If a tree falls over in a forest.....

[Raistlin]

You've all heard the age old question:

If a tree falls over in a forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Well, I can now give you the answer.

Yes, it does.

The definition of sound is:

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.

As our tree falling would generate the said vibrations it will have made a sound.

Now, if the question had been:

If a tree falls over in a forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a noise?

The answer would be No.

The definition of noise is:

The sensation caused by vibrating wave motion that is perceived by the organs of hearing.

You could argue that the answer to this is still Yes, despite that fact that there are no humans about there would still be a perception of the sound on the organs of hearing of any animals that were within range. However those animals would not recognise it as "noise", that is a human word that is used to describe the sensation. As there are no human ears around the answer to this second version of the question must be No.

[danielf]

Well, thank you so much for sharing that with us, mr. Philosopher sir :erm: :)

[Raistlin]

Well, thank you so much for sharing that with us, mr. Philosopher sir :erm: :)

I aim to please :D

[danielf]

As a point of order: The second definition of noise, according to Mirriam Webster, is sound.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=noise

Incidentally, I thought meaning 'e' bears particular relevance to your original post (bar the reference to 'desired information'.) :)

[Halcyon]

You learn something new each day LOL.

[Goes to chop down next door neighbours tree to conduct experiment] ;)

[Raistlin]

As a point of order: The second definition of noise, according to Mirriam Webster, is sound.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=noise


But only in so far as that "Sound" is linked to a human dimension, as there is nobody around.....

Incidentally, I thought meaning 'e' bears particular relevance to your original post (bar the reference to 'desired information'.) :)

The cheek :mad: I don't know, you try and bring some culture to this place and what do you get? :D

[Nikko]

The noise is generated, and thus exists, regardless of the presence (or otherwise) of any creatures specifically designed to register or acknowledge its output.

[Raistlin]

The noise is generated, and thus exists, regardless of the presence (or otherwise) of any creatures specifically designed to register or acknowledge its output.

The sound is generated, the word "noise" however relates to the human perception of the sound.....
__________________

I'm sure I've got a cat in a box somewhere as well.....

[danielf]

The noise is generated, and thus exists, regardless of the presence (or otherwise) of any creatures specifically designed to register or acknowledge its output.

However, the logic which implies that it may not classed by said creatures (present or not) as noise (or sound) is impeccable.

[Graham M]

Sound, as i see it is vibrations in the air, the vibrations are picked up by your ear, which sends these signals to your brain which turns the vibrations into a comprehensible signal or sense, which we call sound, without any ears around to do this conversion, there is no sound.

[Raistlin]

Sound, as i see it is vibrations in the air, the vibrations are picked up by your ear, which sends these signals to your brain which turns the vibrations into a comprehensible signal or sense, which we call sound, without any ears around to do this conversion, there is no sound.

Sound is the vibration of the air (or solid, or liquid, or whatever), noise is the interpretation of that sound by the human organs of hearing (ears if you like).

If there are no humans about the sound cannot have reached their ears and therefore cannot be called noise.....

[Nikko]

The sound is generated, the word "noise" however relates to the human perception of the sound.....
__________________

I'm sure I've got a cat in a box somewhere as well.....

noise is a sound thats irritating
__________________

However, the logic which implies that it may not classed by said creatures (present or not) as noise (or sound) is impeccable.

yes
__________________

Sound, as i see it is vibrations in the air, the vibrations are picked up by your ear, which sends these signals to your brain which turns the vibrations into a comprehensible signal or sense, which we call sound, without any ears around to do this conversion, there is no sound.

your logic is almost sound

[danielf]

Sound, as i see it is <snip>

Not only do we have a resident philosopher, we appear to have a case of synesthesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia) amongst our members! :)

[Raistlin]

noise is a sound thats irritating

And it only gets classified as "irritating" if the sound is registered by an ear (or other organ of hearing") that can apply the descriptive term "irritating" to it.

As it is only humans which understand the term irritating as it applies to noise, it follows that only humans could make the connection between sound and noise in that manner.

There are no humans around so the sound cannot be related to noise.

Therefore it makes a sound, but does not make a noise.

[danielf]

And it only gets classified as "irritating" if the sound is registered by an ear (or other organ of hearing") that can apply the descriptive term "irritating" to it.

As it is only humans which understand the term irritating as it applies to noise, it follows that only humans could make the connection between sound and noise in that manner.

There are no humans around so the sound cannot be related to noise.

Therefore it makes a sound, but does not make a noise.

But surely, this means animals feel no pain?

[Raistlin]

But surely, this means animals feel no pain?

Animals will experience a sensation which humans would interpret as pain but they (the animals) would not associate that sensation with the word pain.

[Nikko]

And it only gets classified as "irritating" if the sound is registered by an ear (or other organ of hearing") that can apply the descriptive term "irritating" to it.

As it is only humans which understand the term irritating as it applies to noise, it follows that only humans could make the connection between sound and noise in that manner.

There are no humans around so the sound cannot be related to noise.

Therefore it makes a sound, but does not make a noise.

So a dog that is tuned to high frequencies might not wince and consider the low frequency thud as the tree hits the floor, or the higher frequency screams of the tearing sinews to be irritating?

[Macca371]

Is there a point to a Universe - planets, stars, all matter.... if there is no life there to appreciate it?

Is the Universe here for organisms to appreciate and use it, are we here to appreciate the Universe?

[danielf]

Animals will experience a sensation which humans would interpret as pain but they (the animals) would not associate that sensation with the word pain.

or sound, or noise... I'm beginning to see the flaws in the original post :)

[Raistlin]

So a dog that is tuned to high frequencies might not wince and consider the low frequency thud as the tree hits the floor, or the higher frequency screams of the tearing sinews to be irritating?

Me might but to be able to describe the stimulus caused by the sound waves as they entered his ears as "irritating" he would need to understand the meaning of the word.

[Steve H]

dictionary.com defines sound not only in that way though Raist ;)

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.
Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
Such sensations considered as a group.

So basically the whole question lies in the question - depends upon how we are defining sound.

[Raistlin]

or sound, or noise... I'm beginning to see the flaws in the original post :)

That's the point.

Animals don't interpret Sound, they don't need to because it is defined as in the orginal post. It can occur without being heard.

Noise, on the other hand, can only be attributed to a sound that has been heard by human ears.

Sound is a wave, noise is the interpretation of that wave by the human mind after it has been captured by the human ear.

[Nikko]

Me might but to be able to describe the stimulus caused by the sound waves as they entered his ears as "irritating" he would need to understand the meaning of the word.

Well his interprepation might be that he turns tail from the first, and cowers back from the second. He then might consider consulting his heavily pawed and clawed thesaurus to consider how he proceeds to make the distinction without invoking the ridicule of his fellow pack members.

[nffc]

dictionary.com defines sound not only in that way though Raist ;)

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.
Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
Such sensations considered as a group.

So basically the whole question lies in the question - depends upon how we are defining sound.

Exactly- and /me prefers the first definition.

If I have my stereo on and go out the room, it's still playing music even if I can't hear it. It doesn't matter if I'm listening, or if anyone else is, it's still playing! So... the same logic applies here.

It's still producing sound, regardless of whether anyone's receptive. Although it's pretty useless if no-one can hear it but:
- if someone's in range then it's sound, and if no-one's in range then it's not. Totally flawed, what's the difference? The sound's still being produced, the fact nothing's around to detect it doesn't negate the fact the vibrations are still being produced! The vibrations are no different because someone's able to pick it up or not, then why does it need two things to define the same thing? It doesn't...
- Pfft, I can't think of my second point :( It's obviously too late.

[Raistlin]

dictionary.com defines sound not only in that way though Raist ;)

So basically the whole question lies in the question - depends upon how we are defining 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.

Ok.

Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.

Still Ok

The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.

If it is heard.


So, sound can occur whether it is heard or not (there are provisions in the definition for either event).

Noise is the interpretation of that sound, which can only occur if it is heard.

[danielf]

The really interesting question of course is: Would there be a God if there was no-one to worship him/her?

Over to you definition guys :shrug:

[Raistlin]

The really interesting question of course is: Would there be a God if there was no-one to worship him/her?

Over to you definition guys :shrug:

Now that's a good one..... I'll leave that until the morning.....

Have fun guys :D

[danielf]

<snip>
- Pfft, I can't think of my second point :( It's obviously too late.

It's still consuming energy at a rate that is proportional to the volume it's producing?

[Nikko]

The really interesting question of course is: Would there be a God if there was no-one to worship him/her?

Over to you definition guys :shrug:

Of course there would. There would still be a crazy frog if no-one bought it as a ringtone. The sound remains - but is it noise?

The theology remains - but is it credible?

[nffc]

The really interesting question of course is: Would there be a God if there was no-one to worship him/her?

Over to you definition guys :shrug:

Seeing as sound actually exists and it's a technicality as to how it's defined, and in spite of people believing in god(s) and the like there is no documented proof of their / its existence, I can't see how that's relevant- if indeed it is an analogy.

And if it's not an analogy..... Seeing as belief in a deitic being is a matter of faith and quite possibly viewed in some quarters as a figment of humankind's (having to succumb to PC- especially after the Yorkie remark ;)) imagination, then I'd say that no, a God couldn't exist if there were no humans... but I suppose it's more open/shut than talking about sound, isn't it?

[Macca371]

LOL I have plenty of Philosophical discussions with people and I swear EVERYTIME they end up as 'Nothing is certain, it all could be an illusion' and 'There's no point to anything'.

[nffc]

<snip>
- Pfft, I can't think of my second point :( It's obviously too late.

It's still consuming energy at a rate that is proportional to the volume it's producing?

It was something along those lines... (can you read my mind?)

It's a violation of thermodynamics and mass/energy conservation laws to deny the existence of the sound on the proviso that it doesn't exist if there's no receptor! The molecules are still vibrating, and the sound is still being transmitted, all of which uses energy. Sound is a form of mechanical / kinetic energy. So what's happening to the energy? Well, there are two things that can happen:
- it can "run out of steam" before it's received and so it's not heard
- it can transmit its vibrations to something else, eg your eardrum, making it heard.
Both of which are the only two possibilities and they both acknowledge and fully account for the energy produced. So... it's up to you. But it still exists (basically) ;)

[Nikko]

LOL I have plenty of Philosophical discussions with people and I swear EVERYTIME they end up as 'Nothing is certain, it all could be an illusion' and 'There's no point to anything'.

With all due respect, you may in time wish to review your definition of philosiphical.

It is absolutely certain, for one, that one day you will wake up dead.

[nffc]

It is absolutely certain, for one, that one day you will wake up dead.
Oxymoron? ;)

[Macca371]

With all due respect, you may in time wish to review your definition of philosiphical.

It is absolutely certain, for one, that one day you will wake up dead.

A mild oxymoron there, how can I 'wake up dead' ;)

But really death is not absolutely certain although it comes extremely close to it, if you know what I mean? There's still a chance, however small it may be, that I am kept alive somehow, by some other means. I don't know how. But it's possible. Anything is possible. Therefore nothing is certain. Nobody knows anything in the future.
__________________

Of course it's rational to say that I will one day die. But not certain as you don't know it yet.

[Nikko]

Oxymoron? ;)

paradoxical
__________________

A mild oxymoron there, how can I 'wake up dead' ;)

But really death is not **ABSOLUTELY** certain although it comes extremely close to it, if you know what I mean? There's still a chance, however small it may be, that I am kept alive somehow, by some other means. I don't know how. But it's possible. Anything is possible. Therefore nothing is certain. Nobody knows anything in the future.
__________________

Of course it's rational to say that I will one day die.

how will you know unless you wake up dead?

[Macca371]

paradoxical
__________________



how will you know unless you wake up dead?

I don't, that's the point, it's not certain. But the chances are so high that most people would accept it as a rational statement that I will die eventually.

[zoombini]

So the tree falls over & lands on a duck... does it's cry of Arrrrgh! echo? :D

[ian@huth]

The sound is generated, the word "noise" however relates to the human perception of the sound.....
So what does a dog hear when you throw a ball and shout "fetch"? Does it hear sound or a noise?

[zoombini]

Neither, it sees a ball & thinks "Oh joy, my master wants me to fetch it for him/her because they have a habit of throwing things away & then wanting them back - like sticks & balls, but why is it not the same with old bones?" and then it goes & gets it back for you.

[Graham]

Neither, it sees a ball & thinks "Oh joy, my master wants me to fetch it for him/her

Whereas a cat will go "You threw it. If you want it back *you* go and get it!" :D

[ian@huth]

Neither, it sees a ball & thinks "Oh joy, my master wants me to fetch it for him/her because they have a habit of throwing things away & then wanting them back - like sticks & balls, but why is it not the same with old bones?" and then it goes & gets it back for you.Our dog doesn't. It will just sit there if you throw the ball and don't say fetch. We have a basket with all the doggy toys in it. If we say "fetch ball" he will fetch the ball. If we say "fetch baby" he will fetch the little doll. He knows all the toys in his basket and will fetch any that you tell him to. Many animals are intelligent and know what some words mean so do they hear sounds, or noise, or both?

[gary_580]

aha, i would suggest that if the tree fell down and there was no one there to hear it it could still make a noise. You see, when the tree falls down, it creates an air current (change of atmosphere) according to the chaos theory, as a result this could produce something that people do hear and therefore the resulting noise of the tree falling.


The flapping of a single butterfly's wing today produces a tiny change in the state of the atmosphere. Over a period of time, what the atmosphere actually does diverges from what it would have done. So, in a month's time, a tornado that would have devastated the Indonesian coast doesn't happen. Or maybe one that wasn't going to happen, does. (Ian Stewart, Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos, pg. 141)

[Maggy]

Oh joy!A metaphysical discussion on a Monday.Just what I don't need :(

Mondays are bad enough already. :(

[Raistlin]

aha, i would suggest that if the tree fell down and there was no one there to hear it it could still make a noise. You see, when the tree falls down, it creates an air current (change of atmosphere) according to the chaos theory, as a result this could produce something that people do hear and therefore the resulting noise of the tree falling.

Possibly..... But I would suggest that there are two issues that need looking at if we are to consider your theory.....

1. The tree falling creates a disturbance in the air/ground/other trees which results in a series of waves (called sound waves). These waves, if received by a human ear, could be called noise. Your argument is that the fallin og the tree (and the reultant waves) would set in motion a chain of events that would ultimately lead to some form of noise, somewhere, which would be perceived by humans as noise. You are basically arguing cause & effect, combined with a bit of chaos theory. The answer is, pah!! There would be no demonstrable way of proving that the noise perceived by the human ear was attributable in any way to the falling of the tree. The tree falling is only responsible for the production of the original sound, any other peripheral events are simply part of the cause and effect of the sound itself - they have not been made by the tree.

2. The other thing we need to consider is the true meaning of the question, particularly "and nobody is around to hear it". We are assuming that the question relates only to the immediate vicinity of the tree. What if the question is actually referring to a complete lack of human life, anywhere on the planet? In that instance there would be no humans anywhere able to hear the resultant effects of the tree falling, regardless of chaos theory/cause & effect.

[danielf]

Personally, I am more interested in the answer to the following question:

If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is around to hear it, do the other trees make fun of it?

[Nikko]

Personally, I am more interested in the answer to the following question:

If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is around to hear it, do the other trees make fun of it?

Undoubtedly - arborials are notorious pith-takers

[gary_580]

1. The tree falling creates a disturbance in the air/ground/other trees which results in a series of waves (called sound waves).



no no no nooooo. Pressure waves. It is pressure waves that hit the ear and are then translated into noise.
__________________

Undoubtedly - arborials are notorious pith-takers


your barking, im affraid

[Theodoric]

That was an easy one. What about defining the sound of one hand clapping (not that I've ever understood it myself). :)

[Graham M]

That was an easy one. What about defining the sound of one hand clapping (not that I've ever understood it myself). :)

Don't be silly it sounds like the attachment :angel: :D

[gary_580]

Don't be silly it sounds like the attachment :angel: :D

ooeeerrrrrrrr

[Raistlin]

Don't be silly it sounds like the attachment :angel: :D

Yep, that's it all right :tu:

NEXT!