Poll: If a tree falls in a forest

[°Leprechaun]

No, because I didn't hear it

That's the only true answer to the question.

[Meclazine for Israel]

It must be yes.

Although there is no one there to hear it, you can use science to prove it must happen.

Conducting 1 million falling tree experiments with listening devices next to the trees would reveal a rate at which they make noise.

A 100% incident rate of making a noise would be almost conclusive that it makes noise.

The same principle applies in modern engineering applications.

[muon2]

It must be yes.

Although there is no one there to hear it, you can use science to prove it must happen.

Conducting 1 million falling tree experiments with listening devices next to the trees would reveal a rate at which they make noise.

A 100% incident rate of making a noise would be almost conclusive that it makes noise.

The same principle applies in mant engineering applications.





If

If there are listening devices then it's a different question than the one I answered, and of course then the question would be answered yes. An ear is a listening device as much as a microphone is. Both measure an effect and define the nature of the experiment. As I said in my original response on this thread I assume that there is no device available to record the event as it happens. That's what makes it an interesting question to discuss.

In this paradox there is no observer there to hear it, and I will do the usual extension to exclude any other recording device that would allow the observer to "hear" the sound through that secondary device. The paradox by its own admission excludes any measurement of the sound that we associate with a falling tree. Without that measurement, quantum mechanics would say that the atmosphere around the tree was in an indeterminate state with respect to sound, just like Schrodinger's cat in the closed box or the experimenter's electron. And in the traditional interpretation, without the ability to make a measurement the sound doesn't exist.

[Meclazine for Israel]

What i am saying is that modern engineering uses science as if it were 100%.

Otherwise you would not hop on a jet plane and fly across the country.

Even though i was not there at the airport to witness it, the physics of flying and the laws governing those physics were obeyed.

Similarly, even though i was not there to witness the tree falling, once it was evident later on that it had fell, the laws of physics were obeyed and the potential energy of the tree was converted in proportion to kinetic, heat and sound energy.

[Storebought]

According to acoustics, a sound wave needs three things to exist: a source, a medium, and a receiver. In this thought experiment, the tree falling is (1), the air is (2), but there is no (3). The tree falling induces a compression wave in air (and the ground), but it does not make a sound.

[Meclazine for Israel]

According to acoustics, a sound wave needs three things to exist: a source, a medium, and a receiver.

A sound wave does not need a receiver.

Thats like saying light energy from the sun needs an eyeball to exist.

Light waves from the sun are coming out 360 degrees 24-7 regardless.

The intermittent measurement and reliance on the predictive powers of science are more than enough to establish the existence of most energy waves in the absence of the quoted receiver.

[Lincoln Republican]

With 76.1% voting yes, obviously, the answer is it does make a sound.

How can Atlas possibly be wrong?

[°Leprechaun]

With 76.1% voting yes, obviously, the answer is it does make a sound.

How can Atlas possibly be wrong?

Atlas is often wrong. One need only remember the election of 2016.

[muon2]

According to acoustics, a sound wave needs three things to exist: a source, a medium, and a receiver.

A sound wave does not need a receiver.

Thats like saying light energy from the sun needs an eyeball to exist.

Light waves from the sun are coming out 360 degrees 24-7 regardless.

The intermittent measurement and reliance on the predictive powers of science are more than enough to establish the existence of most energy waves in the absence of the quoted receiver.

But a receiver like an interferometer could be there, and if it were the light waves would be measurable as such. A photocell could be viewing the sun, so photons (particles of light) would be measurable as such. If I don't specify the type of receiver, I can say nothing about whether a light wave or light particle is present. Quantum theory would say that neither is physically present until I specify the mode of detection.

In the paradox, a receiver is forbidden, and that's what makes it different from light on the Earth's surface. The receiver (interferometer, photocell) isn't forbidden, just absent at some instant. In this case, forbidding a receiver is equivalent to not specifying which type of receiver is there.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Except you specified a forest, and thus there are receivers there, the other trees.

[Storebought]

Answering this question (taking time to note the equivocation behind the word "sound") as no preserves cause-and-effect and prevents silly paradoxes like what is the reality behind the reality.
 

Except you specified a forest, and thus there are receivers there, the other trees.

The trees are understood to be part of the physical state of the experiment, and are not independent observers.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Answering this question (taking time to note the equivocation behind the word "sound") as no preserves cause-and-effect and prevents silly paradoxes like what is the reality behind the reality.
 

Except you specified a forest, and thus there are receivers there, the other trees.

The trees are understood to be part of the physical state of the experiment, and are not independent observers.

That assumes the question that is being asked is "Does a phenomenon occur in the absence of an observer?" and not "What is an observer?".

I see the forest as the setting and the lone tree that is falling as the experiment.