22 replies to this topic

[Christopher Robin]

Does anyone CARE?!

[Alex]

Well dear sir, it depends on how one defines sound. If it's the stimulus of an object to the sound waves generated (also known as hearing), then no. If it's simply the generation of vibrations (sound waves) due to the tree falling, then yes.

Hmm, I was hoping to write a huge paragraph but oh well

[pyke]

Yep, it makes a sound.

[Alex]

Yep, it makes a sound.

[A Silent Soliloquy]

Nope, at least I dont

[Jewbert]

I think it still makes a sound. O.O Of course it does. When someone IS there to hear it, it will. So why wouldn't it when NO ONE is there to hear it?

[pyke]

Clearly people do if it invokes such huge debate over so many years

There probably wasn't much to do before the internet

I think it still makes a sound. O.O Of course it does. When someone IS there to hear it, it will. So why wouldn't it when NO ONE is there to hear it?

But if it wasn't heard, how was there a sound? That's the argument, even if it is ridiculous

[Black Flame]

The tree huggers care, of course!

[tastyphoxette]

On the question of whether or not someone cares:

I think the squirrels care.

And the hippies, for sure.

Outside of that, probably not.

[Melchoire]

He didn't ask if it makes a sound, he asked if anyone cared
...
Anyways I personally don't care. After all the tree will return to the earth from whence it came and provide nutrients to sustain even more life and the great cosmic cycle will go on.

[Jewbert]

The tree huggers care, of course!

*steals the panda*

Is mine. You go way.

[Black Flame]

*steals the panda*

Is mine. You go way.

I r sorreh I saw dat panda n ws lyk OMNG NO WAI so i stoles eet. SORREH

[Harley]

In my philosophy class, we had a big discussion on wheter some is actually existant if you cannot see it. Such as does something around that corner really exist if no-one is looking at it.

Because no-one is looking at it, no-one can proove that it is there, It cant be seen it cant be heard therefor it dosnt exist.

A ball is put into a solid box, Is the ball really existant? Or was it the past, It was real from the moment you opened the box placed the ball inside and closed the box. Then it dosn't exist, the object in itself still exist's. But their is no proof to its existance if it cant be seen at that point in time.

[Jewbert]

I r sorreh I saw dat panda n ws lyk OMNG NO WAI so i stoles eet. SORREH

I beets u in teh hed and steels eet back.

[Melchoire]

In my philosophy class, we had a big discussion on wheter some is actually existant if you cannot see it. Such as does something around that corner really exist if no-one is looking at it.

Because no-one is looking at it, no-one can proove that it is there, It cant be seen it cant be heard therefor it dosnt exist.

A ball is put into a solid box, Is the ball really existant? Or was it the past, It was real from the moment you opened the box placed the ball inside and closed the box. Then it dosn't exist, the object in itself still exist's. But their is no proof to its existance if it cant be seen at that point in time.

What if you shake the box about and hear it banging against the edges?

[Harley]

That's a bit strange really. Say you set up a camera on an area where no one is around (and can't see) and you just record what's going on there (without watching it in real time).
It still records the existence of the things in the frame despite no one looking at them. Not to mention the camera itself even operates while not being looked at.
Unless things only exist when there's an intention of some person to look at them, even when not actually there Which is ridiculous.

Sometimes I enjoy philosophical questions, that was a crap one.

Camera is still basically an eye. It still seeing everything through its own eye with playback.

If the camera was not there, then it means no electrical or human eye would be seeing it nothing is recording that area. So basically it dosnt exist. We went thruogh so much, It would take forever to write it all out.

[freakout0]

In my philosophy class, we had a big discussion on wheter some is actually existant if you cannot see it. Such as does something around that corner really exist if no-one is looking at it.

Because no-one is looking at it, no-one can proove that it is there, It cant be seen it cant be heard therefor it dosnt exist.

A ball is put into a solid box, Is the ball really existant? Or was it the past, It was real from the moment you opened the box placed the ball inside and closed the box. Then it dosn't exist, the object in itself still exist's. But their is no proof to its existance if it cant be seen at that point in time.

According to that statement God doesn't exist

[Melchoire]

According to that statement God doesn't exist

Unless God is the one looking at us!

[Harley]

According to that statement God doesn't exist

If god dosn't exist, then we dont exist.

[Alex]

According to that statement God doesn't exist

oh no!


Poor Joe, these last few posts are just too much.

Edited by Alex, 24 May 2008 - 10:13 PM.

[tastyphoxette]

What he's saying is, God sees everything, and thus everything exist at all times because any any point, God sees it.

Unless you say God doesn't exist, in which case you can go back to the debate. You cannot believe in God and also debate the 'If noone can see it, it doesn't exist".

What happens when god goes to sleep?

D:

Do we all disappear until he wakes up?

[Harley]

What happens when god goes to sleep?

D:

Do we all disappear until he wakes up?

Chuck norris never sleeps.

[ShadowLink64]

Well dear sir, it depends on how one defines sound. If it's the stimulus of an object to the sound waves generated (also known as hearing), then no. If it's simply the generation of vibrations (sound waves) due to the tree falling, then yes.

Hmm, I was hoping to write a huge paragraph but oh well

Could you tell me for sure that the tree exists as a rigid body if one is not observing it in any way? Using only Newtonian mechanics to explain this problem gives you only a limited perspective on what may actually be going on.

This debate not only involves philosophy, but a bit of physics too:

They have proven through Young's double-slit experiment that a single photon whose path is known through observation will not create an interference pattern like it normally would if the detector is removed and the path of the photon is unknown to the observer. Something having to do with the act of measuring the photons causes their wavefunction to collapse into what resembles a particle, because now its position at a given time is known and this provides a contradiction when we are speaking about interference patterns being made (as this requires the single photon to travel through both slits "simultaneously", or in other words, its wavefunction encompasses both slits).

So therefore, you could argue that because you are not observing the "ball in the box" (as someone used in their example), it may not necessarily be in the form of a ball but will still exist as energy somewhere and not be simply "non-existent" (this uncertainty arising from its position being unknown, expanding the wavefunction into something resembling a wave).

So about this tree thing. It's very possible that a tree does not act like a tree when we are around to see it fall, since it might not exhibit the particle characteristics we associate with something falling and making noise. The "stuff" that the tree is made of is still there (somewhere, because we cannot pinpoint exactly where without observing), and could therefore exist but maybe not in the form we are thinking of.

========
Now, this is if you believe in the wavefunction being something that describes the real event (objectively) or that represents information in someone's mind when observing the event. Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger (the guy who made the concept) and a few other physicists have been debating this for years now.