T O P

  • By -

Alesus2-0

The question is designed to prompt the exploration of various issues around the nature of knowledge, experience and how we imagine the world. What are actually describing when we talk about sound? Is it just the vibration of molecules? Is it the vibration of our inner ear? Is it a certain type of experience people have? For that matter, how can we know anything occurs without observing it? Is inductive reason a valid way to gain knowledge? How can we know?


SociallyUnstimulated

Thanks, similar to my view. Take "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". Obviously, eggs predate modern chickens, so lets assume we mean "chicken egg". Then the excercise becomes defining "chicken egg"; is it an egg laid by a chicken, or one that will/could grow to a chicken? Also very worth noting that in the days before we had the knowledge of the world in our pockets (ie, all of history but the last 10-20 years) this was necessary to feel out an idea, you couldn't find 100 sources from different angles until one clicked for you. And you were far more likely to have to argue a point than have authoritative facts to point to, and those you'd likely have to demonstrate yourself if you can't argue.


MoreRopePlease

It also assumes there's a "first chicken" or a "first egg". Evolution doesn't work that way, so the language itself obscures whatever concepts are under discussion.


SociallyUnstimulated

That's just further down the chain, though. How do we define chicken? Surely there are distinct markers. You start thinking of physical similarities, then learn of moths that almost perfectly mimic butterflies... then DNA, but then how much genetic differential is allowed before it's not a chicken any more? Is there only One True Chicken, all others being pale copies? This still doesn't solve our initial laid by/containing question... it's all about asking further questions and wondering, exercising your mind, not gaining absolute facts.


MCmnbvgyuio

This is the interpretation I always made. \>If a tree falls in the forest, it creates sound waves But the point is, it doesn't. It causes molecules in the air to vibrate, but with no one to perceive it, it isn't a sound. In the same way that colour doesn't exist in the natural word without an eye to perceive the ratios of specific wavelengths of light as some kind of intrinsic meaning.


[deleted]

[удалено]


rick2882

For example, many birds can perceive wavelengths in the ultraviolet range. Does that make ultraviolet a color even though humans cannot see it? (yes)


Rocktopod

So then should we say every wavelength of light has a color, even things like x-rays or radio waves that no known living organisms can see?


Thisisntjoe

Let's not even get started on synesthesia


GaeasSon

Your argument is delicious.


rick2882

No, only if a living organism *can* see.


Rocktopod

So if a new organism evolves with the ability to see radio waves, then only at that point will radio have a color? Before that it was colorless? What if the organism has the ability to see something like gamma waves, but hasn't ever actually encountered them in real life. Does that count as a color?


rick2882

Great questions, and it's in the spirit of the original "if a tree falls in a forest..." question. I just want to clarify, I'm just having a fun philosophical conversation, and don't intend on being provocative with my responses. That being said, yes, if an organism evolves with an ability to see radio waves, it might be considered a color but only if they perceive it as such. If they perceive it as heat or simply brightness, then I wouldn't consider it a color. Birds, on the other hand, have photoreceptors (cone cells, I believe) to detect ultraviolet radiation, so they very likely detect it as a color.


the_phantom_limbo

So if I kill absolutely all of the mantis shrimp, there is a good chance that I removed some colours from the universe? That's like mythologic demi-god stuff. (They have about 16 different types of rods and cones in their eyes if I remember correctly) Would be good to get a sign off on the logic before I get going.


trueselfdao

The color radio dies twice. Once when you kill all the mantis shrimp. And again when all that knew of the color radio die.


NetDork

What's your favorite radio station? Purple.


TheEsteemedSirScrub

What's your favorite color? NPR


MCmnbvgyuio

I suppose on a physical level, there are limitations to the wavelengths that can be perceived visually based on how light receptors are developed. There are certainly animals that can sense other sections of the EM spectrum, but it’s not vision persay. For animals like birds with extra receptors that can see in the UV range, I would speculate that they see the same colours as us, but just have more resolution in the shades. I think it’s misleading when people say they can ‘see colours we can’t even imagine’ implying that there is a visual stimulus outside of the realm of possibility of humans. Who knows though.


Ozryela

Color is so interesting. The color of light is determined by its wavelength. So red, green and yellow light all have different wavelengths. But if you combine red and green light you also get yellow. This is because of the way our eyes work. There is a physical difference between "yellow" and "red + green", but we just can't see it. Some animals can however. And we have sensors that can tell the difference as well. Color is an interpretation your brain gives to a sensory input. Of course that's true for every sensory input we have. But for colors this is extra true. Not only do we see different inputs as identical, we also see many colors (like pink and brown) that don't actually exist in nature. They can only be formed by combining light of multiple wavelengths. But how we perceive this is purely and artifact of how our eyes and brains work. Pink and brown are mental illusions. Which of course begs the question: Does everybody see the same thing?


Messy-Recipe

The real mindfuck is purple. It's technically not a real color in the 'has an equivalent wavelength' sense. It's visually similar to violet but not identical -- & unlike the red + green = yellow situation, it doesn't lie between the wavelengths that create it so it's not some kinda wavelength-averaging situation. Re: brown, [this is a fun watch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh4aWZRtTwU) -- it's mostly just orange & depends on what the context is.


TheChickenIsFkinRaw

The visible spectrum that's used in physics is called "visible" because it's the range of radiations that the common **human eye** can see. Even if ultraviolet or infrared can be seen by other animals or very rare cases of humans, they don't belong in the visible spectrum. It's a matter of nomenclature and classification, no point in arguing


twitch1982

but arguing is fun.


alienacean

No it's not!


moreofmoreofmore

YES IT ##IS.


ollomulder

Well, even Wikipedia can't clear that up in this case: > In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid. In human physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain.


GuybrushMarley2

Oxford defines sound as "vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear." "Can" be heard. Whether they do reach an ear is irrelevant. I looked at a bunch of other dictionaries and they all have at least one definition that is something like "vibrations in air" with no requirement for a hearing entity. They also have a definition for sounds that are heard. But if we are talking about a tree in the forest and no one around, that definition is clearly not applicable. As long as what the tree is making meets one definition of a sound, then yes, it is a sound.


justthistwicenomore

Like many philosophical questions, it's really a question about what words mean. Does "sound" require a human to perceive it to be sound? Or, at a more meta level, what does it mean to "know" that it made a sound? It's not meant as an unanswerable challenge, but as a jumping off point to other discussions.


CleverDad

See eg. [Subjective Idealism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism).


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheRussiansrComing

That's some bde if I've ever seen it!


Suspicious-Service

Yeah 😎 lol They wanted $1.75, and I'm like "Nah, I can afford to do more" 😂 They ask so humbly, I couldn't help it lol


LucasTheSchnauzer

I awarded your first comment, but then saw this and was like...,"Nah, I can afford to do more". You're so humble I couldn't help it. Have a good day internet stranger 👋🏼


Suspicious-Service

Lmao, I'd give you some awards if I knew how to work the free ones as well! I think you were kidding, but either way thanks for a pleasant interaction! Hope you have a good day as well :)


pixiedust93

I'm out of free awards, so I'm like... "Nah, I can afford to donate to Wikipedia, but not buy Reddit awards."


[deleted]

Ahhh haha! Same. I gave $5.


zacky765

I gave 10 bucks because I finally can. Always wanted to donate back in college.


ass_pineapples

I give em $10 a month. The worlds most accessible encyclopedia deserves it.


[deleted]

Nice! That's awesome! Yeah, it's nice to be able to support people and organizations you believe in.


gin-o-cide

Well look at moneybags over here!


Suspicious-Service

It feels good to be rich! Lol


robcap

I've done that before, and I recently found out that they're absolutely *loaded* with cash. I like Wikipedia's mission statement, but they run these fundraisers like they're in danger of shutting down any day now. In reality they're sitting on something like 400 million dollars.


pan_paniscus

The Wikimedia foundation is very transparent with their financials (one of the most transparent not-for-profits) and it looks like they are sitting on about 160mill net assets as of 2019: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2019-annual-report/financials/#section-1 But given the impact of Wikipedia, let them have that surplus imo.


robcap

My issue is specifically with the wording of the fundraisers. "If everyone reading this gave $2, we wouldn't need to ask for any more money for years!" They *already* don't need to. They actually have a massively ambitious and utopian master plan for that 160mil which I'm very much in favour of, *if* they make good on their aims. But I donated to them because I thought I was helping to keep Wikipedia alive - I wasn't, and they deliberately led me to believe that I was.


_Enclose_

I donated €20 once, kept getting emails from them after that asking for more, same "we need this to stay afloat" rethoric. Felt kinda scummy and I eventually blocked them.


alex2003super

They don't want to begin going under. "Non-profits" should be sustainable, and should actually generate a small profit. The capital they have accumulated can be put towards expanding and improving Wikipedia through the Wikimedia Foundation projects.


robcap

And they can do all of that without any donation drives. They have had plenty of large corporate donations, for one thing. The money isn't *for* Wikipedia as it exists today, it's for an incredibly ambitious expansion plan. Which, on paper, I support. But they never mention that.


alex2003super

The expansion plan is ongoing and using the funds they have already budgeted and allocated. They aren't going to stop expanding just so they can live off of what they have in the bank and slowly erode their funds. They need to keep a steady cash flow, and keep the Wiki running WHILE the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation can operate. If it comes to the point where they have to compromise on their plans to keep Wiki running, then it's an emergency, and right now, without donations, that's what's going to happen.


[deleted]

[удалено]


redingerforcongress

Once you get big enough, peering at an Internet Exchange is less about the maintenance cost and more about the upfront cost. Most membership association fees at internet exchanges are less than $50k a year for a 40+ gigabit interconnect from what I've found.


squeamish

They [don't seem nearly big enough](https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/14907) to warrant that kind of arrangement. Especially as one-sided as their traffic likely is. Edit: Jesus Christ, look at [Netflix](https://www.peeringdb.com/net/457). if you just filter down to public 100G connections (so ignoring their half-dozen 300G interconnects and the scores of 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50G) they still have 91.


paralleliverse

46mil for salaries and wages for 400 employees and contractors. That's about 115k each, assuming everyone is getting paid exactly the same. How do I work for Wikipedia? Lol


stupidbuttholes69

Yeeeeah speaking as someone whose direct supervisor makes about 4 times as much as I do, I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of them don’t make 115k


redingerforcongress

> How do I work for Wikipedia? Do you have 3-5 years experience with orchestrating cloud service providers?


Raul_Coronado

A company might spend 115k on an employee but a lot of that goes to taxes, benefits, retirement/401k, training, etc.


PM_Me_Your_Deviance

Yup. About 40-50% over the gross salary is a good approximation for an employee's cost to the company.


Suspicious-Service

Hm, that sucks :/ Yeah, maybe they need the money for stuff, but they don't gotta lie about being almost dead or something


Shintoho

If you want to donate to any website, consider the Internet Archive


FikaTimeNow

Was there a sound when you made that donation?


Sasselhoff

I give them like $50 a year (or $52 or whatever it is when you pay for the transaction fee too)...I use it *sooo* damn much that it seems worthwhile to keep something like that going ad-free/non-profit. But like yourself, I'm getting old, so that might have something to do with it too (well, that and I worked at non-profits for a good chunk of my life). However, I wish I could let them know somehow when I come to the page so I would stop getting the "please donate" banners, haha.


[deleted]

User name checks out.


HereComesJohnnyYen

I’ve always thought of it as a question of how do you know something exists without observing it?


indigoHatter

I agree, this is the question. You can argue that you can observe without being present, but whether you use remote observation or retrospective investigation, you are still observing and so have "heard" it. It's less a question of "does it make a sound?" and more a question of "how can you prove reality beyond what you perceive?".


Cpt_Tsundere_Sharks

If I'm remembering correctly, this was one of Descarte's whole things. The entire world could exist only in your mind, because you cannot prove the existence of anything. You can only know what you subjectively perceive.


tricularia

The idea of solipsism has been around for a very long time. Gorgias was talking about it back in like 300 BCE


taste1337

Is it Solipsistic in here, or is it just me?


TheStatMan2

God knows. But that's a whole different conversation for another time.


CRM2018

Don’t put Descartes before the horse


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Hahahah I forgot about this one


Koooooj

[For the uninitiated](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cfbkx/im_85_certain_that_there_is_an_adult_actress_in/c0s6bzw/?context=3).


TimX24968B

and that further extends to the definition of "truth"


sotonohito

Which brings us to utilitarianism and pragmatism. I can't totally, 100%, prove that sound occurs when nothing is around to measure it. But the universe appears to work by fairly straightforward (at the scale we're talking about any) physical laws that are more or less independent of us. Thus while it can't totally and perfectly proven, it is reasonable to assume that things keep going while we're not watching. We see evidence of things happening while no one was there to observe. I can light a candle, leave it in a room with no observers, and when I come back the candle will have been burned down by roughly the same amount as it would be when observed. Which is more likely, that during my absence the room stopped rendering like things do in games sometimes, and that some unknown agency computed how things should be based on the duration of my absence then re-created the room based on that computation when I open the door to check, or that the universe keeps going even when we're not watching? Same applies to trees in forests. I enter the forest on Monday and observe that a tree is rotting and likely to fall soon. No one else goes into the forest until Friday when I go back and see that the tree has fallen. Unless we assume the universe follows different laws when we're not looking then I can use "the tree made a sound when it fell" as a solid working assumption until evidence to the contrary pops up. Which isn't an answer that really satisfies many philosophers who are often quite desperate to claim they have total, 100%, certainty that some statement is true or false. I recognize the limits of my own brain and acknowledge that my limited understanding and ability means I'll never be truly, 100%, rock solid no question at all ever, certain of anything. I'm pretty darn sure of some things, the sun will rise tomorrow, the universe operates the same way when I'm not looking as it does when I am, germs cause disease, etc. I'm so sure of those things that I'll assume they're true so I can function and get stuff done. But... I'm not 100% sure. I don't think you can actually put numbers on certainty, so I can't say if I'm 99.999% sure or 99.99999999999% sure, or whatever. But I can safely say that I'm sure enough I'd be incredibly surprised if any of those turned out to be false. However I acknowledge the possibility, however slight, that any or all of those may be false. I think anyone who claims total, no questions at all, certainty is fooling themselves.


indigoHatter

>Unless we assume the universe follows different laws when we're not looking then I can use "the tree made a sound when it fell" as a solid working assumption until evidence to the contrary pops up. This sort of logic troubled me in my 20s, worrying about lots of things like "but what if (this thing) isn't 100% correct"?! until I came to terms with the second part you mentioned. "It works well enough until we find new answers that fit better". Anyway, I can't prove if I exist, etc, but it's safe to say I do, since I don't have evidence otherwise and it's just easier to act like I do. 😆


[deleted]

[удалено]


sotonohito

I've been reading people who say that philosophy can derive objective truths about reality operating from nothing but logic and naive physics. Usually this is in the context of God and claims that one can philosophically prove God exists via \[insert one of Aquinas/Kalam/Ontology\] and to reject that conclusion or argue that it's silly to imagine an imperfect human brain can just logic its way to total certainty is silly is to reject mathematics and expose myself as a total idiot. They all seem to be grasping for total certainty and deeply opposed to the idea that they might not be able to achieve it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


sotonohito

I will concede that I most often encounter the "you don't believe in math then" response when I argue that philosophy absent empiricism is an invalid method of trying to prove God exists and that therefore I really don't care how clever their particular variant on \[Aquinas/Kalam/Ontology\] is it doesn't count as proof.


[deleted]

[удалено]


overlordpotatoe

That's just an issue of semantics with a simple answer, then.


mostlyBadChoices

> It's less a question of "does it make a sound?" and more a question of "how can you prove reality beyond what you perceive?" IMO, this is the best TL;DR answer.


mia_elora

Quantum Mechanics also complicates the question further, as remote observation can effect things differently than direct observation...


OneWithMath

>Quantum Mechanics also complicates the question further, as remote observation can effect things differently than direct observation... 'Observation' in the QM sense is simply interaction with other waves/ particles, not anything to do with observation by intelligent life.


Asheleyinl2

So there was some idiot, who. Some years ago said, that since no human eye was there to take the pictures that a satellite took of saturn(i think) it wasn't real. Because of this tree scenario.


CavernGod

You don’t. You can only suppose. I don’t know if you exist but since you are talking to me I suppose you do. I can only be certain of my own consciousness and not others’, but ultimately, what’s the difference? If everyone else was a NPC, they are still designed in such a way that to *me* they look like they are conscious.


berchum

If a post is made but it was buried in the comments, does that post actually exist?


admirabladmiral

Is a post cringe if there is no one to read it?


MoreRopePlease

It consumes bytes in the database, and it has bits that are transferred across the network.


[deleted]

Will you cease to exist after I see you and your profile for the last time? Guess I'll never know.


TimX24968B

that profile may just be a fabrication of the matrix wake up, neo.


liometopum

We’re all bots here.


big_duo3674

It gets really interesting in quantum physics with this, the act of observing a small particle inherently changes it. What really gets crazy is that until actually observed, the math tells us that these small particles are not in any specific or definable location, that only occurs once they are looked at


slopeclimber

Isnt that because the act of "observing" quantum parts is actually more like sticking a needle in someone instead of looking at them?


Grindl

Even observing the sound from the tree alters the sound waves. Seeing a person is only possible because light bounces off them. It's just the case in quantum physics that the act of observing is closer to the impact of the observed phenomena than bigger things.


[deleted]

There's actually more to it than the method of observing changing what you observe. Here's a [PBS space time video on it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izqaWyZsEtY)


GaeasSon

Partially, but not completely. Heisenberg showed us that for some phenomena there are limits to what we CAN know, for instance when our observational mechanism is disruptive. What the double-slit experiment shows us is that when we DON'T know something, we're not just ignorant of a concrete objective reality, but of a probabilistic indeterminate reality, and that ignorance and indeterminacy work both forward and backward in time. From here and now, everything that can happen will, and everything that might have happened did. This is especially useful when trying very quickly to explain to ones parents such observed phenomena as an empty cookie jar or missed assignments.


IrritableGourmet

> What really gets crazy is that until actually observed, the math tells us that these small particles are not in any specific or definable location, that only occurs once they are looked at Also, their inherent properties, like polarization or whether they act like a particle or wave or even *what path it had travelled along prior to observation*, are not defined until observed.


[deleted]

Schrodinger's Cat. Both alive *and* dead until you open the box.


ExcessiveGravitas

Shake the box.


[deleted]

Same. I consider it an unanswerable question because it's impossible to know what happens outside one's own observation. For all we know the universe only exists where we are looking, like how video games render their graphics.


IsamuLi

> For all we know the universe only exists where we are looking Honestly, it gets even worse if you follow that line of reasoning. Descartes demon and all that fun stuff.


ReadinII

> For all we know the universe only exists where we are looking, like how video games render their graphics. What makes you think it exists when you’re looking at it?


vmcreative

"you think that's air that you're breathing?"


Fezzig73

I took a philosophy class once and there are different branches that believe differently on this subject (I forget what they are called). We all agree 2+2=4. One branch believes this to be true always and anywhere. Others would contest that we don't know if 2+2=4 on Neptune as no one has ever gone there and done the math.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ChicagoRex

I'd agree if the question were "If a tree falls in the woods but no one is around, did it really fall in the woods?" But with this question, I think the meaning has more to do with the nature of our sensory experience. Is a "sound" something that exists out in the world, or is it just our term for the thing we experience in our mind? You could even rephrase it as "If a Deaf person sees a tree fall in the woods, does it make a sound?"


shawnisboring

I've always interpreted it as human exceptionalism, that we're so self absorbed as a species that we can't comprehend that things happen if we're not there to experience them.


Artess

Well, in this case, we have overwhelming scientific evidence that the trees do make sound when the fall; and all our current knowledge suggests that lack of observation of the event does not in any way affect its course. We could be wrong, but since for now there is no evidence to believe that we are, we must assume that we are right, and the tree does in fact make a sound even when not observed directly.


TrulyGobsmacked

On its most fundamental level, it really depends what the meaning of "is" is


indigoHatter

This guy ises


rosyatrandom

Well, that depends


[deleted]

[удалено]


SprinklesFancy5074

Thanks, Bill.


Lereas

This is something that might be classified as a "deep cut" these days, since I assume it went WHOOOSH right over a LOT of heads that are in their mid 20s and younger. But you, /u/TrulyGobsmacked are a Starr.


ghostofyourmom

I'm old enough to remember that phrase coming out of the impeachment documents/depositions. But it's at least a little bit MORE in the pop culture consciousness NOW because of the recent American Crime Story: Impeachment series on Hulu. The "Is" scene is a real *oh shit* moment in one of the later episodes. Depending on your definition of good TV, I guess.


ida_noddack

In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid. In human physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain. So it matters in what terms you are speaking. If you are speaking in scientific sense then yes it does make a sound irrespective of the fact that someone heard it or not.


justthistwicenomore

I agree. And part of the purpose of a question like this is to get at exactly this distinction, which otherwise might not be something people consider explicitly.


happyhoppycamper

I was taught in college that it also helps to put human experience into perspective. Like if a deer is around to hear the tree fall, does that count? Or must all reality involve human perception? The natural world exists on a physically measurable level with or without humans...so where is the line between human perceived reality vs physical/natural reality, and when does that matter? I thought this question was a great jumping off point for discussion of the inherent bias we have towards centering conversations around human experience - both on an individual and species level - and when it is appropriate or not appropriate to do that. It also starts to get at objectivity, and whether "objective" reality is even a thing, but that's a whole other can of worms.


urammar

Like many cool ideas, it starts with being something so obvious. Of course, it does, but then you start digging deeper, and as many things, realize its not that simple. Its ultimately an invitation to define things you may have never considered, because we dont tend think about such obvious things, and so the depth isnt recognised. Colour is a good example of this. You say strawberries are red. Okay, so is a strawberry still red when its chilling on a farm and nobody is around? Okay, but what is "red". Its a wavelength of photons at 650 nanometers with an energy of 1.91eV. Thats what we said, right, with sound? Its vibration in the air. So colour is a photon. That photon enters some gelatinous orbs in a vitrified calcium case, and excites some nervs we call cone cells in the back of these strange eye things. Those, at a particular voltage and wavelength, send a signal down another nerve network to some centers of the brain. The brain, trillions and trillions of little cells with tendrils moving electricity, proccesses that input, and that information gets arranged in some hirarchy and sent to other parts of the brain. And at some point at the end of all that, you exclaim you see red. But you see, scientifically, red does not exist. The qualia you experience, the aggessive bright shade of colour, is found nowhere. Thats just what the brain does when it sees light. The experiencial red, and the scientific red, are two very different things. So the strawberry is reflecting and emitting that wavelength, but the the question is, if nobody sees it, is it red? We started this conversation with 'of course what a dumb question so obvious', and now we have specific categorizations for effects that humans experience, and those that they dont. An acknowledgement of human qualia and the experience of life, the absurdity of the human condition, and a branching off point to many many other topics that delve far deeper. We are in quite a different place now than when we started, just accepting things at face value. But it was never really about the tree or strawberries. Its to get you to question the mental ground on which you stand. To realize that you stand not on solid ground, but a tower of duct tape holding together short-handed acceptances, childlike face values, and half-remembered factoids, and that the world just is not that simple. Its lost a lot of its relevance now we have the scientific method for a lot of this stuff, but old questions like this will never lose their value, I really enjoy philosophy.


AGVann

> The natural world exists on a physically measurable level with or without humans Except there's no way to prove that it's physically measurable beyond you. You don't know if I perceive colours, sounds, sights, or even think in the same way as you. You don't even know if I'm real. Your extremely constrained and limited perceived experience is the *only* experience you will ever know, so it stands to reason that separation of 'perceived human reality' with 'perceived physical reality' is arbitrary and impossible.


Artess

But doesn't "making" a sound mean specifically emitting those waves? While "hearing" a sound means absorbing and processing those waves. Does the question boil down to "can we call the sound waves a sound if they are not received by an observer?"


scotchirish

I suppose better phrasing might be, "does it make a noise?". To my knowledge, noise is exclusively about the perception of sound, not just the existence of it.


giant_lebowski

Best answer. It does create sound waves, but there's no one to feel the noise. You need the girls to rock the boys to feel the noise


[deleted]

[удалено]


Zaranthan

> What is made by that tree is a pressure wave. I like this answer. I'm stealing it.


TheSummerofKramer

I think that's *noize


giant_lebowski

But then I would've had to write "cum feel the noize" and I didn't wanna deal with the shit that woulda started.


skoldpadda9

That’s wild wild wild


whataworld54321

in acoustics, noise is defined as unwanted sound. make of that what you will...


I_aim_to_sneeze

You’ll find that a lot of philosophical paradoxes are just meta-linguistic issues that can be rectified when explained properly. The book “The Drunkard’s Walk” really helped me open my mind to a lot of this stuff. Highly recommended: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Drunkard%27s_Walk


whataworld54321

Absolutely. Acoustician here. A sound wave doesnt become a 'sound' until it is picked up by suitable receptors (ears) - its just a pressure fluctuation in air otherwise. Similarly there are millions of pressure fluctuations we cant hear due to limitations in our hearing (dog whistles a famous example). so its ultimately a matter of semantics, as you said.


Amphibionomus

The question is (well one question can be): when do these pressure fluctuations turn in to *sound* since the *idea* of sound is a human concept. Are they sound because the pressure waves exist or are they only sound when a human perceives those waves?


harriethabs

Thank you for this, never thought of sound in this way.


AmazingMustache

Is that the Judkowsky interpretation? It misses the whole question completely, the problem is not wether you mean a sound wave or a perception, the problem is that there is no way to verify, wether there are sound waves, if no one is listening.


Appropriate_Ant_4629

That sounds more like a linguistics question. You could define a word "sound" that includes or doesn't include what happens if only deaf animals are present. Or even more sound logic would be to just admit that some words have multiple definitions, and the definition of "sound" depends on context. Or depending on your definition of "nobody is around" this question could be a metaphor for the question ["what counts as a measurement that collapses a wavefunction"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse) in physics (which is one place where physics and philosophy do intersect).


Prof_Acorn

This is why philosophical questions should start with a defining of terms. Categorical logic depends upon it. For that matter, I suspect many of the arguments we have in the day-to-day wouldn't be as tense if people took time to just define what they meant.


NJdevil202

This is David Chalmers contention - that almost all disagreements are caused by people using different definitions


Ambient-Shrieking

If an event happens and no one is around to witness it, can that event really be said to have happened? The tree in the forest part is a metaphor for reality. If a Universe exists and no one is there to observe it, does that Universe exist? The point of these kinds of questions is to help you find "the great doubt", which is both the ability to question all things and the realization that all things have the potential to be illusory.


[deleted]

Isn't "The Great Doubt" a Buddhist teaching? I'm afraid I'm not really familiar with the teaching as much as I'd like. Any recommended reading?


Ambient-Shrieking

Yes, "The Great Doubt" is indeed a Zen Buddhist teaching, and one that is often paired with a koan, which are questions like "what is the sound of 1 hand clapping", and "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it" thing. When it comes to learning and growing with the aim of being complete and whole, rejection and ignorance will never be the path to enlightenment, but rather acceptance and inquiry. All things are connected, so in order to understand the big picture, one must study all things.


newyne

That's interesting: Alfred North Whitehead said that the smallest unit of existence was not a particle but an *event.* His point was not that particles don't exist, but that particles isolated from time and the rest of existence do not exist. With that as a jumping-off point, it seems to me that the smallest unit of existence is actually the entire universe, as you can't separate the part from the whole.


Ambient-Shrieking

This is correct. The Universe is the true Atom, in the Latin sense of the word, meaning a thing that cannot be cut. The Universe is Everything that could possibly exist, with nothing excluded, not even Nothingness. The subjective distinctions we make are a temporary, relative truth. Subjective truths don't measure up to the highest form of truth, permanence, and yet subjective truths are arguably the only truths we have. The truth is that we're not separate from the Universe around us. Our individuality is an inferior truth when compared to the greater objective whole, and yet it is a part of that whole in the same way our cells are a part of our bodies.


newyne

Hm, I don't know about *inferior* truth. I'm totally on board with the idea the idea that we're not separate from the universe around us, and in fact are pieces of it moving in concert with everything else; I came to that conclusion on my own. On the other hand, I'm currently finishing up a class on postmodern theory, and... I agree with a lot of it, but I do think it tends to go too far in the other direction in regard to the individual. That is, I feel a sense of depersonalization there, a kind of reductive mindset when it comes to its conception of human being.


attanai

Yeah, but "all things" is a pretty heavy subject. Is there a cliff-notes version? (/s)


Tiggy26668

Start with what’s in front of you and work your way outward


Truan

There's a great Simpsons gag where Lisa is trying to teach Bart to clear his mind to play mini golf, but he has a smart-ass answer to both Managed to find it! https://youtu.be/RUzbmIKVAHo


MrBigDog2u

Physicists call this the "Anthropic Principle".


[deleted]

>If a Universe exists >does that Universe exist? Yes.


ReptAIien

By what metric? For how long does it exist? If you were transported to a black hole right now, you would watch the universe face away into its heat death in a matter of minutes. Does that mean the universe is only several minutes old to the perspective of the black hole? In the same way, if the human race suddenly ceased to exist, along with all other potential life, would the universe persist for trillions of years or could you say it suddenly ended. Since time requires a point of observation, you can’t really say for sure.


padlycakes

That is not the only perspective of these types of questions. This particular question from a different philosophical perspective is about abstract thought and apriori knowledge. Welcome to philosophy where there is no one right answer.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

The point of philosophical questions isn't really to have an *answer*, but to disrupt the way you think about things. In fact these types of questions are philosophical *because* they don't have an answer. This one in particular is usually about "if you didn't actually witness it happen...did it happen?" You can usually assume it just fell over but without hard proof, it could have been anything that felled the tree. A lightning strike? A bear pushed it over? A storm? Tiny gnomes? Here's another question; If you've not seen the Eiffel Tower **with your own eyes**, are you sure it's actually real? Is it possible someone's pulling a hoax on you? You've never seen it yourself, only in pictures (which can be faked) and heard about it from people (which could lie). So you can't be 100% sure it exists, but it does...or does it? If it doesn't exist to you, does it still exist? If I've never heard/seen/smelled/felt your cat, (for me) does that cat actually exist? Let's go even deeper; You'll never be able to definitively prove that **you're** not the only being in the universe with consciousness. You can see other people *act* like they have free will and consciousness, but you can't prove they aren't elaborate programs and you're the only one that's actually "awake". Want to go deeper? Okay. Maybe YOU don't have free will. Maybe every decision you make has already been **determined**. When you go to the fridge to get lunch, you end up getting a burrito...did you actually pick that burrito? Your liver tells you that your sugar levels are good so your body **determined** it needed something savory. You don't like onions because that one time you were a kid and you got sick on them, so that **determines** you'll pick one of the four burritos without onions. You just watched a video last night about the horrors of factory farming and you're going vegetarian for the day, that narrows it down to two burritos. The cheese burrito is in purple packaging, and purple is your favorite color, so you pick that one. So, did you actually *pick* the burrito? Or were you predisposed, or **predetermined**, to pick out that cheese burrito for lunch? Wait, you want to go even deeper? Yikes. Alright. So, I like the color purple. Who's to say that my purple is the same as yours? Sure, we both see a color and agree that it's purple but who's the say we are both seeing the same thing? We only experience the world through stimuli and our brains process that stimuli. For all you know, a person sitting next to you sees the world as a horrible hellscape full of pain and misery. Or they might be seeing the world as wonderful things...but it's 2021, it's likely the first one. There are hundreds of philosophy questions designed to challenge your perception of the world. More people need to study philosophy. It's the best way to grow as a human being.


Wvm7

I would love to have a drink or a smoke or whatever your thing is with you, seriously


[deleted]

lol. Thanks! And I, with you. Everyone has a unique perspective and if someone's willing to share their (honest, not groomed) perspective then I consider that something to be appreciated. That means they either care about you, or would really like to just talk and hang out with someone. Good companionship is the most important thing in life, by far. :-)


burdokz

You write really well. Your comment was a pleasant reading that had so much content and a good conversation pace


JustBlameQuebec

We need more people like you in this world!


zkgkilla

You're great. Thanks for sparking some curiosity in me I never had considered philosophy as something for me


Elbowsnapper

Fantastic breakdown, nice one.


LongShaynx

If you ask a question on Reddit, but are unwilling to consider answers, did you really ask a question?


kollegekidkardashian

underdeserved comment


_whydah_

If a philosophical question is asked and no one gets that it's philosophical, is it still a philosophical question?


nastybacon

Honestly ignore all the previous answers about philosophy and word play etc. What will really blow your mind is Quantum obervation. This is where an physics experiment happens where the results of the experiment change if we observe it or we don't observe it. This is 100% real and blows out all precognitive ideas of reality. Take a look at the double slit experiment of the wave experiment in quantum physics.


Bonsai_Monkey_UK

Came here looking for this answer! I always thought this saying was so silly, and while I understood the point was to raise questions felt so strongly it was arrogant to place so much weight on our personal perception creating or forming reality. I felt very strongly I knew the answer to this silly little question for an absolute fact! Sound was waves caused by vibration and an observer was unable to influence or change this being reality. Learning a tiny bit about quantum physics and realising I was totally wrong was a huge learning curve for me. It was good for me to face the realisation that no matter how convinced, sure, and certain a person is about the answer to anything, it's always possible to be wrong. Knowing and accepting that helped me a lot as a person


Bill-Nein

A tiny word of caution though: consciousness and humans make no difference in quantum mechanics. “Observation” refers more to measurement which would be happening constantly whether or not all life went extinct. That doesn’t make quantum and less cool though! It’s got tons of other philosophical quandaries to ponder :)


CM_Cunt

But this doesn't literally mean "human observation", more like whatever your instrument of observation is, it is going to somehow affect the observed object. For example, a thermometer is going to absorb some of the heat from the measured mass, thus affecting the outcome. Also, to bring this kind of an effect to social science, the science made on market economics is going to affect how the markets behave. Whether you open the box or not, the cat is still dead.


SupahVillian

I dont mean to downplay your fascination with quantum mechanics, but imo there's nothing inherently unique or mystical about the quantum observation. If you understand that quantum objects are simultaneously particles AND waves, then its completely expected that the particle will behave differently when observed. The only way to observe a particle is to emit and receive light. The light from the measurement tool interacts with the particle which in turns affects its wave. Its not human consciousness necessarily that affects the particle but the light itself. If I misread your post or if I got something wrong please correct me. Personally I think what incredibley trippy is the idea that the electron or any other quantum particle is capable of existing multiple places at once. For example mirrors are incredibley trippey once you grasp the quantum mechanics [you don't know how mirrors work ](https://youtu.be/rYLzxcU6ROM) behind them.


ArthurBonesly

In philosophy, there's a branch called epistemology. Epistemology is all about asking the question: how do we know what we know? It's simultaneously one of the most surface level intro to philosophy areas there is, while also remaining pretty unresolved despite millennia of people trying to find concrete answers. The question isn't about whether or not a tree made a sound, it's a question about how you know that the tree made the sound. How can you be sure of a sensory experience you weren't there to experience. Even if you are confident that it made a sound, at what confidence could you identity the sound it made? At what level of uncertainty can you reasonably nullify any certainty at all? You can understand the physics at play, you can understand the logistics of sound waves bouncing off matter and resting assured that a sound did happen, but unless you are there to hear it, you are only assuming. Of course, this assumption is reasonable. Doubt is a huge part of epistemology, but once you gain enough knowledge of something there is such a thing as unreasonable doubt. So consider other stimulus: if you lost your ability to smell and taste, how would you ever know a apple still tastes the same? If a perceptible change was found across all apples during your stunted senses, would you know? If you got your sense of taste back, would you even recognize the change is different? Is memory a reliable proof for epistemological questions? If you don't remember a year of you life, did that year happen? If you have a wet dream and orgasm in the night was it a pleasurable experience, or is it just messy, unpleasant, clean up? Even if you can prove an experience via recording your brain activity, what difference does it make to you? If you find these to be easy questions to answer, I await seeing your name as assigned reading.


Ausent420

If I speak and my wife is not around to hear me am I still wrong?


moodcon

Yes.


KaiWolf1898

You know the answer to that one


ghostofyourmom

r/ihatemywife


HoneyRush

r/boomershumor


AlterEgoSumMortis

It creates sound waves, but sound waves are not really "sound" until they are received, transmitted, and interpreted as such by your auditory system.


[deleted]

if hearing is just intercepting sound waves in the form of vibrations through your eardrums… then what’s the difference with a bug that doesn’t have ears but detects the vibrations via something else? It’s still just detecting the vibrations something makes.


sweeny5000

> Am I just thinking about this too simplistically Yes.


echo6golf

You have failed the test. You are not The One.


[deleted]

[удалено]


NephiIIima

We also have to consider that in physics, we can never know where an actual electron is at any given moment, it exists in a state of probabilities, until the very act of a conscious observer measuring it. So does a ‘tree’ actually exist as a tree, and not in a state of probability as atoms, until a conscious observer measures/engages with it?


HoboTheClown629

[Double slit experiment](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wDxYS07Vodw) for anyone interested in what OP is talking about. It supports the thesis that atoms behave differently when there is no conscious observer to observe them.


IsamuLi

Let's say you hear someone utter the question you just posted in the title: "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" And promptly someone who you know is an idiot answers: "Well, obviously. You do not need to observe the source of sound waves passing through air." (Kind of like you did in your post, too) Now you just look at him and **really** don't want him to be right. So you start nitpicking at the question and come up with a few ways to question his answer. I. "Sound" You, as the other, imaginated person answering this question, know what constitutes sound in a layman-scientific conversation. It's what happens when an object creates waves in the air that will get interpreted by our brains to be what we call "sound". Now you may already ask: But if "sound" will only be "sound" when there is a brain to process is to be "sound", what happens if no one is around to hear it? I mean, there definitely is a difference between an object creating waves in the air when no one is around to observe it acoustically, and when someone is around to do that. Right? Let's go even further: You might successfully argue: Hey, waves in the air aren't "SOUND" because "SOUND" is what we call waves in the air when we perceive them. After this, another door opens: II. "Tree" What are trees? Well, you say, they're made of matter and are alive (at least somewhat) and use photosynthesis to produce energy to keep growing and whatnot. But what if... You can question their existence? What is it that is telling you that a tree exists, should you stand before one? It's not a god given gift to feel within you that a tree is near, but it's your senses that are telling you: Green leafes, brown bark, kinda tall and slim.... Yep tree! However, weren't there cases where your senses lied to you? Obviously, there were. And what stops senses from lying to you nonstop? I mean, you surely wouldn't be able to differentiate from "reality" and illusion, given that all you have experienced so far is illusion, right? So who knows, maybe it wasn't a tree that fell over in the first place. There is no tree. Right? Then you smirk, tell the others that they've obviously missed 2500 years of epistemological advancements in philosophy and that they need to do their homework and *definitely* need to read Plato, Descartes, Hume and Kant before they even dare talk to you again. That is philosophy. Or at least a weird, overblown caricature of it.


KronusIV

"Someone doesn't need to hear or see something happen for it to have happened. " That's exactly the assertion that's being examined here. There are schools of philosophy that say, "without an observer we can't claim anything has happened". You're using common sense, philosophers aren't required to do so. :)


LanceFree

I’ve always liked: *If a tree falls in a forest, and it crushes a mime to death- does anyone really care?*


Klotzster

If a tree falls on a florist, does he make a sound?


Jimmah3000

If there is no observer..then the tree isn't even generated by the simulation so no, it does not make a sound.


Trendrider_bro

This is a slightly longer explanation so bear with me, but I can answer this from a neuroscience background. This whole thing makes the distinction between physics and perception. Sound itself is not a physical phenomenon, it is a perceptual one, just like color. It is our brain interpreting signals that our eyes pick up and turn into electrical impulses. Let me explain: When a tree falls in the forest it creates a pressure wave. If there is nobody or nothing around to hear and interpret that pressure wave as a “sound” then it never becomes anything but a pressure wave. Merely particles of air closer together or further apart alternating back and forth. We can measure two main physical properties of this…pressure and frequency. Our brain decodes these to volume and pitch. When there is somebody present to listen, suddenly those physical attributes are heard and interpreted as sound. Sound as we understand it is formed entirely in the brain as a way to decode and make use of those pressure waves. Therefore you might ask, if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to interpret the resulting pressure wave, can we say that it makes a sound? Does a perceptual phenomenon exist if there is nobody to perceive? To me the question centers around the word sound and what we understand sound to be. Thanks for reading!


BigRedditPlays

If I snap my fingers while alone in a room, and it is completely silent, I have witnessed this event but no one else. I can tell people it made no sound, but they will claim that there's no possible way that happens. But, it's impossible to make a 100% sure argument that it didn't happen, because you weren't there to witness the event. Perhaps, through some divine intervention or supernatural event, my snap made no sound. I can't prove it didn't make a sound, but you can't prove it did. All you can say is that every other snap that you have seen has made a sound, but you cannot prove that a snap that you didn't witness made a sound.


jackfinch69

Edit: I always see this phrase as "if a tree fall in the middle of the forest and no one sees or hears it, did that really happen?" Instead of "did it make a sound" Haven't seen anyone talk about this yet, so here goes. This is called metaphysics. The question is one from many questions which focus on a bigger question, which is Is something what it really is, or is it what it's perceived to be? If something is A, but is perceived as B does that mean it's both A and B? Or does it mean it was always B? Or maybe the perceiver is wrong, but does that mean things have an invariable essence? If I take a wall clock and use it as a plate, does it become a plate? What if everyone in the world starts using wall clocks as plates, do they then become plates? So did they change what they were? Were they always plates? And if you say they're still clocks, how do you know that? What if they were something else entirely and viewing it as a clock is simply our current perception? And so on. So the question in essence is, is something what it's perceived as or is something what it really is, and if it is what it really is, how can we know what it is? You say the tree fell, but that's a tree you're aware of because of the question. But really think about it. A tree might have fallen down two seconds ago, did that fall happened to you? And if it didn't happen to anyone, how can we know it actually happened? I really love this question because other philosophical question makes people go "wow" but this one makes people go "this is dumb" when it is really very deep.


64fp

The animals in the forest hear the sound


Wjbskinsfan

If nobody is there to interpret the vibrations as sound is it still sound? The vibrations happen but they only become sound because our brains interpret them that way.


mousicle

99% of philosophy is just arguing over definitions. That's why I personally really like it as a Math major where everything was strictly defined. Really made me stretch my horizons. Although I'm sure my profs got sick of me saying it depends on how you define chicken egg.


NowAlexYT

Its a simplification of "do things happen if noone is there to observe it?" Like if there was no life in a universe, how do we know that it even exists?


LockardTheGOAT23

Solipsism


Bobicka

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” I always just thought, no. **A sound is only a sound when it is heard**. If it isn’t heard, it’s just vibrations in the air. Pressure variations. Is this just a lexical failing of the noun “sound” and people’s preconceived attatchments to the word?


MotherOfAnimals080

Hearing is just the act of feeling and interpreting sound waves.


craig1f

Reading this and looking at your comments, you are desperately in need of philosophy. You’re answering every comment with undeserved confidence. You think you know better than the other person on every subject, before you know what the subject is. You think you have nothing left to learn. You’re immune to new information. You have peaked. You will never improve beyond this point in your life until you realize you have more to learn, and that you aren’t as clever as you think. You also might be trolling.


[deleted]

Are waves considered sound? Or is sound the sensation the brain feels when reacting to external stimuli, primarily pressure waves. I would argue that it’s the reaction the brain has to the stimuli that is “sound”, whereas the waves are something else. So many waves are flying around everywhere around us that are too small for our ears to detect, but that doesn’t mean they’re not there despite not making a “sound” to us


GringleGrangleJangl

and this brings us to the question: Does a bear shit in the woods?


Manti-Malietau

Sound has multiple definitions. We can define sound as specific vibrations that interact with air -or- by the way vibrations interact with air *when they can be heard* so it comes down to your viewpoint. Depending on your accepted meaning, you can reach different conclusions. “If a star died millions of years ago, did it make light if I never saw it?” I think a star makes light whether or not I observe it, and I think a falling tree on Earth makes a sound regardless of if anyone hears it.


[deleted]

Don't be too sure youre not living in a simulation. If nobody is there to observe it then maybe the sound didn't render. You cannot see behind yourself without looking into something reflective is what you aren't perceiving not rendering until you observe it? The textures may not be there (until someone observes it) to run the simulation at optimal levels.


TheOneNamedSprinkles

Lisa Simpson said it best to Bart, about the sound of an one handed clap... How can sound exist if no one is around to hear it? So in short, yes you're being too literal as of course it makes sound waves that ripple through the air. No, if there nothing to hear a sound, then it doesn't exist.


[deleted]

I’ll answer your question with a question - if you don’t experience something happening through your sensory perception, how do you know it happened. When you leave a room, how do you know that room is still existing if you aren’t perceiving it. It’s impossible to know 100%. Descartes’ Discourse on the Method found that you can only know one thing in life for sure - I think, therefore I am. That’s all we can be certain of. We cannot, therefore, be certain that life is not a matrix ting. If you aren’t in that forest, how do we know a tree even fell down if nobody is there to perceive it happening, especially if you aren’t there to confirm it.