On Friday, we argued about this for most of the class. It is a simple, yet tricky question, and everyone has their own opinions. Personally, I believe that the tree would in fact make a sound. There is absolutely no reason as to why the tree wouldn’t make a sound. The presence of people does not cause sound; just as well the absence of people does not silence it. The argument was made in class that the tree does not produce sound because no one is there to perceive it. Again, the presence of people does not cause an object, in this instance a tree, to produce sound. Even if people aren’t around to hear what the tree sounds like as it falls, it still produces sound in the form of sound waves. Also, just because people aren’t around, that doesn’t mean that the tree can break the laws of physics. If any type of object falls will make a sound when it hits the ground, no matter how small the height it fell from. The expression “the bigger they are, the harder they fall applies here”. A tree is a very big object, and when it falls, it is going to make a big sound. In my opinion, it is impossible to support the argument that a falling tree wouldn’t make a sound just because people aren’t around to hear it. It would be like arguing that air doesn’t exist because we can’t see it, when it is a well known fact that air exists. The arguments are very similar, both relying on the senses to judge the existence of something, If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, I believe it will still make a sound.
I believe that the tree absolutely does make a sound. First, if the tree had even changed state from existing in the upright state to the fallen state, someone had to have a) seen the change to verify that it was changed (which means there was someone around) and b) verified that there was no one else there (once again creating the same problem). Second, there are laws that we have established regarding sound waves and phenomenon like these. If mechanics do not abide by these laws when humans are not observing the action, these previously crafted statements clearly aren't laws (even though they have been proven an infinite number of times, as in, every time a sound is made), and thus removes the predictive element that we are certain of. Thus, there is a possibility to have multiple actions stem from the same cause, which leads to the problem of parallel universes (a case in which a universe cannot really be called a universe at all). I completely agree with Corey's idea about how we don't really know if air exists- science says it does, and we need it to live, and things in our everyday lives act as if air exists... but does it really? This kind of ridiculous question has the exact same implications as the question regarding a tree in a forest.
So far, everyone has said that when a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, it does in fact make a sound. It makes sense that according to the laws of nature a tree will create sound waves and these sound waves can be perceived as a sound to any observer. However, this shows that there needs to be an observer and without him/her/it there is no sound. When a person is present in this scenario it is obvious that you will not only see the tree fall, but you will also hear the cracking and falling of the tree. This argument also holds true for any animal, microphone, or other form of surveillance equipment that could be used to observer the falling of the tree. If the observer is removed the tree will still fall (This can be proven by prior observation and post observation of the tree) and therefore still obeys the laws of physics and will cause vibrations in the air, but these vibrations are nothing more that air particles vibrating. Without an observer with a brain to interpret the vibrations sounds cannot exist. Sound is an internal process, and without ears to hear it and a brain to understand it, sound is just waves. One example of this is if there is an observer, such as a deaf person or a camera that does not have a microphone, the tree will fall, but to these observers, there is no sound.
First of all, there is no question that, from a science perspective, a fallen tree will create shock waves through air or whatever medium it exists in. I doubt that anyone could question this fact. With that being said, I would argue that the definition of a sound is different from that of a sound wave. Sound could be defined as the perception of a sound wave, which means that there is both an objective and subjective quality to sound. An entire case could be made to decide the definition of sound itself, but I think that such a debate would not meet what Berkley would say about this question. Berkley's concept of idealism would say that neither sound nor sound wave is created when no one is around to perceive the sound. Since everything exists in the mind, and nothing constitutes a primary quality, then the existence of a sound wave relies upon our perception of that wave. In my opinion, this notion sounds quite silly. We could examine scenarios that disprove the theory quite easily. For example, say that two people stand in a forest. One person is deaf, while the other has perfectly good hearing. Under an idealistic philosophy, a fallen tree would create a sound for the hearing person, but the sound would not exist at all for the deaf person. Unless we all live in separate universes, it is impossible for sound to both exist and not exist at the same time.
This is a question that has indeed proven to be more difficult to answer then it may have initially seemed. It is my belief that if a tree were to fall in a forest without anyone being there, it would indeed still make a sound. I agree 100% with Corey in his statement that just because people are not around to hear a tree when it falls, it does not mean it defies the laws of physics and does not make a sound at all. Someone will in fact hear that tree as it falls. If an object falls, especially an object as big as a tree, inevitably it will make some sort of sound. In my opinion, the whole argument that a falling tree would not make a sound if nobody is there to hear it is a bad argument in itself. The presence of a human-being does not lead to sound. With that kind of logic one could come to the conclusion that sound is something that only occurs when there are people present to hear it. Yes there are many different ways to explain how a tree “could” make no sound at all if no one is around to hear it, but for me these arguments go against the common laws of reality. We know, for a fact, that sound is still made even when we are not the ones that hear it. So…If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, I believe that it does still make a sound.
On Friday, we argued about this for most of the class. It is a simple, yet tricky question, and everyone has their own opinions. Personally, I believe that the tree would in fact make a sound. There is absolutely no reason as to why the tree wouldn’t make a sound. The presence of people does not cause sound; just as well the absence of people does not silence it. The argument was made in class that the tree does not produce sound because no one is there to perceive it. Again, the presence of people does not cause an object, in this instance a tree, to produce sound. Even if people aren’t around to hear what the tree sounds like as it falls, it still produces sound in the form of sound waves. Also, just because people aren’t around, that doesn’t mean that the tree can break the laws of physics. If any type of object falls will make a sound when it hits the ground, no matter how small the height it fell from. The expression “the bigger they are, the harder they fall applies here”. A tree is a very big object, and when it falls, it is going to make a big sound.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it is impossible to support the argument that a falling tree wouldn’t make a sound just because people aren’t around to hear it. It would be like arguing that air doesn’t exist because we can’t see it, when it is a well known fact that air exists. The arguments are very similar, both relying on the senses to judge the existence of something,
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, I believe it will still make a sound.
I believe that the tree absolutely does make a sound. First, if the tree had even changed state from existing in the upright state to the fallen state, someone had to have a) seen the change to verify that it was changed (which means there was someone around) and b) verified that there was no one else there (once again creating the same problem). Second, there are laws that we have established regarding sound waves and phenomenon like these. If mechanics do not abide by these laws when humans are not observing the action, these previously crafted statements clearly aren't laws (even though they have been proven an infinite number of times, as in, every time a sound is made), and thus removes the predictive element that we are certain of. Thus, there is a possibility to have multiple actions stem from the same cause, which leads to the problem of parallel universes (a case in which a universe cannot really be called a universe at all). I completely agree with Corey's idea about how we don't really know if air exists- science says it does, and we need it to live, and things in our everyday lives act as if air exists... but does it really? This kind of ridiculous question has the exact same implications as the question regarding a tree in a forest.
ReplyDeleteSo far, everyone has said that when a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, it does in fact make a sound. It makes sense that according to the laws of nature a tree will create sound waves and these sound waves can be perceived as a sound to any observer. However, this shows that there needs to be an observer and without him/her/it there is no sound. When a person is present in this scenario it is obvious that you will not only see the tree fall, but you will also hear the cracking and falling of the tree. This argument also holds true for any animal, microphone, or other form of surveillance equipment that could be used to observer the falling of the tree. If the observer is removed the tree will still fall (This can be proven by prior observation and post observation of the tree) and therefore still obeys the laws of physics and will cause vibrations in the air, but these vibrations are nothing more that air particles vibrating. Without an observer with a brain to interpret the vibrations sounds cannot exist. Sound is an internal process, and without ears to hear it and a brain to understand it, sound is just waves. One example of this is if there is an observer, such as a deaf person or a camera that does not have a microphone, the tree will fall, but to these observers, there is no sound.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, there is no question that, from a science perspective, a fallen tree will create shock waves through air or whatever medium it exists in. I doubt that anyone could question this fact. With that being said, I would argue that the definition of a sound is different from that of a sound wave. Sound could be defined as the perception of a sound wave, which means that there is both an objective and subjective quality to sound. An entire case could be made to decide the definition of sound itself, but I think that such a debate would not meet what Berkley would say about this question. Berkley's concept of idealism would say that neither sound nor sound wave is created when no one is around to perceive the sound. Since everything exists in the mind, and nothing constitutes a primary quality, then the existence of a sound wave relies upon our perception of that wave. In my opinion, this notion sounds quite silly. We could examine scenarios that disprove the theory quite easily. For example, say that two people stand in a forest. One person is deaf, while the other has perfectly good hearing. Under an idealistic philosophy, a fallen tree would create a sound for the hearing person, but the sound would not exist at all for the deaf person. Unless we all live in separate universes, it is impossible for sound to both exist and not exist at the same time.
ReplyDeleteThis is a question that has indeed proven to be more difficult to answer then it may have initially seemed. It is my belief that if a tree were to fall in a forest without anyone being there, it would indeed still make a sound. I agree 100% with Corey in his statement that just because people are not around to hear a tree when it falls, it does not mean it defies the laws of physics and does not make a sound at all. Someone will in fact hear that tree as it falls. If an object falls, especially an object as big as a tree, inevitably it will make some sort of sound. In my opinion, the whole argument that a falling tree would not make a sound if nobody is there to hear it is a bad argument in itself. The presence of a human-being does not lead to sound. With that kind of logic one could come to the conclusion that sound is something that only occurs when there are people present to hear it. Yes there are many different ways to explain how a tree “could” make no sound at all if no one is around to hear it, but for me these arguments go against the common laws of reality. We know, for a fact, that sound is still made even when we are not the ones that hear it. So…If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, I believe that it does still make a sound.
ReplyDelete