If: ?

[snowind]

Jeez.... This whole thing seems pointless to me. Just because humans are not aware of stuff doesn't mean they don't exist.

To everyone saying it doesn't make a noise: How can you even believe in Psi then? Or God? (maybe you're atheist I really don't care), but it's the same principle. That humans don't know or can't prove it exists doesn't mean it doesn't.

You can't just say that it doesn't make a sound. Because it does. I also agree with Ismavatar, a noise is an unwanted sound. And a sound is not defined as something that we can hear. It's actually :

Sound is a disturbance of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave (through fluids as a compression wave, and through solids as both compression and shear waves). Sound is further characterized by the generic properties of waves, which are frequency, wavelength, period, amplitude, speed, and direction (sometimes speed and direction are combined as a velocity vector, or wavelength and direction are combined as a wave vector).

Taken from Wikipedia.

So what I'm trying to say here is that so far the most valid argument has been the one of Ismavatar because it's the one stating the most solid facts.

My posture goes with his opinion.

[Darin Rosewood]

Wikipedia isn't a valid source in a debate, just so you know. Also, the definition of noise you're using is a negative connotation applied tothe real definition, which is a sound that is heard. Oh, and the "just because we don't know" thing has nothing to do with psi or religion. We were using quantum physics in the argument. XD

[The Adfeng]

I know, but who knew if the tree fell? If we knew, then we know it made a sound. If no one was around, then how do we know it fell? Of course, if we video taped it, with sound, I'm sure it would make sound. But if there was no one around, how do we know it ACCUALLY fell? THAT should be the question.

[snowind]

darin said:

Wikipedia isn't a valid source in a debate, just so you know. Also, the definition of noise you're using is a negative connotation applied tothe real definition, which is a sound that is heard. Oh, and the "just because we don't know" thing has nothing to do with psi or religion. We were using quantum physics in the argument. XD

Well... definitions without sources are even less valid in a debate "just so you know"...

And I know you were using quantum physics... But this tree riddle thing has been used since the chinese old era to question faith. So maybe the solution relies somewhere outside quantum physics... That's what I was saying, this phrase was planted to be solved by faith because ancient Chinese really didn't had quantum physics. (although my concept of the ancient chinese might be wrong according to your sources)

I was just introducing a new argument, you shouldn't be so arrogant and start mocking people... Maybe if you stopped mocking other people you would see what they are trying to say.

Note* I'm not usually this offensive but at least I was citing sources... I don't doubt your sources are real. I'm just saying that it would be appreciated if you actually gave a source when discrediting another one. Because other way people might think you're just saying your own definitions(which clearly aren't a reliable source either).

I'm not trying to offend you or anything but your comment really pissed me off, so this is my defensive response.

Please try to be more sensitive in the future.

[The Adfeng]

I've got one more thing to say. Everyone that has posted here, I want you to prove that it makes a sound. But you can't. You have to be there not to be there. It's impossible to prove, because you can't be there, nothing can.

[Darin Rosewood]

Cu: Assuming basic scientific principles as true, and applying basic logic, we have proven it. A sound is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium." We know from physics that the collision of two objects will produce mechanical energy, some of which will be transferred into both the two objects as vibrations. The tree and the ground are two solid objects, fulfilling both the requirements necessary for the generation of mechanical energy and of being a material medium. Therefore, two objects colliding will produce a sound. Whether the vibrations are transferred to anyone's ears is irrelevant. The vibrations exist, vibrations==sound, therefore the sound exists. Also, we DO know that the tree fell, otherwise why would we be asking this question in the first place? If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If the tree doesn't fall, there is no problem.

Snowind:

I was just introducing a new argument, you shouldn't be so arrogant and start mocking people... Maybe if you stopped mocking other people you would see what they are trying to say.

Now that's arrogant. I don't "mock" people, and claiming that I don't see what people are trying to say makes no sense. Of course I'm seeing what they're trying to say. Otherwise, I'd be unable to form a logical argument against it. I listen to everything a person says. If it's illogical or false, I refute it. Simple. I'm not going around attacking people. Also, claiming that you're "not trying to offend me" after you just posted a deliberately offensive satire of my post isn't really very logical, either. Third, if I'm using a definition, I'm more than likely getting it from a college physics textbook or my home copy of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. If I'm not, I'll say so. Fourth, Wikipedia's not a valid source because any five-year-old with a computer can go ahead and edit it. I'm not "discrediting" Wikipedia by saying my sources are better, I'm discrediting it because it's a standard debate convention that the use of Wikipedia articles constitutes an Appeal to Majority fallacy. Fifth, although this has nothing really to do with anything, where the question came from is irrelevant. The answer to it is, since that's what we're debating. Lastly, I am being sensitive. You're the one who's responding to imagined insults with Ad Personam attacks, then claiming that you're not doing it. Sorry if this is offensive, I'm not trying to make it one way or the other. Oh, and, no offense, but "introducing a new argument" is a Red Herring fallacy. If you want to start a different debate, make a new thread, please.

[snowind]

ok... a long time to revive a long dead discussion but maybe you were just researching or something, (or trying to learn the meaning of the "big boy" words you use, I really don't care... And since we are not being polite anymore...).

Where the question came from IS relevant, because as I said before, is a question about philosophy, not quantum physics, again you didn't get what I was saying. Also to future reference, where a question is originated, and what does it refer to is always relevant, they teach you that in any Information Analysis class at college.

I know that every vibration makes a sound (the frequency, amplitude, and other stuff is the one that determines if we hear it or not). That has been established. What Cu is trying to say, and it's a very valid point, is that you don't know every factor involved in that fact. And now I'm going to be the one using physics for a moment to explain philosophy. There's a thing called Chaos theory, that theory explains the behavior of nonlinear dynamical systems, with that we can see the sensitivity of certain actions to some initial conditions.

Edited: For Quantum mechanics, applies a different branch called quantum chaos. . Basicly the same thing just different fields.

If you can tell me, that with no one around, you can be sure that the conditions in which a tree falls will be the same 100% of the times, then I give you the reason. But I really don't think you can, because well, no one can know it. So you don't know what hapens in the amount of time it takes the tree to reach the ground, you also don't know the initial conditions. So maybe there's a wind so intense... that the tree doesn't fall with enough force to make a vibration that can be percieved by the human ear (because we can say that the simple fact of moving makes vibrations which make sound, but that's not the sound we're refering). So can you be 100% sure that the conditions in which the tree falls will make it produce a sound when it reachs the ground?

And since you can't be sure that it will happen like that every time, due to the randomness of events, you can't tell me for sure that the tree will make sound. So if there's no one around to hear the tree falling, you can't be sure that the tree will make sound. That's why it is a pilosophy question... And I didn't wanted to involve physics... but well... it happens.

Oh, and it wasn't a red herring fallacy because I didn't changed topic to win the debate, I just asked you to see it from the philosophy point of view (as some of us were doing), instead of the physic way, but well, even in the physics way you can't be sure...

So... As I was saying... Maybe this question can't be solved with quantum physics. I remain with my initial posture that it is a matter of faith and philosophy.

And yes... I was being rude in this response because you weren't even enough men to recognize you were mocking me in your first reply.

Wikipedia isn't a valid source in a debate, just so you know. Also, the definition of noise you're using is a negative connotation applied tothe real definition, which is a sound that is heard. Oh, and the "just because we don't know" thing has nothing to do with psi or religion. We were using quantum physics in the argument. XD

That face right there was a mocking face, you were trying to say I didn't understood quantum physics, even while I was agreeing with you that it makes a sound. ( I do understand some of it, in spanish though, I don't know the technical translations for most of the words used in that field)

So, I still believe it makes a sound, I just say that we can't be sure, because it is a faith question(I know I'm repeting myself... but maybe this time you will analyze my opinions first, repetition is a good way to understand stuff).

But anyway... seeing as I will have to way another month to hear a reply, and I'll probably forget what we were talking about I'll state that I don't feel sorry for offending you with any of this, and in my first response I wasn't trying to offend you, I was defending myself, that you caught that as an offense is due to your perspective.

[Darin Rosewood]

snowind said:

ok... a long time to revive a long dead discussion but maybe you were just researching or something, (or trying to learn the meaning of the "big boy" words you use, I really don't care... And since we are not being polite anymore...).

Beginning your response with a blatant Ad Hominem: real mature.

Where the question came from IS relevant, because as I said before, is a question about philosophy, not quantum physics, again you didn't get what I was saying. Also to future reference, where a question is originated, and what does it refer to is always relevant, they teach you that in any Information Analysis class at college.

Again, Red Herring. We don't care about where the question came from in a debate--where it came from does not affect the argument at hand. The tree either makes a sound or it doesn't, it doesn't matter whether it does due to physics or philosophy.

If you can tell me, that with no one around, you can be sure that the conditions in which a tree falls will be the same 100% of the times, then I give you the reason. But I really don't think you can, because well, no one can know it. So you don't know what hapens in the amount of time it takes the tree to reach the ground, you also don't know the initial conditions. So maybe there's a wind so intense... that the tree doesn't fall with enough force to make a vibration that can be percieved by the human ear (because we can say that the simple fact of moving makes vibrations which make sound, but that's not the sound we're refering). So can you be 100% sure that the conditions in which the tree falls will make it produce a sound when it reachs the ground?

Alright, let's try this again. Newton's First Law of Motion: An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Once the tree starts falling, it will either a) continue falling through space indefinitely, or b) stop. The only way the tree would stop falling is through contact with another object--the ground, another tree, a big rock, doesn't really matter WHAT it is, but it's going to have to hit SOMETHING in order to generate the force necessary to stop it. Since we've already established that the collision of two objects produces a vibration, and thus, a sound--and we can be reasonably sure that the probability of a wormhole opening up at random between the tree falling and the point where it would ordinarily collide with something (or some other condition that would fulfill option A) is practically zero--we can reasonably conclude that any time a tree falls, it will make a sound. Again, whether the sound COULD be heard by humans is irrelevant. What matters--as per the terms of the question--is its existence.

And since you can't be sure that it will happen like that every time, due to the randomness of events, you can't tell me for sure that the tree will make sound. So if there's no one around to hear the tree falling, you can't be sure that the tree will make sound. That's why it is a pilosophy question... And I didn't wanted to involve physics... but well... it happens.

Give me an example of a scientific phenomenon proven to exist (the wormhole "example" I gave above doesn't count--no one's proven the existence of wormholes) that would possibly allow a falling object to continue falling indefinitely, and I'll concede this point.

Oh, and it wasn't a red herring fallacy because I didn't changed topic to win the debate, I just asked you to see it from the philosophy point of view (as some of us were doing), instead of the physic way, but well, even in the physics way you can't be sure...

So... As I was saying... Maybe this question can't be solved with quantum physics. I remain with my initial posture that it is a matter of faith and philosophy.

It is a Red Herring because you're attempting to change the topic up for debate--whether you think it'll make you WIN the debate is irrelevant. The question is not "Is this question solvable with philosophy or science and why?" It's "Does a falling tree with no observers around it make a sound?" You can claim it's a philosophical question all you want, I don't care, neither does anyone else. What matters is your answer to the question at hand and you giving support for it.

And yes... I was being rude in this response because you weren't even enough men to recognize you were mocking me in your first reply.

Wikipedia isn't a valid source in a debate, just so you know. Also, the definition of noise you're using is a negative connotation applied tothe real definition, which is a sound that is heard. Oh, and the "just because we don't know" thing has nothing to do with psi or religion. We were using quantum physics in the argument. XD

That face right there was a mocking face, you were trying to say I didn't understood quantum physics, even while I was agreeing with you that it makes a sound. ( I do understand some of it, in spanish though, I don't know the technical translations for most of the words used in that field)

Excuse me? That face was not mocking, it's so people notice that the statement before the face is a joke. If I were mocking you, I wouldn't've used the face, and would've just insulted you.

So, I still believe it makes a sound, I just say that we can't be sure, because it is a faith question(I know I'm repeting myself... but maybe this time you will analyze my opinions first, repetition is a good way to understand stuff).

Yeah... implying that I'm stupid really isn't a good way to win a debate.

But anyway... seeing as I will have to way another month to hear a reply, and I'll probably forget what we were talking about I'll state that I don't feel sorry for offending you with any of this, and in my first response I wasn't trying to offend you, I was defending myself, that you caught that as an offense is due to your perspective.

Uh-huh. Calling me insensitive and arrogant isn't offensive at all. Taking offense to constant Ad Hominem attacks throughout two posts is totally a result of my skewed perspective. Listen, buddy, that post where you claim I'm "mocking" you was intended to be helpful. I still fail to see how letting you know that Wikipedia can't be used as a source in a debate--thereby helping you in future debates--is in any way offensive. And don't presume to tell me you know what I'm "trying to say." Last time I checked, I had more access to my own mind than you did.

[snowind]

A) is practically zero--we can reasonably conclude that any time a tree falls, it will make a sound. Again, whether the sound COULD be heard by humans is irrelevant. What matters--as per the terms of the question--is its existence.

Practicly zero... not zero... Therefore you can't be 100% sure...

Oh and the irrelevant bits... Again not everything is irrelevant. It is relevant, because then every vibration produces a sound... even an molecule... So it's relevant because the sound we're trying to prove is the one of the collision with the ground, and with randomness and changing initial conditions you can't be totally sure it will reach the ground, or that it will reach the ground with enough force to produce a relevant sound, if a tree falls... but it doesn't reach the ground with enough force it won't produce a sound big enough to be heard by humans. For this question if a human can't hear the tree even if he is there to see the event then that sound that can't be heard is not considered as canon.

Give me an example of a scientific phenomenon proven to exist (the wormhole "example" I gave above doesn't count--no one's proven the existence of wormholes) that would possibly allow a falling object to continue falling indefinitely, and I'll concede this point.

Not falling indefinetely, but enough force to prevent the tree from reaching ground with enough force, a current of air with the exact velocity needed to stop the tree from touching ground with enough force for it to make an audible sound.

It is a Red Herring because you're attempting to change the topic up for debate--whether you think it'll make you WIN the debate is irrelevant. The question is not "Is this question solvable with philosophy or science and why?" It's "Does a falling tree with no observers around it make a sound?" You can claim it's a philosophical question all you want, I don't care, neither does anyone else. What matters is your answer to the question at hand and you giving support for it.

Your lack of ability to relate arguments and points is "irrelevant".

Listen, buddy, that post where you claim I'm "mocking" you was intended to be helpful. I still fail to see how letting you know that Wikipedia can't be used as a source in a debate--thereby helping you in future debates--is in any way offensive.

Next time you wanna "help" me, save it for someone else... really... I don't need that kind of help. Oh, and I'm not your buddy...

Uh-huh. Calling me insensitive and arrogant isn't offensive at all. Taking offense to constant Ad Hominem attacks throughout two posts is totally a result of my skewed perspective.

The first reply I stated it was in defense of your previous post, the second I said I was intending to offend... Oh this reply too... So, I defended myself with some words.

Yeah... implying that I'm stupid really isn't a good way to win a debate.

I was agreeing with you and you started telling me things! What's the deal with that? And I wasn't trying to win the debate with that phrase... I was implying that you don't understand my point of view, or maybe you're not trying. Of course for you everything is irrelevant ... I agree that it makes a sound!!, all I'm saying is that we can't be totally sure. And we can't be totally sure because things beyond our control happen...


Now for the last part... I'm really sorry for the misunderstanding(even when there isn't one because I actually agreed with you since my first post). I'm sorry for offending you, I know I did, but you really got into my nerves (even if you said it was "help"), I took the wikipedia advice from you, now take this advice from me. There are different opinions, and diferent points of view to solve a same problem, please read, understand and try to relate things before you go into an "irrelevant" spree again...

[The Adfeng]

Let's not get this thread locked, so don't get up in each other's faces, now. :-)

But, really, if you think it makes a sound, prove it. If you think it doesn't, prove it.