Talk:If a tree falls in a forest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Encyclopedic?
"The overall consensus within the philosophic community is "no," for those of you who are arguing for the sake of argument and need an answer without a 4 year education." How is that encyclopedic? Let's not forget the bias either
[edit] Anthropic Principle
Should the anthropic principle be mentioned as well? I think it relates. --Gorniki 23:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added it to what i think is a related subsection. If anybody has qualms about its presence, feel free to edit. --Gorniki 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Matrix
Why is The Matrix in the "See also" section? Is there a direct reference I'm failing to remember? -Phoenixrod 08:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm removing it for now. Feel free to add it back in if it does relate. -Phoenixrod 08:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My best answer
My best answer is it depends on how you define sound. If sound = the variation of pressure that propagates through matter as a wave, then I think the answer is yes, a tree falling without an observer, will produce a variation of pressure that propagates through matter as a wave.
However, if you define "sound" as a perception by a sentient being, then, the it seems to me the answer is no, there was no sentient being who experienced the perception.
Is that good enough to be added to the article? Raymm 23:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not the point of the riddle though, you're looking at it too literally 24.138.161.230 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, see I think the only reason a riddle or paradox appears to exist is because the question plays on the two possible definitions of sound. The vague use of the sound and hear seem to create a paradox, which clear definition of terms reveals.--Raymm 03:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say you can look at any philosophical problem too literally. While I personally agree with this answer, as objection that can be raised against that first definition of sound: How do we know that the waves are produced? By definition, we can never totally know without observing, which violates the given "rules". — Lenoxus 21:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- First, thank you for your support.
- Second, aren't you raising a different issue? The question is "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The question is not "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, can we know whether it causes the variation of pressure that propagates through matter as a wave?" I think your issue is at a higher level, i.e., how can we be sure external phenomena exists.--Raymm 03:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Since sound is merely waves in the air the answer is yes. However, if the question was: If a tree falls in a forest, without any observers, will the sound be heard? And the answer to that would be no. But with or without observers the sound is still there. It is just not heard. But being heard has nothing to do with being a sound. The sound is still there - even if it is not heard. This is true for everything. Whether we perceive it or not doesn't matter. It is still there. We just don't know. This riddle merely proofs the lack of intelligence among philosophers ;) 80.167.218.195 09:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the sound is still there. Here's a basic, solid reference to set the ball rolling: the Oxford English Dictionary (10th ed., revised) defines sound as 'vibrations which travel through the air or another medium and are sensed by the ear'. Thus sound refers not only to the pressure waves themselves but also to the perception of those pressure waves and interpretation of them as a stimulus containing some meaning for the perceiver. So the answer to the original question would have to be 'no'. But doesn't anyone here have a philosophy textbook, at least? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article after all, synthesising existing knowledge, not speculating about philosophical issues as if no one's ever addressed them before. Admittedly it's a pretty silly question to begin with, because it can basically be answered empirically rather than philosophically. Unless you want to interpret it in a wider sense to mean 'does stuff happen if nobody's there to see it'. Since I'm not going to put any references in here, I'm basically just speculating from now on, but it's pretty interesting, so forgive me. I think the answer would have to be 'yes', since the earth and presumably the universe have for most of their existence been undergoing change with nobody there to see them, the proof of which is that we're here now and we can trace, in various ways, changes that have occurred before sentient, or any, life evolved on the planet. The problem is that we find it difficult to imagine how that could be since our experience of the world is subjective and individualistic. So perhaps a better version of the question would be, 'if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody's there to experience it, then in what manner did it fall?' The answer, I think, would have to be 'it fell empirically. It took a particular and exact length of time to fall, it fell a particular and exact distance and the air pressure was affected in a particular and exact manner by the ensuing vibrations'. If there were beings around to perceive the tree falling, they'd all experience it in different and subjective ways, but it wouldn't change the fact that the tree fell in a particular and exact manner, regardless of how we experienced, or even measured, the fall.--Mesonix 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Picture
It doesn't seem necessary, or at least logical to put a picture of a tree in this article. The riddle is rhetorical, its not actually about a tree. CanCanDuo 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, shouldn't it be a picture of a fallen tree?--12.47.123.121 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Even better, how about a picture of, specifically, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it? (Excluding the photographer as an observer, of course.) The best one I've found is this. It's Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative, so it should be safe to use (as far as I know). And the photographer even linked to this article in the description. Tophtucker (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I love the caption for the picture, nothing has ever been more self-evident!Aufs klo (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Simpsons
Which episode of the simpsons was this in? ACBestMy ContributionsAutograph Book 14:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I always read...
I had looked up the origin of this before Wikipedia, and was told that it was used in meditation to clear the mind - linked to some asian group - budhism, or whatever. It's similar to the one "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" they are designed to clear the mind in meditation - helping you think of nothing. Hopefully we can find a reference for this. Rfwoolf 21:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Analylsis
[copyrighted material removed] Tstrobaugh (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've added the site you copied above to the article as an external link. Copying the text itself, even on a talk page, is a no-no.--Father Goose (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
