A tree falling in the woods...

[iago]

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around, does it make a sound?


The answer is, of course, no.  Just like a red ball isn't really red.  If a ball is "red", it simply means that it reflects a certain wavelength of light, which hits our eyes, and our brain says, "that's red!"  Without a human or, perhaps, an animal around to see and put a name to that effect of bouncing light, it is just a very interesting reflection of a certain wavelength of light.

The "red" and the "sound" of the tree are secondary properties of matter, meaning they aren't really there, they are only in our minds.  The concept of Red and Loud only exist in my brain, they don't actually exist in the real world.  Therefore, if a tree falls and nobody is there to hear it, it just happens to be an interesting collections of air molecules compressing themselves.

[EvilCheese]

Actually if nobody and nothing is there to observe it, the tree exists as both a standing tree and a felled tree within a quantum probability matrix.

When you go to the woods to have a look, you collapse that waveform, much like the "Schrodinger's cat" thought experiment.

A more interesting question would be:

If a quantum probability matrix collapses in the the woods, does it make a sound?

[j0k3r]

Actually if nobody and nothing is there to observe it, the tree exists as both a standing tree and a felled tree within a quantum probability matrix.

When you go to the woods to have a look, you collapse that waveform, much like the "Schrodinger's cat" thought experiment.

A more interesting question would be:

If a quantum probability matrix collapses in the the woods, does it make a sound?

Stop with the matrix and quantum stuff, I haven't learned that yet, it makes my head hurrrrt.

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around, does it make a sound?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sound
sound n.

1.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.

2.Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.

1. Yes
2. Yes

If a tree falls next to a 'sensitive avalanche' (not sure the scientific name of an avalanche which can be triggered by sound), what will happen?

[Spht]

I would say that the answer to the tree question lies within the definition of "sound." Isn't sound defined as the vibrated distribution of air and not what lifeforms hear? If so, then if a tree falls in the woods and no one's around, it would indeed make a sound, just that no one would be close enough to pick up on the vibration waves.

I've only seen sound defined as the matter itself, not what we hear. Feel free to prove me wrong.

[Thing]

It is my opinion that if there is nobody or nothing to observer the falling tree, then it doesn't exist and therefore cannot fall.

[Adron]

It is my opinion that if there is nobody or nothing to observer the falling tree, then it doesn't exist and therefore cannot fall.

That's only true in optimized games.

Still, even in optimized games, you should assume that it is there and falling. Some games do indeed have flaws that make things not happen when you're not there, and not appearing to have happened when you get there either, but that's just a bug.

You'll find that when dealing with items in reality, they don't behave so unpredictably as to automatically rebuild themselves and replenish when you leave the area and come back. You should therefore assume that the tree actually does fall when noone is there to watch, and that there is a sound.

There is no reason for it not to fall, and no reason to destroy and recreate all that matter when people come and go, as opposed to destroying a level in a game, destroying and rebuilding matter even with all we know about physics is a very expensive process, and it's just not worth it to save resources. For that reason, the law of laziness says that the tree will just simply fall down and make its noise unoptimized, much like a quick and dirty hack 3d game would have it done.

Such is the nature of reality, a quick hack by someone.

[j0k3r]

Ok this is going too far into theory I think...

The tree IS there whether you are there or not, and it DOES make a sound whether you are there or not. You are not the center of the universe, and it is illogical that it would not make a sound.

[Soul Taker]

Ok this is going too far into theory I think...

The tree IS there whether you are there or not, and it DOES make a sound whether you are there or not. You are not the center of the universe, and it is illogical that it would not make a sound.

You are actually saying we ARE the center of the universe.  What if an animal (I know they're fake, but take Shriekers from the second/third Tremors movies) that can only see heat signals looks at a red brick.  It will think the brick has no color, because it is not hot.  Now you are saying it is red no matter what because it is red to us, which is not true at all!

[Death_Ryder]

But. . .what if a deaf person is there?  Would it still make or not make a sound?  Technically, the vibrations are produced, but the deaf person is incapable of detecting them and realizing the sound has been made, so. . .It throws out the theory that it doesn't make a sound if no one is there to hear it.  Because, technically, someone was there to hear it, but they just didn't hear it.

Or, it proves that it doesn't make a sound, because the deaf person didn't hear anything.  

~Death_Ryder

[iago]

Spht is right, in that it depends on the definition of sound.  Like I tried to explain in my first post, the red ball would be a better example.

What about the question, if human beings didn't exist, and if there was no concious life.  There would be nothing around to interpret or even name "sound" or "color".  Color (and "sound") is an internal representation of an abstract concept, and that's the point the argument tries to make.

[Adron]

What about the question, if human beings didn't exist, and if there was no concious life.  There would be nothing around to interpret or even name "sound" or "color".  Color (and "sound") is an internal representation of an abstract concept, and that's the point the argument tries to make.

If human beings didn't exist, a ball could still be red. I don't have a practical example, but think of a concept borrowed from some now extinct species - as long as the concept is well defined, whether the original reason for its invention is still around is a nonissue. You should be able to come up with a definition of red that works.

I think the question of whether the world exists when we're not looking is more interesting, and that's what I thought you were talking about...

[Adron]

[23:48] Talk CupHead[vL]: Someone really needs to write some sort of evil neural net to get past everything that uses one of those silly OCR-breaking images.
[23:48] well, then they'll just have it be a color
[23:48] and as we know, if no human is watching, colors don't exist
[23:49] so the problem becomes impossible
[23:49] Talk CupHead[vL]: By what logic?

[Thing]

I think the question of whether the world exists when we're not looking is more interesting, and that's what I thought you were talking about...

That's exactly what I was talking about!
How do we know the tree or ball is there if they are not being observed?  Just because you tell me "there is a falling tree", does not make it true.  I could also say that the tree and ball only exists during the times that there is an observer, but that does not make it true.  Both scenarios are possible.

[Adron]

I could also say that the tree and ball only exists during the times that there is an observer, but that does not make it true.  Both scenarios are possible.

You could also say that they never existed, that they were always just figments of your imagination.

[Camel]

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around, does it make a sound?

If a man is standing in the woods there are no women around, is he still wrong?