If a tree falls in the forest . . .

[Agapooka]

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.

The definition says that sound is one thing or another thing. In other words, the concept can be interpreted in more ways than one, depending on the context in which the word is used. When the context is unclear, we can always speculate - or we can find many ways to answer the question.

Because there is more than one definition of sound and the context is unclear, there is no reason to insist that sound is "one thing" and "not another thing", or that sound is necessarily both of those things. Depending on the definition you use, you will come up with different answers. The answers are incompatible with each other, because some deal with perception and others with the absolute.

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.”

Here, the language is ambiguous. "[O]f a level sufficiently strong to be heard." can be interpreted in at least two ways:

1. Of a level sufficiently strong that it is actually heard.
2. Of a level sufficiently strong that it is capable of being heard.

One can use machines to record what I call sound, without any ears present (which might create what you call sound). It can then be analysed in various ways to determine whether or not it has a "level sufficiently strong that it is capable of being heard" when compared to sounds that have been heard, which had a "level sufficiently strong that [they were] actually heard".

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.

Capability of detection is not necessarily the same as actual detection. It can only be interpreted as being the same thing if you already assume that something can only be capable of being detected if it has been detected. Our experience tells us this is wrong (we can predict the sound that something will make before we hear it), but our experience might also be wrong. All in all, there is no reason to make this assumption (although there is also no reason to dismiss the possibility entirely). The condition was that it be capable of being detected, not that it be detected. If "to be capable of committing murder" meant the same as "to commit murder", you might understand why the distinction is an important one. You might also be in prison.

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.

Well, my only argument about absolute reality is the same thing as your last statement, so I will take the liberty of repeating you. "[T]here 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.

It is very much based on the definition that you choose, as I mentioned and as you agreed. The reason why I don't wish to presume that the definition used establishes that sound is only sound when it is perceived is that it makes the answer self-evident and defeats the purpose of posing the question. That said, I answered it from that perspective anyway, moved on, and answered it from another.


Agapooka

 

[Mkenya]

The answer is up to you.

I think it does. I could be wrong.

If a tree falls in a forest and you are there to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

[Agapooka]

Heh. Post number 42.

And all the connotations thereof.

 

[infinite electron]

A tree falling in the forest has infinite electrons to notice.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

If you understand the philosophical meaning behind the question,
you don't understand the philosophical meaning behind the question.

 

[Majesty]

It says "no one"

But if there's something recording the sound, yet no one hears the recording, can you say it made a sound?

 

[Agapooka]

The recording can be analysed visually and "sound" can be perceived through other means, such as a piece of paper vibrating as the result of the vibration, or even putting one's hands on the speakers whilst they are operating...

The question itself falls apart when overanalysed, which is why I broke it down into to major interpretations in a previous post. Each of these interpretations has its own answer...


Agapooka

 

[Detective Conan]

I still can't get my head around the "a tree falls in a forest" part. What could it mean!?