HughMcB wrote:

br0k3nglass wrote:Isn't the question a bit like asking "if there's no one around to see the ball, does it still look red?"

The electromagnetic waves would still be flying around, but without someone to experience them as what we think of as the color red, I would answer no.

Actually I don't agree with this analogy. Red is to light what pitch is to sound. Pitch actually is subjective on the aural system of the observer whereas the fact that sound is present is not, regardless of whether they detect it.

The same can be said for red, as the detection of the colour itself is dependent on the optic system whereas the presence of the electromagnetic waves are not. Anwhoo, just my two cents.

Yes, the analogy would work better if the question was regarding trees having (or not having) a pitch if they fell without any observers.

Another question is, whether something has to have an auditory system and a brain to process the vibrations. Do deaf people hear sound? The simple answer is yes. There are more ways to hear sound than with your ears. Most of the human body is capable of feeling sound waves. If a tree fell in the forest and only a deaf person was nearby, does it make a sound? I would argue yes. So even if there were no "ears" to hear the tree fall, it would still make a sound, because the vibrations in the air would affect objects around it. Otherwise it's just discrimination against things that lack consciousness. (in that order)

Dictionary.com is wrong. The waves are still there, but it isn't sound without auditory organs and a brain to translate it. Sound is an abstract to describe perception of the vibrations.

So the answer is no are we agreed? Isn't pitch also determined by waves? A deaf person wouldn't "hear" it like in the riddle they would rathar feel it wouldn't they? But, how then would that girl (gah forgot her name) who learned to speak though she was deaf AND blind-learn to speak if she could not hear sound?!

No, whatever you say will dig a deeper hole for yourself, simply go back to the original question he asked.

Essentially you did not have enough information to answer it appropriately. All the responses here are correct but only in a certain context and that is what is missing. The question you could have asked is "What do you mean precisely, when you say - does it make a sound?"

The chances if he responds to that, are the question will then answer itself.

Often when people are trying to trick you with clever questions it's because they know you will make a assumption about one aspect or other, they then pick another to catch you out. It all relies on the vagueness of one or more of the words, which is what you need to challenge.

John

So if he defined sound as something heard, and nothing was there to hear it, then there would be no sound only vibrations? (Sorry I'm a but slow.)

inkaStepa wrote:So the answer is no are we agreed?

John above is correct. The answer changes depending on a) the definition of "sound" and b) the intention of the thought experiment. If "sound" is defined as travelling waves, then it would make a sound regardless of whether any observers are present or not but if sound is defined as observer-dependent (as it is) then it can't make a sound, by definition.

For (b), if the intention of the thought experiment is to discuss the nature of sound, then the answer is basically to ask how they are defining sound. If, however, the intention is to make you question the "nature of existence" or some other metaphysical nonsense, then I suppose the technically correct answer is that it is impossible to know whether it makes a sound (or whether it exists at all). But given our current state of knowledge about the constancy of objects in the universe, as well as some basic axioms that are necessary for people to remain sane, then we can reasonably assume that it does make a "sound" (by taking a loose definition of sound).

inkaStepa wrote:So if he defined sound as something heard, and nothing was there to hear it, then there would be no sound only vibrations? (Sorry I'm a but slow.)

Correct. It's a pedantic distinction to make though (unless you're studying auditory perception) and I would refer you to the cartoon I posted earlier.

inkaStepa wrote:So if he defined sound as something heard, and nothing was there to hear it, then there would be no sound only vibrations? (Sorry I'm a but slow.)

Exactly, only you have no need to mention the vibrations. Let him do all the work not you.

John

If a tree falls on a mime in a forest, does anybody care?

MtD

Thommo wrote:I thought this was a zen question connected to knowledge and what we can know - and one that was probably a bit more effective before modern knowledge of sound was available to respondents.

Thommo is right. The question isn't a "joke", but a Zen Koan, and is not meant to be a technical analysis of sound waves.

My favourite literal answer to another Zen question, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" was provided by Bart Simpson, who dodged the bullet by produce a clapping sound with the fingers on one hand, totally missing the point of the question, but answering it nonetheless. (I guess you had to be there heh.)

Inka, why don't you ask your teacher this question tomorrow: Why does a mirror reverse left and right, but not up and down?

Fish

A kōan (pronounced /ˈkoʊ.ɑːn/;)

That clears that up I guess.

John

The answer is yes, the badger hears it. Unless the tree falls on the badger.

Yeah, but what do cows drink?

Water. Or maybe vodka, when no one's looking, obviously.

Heh. Should've known better than to try that one with the people here.

I remember Lisa asked Bart what the sound of one hand clapping was and he held out his hand and beat on his palm with his fingers.

Be a real big smart arse and tell him that sound exists in space. When he says, "No it doesn't," provide this link...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m ... 30922.html

hackenslash wrote:Dictionary.com is wrong. The waves are still there, but it isn't sound without auditory organs and a brain to translate it. Sound is an abstract to describe perception of the vibrations.

This is just your opinion. Word definitions rely on how they are used. Dictionary.com is not wrong. It is common for people to talk of "sound waves", which gets shortened to just "sound" where it is "sound waves" that are specifically meant. There are even weapons based on sound. They do not work on your perceptions - they tear you apart physically.

Steve wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Dictionary.com is wrong. The waves are still there, but it isn't sound without auditory organs and a brain to translate it. Sound is an abstract to describe perception of the vibrations.

This is just your opinion. Word definitions rely on how they are used. Dictionary.com is not wrong. It is common for people to talk of "sound waves", which gets shortened to just "sound" where it is "sound waves" that are specifically meant. There are even weapons based on sound. They do not work on your perceptions - they tear you apart physically.

Language is extremely context sensitive. Dictionaries are just attempts to describe and standardize common language usage. Just ask him to define sound for you and then you can give an easy answer.