If a tree falls in the forest, and there’s nobody around to hear, does it make a sound?

I don't really get are you discussing - physics or linguistics?
If a tree falls and it's not happening in vacuum, it causes sound waves. Sound waves don't really give a shit if there are humans or other hearing mammals around, they just spread.

If you're arguing about "sound" as a word of English language, then by definition from OxfDict sound is "Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear." According to this definition, sound is still sound, even if it's not heard, but could be heard, if an animal or whatever with hearing ability were around.
So, yes, a falling tree in the given situation makes sound.

If a nucleus decays but you can't see the radiation, do you still get poisoned?

Yeah if you're near the radiation.

microphone + recorder
Lrn2twentieth-century techology
or get thee back, thou carbuncle

Is God dead?

No, events literally don't exist without an observer. You can't prove any causal event without experience, idiot.

Did GW150914 only happen after we've heard the sound at the press conference.

but animals don't exist when they're not being observed

wait, what if I don't exist while I'm not being observed?

Yes
Whether or not the tree falling has interacted with the air does not depend on the interaction between the air and a complex machine.
now take your philosophy back to definitions of observer and causality. you're probably baiting so no elaboration needed unless you're actually an /x/ tier idiot. In that case I don't care to elaborate.

>definitions of observer and causality. you're probably baiting so no elaboration needed unless you're actually an /x/ tier idiot. In that case I don't care to elaborate.
Yuh dude numbers so exist if people weren't there to count them xD

Events exist but the phenomena y is zero, in the entire domain of x. There is no proof to begin with. It's just metaphysics at this point. Experience implies past tense of causality, the effectual. Of course, if the world is intra-universally connected, which I'm assuming it is, then there is an effect which can be observed. Whether or not that assumption is correct, there is an effect with a scope, that may or may not be extended to the observer.

this is a philosophic as well as a semantic question more than it is a scientific one.

It needs and observer to observe, no matter the medium.

And for the physical part it's just kinetic energy being transfered through different media. Meaning it makes a sound even if it's not falling, more pricecly nothing in the physical universe emits silence.

scope of nil, which says anything can be proven about the consequences of nil.

causal x, i.e.

Well sound is the vibration in the air (or other environment) so it makes a sound.

Yes.

If a tree falls in the forest, and there is someone around to hear it, does it makes a sound?
And what if this person is deaf?
What if there is no person?
That is one stupid question, there will be sound, having people to hear it or not.

There's no reason to think there is no sound. Epistemologically there isn't any way to know without observation, but everything we do know suggests that there is sound.

If there is no one around to hear it, how do we know a tree fell?

smart

really makes you think uh

We saw it on the ground a few hours later

nah, now this is just an argument about the definition of sound. I'd say that soundwaves count as sound whether or not there's an ear to process it, but if someone else defines sound differently, whatever.

wow, goosebumps

If a star emits radiation but due to the expansion of space neither its light cone nor its gravitational effects ever reach you, was it really there?

not until it has been observed.

all of you people saying yes, there is a sound have clearly never given any such questions deep thought. it obviously does not make a sound, just mere vibrations in the air. until these vibrations hit an observer's ear drums, no actual sound has been perceived.

better question - how many roads must a man go down?

you should be able to solve this.

7!

there is but only one path
the one set forth
by god
almighty
vagina
extasy
love

if a tree falls in the forest, and there's nobody around to hear, does the forest exist?

WEW LAD
E
W

L
A
D

If nobody is around to hear then it's likely that nobody is around see it either.

How do we know it fell, then?
Bimini and the same thing happened to me and I will have the time to get back to you soon.

It is a quote from a philosopher from ancient times. It should not be taken literally, everyone knows that falling trees makes a sound (unless it fell in vacuum). The question rather focus on the questions of existence and epistemology and all of this falls under the field of philosophy which is not related to sci.

A scientist would say that it makes a sound, based on observations of falling trees and with induction the scientist came to the conclusion that it does make a sound.

What the scientist does not know (let's say this is ancient times without advanced equipment) is if the sound is independent from an observer. Because clearly, just looking at quantum mechanics observation determines the behaviour of a certain natual phenomenon so it is clear that the question is not dumb if you don't interpret it literally.

We know today that falling trees does make a sound because we have proven that this phenomenon is independent from and observer.