birds, grass-tissue, etc). So, at least trees will hear 'sound' but in its special manner.
|
|
|
Post by alexander1989420 on Jan 8, 2018 12:15:25 GMT
What about the laws of physics? Like wave/particle dualtiy and the collapse of a wave function up observation? Also superposition plays a huge role in this situation. According the quantam physics a photon acts as a wave that exists in all possible states until the collapse of the wave function upon observation, then it behaves as a particle? If you aren't familiar research Shroedingers Cat. Yes, but not all objects have waves. And in what terms would a tree falling act as a particle? You're more of a science than me so trying to see how this works here. Here the word ‘sound’ is used to describe a physical phenomenon – the wave disturbance. But sound is also a human experience, the result of physical signals delivered by human sense organs which are synthesized in the mind as a form of perception. Now, to a large extent, we can interpret the actions of human sense organs in much the same way we interpret mechanical measuring devices. The human auditory apparatus simply translates one set of physical phenomena into another, leading eventually to stimulation of those parts of the brain cortex responsible for the perception of sound. It is here that the distinction comes. Everything to this point is explicable in terms of physics and chemistry, but the process by which we turn electrical signals in the brain into human perception and experience in the mind remains, at present, unfathomable. Philosophers have long argued that sound, colour, taste, smell and touch are all secondary qualities which exist only in our minds. We have no basis for our common-sense assumption that these secondary qualities reflect or represent reality as it really is. So, if we interpret the word ‘sound’ to mean a human experience rather than a physical phenomenon, then when there is nobody around there is a sense in which the falling tree makes no sound at all.
|
|
|
Sound
Jan 8, 2018 17:04:44 GMT
Post by thebigbado on Jan 8, 2018 17:04:44 GMT
Yes, but not all objects have waves. And in what terms would a tree falling act as a particle? You're more of a science than me so trying to see how this works here. Here the word ‘sound’ is used to describe a physical phenomenon – the wave disturbance. But sound is also a human experience, the result of physical signals delivered by human sense organs which are synthesized in the mind as a form of perception. Now, to a large extent, we can interpret the actions of human sense organs in much the same way we interpret mechanical measuring devices. The human auditory apparatus simply translates one set of physical phenomena into another, leading eventually to stimulation of those parts of the brain cortex responsible for the perception of sound. It is here that the distinction comes. Everything to this point is explicable in terms of physics and chemistry, but the process by which we turn electrical signals in the brain into human perception and experience in the mind remains, at present, unfathomable. Philosophers have long argued that sound, colour, taste, smell and touch are all secondary qualities which exist only in our minds. We have no basis for our common-sense assumption that these secondary qualities reflect or represent reality as it really is. So, if we interpret the word ‘sound’ to mean a human experience rather than a physical phenomenon, then when there is nobody around there is a sense in which the falling tree makes no sound at all. This is seems reasonable, but! The dictionary definition of sound is a vibration that travels through some medium that can be heard by an animal’s or human’s ear. This being the current agreed upon definition of sound, suggests that no receiver/interpreter is required to qualify the label. Empirically then, surely, we have to say that a sound is made but there is a chance that the waves didn’t occur because actually the tree and in fact the full forest, island etc did potentially not exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Sound
Jan 8, 2018 18:26:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 18:26:52 GMT
Hypotheticaly, there is a chance to say about presence of sound in such forest.
Lets just say that 'sound' is to make some kind of signals. I think it's correct to suppose that sound is a sign. We light our flashlights to cosmous but receive no answer. Of course, because its light weak enough and probably dissappering in atmosphere. But it is not a absolutely wrong argument that light can't be reach or perceived someone Suppose, one day we build a time machine and get back to past; some actions of other people like flashlight signals will be saw. The forest is the same: one day, maybe, we will visit this forest and fill our ears with that sound. So, we can deny or prove a presence of sound in the forest regardless of recievers.
|
|
|
Sound
Jan 8, 2018 19:58:40 GMT
Post by thebigbado on Jan 8, 2018 19:58:40 GMT
Hypotheticaly, there is a chance to say about presence of sound in such forest. Lets just say that 'sound' is to make some kind of signals. I think it's correct to suppose that sound is a sign. We light our flashlights to cosmous but receive no answer. Of course, because its light weak enough and probably dissappering in atmosphere. But it is not a absolutely wrong argument that light can't be reach or perceived someone Suppose, one day we build a time machine and get back to past; some actions of other people like flashlight signals will be saw. The forest is the same: one day, maybe, we will visit this forest and fill our ears with that sound. So, we can deny or prove a presence of sound in the forest regardless of recievers. I’m not clear what you’re trying to say here. Does sound require a receiver for its label or are the formations of waves that are within the perceivable frequencies enough to be called sound?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Sound
Jan 8, 2018 21:15:52 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 21:15:52 GMT
Well, thanks for your asking!
I think that 'sound' can be understand as a 'sing' not a 'wave'. Nothing can make us to think that sound should be only just mechanical wave. Moreover, if we presume that there might be a reciever, so he might be or not, but - when he should appear? - we are not told about it. Therefore, the reciever would appear and hear the sound sometimes in future, but we dont know exactly when it would happen.
So, falling of an object can be understand like a sing itself and this falling we can call the 'sound'.
|
|
|
Post by alexander1989420 on Jan 8, 2018 23:52:08 GMT
Well, thanks for your asking! I think that 'sound' can be understand as a 'sing' not a 'wave'. Nothing can make us to think that sound should be only just mechanical wave. Moreover, if we presume that there might be a reciever, so he might be or not, but - when he should appear? - we are not told about it. Therefore, the reciever would appear and hear the sound sometimes in future, but we dont know exactly when it would happen. So, falling of an object can be understand like a sing itself and this falling we can call the 'sound'. I haven't a clue as to the point you are trying to make.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Sound
Jan 9, 2018 7:20:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 7:20:56 GMT
Well, I'll try to make some things straight:
a) Sound (s) - whenever it is - could be described D(s); b) D(x) is a sing of something; c) It's possible that we can see a sing, but never sure about what exactly it represents: D(x)=? d) Suppose, someone can deciphe an object or circumstances behind - to know what the sing represents: D(x)=y.
Then, someone can understand D(s)=y. 'y' - circumstances in the forest: falling apple or smth else. So, we cant deny that forest doesn't have any sounds, 'cause it would always be a man to see/hear/smell/fell this sound.
|
|