Does Time Exist?

[cafolini]

Sorry if it wasn't clear, my point was to oppose people who think that it would make no noise.

Glad!

[Charles Darnay]

Is it possible to apply to the whole tree falling scenario, that if it makes no sound, and makes no 'sight', then...
If a tree fell in the woods, and nobody knew about it (ever), then, did it actually fall?

A tree falling has nothing to do with sight. If no one is around then no one saw the act of it falling, but it still fell. Again motion (and gravity) are primary qualities. If you walk into the forest post-fall you will see where the tree fell. There is empirical data.

Sound is a secondary quality. Without the receptor, it is a series of arbitrary waves, useless. A clinically deaf person (without any AT) does not possess the receptors to convert the waves into sound, and therefore there is no sound for a deaf person.

[Volya]

But what if nobody went into the forest. Nobody ever knew the tree fell.

[Anton Hermes]

Sound is a secondary quality. Without the receptor, it is a series of arbitrary waves, useless. A clinically deaf person (without any AT) does not possess the receptors to convert the waves into sound, and therefore there is no sound for a deaf person.

But like I already said, if there's a deaf person and a hearing person there when the tree falls, the tree both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound. How can that be? It's more accurate to say that sound, in the form of longitudinal waves, is created by the falling tree and may or may not be converted into sensory data by a sentient being.

You realize that sound waves resonate through other things than human eardrums. I dispute that the concept of sound is only meaningful in terms of human perception and cognition.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

But what if nobody went into the forest. Nobody ever knew the tree fell.

Just because we don't know it fell doesn't mean it didn't.

[cafolini]

But what if nobody went into the forest. Nobody ever knew the tree fell.

Then we are lost. I'm sure Mr. Berkeley went. Not reliable. Maybe Kant did also. Not reliable.

[Charles Darnay]

But like I already said, if there's a deaf person and a hearing person there when the tree falls, the tree both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound. How can that be? It's more accurate to say that sound, in the form of longitudinal waves, is created by the falling tree and may or may not be converted into sensory data by a sentient being.

You realize that sound waves resonate through other things than human eardrums. I dispute that the concept of sound is only meaningful in terms of human perception and cognition.

There is no such thing as objective sound. No two people will ever hear the exact same sound, just as no two people see the exact same shade of colour. Our eyes and ears generally are not perceptive enough to pick out the subtle differences, but that is another matter.

So yes, for the non-deaf person, the waves are produced and received and a sound is created. For the deaf person, waves are produced and not received, so there is no sound. Sort of. I'm not an expert on deaf people, but as far as I understand they do "hear" the vibrations (basically the waves hitting their ears) if the sound is loud enough - which a falling tree would be. But I ignore this for the purpose of your hypothetical argument.

But what if nobody went into the forest. Nobody ever knew the tree fell.

That's the Schrodinger's cat level of metaphysics. But again, motion is not reliant on perception.

[cafolini]

Now Charles wants a high percentage of us to be deaf.

That's the Schrodinger's cat level of metaphysics. But again, motion is not reliant on perception.

The best one to ask is Rush Limbaugh.

[Calidore]

But like I already said, if there's a deaf person and a hearing person there when the tree falls, the tree both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound. How can that be?

And like we're saying, the tree is making waves in the air, and our eardrums are creating sound in our head from those waves. Both the deaf and hearing person's ears are being hit by these waves, but only the working ears are making sound from those waves.

It's more accurate to say that sound, in the form of longitudinal waves, is created by the falling tree and may or may not be converted into sensory data by a sentient being.

How is that more accurate? Looks like exactly the same thing, just calling the waves themselves sound rather than the auditory sensation created from them. Sounds like six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Actually, looking it up, it is. Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say:

1. a : a particular auditory impression : tone
b : the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing
c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing

So it looks like you're saying C while we're saying B, and we're both right.

[OrphanPip]

Calidore is pretty much right, in terms of semantics it is possible to define the sound waves as being sound. However, I think it is worthwhile to nuance the separate definitions and recognize that the material properties of sound waves are something different than the perception of those things. Even the mechanical sensations created by loud noises, like the feeling of vibration, are dependent on a number of neural receptors in your body.

[Anton Hermes]

Looks like exactly the same thing, just calling the waves themselves sound rather than the auditory sensation created from them. Sounds like six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Actually, looking it up, it is. Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say:

1. a : a particular auditory impression : tone
b : the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing
c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing

So it looks like you're saying C while we're saying B, and we're both right.

Okay, it's a semantic parlor game and we're both right. I can live with that.

[cacian]

Now imagine all this did not happen and the tree never fell.
What then?
Is there ever a sound?

Anyone who would like to participate in explaining the echo effect would be great!
One I suppose would start with a tunnel as one approaches from one end shouts his name and and he or she enters the tunnel would actually miss it right?
As oppose to when one shouts their name into a tunnel while standing still should get a resounding hollow effect back of the sound of their name.
Echo effect is a delay I read but I am still not getting it.
I thought an echo was sound back like a flahsback.

[Charles Darnay]

Now imagine all this did not happen and the tree never fell.
What then?
Is there ever a sound?

I'm not touching this one

Anyone who would like to participate in explaining the echo effect would be great!
One I suppose would start with a tunnel as one approaches from one end shouts his name and and he or she enters the tunnel would actually miss it right?
As oppose to when one shouts their name into a tunnel while standing still should get a resounding hollow effect back of the sound of their name.
Echo effect is a delay I read but I am still not getting it.
I thought an echo was sound back like a flahsback.

When you produce (or something produces) a sound, the waves travel. If they do not hit anything they will disappear. If they hit a large enough surface, say a brick wall, they will bounce back - and if they are strong enough (loud, appropriate frequency) they will bounce back into the listener's ears and become a repetition of the same sound.

Also this

[Tim Aeus]

I'm really not satisfied.

The premise is that sound is only sound so long as a sentient being is there to perceive it as sound. A scenario has already been presented to you that reveals the contradiction in this premise. If a deaf person and a non-deaf person observe a tree fall, the non-deaf person will also hear the crash that accompanies the fall; whereas, the deaf person will see only the tree falling, and hear nothing of the crash. Therefore, under your premise, the sound both existed and did not exist.

Take another example. You observe lightning strike in the distance, but it's too far to hear the thunder. It has been scientifically established that thunder is the sound following lightning. But you didn't hear the thunder. So you must have observed a new type of lightning, one without thunder. Right? No, you didn't. You just can't hear the thunder. The noise is still there, regardless of who is and isn't able to hear it.

[cafolini]

I'm really not satisfied.

The premise is that sound is only sound so long as a sentient being is there to perceive it as sound. A scenario has already been presented to you that reveals the contradiction in this premise. If a deaf person and a non-deaf person observe a tree fall, the non-deaf person will also hear the crash that accompanies the fall; whereas, the deaf person will see only the tree falling, and hear nothing of the crash. Therefore, under your premise, the sound both existed and did not exist.

Take another example. You observe lightning strike in the distance, but it's too far to hear the thunder. It has been scientifically established that thunder is the sound following lightning. But you didn't hear the thunder. So you must have observed a new type of lightning, one without thunder. Right? No, you didn't. You just can't hear the thunder. The noise is still there, regardless of who is and isn't able to hear it.

Will tell Rumney to argue this one. It will dignify him. LMAO