If a tree falls in the forest . . .

[This]

The answer is no because sound is generated by vibrations in your ear drum, it's your ears that make the sounds based on vibrations so the answer is no it will not make a sound but it will make vibrations just no one will hear the sound that wave would create.

 

[Neuropedia]

I think it's so amazing that the universe has evolved the ability to perceive itself. Takes my breath away everytime

 

[not sure]

Yes when the tree falls it makes a sound. However, since no one is there to hear it then it does not matter. Live your life and don't waste it being concerned about things beyond your influence.

 

[kammy]

The answer to this question depends on a few things.

How do you define "make a sound?"

Is it the vibrating air that happens when two objects collide? is so then yes it makes a sound.

Is it the subjective experience of how our brains interpret the vibrating air? If so then no it doesn't make a sound

This question is originally from quantum physics and was intended to be about whether or not wave functions collapse if there is nobody about to collapse them.

I think that they do or else how did stars and planets form if nobody was there to collapse the wave functions and thereby making them interact with each other

I love this topic! I could never get my S/O to understand this question. My answer is no, because the thing this tree makes as it hits the ground isn't sound, but little puffs of vibrations that shoot outward into a medium called air. The vibrations are never heard by any ears because there are none around. There is no observer, so no perception of sound. There is no matter of how far you are, you are absent completely from the equation. And if that sounds too confusing just google it a bit. Ive questioned this "objective" reality since I was a young teen, but I still don't really know what to think. I liked the Schrodinger's cat idea and the two-slit experiment

 

[not sure]

In physics, sound is not restricted to mechanical vibrations that are detectable by the human ear.

 

[kammy]

In physics, sound is not restricted to mechanical vibrations that are detectable by the human ear.

Bah at physics! By having any device record or listen to this tree falling defeats the purpose. If the wave function collapses then its no longer in a state of probability. Its wave function will collapse upon observation. Somebody tell me I havent been reading lies!

 

[not sure]

Depends on how you define sound. If your definition is hinged on its observation then it collapses but, if the definition is simply a mechanical propagation of a wave through an elastic medium then the conditions for sound are met. Either way, you come to same the conclusion. It doesn't matter if the tree made a sound because no one cares.

 

[Agapooka]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see, touch or smell it, was there a tree at all?

If a tree falls in the forest and YOU are not there to hear it, does it make a sound?

A few nuances determine exactly what it is you believe about reality. What is a sound? A vibration of air within a certain range of frequencies. This vibration exists as much as the tree exists - but does the tree exist?

Furthermore, if someone else perceives the tree falling and hears it, but you don't, that tree doesn't exist within your perceived reality.

The question is somewhat loaded, because it assumes certain things about reality. If we distinguish between perceived reality and absolute reality, however, the question is easier to answer.

In perceived reality, both the tree and its sounds exist to those who perceive (or believe) in their existence.

In absolute reality, we have a reason to believe that both might perhaps exist in some form, but the funny thing about absolute reality is that there is no way to know anything about it. Even if something exists for you within perceived reality, this has nothing to do with whether or not it exists within absolute reality as anything other than the imagined object of perception.


Agapooka

 

[kammy]

Ahh somebody who can communicate a lot better than I can.

 

[not sure]

In absolute reality, we have a reason to believe that both might perhaps exist in some form, but the funny thing about absolute reality is that there is no way to know anything about it. Even if something exists for you within perceived reality, this has nothing to do with whether or not it exists within absolute reality as anything other than the imagined object of perception.


Agapooka

Therefore, without someone to hear there is no meaning. We are the ones who give life its meaning.

 

[Agapooka]

Isn't meaning intrinsically related to awareness/consciousness? Meaning implies intent (purpose) and interpretation, which are essential elements of communication.

Technically, if the tree is aware and it intends to communicate by falling, meaning exists. If the tree falls as the result of the intent to communicate of any conscious being, then meaning also exists, regardless of whether or not it is received or perceived.

Likewise, meaning can exist without the intent to communicate, but it can be interpreted, and this interpretation attributes meaning to it.

Succinctly, awareness is all that is required for meaning to exist. Awareness allows one to intend and/or interpret - and meaning exists to all who are aware of it.


Agapooka

 

[not sure]

Well that put my brain in a knot. Awareness is needed for meaning and meaning needs awareness. Is this your point?

 

[Agapooka]

In short, yes.

Awareness is required for meaning, but I'd stress that it's not necessarily required for the existence of a thing.

Meaning is either the product of intent, interpretation or both. How can any of these requirements be fulfilled without awareness?

Agapooka

 

[just me]

My brain actually hears sound; the ears, the tools the brain or body uses for this. Some people cannot hear; thus, they have no perception of sound.

Take one of each people; one that can hear and one that cannot. Watch a building in town get blown up by a demo team. One hears the sounds and the other does not. Remove all people from the area where the sounds cannot be heard by a person. I agree with Indi that does not stop the sounds, only the perception of them by a person. The thought sound does not exist without perception astounds me. I cannot agree with it. I see it as an impossibility. I also see human perception as being vain thinking it does not exist if we cannot hear it.

A dog whistle is at a pitch people usually cannot hear, but a dog hears the sounds it makes. Does that mean a dog whistle does not make sound? Then why does a dog react to it? I see sound as a reaction to an action. Just because a person cannot hear it does not negate the fact the reaction happened.

There are sounds some people hear that others cannot. Those sounds may be caused by a tumor or extreme loss of hearing in some instances. There may be other causes of those sounds. Those sounds are effects; cause and effect, just as the example of action and reaction. Sounds may not be perceived by specific beings, but those sounds indeed exist. "To be heard" is perception.

"A tree grows in the forest, and nobody is there to watch it grow. Does the tree exist?"
"sounds" about the same to me

 

[aeon]

Take one of each people; one that can hear and one that cannot. Watch a building in town get blown up by a demo team. One hears the sounds and the other does not. Remove all people from the area where the sounds cannot be heard by a person. I agree with Indi that does not stop the sounds, only the perception of them by a person. The thought sound does not exist without perception astounds me. I cannot agree with it. I see it as an impossibility. I also see human perception as being vain thinking it does not exist if we cannot hear it.

I don’t see it as a question of vanity — I see it as a question of acoustics, and indeed, definition. If no one hears the transmission of oscillating energy as transmitted by a solid, liquid, or gas, no sound has occurred. The very definition of sound necessitates the presence of a creature with a sensory organ that is stimulated by that energy, and that creature’s ability to sense it via that organ. To wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound

Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sound

the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

I googled “sound” and quoted the first expression of definition as contained in the first three search results.

Each is specific in that a necessary requirement is perception by means of an organ. If the organ is not present, or the energy level or frequency is such that it cannot stimulate that organ (as is the case with a tree or building falling when no one is present), sound does not occur.


cheers,
Ian

 

[just me]

Breaking the speed of sound creates quite a thriller to an unsuspecting person, especially by one of our military jets. It confuses my mentality to think something that has a speed and can be broken might not exist if it is not received.

 

[aeon]

Breaking the speed of sound creates quite a thriller to an unsuspecting person, especially by one of our military jets. It confuses my mentality to think something that has a speed and can be broken might not exist if it is not received.

In the above definitions there is no question as it concerns the existence of the mechanical energy itself.

Whether sound exists is the question — and the presence of mechanical energy itself is not enough to constitute sound.

Differentiating between the two should resolve all confusion.

The phrase “speed of sound” doesn’t make sense, as sound doesn’t have a speed. That said, it is widely understood that mechanical energy as oscillations transmitted through a medium — in this case air (at sea level) — has a speed by which said transmission occurs. This speed is called the “speed of sound,” regardless of whether sound has actually occurred.


cheers,
Ian

 

[Agapooka]

The very definition of sound necessitates the presence of a creature with a sensory organ that is stimulated by that energy, and that creature’s ability to sense it via that organ.

This is not what your sources say.

Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations.

Note the word "or". Note the difference between the word "or" and the word "and".

For the underlined portion, see my next comment below the next quote...

Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

This range is audible to humans, but the sound itself can be detectable whilst remaining undetected. (e.g. in the absence of a detector) The sentence does not even imply that, for something to qualify as a sound, it must be detected - rather, it says that it must fall within a given range and this range is detectable.

As for your third source, it was quoted selectively. It is followed by another, independent definition.

mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.

It would be pointless to pose the question of this thread if we assume that sound is, by definition, perceived. It would be an inherently pointless question to ask "Is something perceived if it isn't perceived?", but by using that definition of sound, that is exactly what you are asking.

If, instead, we pose the same question, but we define sound as a vibration of air, or a mechanical energy, then we are inquiring about absolute reality, something that we can only speculate about. Does something actually exist when it goes unperceived? Hence my first response to this thread, which distinguished between perceived reality and absolute reality.


Agapooka

 

[aeon]

Note the word "or". Note the difference between the word "or" and the word "and".

Indeed, and thank you for pointing this out. Let us consider the implications of the “or.”

In the second case, after the “or” is a statement regarding the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations. Clearly, if no one is present, said organs will not be present, and sound will not occur.

In the first case, before the “or” is a statement regarding the nature of sound — a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard. Consider — if no one is present, is sound produced given this definition of sound? The answer is no, because while the frequencies of the oscillations of pressure may have occurred within the range to which human beings are sensitive, they were not of a level sufficiently strong to be heard — in this case, not strong enough to be heard by those deemed “not present.”

This range is audible to humans, but the sound itself can be detectable whilst remaining undetected. (e.g. in the absence of a detector) The sentence does not even imply that, for something to qualify as a sound, it must be detected - rather, it says that it must fall within a given range and this range is detectable.

Yet if no one is present to detect the oscillations of pressure, no sound has occurred, as the condition of capability (of detection by human organs) is removed.

As for your third source, it was quoted selectively. It is followed by another, independent definition.

Yea, and I indicated that my quotation was selective, and I was specific about my selection.

It would be pointless to pose the question of this thread if we assume that sound is, by definition, perceived. It would be an inherently pointless question to ask "Is something perceived if it isn't perceived?", but by using that definition of sound, that is exactly what you are asking.

I agree — the basic question isn’t really answerable because one may choose to define sound in a way such that the resultant answers will be opposed to answers derived from a different chosen definition.

If, instead, we pose the same question, but we define sound as a vibration of air, or a mechanical energy, then we are inquiring about absolute reality, something that we can only speculate about. Does something actually exist when it goes unperceived? Hence my first response to this thread, which distinguished between perceived reality and absolute reality.

If absolute reality is something we can only speculate about, my sense is it is a poor basis for an argument, much less consideration of a given question. That said, does something actually exist when it goes unperceived? My sense is there is no way to know the answer to that question.

That all said, I choose to answer the original question as I do because of my experience of the nature of sound as informed by my work in audio engineering, as well as other life experience. I am aware the question can be answered differently — mine is only a perspective, after all, and I could be judged by others to be wrong.


cheers,
Ian

 

[just me]

Indeed, and thank you for pointing this out. Let us consider the implications of the “or.”

In the second case, after the “or” is a statement regarding the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations. Clearly, if no one is present, said organs will not be present, and sound will not occur.

In the first case, before the “or” is a statement regarding the nature of sound — a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard. Consider — if no one is present, is sound produced given this definition of sound? The answer is no, because while the frequencies of the oscillations of pressure may have occurred within the range to which human beings are sensitive, they were not of a level sufficiently strong to be heard — in this case, not strong enough to be heard by those deemed “not present.”



Yet if no one is present to detect the oscillations of pressure, no sound has occurred, as the condition of capability (of detection by human organs) is removed.



Yea, and I indicated that my quotation was selective, and I was specific about my selection.



I agree — the basic question isn’t really answerable because one may choose to define sound in a way such that the resultant answers will be opposed to answers derived from a different chosen definition.



If absolute reality is something we can only speculate about, my sense is it is a poor basis for an argument, much less consideration of a given question. That said, does something actually exist when it goes unperceived? My sense is there is no way to know the answer to that question.

That all said, I choose to answer the original question as I do because of my experience of the nature of sound as informed by my work in audio engineering, as well as other life experience. I am aware the question can be answered differently — mine is only a perspective, after all, and I could be judged by others to be wrong.


cheers,
Ian

Ian, I will not judge you to be wrong just because we may look at things differently. I never have believed all that science stuff, anyway. It reminds me of the speed of light, science stating nothing can go faster because we do not know of anything. I could digest it much easier if the definition stated it as the fastest known thing. That word would make it possible for something else to be out there faster we just do not know about as of yet.

I think the different ways we look at things are remarkable. I just imagine myself in a building a few miles away with closed windows and sound from a stereo playing, watching a building dropped to the ground without a sound. Deep down inside something tells me, due to mere human cognition, that surely must have made a sound.......even though I did not hear it. That may make me wrong to someone else; but it is just looking at things differently, I suppose. ; )