philosophical question

Damn, you had to go with the philosophical.. Otherwise I'd go off on a bit of a tangent on how it would create vibrations in the air so it would technically make a sound, but if you define sound as someone actually hearing it, as in the vibrations reaching an ear and hitting the ear drum then no...

Also, I'm tempted to say something along the lines of how it's unrealistic that there's nothing around to hear it, not even animals or insects...

And then I'd be tempted to go off on how it depends on the tree and how it falls.. I mean, is it a tiny sapling and is it a gradual fall over years.. Or something like a giant sequoia in which case how is there no one to hear it? It'd probably cause a ton of damage to things.. Dx

But any who... Umm.... I guess it's hard to say.. I mean, logically you'd think it would make a sound, but with no one around to confirm it how would you know? And by no one around does that include when you cheat..? I mean, what if you set up sound recording equipment? That's not technically some "one" and if you listen to the recording later technically you would know.. xD

________________
Earn Gift Cards for Wii, PSN, XBL, LoL, and more.
My lists are a mess, and most aren't public, and the public ones are still being updated.
（╯°□°）╯︵ (.□. \）
"Hindsight is fifty-fifty"

yes, if a person screams and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? yes it does, that type of question is obvious but people go around acting like a tree cant make noise just because no one is there to witness it.

How about this question, if a man murders another person and no ones there to witness it did he actually kill someone?

Your examples don't really work.. Because in both cases there is someone around.. The person screaming, and the murderer.. They are both there to witness the event, therefor there is someone around.

________________
Earn Gift Cards for Wii, PSN, XBL, LoL, and more.
My lists are a mess, and most aren't public, and the public ones are still being updated.
（╯°□°）╯︵ (.□. \）
"Hindsight is fifty-fifty"

actually..they're 2 different things
sound is how we define the reaction when our brain picks up vibrations(obviously my answer to the question is no)
but killing is different,the people who used to interact with the victim are going to start looking for him sooner or later
it all comes down to the way you see it,if something isnt perceived does it still exist?

I believe plants are living things so even if a human or animal doesnt hear it. The plants are there to acknowledge its existence. Depending on your definition of sound ur answer will obviously differ. But even without another organism witnessing a falling tree. You could say the tree was originally alive or it was still in a dying state while falling, so the tree could be its own eyewitness to the fall.

I was exaggerating on my examples on my prior post cause I got carried away. But I believe u dont need a witness to have the idea as a fact. Its similar to religion, how u can believe without any proof.

That makes me want to scream at you "Prove to me you're not a figment of my imagination! D<"

________________
Earn Gift Cards for Wii, PSN, XBL, LoL, and more.
My lists are a mess, and most aren't public, and the public ones are still being updated.
（╯°□°）╯︵ (.□. \）
"Hindsight is fifty-fifty"

Sound-
–noun
1.
the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
2.
mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.

If you're using number 1, no.
If you're using number 2, yes.

________________
"It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

Good answer...

But I can't help but notice everyone is going with a realistic approach rather than a philosophical one.. x]] And I also can't help but notice.. Well, nvm.. Any who, I'm off to go home for lunch... Now if someone would point me in the right direction I'll be off..

________________
Earn Gift Cards for Wii, PSN, XBL, LoL, and more.
My lists are a mess, and most aren't public, and the public ones are still being updated.
（╯°□°）╯︵ (.□. \）
"Hindsight is fifty-fifty"

If I take the question literally, then I would say no for the same reasons people have said before me. Sound has to travel through a medium and be perceived by the human ear, so if the vibrations do not reach the ear, it does not produce a sound for the person to hear.

However, I realize now that if this was applied to other things, the answer could be either yes or no. It would be similar to asking, "If something happened and there was not a witness, did that event still occur?" For that question, no would be said for the witness part, because no one would have known that the event occurred if they were not there to see it. But, in another sense, there need not be a witness to the actual event, but rather a witness to the results of that event which would have confirmed the occurrence by being a self-evident proposition.

Edit: For the first part, given that the tree had zero percent chance of failing to make a sound when it falls independent of whether there is an observer or not.

Last edited by chineserider at 11:21 am, Jul 27 2011

________________
Nulla in mundo pax sincera
"Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth." - Albert Camus

It's a textbook example of Shroedinger's Cat, unless there is an observer conscious of a falling tree making a sound the tree does not make a sound because there is also the possibility of a falling tree not making a sound as well (no matter how small it is, even one out of near infinity)

________________
All choices are made in fear,
What you fear more is the only difference.
Positive decisions are made in fear negative consequences,
Negitive decisions are made in fear of positive decisions not giving the outcome you want.
Embarrassment is the fear of people knowing your real thoughts.
Greed is the fear of having too little.

Demonblaze0's personal thoughts

I think this reasoning means that if people dont witness it, it wont be acknowledged or believed. Society demands proof for everything so even if something were to happen if u dont have a witness or evidence the world will believe it didnt happen even if it did. It feels like we all delude ourselves with the idea if we dont see it then its impossible.

You can't call it a Scrodinger's cat per se, since having an observer there does not collapse the wavefunction.

Hey, we see what we see, and we believe what we are led on to believe. If the results led people to believe that a certain event must have happened in order for the result to be there, then most would find it easier to believe that such a thing happened rather than it having the quality of "mysteriously appeared out of nowhere," which would then require a larger and more substantial evidence to prove. By Occam's razor, it would be much easier to believe in the former.

________________
Nulla in mundo pax sincera
"Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth." - Albert Camus

I say yes. If you stand there, the tree would make a sound falling down. Why wouldn't it just because you weren't there? If so... that would be a weird tree...

The only difference is that there isn't a person there to hear it. Also, an animal was probably there (which have ears), it just can't tell a person about the falling tree it heard.