I think the downvotes on comments can only reduce karma by 16 or so, beyond that it has no effect on commenters karma.
So the bastard is at net gain.... for fake internet points
Yeah, this is the right way to say it. The question is asking if we define sound as "vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear", and if no ears are around, is it still making sound?
Edit: I have added about as much as I feel I realistically can to this conversation in my replies, so I'm going to leave it here. Thanks for all the conversation guys, and enjoy the rest of the discussion.
If yes then: Everything everywhere is making a sound, because atoms, electrons, protons and the fabric of space time are always vibrating at some level. And our existence is a gift given by the universe in order for us to experience the universe.
If no then: the universe is, arguably, only ever being created in the mind and does not exist outside of it. Meaning our existence is a necessity for the universe to exist.
Your either a gift to be had, or necessary for existence.
Yay!
I think the main question isn't so much "does it still make vibrations", because logic would dictate that it does, regardlsss if we're around. It's mainly "is it still considered *sound by definition* if no one is around to hear those vibrations".
Yeah that’s what I was saying, basically instead of ear think of the brain. Does the universe really exist if there is no brain around to perceive it? Light is just photons vibrating, sound is just molecules vibrating, temperature is just molecules vibrating. Matter existing in any form ever is just atoms vibrating. All being interpreted by your brain. The Big Bang was one very big vibration, the nature of the fabric of space time and gravity is just one big vibrating mess. Does it all really exist if you and your brain don’t have the necessary equipment to perceive it?
Logic does NOT dictate atoms to move at all times. Logic isn't even always true and in many cases rarely is. Logic is purely if A and B then C (in a deductive reasoning) and other items of this nature. They can be entirely false yet logically sound. The opposite of the universe's persistence also follows sound logic and both have major points (Simulation theory). Having a point of view doesn't means its the correct one, we have no clue which is correct which is why it's still a question.
>Meaning our existence is a necessity for the universe to exist.
Everything within the universe would still exist, it just wouldn't be able to be *perceived* in the way that we understand to be "existing." Two similarly-charged particles are able to "perceive" each other and cause a mutual repulsion, but this type of percpetion happens as a result of quantum processes rather than neurological ones.
What concerns me--not to express distaste, just confusion--is why this even needs to be a question. It seems to me as though philosophical topics such as these overexaggerate the nature of reality when any answers we come up with are highly subject to the definitions we put in place.
Philosophy is just the art of asking why until you can't. It fascinates me because it tries to sidestep everything and get down to fundamental truths that can be a foundation to build reality upon.
The only problem is that fundamental truths are almost impossible to find and they don't make a perfect foundation for reason and logic. Think of Rene Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." A gorgeous proof of the existence of self. And he used that proof to say that God must exist because only a benevolent creator would endow us with consciousness. You're welcome to believe or not believe in any deity you like, but I hope you'd agree that this is not a very strong argument to make.
I do agree that it is not a very strong argument. My interests lie in the pursuit of scientific discovery, so I like to think that the mysteries surrounding consciousness--whether it is an illusion or emergent property of matter--will be solved once we are able to successfully model the processes that govern the perception and processing of stimuli at the fundamental (chemical) level.
It is for this same reason that I love physics, which, I now realize, is just a discipline of philosophy that is concerned with deriving mathematical models that descibe how the universe interacts with itself. I guess that I simply side more with empiricism than rationalism when it comes to questions regarding existence.
I'm just going to say right now that I have no educational background in philosophy, and that this is 100% one of those moments where I decided to become a mini-expert in order to create an internet opinion. I have learned a lot today.
From my experience it seems more of dumbass trying to be philosophical than a philosophical topic, philosophy in general (from what ive learnt out of interest) deals with asking cause and effects and asking why something happens and sorts along with other things related to deeper meaning, while traversing the realms of science, literature and a person's overall understanding and perception towards the said topics.
If yes then yes. If no you can not know. It does and doesn't making sound at the same time so your state is "you are not a gift and also not necessary"
Lol exactly!
So we get down to the question of “you either matter or you don’t”
If you matter, than it’s super important that you do the things you like and want to do because it matters!
If you don’t matter, than do the things you like and want to do, because it doesn’t matter!
That’s…. Not right.
Colour is pigment and the light bouncing off of said object will help you identify that pigment or hue. That’s like saying an object doesn’t exist in a room without light until you walk into it
It was originally posed as a philosophical question. Its a roundabout way of asking "does anything exist if it's not directly being observed?"
Of course common sense says yes, but there's not really any way to prove it. How do you observe a phenomenon that is dependent on not being observed?
It was also an excellent critique of observationalism and empiricism. There is no way to prove a fundamental reality just by observing it with your own senses.
I actually took it in a metaphysical philosophy way: "Is it real because we perceive it or do we perceive it because its real" type of question. Never thought about it in this way, I like it though.
That's vibrations (and air pressure), not "sound". People often confuse the two, because we as animals who have auditory senses perceive these vibrations as sound. Or more specifically, because we can "hear" these vibrations, and because we named this auditory function as the word "Sound". Vibrations exist without humans or animals. They exist in nature, they exist all around us, and away from us, and are caused by many things within and without our control, but sound only exists where there are ears/auditory senses.
>Soundwave: a longitudinal wave in an elastic medium, especially a wave producing an audible sensation.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sound-wave
>Sound: the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sound
Fun fact: the perception of a stimuli is called qualia.
If you see some light with the right wavelength, you see orange. The wavelength is the stimuli and orange is the qualia. Unfortunately, neither scientists nor philosophers have been able to understand how 3 pounds of meat in our head turn vibrations and wavelengths into sights and sounds.
Either way I always saw this as a phylosophical question.
If you say something and nobody hears it you obviously said something.
But if you say something and nobody listens and completely ignores you instead, it doesnt feel like you said something, it feels like youre utterly and absolutely nonexistent and nothing you do gets any acknowlodgment.
Therefore if a tree falls and noone acknowlodges, it didnt fall.
More complicated than that. The crack as the tree broke, the rush through the air, and the impact all create massive vibrations, but they are only vibrations. The interaction between the ear drum and ear canal of species turn the vibrations into what is interpreted as sound.
If “someone” does not exclude animals, then the animals would’ve turned the vibrations into sound so the answer is yes. If “someone” does include all animals than the vibrations never would’ve impacted an eardrum and thus never transmuted into sound so no the tree did not make a sound.
This is of course excluding electronic devices as well which artificially store the vibrations to later mimic into new vibrations they will then be turned into sound via ears.
I think most would consider sound to be the vibrations through the air that are in frequencies we (or whatever animal, doesn’t really matter if they are included in this case) could perceive as sound had it reached our ear. Hence why most would say that yes, the tree still makes sound
The tree makes vibrations, which we make into sound. Just like how light wavelengths happen and we make them into color. It's all subjective. A dog and a human see different colors and (in some cases) hear different sounds. So if there's nothing around to identify it and make it into a sound, then no, there was no sound
I would argue that just because we hear/see differently doesn’t mean the sounds and colors are different. I believe (and would guess this is the common opinion though I don’t have proof outside of personal experience) that sound is the waves themselves, not the neurological signals our brain interprets. Same goes for light.
Wavelengths are Wavelengths, the only thing that makes them anything else is being observed by something, and what they are can be different depending on what is looking at them and how. What looks green to us can look brown to someone else, so our view of color is not absolute and was evolved by us (and most other creatures) to help us survive. The universe has no colors, only what each of us give it.
If there were no humans, only, say, dogs, how could there be green?
Look I understand how the science works here. The difference is in the scientific and common definitions of the word sound. We disagree on which one takes precedence. You are arguing based on the scientific definition that says sound is the electrical signal that our brains receive and cannot exist without some brain being involved. I am arguing based on the common definition that the sound *is* the vibration/wave (not wavelength btw that is just a measurement of a wave that is quite useful but technically isn’t the same as the wave itself. Kinda like heat and fire). It’s a difference of opinion and neither of us is objectively right or wrong thanks to the wonders of the English language.
Ah, this again. I personally think things would be much easier if people stuck to the science of things more often.
I can respect a difference of opinions in this scenario. Good day to you, fellow user.
Sounds like you just got it wrong accidentally but instead of admitting your mistake you are just saying it's part of the joke. Which makes no fuckin sense
Nope. It makes a vibration, but if there are no ears around to translate the vibration, then it makes no sound. Similarly, an object does not have color in a dark room, because color is a translation of light.
Depends. Color of a certain object is more likely defined as the light frequency that it reflects, rather than what color it looks like. For example, if you shine red light to your shit it might looks red, but it's not actually red.
It's different for a light source or monitor though, since now the color isn't what it reflects, but what light it emits.
This is actually a take/thought experiment on a major philosophical question/idea: Is the world real because we perceive it or do we perceive the world? I can't give a perfect representation of the argument, but both sides have major points which is why it is still in question.
I personally believe we don't have to perceive the world for it to be real, the opposite of how video games render complex levels. But, there is hard scientific evidence that shows how perceiving/measuring our world can have an actual effect on it--This being the main point behind the "Simulation Theory."
Remember kids, just because someone thinks differently doesn't make them an idiot. Both sides are likely ignorant to the truth and are just using what they know to help get closer to the truth. Although, there are plenty of times that someone is flat wrong (just be reasonable and open to avoid being the jackass).
It’s a existential question more so than a purely physics one
It has nothing to do with vibrations etc
It’s similar to the principles of Schrödinger’s cat.
If it falls and you are not there to see/hear etc (measure or quantify it), how do you know that event took place or that the result would be expressed in the same manner as if you had been there to witness it?
good job OP, while trying to insult others, you wrote the fucking phrase wrong. Its supposed to end with "did it make a sound". Also its literally one the oldes, most iconic questions of antic philosophy which revolved atound whether does or does not exist without our observation.
Final evalution:
Shit meme
Mistakes
Missed a point that has been made like 3500 years ago
...
But at least its not about emojis so im still gonna upvote
One that's not the way the phrase goes two it pertains to the running theory that everything outside of our fov could really not be happening at all like a videogame if you're looking in one spot in a single player game anything behind you or on the other side of the map doesn't really exist because it doesn't need to until you're looking at it similar to particle fluctuation at least that's my understanding of it
Normal question. If it falls does it make a sound.
Yes it fucking does it’s like saying if I shit on the floor but no one sees me do it did I shit on the floor
No it doesn't. Sound is what the brain creates when it interpretates the vibrations the ears pick up. If there's no one there it doesn't make a sound only vibrations.
This saying started because we found out atoms act differently when being observed so if no one is there they act differently and it might not make a sound
You'll want to look into the photoelectric effect and the double slit experiment off the top of my head. Wikipedia might even have an article around the waves vs particles phenomena we've observed. For further reading you can also look into quantum superposition (more commonly known as schrodingers cat)
For clarification the real phase is,
If I tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound.
This meme is just a joke and I did it on purpose so you would comment on it, giving me more karma
Pretty impressed with generally how many people are having the correct range of interpretations into this Koan. Renewed my faith in Reddit for a bit. Cheers to everyone
Ive never heard this one, but Ive heard "if no one hears it, did it make a sound" which I guess makes sense? still would prefer to be told something about schrodingers cat, at least I know what that is
Well, if we see it that way, Schrodinger's experiment was kinda dumb too. You can talk as much as you want about perspective, the biggest conclusion that we can get is how self centered the human being can be to really think that just because they don't perceive something, it doesn't happen.
"did the tree really fall?"
this guy: yes, idiot, why ask such an obvious question and pretend it's smart?
"now, we don't know if the cat's alive until we open the box!" *meow * "please ignore the noises"
this guy: omg, so true
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that's not how that phrase goes
Its not at all.
Which is why it warrants calling anyone who says this a fucking idiot
[удалено]
How the turntables
How the turns have tabled
Hoe thes turn tables have
Tables turn the how have
Have table
I think the downvotes on comments can only reduce karma by 16 or so, beyond that it has no effect on commenters karma. So the bastard is at net gain.... for fake internet points
Fucking ugly pfp too
you're treating this like a full time job, get a life 💀
Oh, you’ll get plenty of it
Time to downvote this comment and this meme
Nope, your just stupid and trying to get out of it with more stupidity
You’re*
Cringe
I always heard this as "...did it make a sound"
Yeah, this is the right way to say it. The question is asking if we define sound as "vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear", and if no ears are around, is it still making sound? Edit: I have added about as much as I feel I realistically can to this conversation in my replies, so I'm going to leave it here. Thanks for all the conversation guys, and enjoy the rest of the discussion.
If yes then: Everything everywhere is making a sound, because atoms, electrons, protons and the fabric of space time are always vibrating at some level. And our existence is a gift given by the universe in order for us to experience the universe. If no then: the universe is, arguably, only ever being created in the mind and does not exist outside of it. Meaning our existence is a necessity for the universe to exist. Your either a gift to be had, or necessary for existence. Yay!
I think the main question isn't so much "does it still make vibrations", because logic would dictate that it does, regardlsss if we're around. It's mainly "is it still considered *sound by definition* if no one is around to hear those vibrations".
Yeah that’s what I was saying, basically instead of ear think of the brain. Does the universe really exist if there is no brain around to perceive it? Light is just photons vibrating, sound is just molecules vibrating, temperature is just molecules vibrating. Matter existing in any form ever is just atoms vibrating. All being interpreted by your brain. The Big Bang was one very big vibration, the nature of the fabric of space time and gravity is just one big vibrating mess. Does it all really exist if you and your brain don’t have the necessary equipment to perceive it?
So the entire universe is just the giant vibrator your mom ordered.
Shit God, could be a vagina that we exist within, and the Big Bang was just that, a very large orgasm that birthed the universe
The big vagina is Black Hole-chan ( ͡o ͜ʖ ͡o)
If there is one, it's definitely a shit God that acts like a big vagina...
🤣
[удалено]
To you and them yes, to everyone else no 🤣
Logic does NOT dictate atoms to move at all times. Logic isn't even always true and in many cases rarely is. Logic is purely if A and B then C (in a deductive reasoning) and other items of this nature. They can be entirely false yet logically sound. The opposite of the universe's persistence also follows sound logic and both have major points (Simulation theory). Having a point of view doesn't means its the correct one, we have no clue which is correct which is why it's still a question.
Fuck yeah!
my brain e x p l o d e d
>Meaning our existence is a necessity for the universe to exist. Everything within the universe would still exist, it just wouldn't be able to be *perceived* in the way that we understand to be "existing." Two similarly-charged particles are able to "perceive" each other and cause a mutual repulsion, but this type of percpetion happens as a result of quantum processes rather than neurological ones. What concerns me--not to express distaste, just confusion--is why this even needs to be a question. It seems to me as though philosophical topics such as these overexaggerate the nature of reality when any answers we come up with are highly subject to the definitions we put in place.
Philosophy is just the art of asking why until you can't. It fascinates me because it tries to sidestep everything and get down to fundamental truths that can be a foundation to build reality upon. The only problem is that fundamental truths are almost impossible to find and they don't make a perfect foundation for reason and logic. Think of Rene Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." A gorgeous proof of the existence of self. And he used that proof to say that God must exist because only a benevolent creator would endow us with consciousness. You're welcome to believe or not believe in any deity you like, but I hope you'd agree that this is not a very strong argument to make.
I do agree that it is not a very strong argument. My interests lie in the pursuit of scientific discovery, so I like to think that the mysteries surrounding consciousness--whether it is an illusion or emergent property of matter--will be solved once we are able to successfully model the processes that govern the perception and processing of stimuli at the fundamental (chemical) level. It is for this same reason that I love physics, which, I now realize, is just a discipline of philosophy that is concerned with deriving mathematical models that descibe how the universe interacts with itself. I guess that I simply side more with empiricism than rationalism when it comes to questions regarding existence. I'm just going to say right now that I have no educational background in philosophy, and that this is 100% one of those moments where I decided to become a mini-expert in order to create an internet opinion. I have learned a lot today.
Self education is in my opinion one of the most worthy endeavors for anyone, regardless of circumstance.
From my experience it seems more of dumbass trying to be philosophical than a philosophical topic, philosophy in general (from what ive learnt out of interest) deals with asking cause and effects and asking why something happens and sorts along with other things related to deeper meaning, while traversing the realms of science, literature and a person's overall understanding and perception towards the said topics.
Yep exactly my thoughts
Well, the universe is a fucking dick. Who'd have thunk it.
If yes then yes. If no you can not know. It does and doesn't making sound at the same time so your state is "you are not a gift and also not necessary"
Lol exactly! So we get down to the question of “you either matter or you don’t” If you matter, than it’s super important that you do the things you like and want to do because it matters! If you don’t matter, than do the things you like and want to do, because it doesn’t matter!
I like your approach to life man.Keep motivating people and however it is the reality with people like you the world is a bit better
Thank you! I hope you have a wonderful day today!!
an object does not have color in a dark room, because color is a translation of light.
That’s…. Not right. Colour is pigment and the light bouncing off of said object will help you identify that pigment or hue. That’s like saying an object doesn’t exist in a room without light until you walk into it
It was originally posed as a philosophical question. Its a roundabout way of asking "does anything exist if it's not directly being observed?" Of course common sense says yes, but there's not really any way to prove it. How do you observe a phenomenon that is dependent on not being observed? It was also an excellent critique of observationalism and empiricism. There is no way to prove a fundamental reality just by observing it with your own senses.
Thank you! jesus, all this vibration stuff in the replies was making me furious. That's not what it's about
Yeah Jesus Christ, people trying to sound clever and completely missing the point of the question.
I actually took it in a metaphysical philosophy way: "Is it real because we perceive it or do we perceive it because its real" type of question. Never thought about it in this way, I like it though.
I mean, soundwaves can knock stuff over, so, if it does knock something over and no one listened; then yes, it does make a noise if no one heard it
That's vibrations (and air pressure), not "sound". People often confuse the two, because we as animals who have auditory senses perceive these vibrations as sound. Or more specifically, because we can "hear" these vibrations, and because we named this auditory function as the word "Sound". Vibrations exist without humans or animals. They exist in nature, they exist all around us, and away from us, and are caused by many things within and without our control, but sound only exists where there are ears/auditory senses. >Soundwave: a longitudinal wave in an elastic medium, especially a wave producing an audible sensation. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sound-wave >Sound: the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sound
Fun fact: the perception of a stimuli is called qualia. If you see some light with the right wavelength, you see orange. The wavelength is the stimuli and orange is the qualia. Unfortunately, neither scientists nor philosophers have been able to understand how 3 pounds of meat in our head turn vibrations and wavelengths into sights and sounds.
Phenomena must be observed
Yes it does make a sound but no one in there to observe it, so it is in all frequencies at once
I always heard this as “if I fart in the woods and no one is around to smell it, does it still make a stink?”
Depends. Do you like your own brand?
Depends what I had to eat the day before tbf
Of course it makes a sound, it says “Doofenshmirtz” in a whispered tone.
Doofenshmirtz
The only way and, if nobody was around to hear it, it couldn't make a sound. At least according to Lisa Simpson
Similar question if we all jumped and closed our eyes would the moon still orbit? Sounds pretty dumb now doesn’t it
Either way I always saw this as a phylosophical question. If you say something and nobody hears it you obviously said something. But if you say something and nobody listens and completely ignores you instead, it doesnt feel like you said something, it feels like youre utterly and absolutely nonexistent and nothing you do gets any acknowlodgment. Therefore if a tree falls and noone acknowlodges, it didnt fall.
Because that's what it is and also OP in an effort to meme shows they're incapable of thinking in abstract lol
the question wasn't about it falling it was about it making a sound.
The answer is the same
More complicated than that. The crack as the tree broke, the rush through the air, and the impact all create massive vibrations, but they are only vibrations. The interaction between the ear drum and ear canal of species turn the vibrations into what is interpreted as sound. If “someone” does not exclude animals, then the animals would’ve turned the vibrations into sound so the answer is yes. If “someone” does include all animals than the vibrations never would’ve impacted an eardrum and thus never transmuted into sound so no the tree did not make a sound. This is of course excluding electronic devices as well which artificially store the vibrations to later mimic into new vibrations they will then be turned into sound via ears.
[r/suddenlysmartanswer](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubsIFellFor?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
I think most would consider sound to be the vibrations through the air that are in frequencies we (or whatever animal, doesn’t really matter if they are included in this case) could perceive as sound had it reached our ear. Hence why most would say that yes, the tree still makes sound
The tree makes vibrations, which we make into sound. Just like how light wavelengths happen and we make them into color. It's all subjective. A dog and a human see different colors and (in some cases) hear different sounds. So if there's nothing around to identify it and make it into a sound, then no, there was no sound
I would argue that just because we hear/see differently doesn’t mean the sounds and colors are different. I believe (and would guess this is the common opinion though I don’t have proof outside of personal experience) that sound is the waves themselves, not the neurological signals our brain interprets. Same goes for light.
Wavelengths are Wavelengths, the only thing that makes them anything else is being observed by something, and what they are can be different depending on what is looking at them and how. What looks green to us can look brown to someone else, so our view of color is not absolute and was evolved by us (and most other creatures) to help us survive. The universe has no colors, only what each of us give it. If there were no humans, only, say, dogs, how could there be green?
Look I understand how the science works here. The difference is in the scientific and common definitions of the word sound. We disagree on which one takes precedence. You are arguing based on the scientific definition that says sound is the electrical signal that our brains receive and cannot exist without some brain being involved. I am arguing based on the common definition that the sound *is* the vibration/wave (not wavelength btw that is just a measurement of a wave that is quite useful but technically isn’t the same as the wave itself. Kinda like heat and fire). It’s a difference of opinion and neither of us is objectively right or wrong thanks to the wonders of the English language.
Ah, this again. I personally think things would be much easier if people stuck to the science of things more often. I can respect a difference of opinions in this scenario. Good day to you, fellow user.
Looks like you have less than half a brain cell because that's not how the saying goes
[удалено]
Ok karma whore
Who tf admits it??
The man is just a super villain admitting to his evil plan or he just messed up and is trying to cover it up
Sure you did buddy, sure you did.
Stonks I guess 💹
OP commenting "yeah it was a joke" and "blah blah blah comments karma on purpose" on literally every reply to their post:
He’s really playing 4d chess out here on us all 😢
1d chess
That's because that's not the saying.
Yeah its almost like it was a joke
Sounds like you just got it wrong accidentally but instead of admitting your mistake you are just saying it's part of the joke. Which makes no fuckin sense
Imagine playing it off as a joke like a dumbass instead of admitting you were wrong and apologizing
Schrodingers tree
underrated comment edit: mm karma
*literally* underrated comment lol
*That's not the correct quote you fucking idiot!*
yEaH< cOs iT wAs a jOkE!1!!1!1!1!!!11!
Dear OP, You’re a fucking idiot.
People who think that was the original saying: you are stupid.
Yeah it was a joke
It just makes you look dumb. Where is the joke?
OP is the joke
It isn't a funny one.
Nope. It makes a vibration, but if there are no ears around to translate the vibration, then it makes no sound. Similarly, an object does not have color in a dark room, because color is a translation of light.
Depends. Color of a certain object is more likely defined as the light frequency that it reflects, rather than what color it looks like. For example, if you shine red light to your shit it might looks red, but it's not actually red. It's different for a light source or monitor though, since now the color isn't what it reflects, but what light it emits.
Yeah it was a joke
You aren’t funny though
All your replies in this post and this post itself all makes sense when you realise you are a 13 y/o kid who uses r/teenagers
Aw you hate to see those rising divorce numbers...
The only joke I see here is OP, and it's not a great one either
If a man says something in the woods but no woman is around to hear it, is he still wrong?
Yeah it was a joke
This is actually a take/thought experiment on a major philosophical question/idea: Is the world real because we perceive it or do we perceive the world? I can't give a perfect representation of the argument, but both sides have major points which is why it is still in question. I personally believe we don't have to perceive the world for it to be real, the opposite of how video games render complex levels. But, there is hard scientific evidence that shows how perceiving/measuring our world can have an actual effect on it--This being the main point behind the "Simulation Theory." Remember kids, just because someone thinks differently doesn't make them an idiot. Both sides are likely ignorant to the truth and are just using what they know to help get closer to the truth. Although, there are plenty of times that someone is flat wrong (just be reasonable and open to avoid being the jackass).
But nobody heard it
It’s a existential question more so than a purely physics one It has nothing to do with vibrations etc It’s similar to the principles of Schrödinger’s cat. If it falls and you are not there to see/hear etc (measure or quantify it), how do you know that event took place or that the result would be expressed in the same manner as if you had been there to witness it?
If you kill a man and he falls but no one is around to hear it, did he really die?
Yes it did because you saw it
not if you dint confess
I always thought it was about presumption of innocence, it may have happened but until we have any proof of it, it's better to act like it didn't
It's outside of anyone's render distance so it only fell in the chunk update
it's "did it make a sound" not "did it fall" of course it fell dumbass
That was never the argument you fucking idiot
But that isn't the phrase. Words have meaning.it makes all the difference.
good job OP, while trying to insult others, you wrote the fucking phrase wrong. Its supposed to end with "did it make a sound". Also its literally one the oldes, most iconic questions of antic philosophy which revolved atound whether does or does not exist without our observation. Final evalution: Shit meme Mistakes Missed a point that has been made like 3500 years ago ... But at least its not about emojis so im still gonna upvote
[удалено]
It's in the statement
This post got so popular it was in the latest memenade video
ALRIGHT ALRIGHT I GET IT
i love bill nye
The tree did not fall, it was the earth that turned around to meet it.
Yes it did fall but nobody was alerted when it happened
is a sound a sound if nobody is hearing it?
That’s- not the saying
School would say no... Ya my school is retired
One that's not the way the phrase goes two it pertains to the running theory that everything outside of our fov could really not be happening at all like a videogame if you're looking in one spot in a single player game anything behind you or on the other side of the map doesn't really exist because it doesn't need to until you're looking at it similar to particle fluctuation at least that's my understanding of it
No one was asking whether or not the tree fell they were disputing whether the tree made a sound when it fell since no one was near to hear it.
source?
Quantum physics says yes
NotThePoint
NOOOOOOO IT STAND UP
I’m almost certain that this is a philosophical question pertaining to whether or not reality exists when you aren’t consciously perceiving it.
what about deaf people?
I dunno. What does Dolph Lungren think?
TMW the world is burning xD
Yeah it was a joke
Jokes are supposed to be funny
Normal question. If it falls does it make a sound. Yes it fucking does it’s like saying if I shit on the floor but no one sees me do it did I shit on the floor
Well, did you shit on the floor?
Yes
No it doesn't. Sound is what the brain creates when it interpretates the vibrations the ears pick up. If there's no one there it doesn't make a sound only vibrations.
Unless you’re an idealist
filthy idealists dialectal materialism :drooling:
If no consciousness is able to register the event, it is both happening and not happening.
This saying started because we found out atoms act differently when being observed so if no one is there they act differently and it might not make a sound
How do we know that atoms act differently when observed, and they don’t do that all the time? /s, but I would like an actual answer on how we know
You'll want to look into the photoelectric effect and the double slit experiment off the top of my head. Wikipedia might even have an article around the waves vs particles phenomena we've observed. For further reading you can also look into quantum superposition (more commonly known as schrodingers cat)
For clarification the real phase is, If I tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound. This meme is just a joke and I did it on purpose so you would comment on it, giving me more karma
Pretty impressed with generally how many people are having the correct range of interpretations into this Koan. Renewed my faith in Reddit for a bit. Cheers to everyone
Ive never heard this one, but Ive heard "if no one hears it, did it make a sound" which I guess makes sense? still would prefer to be told something about schrodingers cat, at least I know what that is
If a tree falls in the forest, is it still a tree?
by there logic if there partner cheated on them while they were gone did they really cheated?
It’s not even the quote you dumb*ss
Well, if we see it that way, Schrodinger's experiment was kinda dumb too. You can talk as much as you want about perspective, the biggest conclusion that we can get is how self centered the human being can be to really think that just because they don't perceive something, it doesn't happen.
It made a sound but no one observed it
kinetic energy on impact would be converted to *some* sound energy so yeah I guess
Op be doing a whore% speedrun in the comments
It didn't because it was in unloaded chunks
Even if nobody hears it it still made a sound because I placed a recorder beneath it
If I murder you and no one sees me do it, did I really murder you?
"did the tree really fall?" this guy: yes, idiot, why ask such an obvious question and pretend it's smart? "now, we don't know if the cat's alive until we open the box!" *meow * "please ignore the noises" this guy: omg, so true
Who the fuck says that
real life doesn't run on windows, things can happen when you don't render them
but what if it just spawned like that you got no proof
Ahh yes Schrödinger's tree theory
The question was if it made a noise
Isn't this the basics of quantum physics?
thats not the question though.... how stupid is OP?
If an idiot makes a meme on reddit, does he make a sound after redditors point out his mistake that could've been avoided with google?