Talk:If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Picture

Might i note that the picture on this page is one of a fallen tree that has been *sawed off* thus there had to have been atleast someone to cut the tree that heard the sound. Perhaps a picture of a naturally fallen tree is more appropriate? :) Scratchpaws (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Then, assuming that the saw made a sound is safe. 72.44.172.82 (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Why was it necessary to put a picture of a tree in a forest? we all know what one looks like.

Spiritual

The tree represents man, the forrest represents Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrivl (talk • contribs) 02:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.241.79.54 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 28 June 2007

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)

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)

There is no reference in the same way there is no spoon. Marlith ^T/C 01:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

You say: "Whether we perceive it or not doesn't matter. It is still there. We just don't know." - If we don't know, how can we say that it is still there? And what is the meaning of "still there"? How to distinguish "still there, unperceived" from "not there anymore"? If perception is not required for things to be there, what else qualifies things as "existent"? 87.163.239.125 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2011 (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)

... Can you add it to the article? No.

Raymm, please read Wikipedia's policy on Original research Repku (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

If there was no obstruction/insulation of the sound, and no loss in energy, from when it was emitted; it would be heard. Therefore one could say that the sound is produced, the only reason it is not heard is because it can't travel far enough (since there is no one around) i.e. Just because no one is there to detect the sound, it doesn't mean the falling tree hasn't made the sound.

However, the tree, or anything else that makes a sound for that matter, creates pressure waves in the air. These only turn to sound depending on how they are detected, the instruments used. If a deaf person wanted to detect the effects of a falling tree he/she would use an instrument which showed the variations in air pressure visually.

Humans cannot detect the pressure waves created by a dog whistle, therefore to us there is no sound; but a dog can detect the sound thanks to his mode of detection. Only pressure waves are created, we can detect these for a dog whistle using different methods but we can't hear them as being sound.

Therefore the pressure waves only turn to sound, when they are detected as such.

(It can't be added, I know. But does it seem ok to everyone else?) --Manraj (manuk) (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course a tree makes a sound when it falls. If an earthquake happens in Japan and two hours later you hear about it on the news, did it make a sound??? Of course it did, just ask the people that were there to perceive it. Your reality is bound by your universe, which is different from everyone else's. So if you don't percieve something, does it not exist?? of course it does. Just look at space exploration for an example. Many things happen during man's existence he does not perceive, therefore, they do not exist to him but they do exist in the greater scheme of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.26.153 (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If a man is watching a forest using a telescope and sees a tree fall, he won't be able to hear it but he can verify that a sound has been made - the birds in nearby trees will take to the air in panic.

Of course, he could always set up some complex electronic equipment that will send him a text message if/when a sound is made in the vicinity of the tree. He could couple that with a video recording of the tree and be able to determine that even with no human or animal observers present when the tree fell, a sound was indeed made. 91.195.83.3 (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a fluggum?" A fluggum is a physical disturbance of some form that we do not have the biological sensory capacity or technology to detect. We can envision animals or aliens with the capability of detecting fluggum, but we do not yet have evidence that fluggum exists. This is the heart of the question: does it matter that we are unaware of fluggum and aware of sound? We have a natural tendency to expect the tree to make sound and readily admit that we cannot answer whether it makes fluggum. Our ambivalence towards fluggum is based on the fact that we can't observe it. Should we, by logical extension, be similarly ambivalent about sound in cases where we can't observe it. Is the statement, "Yes, it obviously made a sound because all observed falling trees make a sound, and there is no detectable connection between the tree and the observer that affects sound production" equivalent to "Yes, we absolutely know it made a sound" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.163.148 (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The fluggum observation above is brilliant, and turns the focus to the subject of the observation of the vibrations instead of "whether or not vibrations were made."

The answer that "The tree does not make a sound" is false, regardless of the definition of the word "sound." A brain interpreting electronic impulses as sound implies that vibrations were made in an elastic medium, (because this is how humans "hear sounds"). The question really asks if the tree has made vibrations in the surrounding elastic medium despite the absence of an observer. Since "hearing sounds" implies vibrations were made in an elastic medium, if sound is defined as anything other than "vibrations in an elastic medium," trees falling down never make sound... which we know is absurd.

Whether or not the falling tree makes a sound is irrelevant if no observer is present. An observer will be able to report any "tree-falling sounds" by detecting vibrations with equipment or his ears only if the observer is present at the time of the fall, (and as stated in the question, the observer exists but is not present). Since the observer is not present, the observer must anticipate changes in the system for all states of the tree before his observation, (either after the tree has fallen OR not fallen).

Since an observer will observe the system after or before and not during the fall, the opportunity to report the noise will never present itself to the observer. Only after his observation, will the observer be able to answer this question accurately: "Did the tree fall?"

The tree cannot do all of:

fall, causing vibrations; AND not make sound while falling AND not fall; see Schrodinger's Cat. After observation, the observer can analyze the area for residual effects resulting from vibrations in the surrounding elastic medium.

Until an observer observes the system, the only possible true statement that can be made about the state of the system is below:

Either the tree fell and made vibrations which effected the area, or the tree fell and did not make vibrations, or the tree did not fall and thus did not make vibrations.

WayTooSerious (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

@Raymm, that is essentially the question at hand. The question is whether something can exist independent of observation. It's like, okay the tree fell in the woods and nobody heard it, but it still happened - but then how do you know it fell in the woods? This raises questions about the nature of reality, what is perceived versus... well who knows, right? I mean what else is there besides what is perceived at some point by somebody? Even if I haven't seen, heard, felt, touched or echo located Disney World and have just heard stories, then does not the mental image lying within my mind also belong to my perception? Then when I see it in person with my eyes and ears, is that not also within my perception? As they say in Zen, "Mind is reality". I mean we can continue this line of thought, what is the nature of a plan? Is truth decided locally? Why is christmas on the 25th of December? What do we call a lake, and why is it called that? What is the meaning of the word 'lake'? All of these must be decided upon by all, to be, "true within a system of meaning and statements". makeswell 12:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

The tree has been cut down with a saw or something similar! Presumably whoever cut it down can either run very quickly or if deaf. Xiaan77 (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons

Which episode of the simpsons was this in? ACBestMy ContributionsAutograph Book 14:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Dead Putting Society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.155.203 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wikipedia policy, If a tree falls in the forest

According to Wikipedia policy, it only makes a sound if someone who wasn't there to hear it writes a book claiming it did. If anyone actually heard it or can prove that it actually made a sound, their book is an unreliable source, as is their first hand account of the event and/or proof.--76.191.180.171 (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

sound is not a frequency

the article says "Since a sound is by definition a frequency, and such a frequency is emitted when one object strikes another..."

this is wrong.

Sound is by definition a VIBRATION of matter and it HAS s frequency. And this vibration can also be caused by other things that objects striking one another. Think LOUDSPEAKER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.49.248.147 (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the frequency/wavelength of the color white? "White" is typically used in English as a valid color. People answer the question "What color car is that?" with "White", not "all colors". Similarly, "white noise" is a type of sound that can be classified and named. It is a sound that has no frequency. It can be decomposed into an infinite number of constituent sounds that do have frequencies, but the ability to do so does not grant "white noise" a frequency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.163.148 (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Genocide denial

If referenced criticisms are to be included about this philosophical concept, it should perhaps mention the use of similar ideas and arguments to systematically justify the denial of crimes against humanity, such as murders, massacres and genocides, by people who did not want to listen or did want to hear of atrocities being committed against innocent people. In this perspective, the tree is the innocent victim or group of victims, while the forest is society as a whole which remains largely indifferent to the suffering of a few, such as when the Armenian genocide, the Rwanda genocide, the Jewish genocide or the Holodomor took place. ADM (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Theism

Some reference should perhaps be made to the theistic response: "Since there is nowhere in the universe where nobody - not even God - is around, the question is meaningless." -99.184.231.222 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

the question is not meaningless. Unless you assume there is an observer for God, He does not exist.200.144.37.3 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You make the assumption that God cannot observe himself. If we're talking about an omnipotent God, that assumption fails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.163.148 (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Refrigerator

This question tests the intellect of the same people as the question does below: "How do you know that the refrigerator light really turns off when you close the door if you can't see inside the refrigerator?" WayTooSerious (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you close the fridge slowly, you can see the light turning off. It's not like the bastards at GE were sitting in a conference room and said "Hey! Let's design the most engery-inefficient fridge in the world! It'll be hilarious! Just design it to turn off when almost closed, and then turn back on when completely closed! Great idea, huh, huh?" The answer to this question is also common sense. Also, you can easily replace a wall of the fridge with glass for the sake of experiment, close it and you'll see the light is off, the opacity of a material makes no difference in the laws of physics unless you have the mind of a drooling 4 year old. 168.103.126.103 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed section

I have removed the following section: it argues with itself; and even with the removal of the second part, it would be confusing in the context of the preceding paragraph "The current phrasing appears to have originated in the 1910 book Physics by Charles Riborg Mann and George Ransom Twiss" - unless they make this argument (note: originally it was in a different context). Also, it's duplicate with the paragraph before that one. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The production of sound requires 3 things: A source, a medium, and a receiver. The source, through vibrations called "compression" and "rarefraction", creates a series of pressure waves that vary in frequency and amplitude. These pressure waves propagate through various mediums including water, air and solids. The receiver collects and converts these pressure waves into electrical impulses. If you remove any of the 3 requirements for sound, there is no sound. {{fact}} This statement is wrong. A sound can be "produced" with only a source and a medium. The receiver merely interprets the sound. Interpretation may vary based on the individual receiving (hearing and processing) it. Thus the sound itself is not the sound made by the medium and source, it is only a perceived variation of what really occurred. Sound is a vibration of air, not a thought. {{fact}}

Alexander T. Jackson

I do believe this is completely made up. I can find no one anywhere in the literature named Alexander T. Jackson. For some one who is one of the "greatest minds of the 20th century" he doesn't seem to have written anything at all. Therefore I will delete the Jackson portion of the reference.

BTW, George Berkeley didn't have anything to do with the question either.

Finally, the "The Chautauquan" reference appears to be complete BS as well. In short there is little value whatsoever in this piece.

Lukeorama (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Lukeorama

Reference #5

Reference number 5 now takes you to a "page not found" page. I'm not sure what the proper process is for remedying this is, so I'll leave it for someone else to do, but the dead link probably shouldn't be left on there.66.32.213.202 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)