Does Time Exist?

[OrphanPip]

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.

A sound exists for the person who heard it. If another listener were placed at a different point they would hear a different sound. There is no contradiction here with the premise put forward by Charles.

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.

You are misunderstanding what Charles is saying, the sound waves, that is the material cause of the perception of sound, will exist regardless of any one being there to interpret them. However, sound is also the act of perceiving these waves, and as such it only exists as a product of perception. Two different phenomena that are not dependent on one another.

[Charles Darnay]

^ this

[cacian]

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.

Tim I agree with you.
Sound is with or without our perception of it.
The mere fact that a tree has fallen is perhaps more or less because of sound and something else.
I am in search for a formula that defines sound ie something plus something equals something.
Think of a radion or a transistor. Sound travels and so music will play regardless of us listening to it. That is sound.
The reason why one can produce sound is because it travels.
One must ask themselves this:
An what if a tree never falls. Does that mean no sound whatsoever?

[cafolini]

Tim I agree with you.
Sound is with or without our perception of it.
The mere fact that a tree has fallen is perhaps more or less because of sound and something else.
I am in search for a formula that defines sound ie something plus something equals something.
Think of a radion or a transistor. Sound travels and so music will play regardless of us listening to it. That is sound.
The reason why one can produce sound is because it travels.
One must ask themselves this:
An what if a tree never falls. Does that mean no sound whatsoever?

Then you'll fall. What a splash, if the swimming pool has water.

[Paulclem]

Tim I agree with you.
Sound is with or without our perception of it.
The mere fact that a tree has fallen is perhaps more or less because of sound and something else.
I am in search for a formula that defines sound ie something plus something equals something.
Think of a radion or a transistor. Sound travels and so music will play regardless of us listening to it. That is sound.
The reason why one can produce sound is because it travels.
One must ask themselves this:
An what if a tree never falls. Does that mean no sound whatsoever?

Orphan is correct. Sound is not one thing but a series of effects. Sound is what you hear - the interaction of sound waves on your inner ear.

I'm not sure why you ask whether there's any sound if a tree doesn't fall. It will eventually, but that's not the point.

Another permutation is that if a remote recording is made of the tree falling which no-one hears, then when the recording is played back, then the sound will become manifest then.

I think the problem lies within the language where we consider sound to be a thing rather than the series of events it encompasses.

[Tim Aeus]

I understand what you're saying. And after further thought it seems I was quite wrong. The vibrations caused from the tree falling is like a signal. The signal will go out regardless of who or what is around. If there is someone to hear it, they hear it only after their ear has done the work of processing the information and translating it into a form that is understandable: sound.

There are signals everywhere these days. Cell phone signals, wireless internet signals, bluetooth, text messaging, etc. But the final product that we interact with is much different than the code that creates the signal. It requires a device to translate it before it's of any utility to us.

[cacian]

[QUOTE]

Orphan is correct. Sound is not one thing but a series of effects. Sound is what you hear - the interaction of sound waves on your inner ear.

I'm not sure why you ask whether there's any sound if a tree doesn't fall. It will eventually, but that's not the point.

Well if a sound is because of its receit ie one hears a tree fall then one conclude there is sound.
I am now turning it around because every theory must cover all corners.
So I suggest the tree never falls because there many that do not does that mean sound only is because of an act?
In other words one may never hear any sound because of the act of falling never happening.
Then what?
Redefining sound, not because of something happening, but because it just is, is what I am trying to get at.
This made me think of Pavlov and the dog and and the act of salivation.
Sound and salivation is two different things.
One is and the other is because of an outside element.
I consider sound to be more then just an act and effect.
Relying on a tree falling to recordesound is not the way I would look it because it is saying unless two things happen, the tree falling and the receptor hearing it, then there is no sound.
Sound I believe already happens around us and that we do not hear all of it.

Another permutation is that if a remote recording is made of the tree falling which no-one hears, then when the recording is played back, then the sound will become manifest then.

Again one is suggesting that sounds to be it must be recorded. The same idea as the tree.

I think the problem lies within the language where we consider sound to be a thing rather than the series of events it encompasses.

I am more inclined to believe that sound is all around heard and not heard with or without our help.

[Volya]

If the tree doesn't fall then of course theres no sound...
If it does fall and theres nobody to hear it, the sound is still there. (Or rather, the vibrations and all that malarkey are still there). But it means that there will be nothing to interpret the vibrations into the 'sound' that we hear.

[cacian]

If the tree doesn't fall then of course theres no sound...
If it does fall and theres nobody to hear it, the sound is still there. (Or rather, the vibrations and all that malarkey are still there). But it means that there will be nothing to interpret the vibrations into the 'sound' that we hear.

It does not matter because the fact that it has fallen means it has made a sound without us present to hear it.
I understand it like this.
Imagine the radion you hear the sound but you cannot see any pictures.
Now think TV. We can see the pictures and not hear the sound because we have turned it down.
Now by looking at the pictures we know teh sound is there be cause the pictures are moving on the screen.
We know tha moving pictures mean sound.
That would be the same a seeing the fallen tree. No sound but we know the sound was there at some stage.
Now think computers you see pictures but you cannot hear the sound.
Once you put youtube you get sound.
In other words moving pictures are because of sound waves and something else. Without sound one cannot get moving pictures.
I think.

[Charles Darnay]

It does not matter because the fact that it has fallen means it has made a sound without us present to hear it.
I understand it like this.
Imagine the radion you hear the sound but you cannot see any pictures.
Now think TV. We can see the pictures and not hear the sound because we have turned it down.
Now by looking at the pictures we know teh sound is there be cause the pictures are moving on the screen.
We know tha moving pictures mean sound.
That would be the same a seeing the fallen tree. No sound but we know the sound was there at some stage.
Now think computers you see pictures but you cannot hear the sound.
Once you put youtube you get sound.
In other words moving pictures are because of sound waves and something else. Without sound one cannot get moving pictures.
I think.

This has officially crossed the line for me. I just.....I'm out. "without sound we cannot get moving pictures" - that's the line for me. I'm done with this stupidity.

[Volya]

....sound makes pictures...
cacian, I really think you need to go back to school and learn some basic science.

[cacian]

....sound makes pictures...
cacian, I really think you need to go back to school and learn some basic science.

I do haha. One can only speculate. It is healthy.

[cafolini]

Bottomline. Sound is molecular agitation of air. For it to occur you don't need an ear. You only need a tree falling where there are air molecules to be agitated. You need an atmosphere and a tree falling in the midst.

[cacian]

This has officially crossed the line for me. I just.....I'm out. "without sound we cannot get moving pictures" - that's the line for me. I'm done with this stupidity.

What!!
why do you get so agitated about it all?
I am speculating about things that I find interesting. I am merely learning about things by airing ideas out be it silly false or something else.
One is allowed to make mistakes compare and hopefully pick up other things in the way.
It is propably the way I have said it.
WHat I am trying to say is that with moving images ie films sound is crucial otherwise there is not point of having a television.
What would be the point of watching television if there was no sound and only moving pictures?
No point right?

Bottomline. Sound is molecular agitation of air. For it to occur you don't need an ear. You only need a tree falling where there are air molecules to be agitated. You need an atmosphere and a tree falling in the midst.

Exactly. So there is something in the atmosphere that is when shaken alter a sound.
A bit like a musical instrument, a guitar strings once you string it you get sound.
The same with the atmosphere, there 'strings' or molecules of air then once vibrated or moved sounds occurs.

[Anton Hermes]

I am merely learning about things by airing ideas out be it silly false or something else.

As opposed to learning about things by doing research, which is what learning involves.