If a tree falls in the forest..

[shannadawn (deleted)]

and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

NO, it does not. "sound" is the result of vibrations against an eardrum (or similar device.) if there is no eardrum around, no sound is created. there will only be vibrations. of course this assumes that ''no one'' includes all living creatures.

[centaurus (deleted)]

`You're missing a very important component. By what mechanism does sound travel; air or a fluid, right? Thus sound is traveling though the air, but none may be received by available ears. The answer is that sound is created but not striking surfaces that interpret sound.

If the tree fell in a vacuum, there would be no sound, as there is no vehicle for sound to travel.

[shannadawn (deleted)]

`i think you are just saying what i'm saying, except you are calling the vibrations that would result in sound *if* striking an interpretive surface "sound" rather than "potential sound" (aka, vibrations.)

the nature of ''sound'' is that it is ''heard.''

[andriek]

Or rather if no one (sound interrupter) was there to classify it as a sound, is it denied as a sound because no one is there to measure it.

Or can things exist despite lack of interrupters.

If I may, if we move this from the Auditory to Visual. We can only see (without any aids) visual light. But there are many other bands in the Electromagnetic range that if our eyes were sensitive enough, could see.
Even though they cannot be seen, Their effects can still be felt however.
The trick is knowing where to look.

Now I know the point of this conundrum is the key question do things exist because we are there to classify them, or do they exist despite us there.

Das Leben auf Erden ist ein gemeiner Krieg; wir spielen; wir Kämpfen; wir setzen alles auf Sieg; Hurra - wir leben noch; Wer hätte das gedacht...

[shannadawn (deleted)]

`i'm meaning it from a physics viewpoint, not with intent toward solipsism. it's more of a debate on the definition of "hearing" and "seeing" at this point.

"seeing" and "feeling" (or otherwise experiencing) are not the same. as earlier with ''hearing,'' ''seeing,'' by nature, indicates a physical receptor/interpreter.

[andriek]

Ah so it is more in interpolation of mind. So you are asking what is sound.

This is more of how we experience things and how we were shaped. What I am fascinated in is the condition of Sensethisis (I hope I spelled that right) you know the condition in which one or more of one's sense are linked with another. like to see sound, or taste shapes

Das Leben auf Erden ist ein gemeiner Krieg; wir spielen; wir Kämpfen; wir setzen alles auf Sieg; Hurra - wir leben noch; Wer hätte das gedacht...

[centaurus (deleted)]

`In regards to interpreted sound, are you saying that no living entity from zebra to amoeba was within earshot of the sound? If the control site was contaminated with bacteria, interpreted sound may be received.

My slant is that things or forces exist without observers. We may not have the tools to see or define these forces, but they'll be developed...

[shannadawn (deleted)]

`yes, i'm saying that no living entity with the capability/faculties to interpret sound within 'earshot' (and no electrical devices set up to transmit the sound beyond the bounds of non-assisted hearing range, either ) = no sound.

hmm, i wonder if bacteria *can* hear. i imagine they would only sense the vibration.

[adeternitum]

`But you're making a false assumption here: That just because no one can hear it now, no one ever will. It's entirely possible at some point in the future or past, somebody/something will be capable of perceiving that moment, and all the sensory data that accompanies it. Unless you want to pull a Schroedinger's cat here and claim that the sound exists or does not exist based on the quantum impetus of somebody choosing to view it.

[shannadawn (deleted)]

`ah, the best rebuttal i've heard thus far ;)

[mindwarper10]

`how would it be a false assumption? I personally would like an explanation, though I know I post over a month late, this ended with a blank argument, making a false assumption against another proclaimed 'false' assumption.
The idea is that sound is percieved at the time, it can't be created before the incident that created the sound (the tree falling) so no one in the past can percieve it. future wise, the vibrations eventually die out, so the idea would be nothing was around to create the sound before it died.
and if someone could use a device to see an hear the past, and they were looking into the past, they would be around, if not physically, thus killing the question, if no one was around.

[ryuseiken (deleted)]

`Sound is a vibration in the air. So it will be there regardless of whether someone hears it. Now, as far as people hearing it someday is concerned, the intensity of the sound wave will get smaller with time (it's an assumption), and by the time someone actually reaches the area where humans are, it will be imperceptible.

[amill]

`I think your all missing the real question here, If a bear s---s in the woods, does he clean up with charmin?

[wolfguitar (deleted)]

`But your asking a broken question....a forest is composed of a bunch of trees, shrubs, bushes, and other plant life. By saying that a tree falls in the forest, it would be surrounded by other "living" things, because even if there is no animal life present, the trees are still a living organism. So whereas there could possibly be no animal life to interpret the behavior, the trees will still be affected by the sound waves.

[nicolle]

`I don't think sound requires perception, as it is just a vibration, which exists whether it is perceived by an ear or not. Some definitions might require perception but I think it's just like that existence does not require eyes to see it, or flavor does not require being tasted. In my opinion, the sound exists, but is simply not heard.