If a tree falls in a forest but there is no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

If a woman takes a big black cock but there's no white man around to watch it, is it still cuckoldery?

no need, self-explanatory

No, but it makes a feel.

this is not a question about physics, and don't interpret it so literally.

I don't understand why this is a difficult or profound question. If you define sound as the vibration of the eardrum, no. If you define sound as the vibration of air (that could potentially be received by an eardrum), yes.
If this question is actually "do things happen if humans aren't there to confirm it", then the answer is yes. Some things happen without anybody knowing about it, and that's because humans aren't God.

The sound exists only as a spook.

Yes there is a need. The way the word is understood has everything to do with the answer

If 'sound' is understood in terms of vibrations in the air, then it does make a sound
If it's understood in terms of someone or something perceiving it, then it's just vibrations but not sound

fp
bp

invert those definitions and you'd be correct

no, look again
if it depends on someone being there to hear it for it to be a sound, then it isn't a sound

If I steal something, but nobody notices, is it still a crime?

youtube.com/watch?v=nahiWIxuVoA

No your all wrong and you Veeky Forums fags just outed yourself as the idiots you really are. It's a zen koan. It's not the question you seek the anewer for but the state of mind in wich you under stand the pointless conclusion. A koan is an exercise for your mind.

This is a zen koan. I was told by a Buddhism expert that the answer is "No."

In the Buddhist view, sound is something which emerges from the contact of hearing with objects.

There cannot be sound without a hearer, and the koan tests the ability to discern sound as a phenomenon requiring both hearing and a noise-maker, rather than sound being a phenomenon which is self-contained and occurring on its own in the flux.

Lol thank you or dispensing your wisdom dudebros

>is it still a crime?
more like
>If I steal something, but nobody notices, is the thing missing?

I find very interesting in that, according to you, a representative of the group most closely associated with that old chestnut both 1) provided a straight-up answer and 2) is literally wrong. I have a relatively positive view of Buddhists, compared with other adherents, but they just came down a peg in my brain as a result of this anecdote of yours.

/thread

The question is a "problem" to some people because they don't pay attention to the definitions of words.

sound: The particular auditory effect produced by a given cause.

auditory: Of or relating to the process of hearing.

hear: Perceive via the auditorysense.

If there is no one and nothing with an auditory sense in the vicinity with which they can perceive the caused vibration with to create a "sound," then no, it does not make a sound.

Or are you arguing something else? Not who you replied to by the way.

Quentin Meillassoux says this is really about whether it's NECESSARY that the tree either makes a sound or doesn't. His answer's that it isn't...

For the purposes of philosophical wankery, your definitions might better be amended to read with clauses like "capable of being heard by a subject/observer, but not necessarily so". While such language would admittedly change the definitions to fit the thing I'm about to detail, it would also be a more complete and better view of what actually goes on when sounds are made, which is what physics is concerned with.

You're just repeating the scholastic error of the other user's above expert, by (quite ironically in the Buddhist case) shoehorning in an egoistic view of the necessity of the human subject in order for a phenomenon to exist, or what amounts to the same thing, describing the physical phenomenon in terms which are coterminous with its perception and observation by humans. Sound, properly understood as the physical phenomenon that it is, exists independently of its perception by a subject, which can be evidenced physically by other traces, even in the absence of an observer during the event proper.

Let me suggest to you by way of crude analogy that when a tree does fall, or in particular when an extremely large noise of some kind is made, the physical phenomenon entails other phenomena, from which a "crime-scene-investigator", forensic technician, or more generally, scientist, not having been present for the event, might be able to suggest a series of explanations and narrow down possibilities, of which "a tree fell" would be one.

The premise that the world keeps turning independently of subjective observation is a sound one, and is one of the philosophical bases of science.

This guy gets it.

Yes, it is, so. Among other things, but above all, physics.

It (as it is commonly phrased in English, anyway) /is/ also a more "squishy" philosophical question about observation, subjectivity, etc, where one may legitimately answer in the negative per the above user's correct qualificiations. I appreciate that. But the central thrust of the riddle, the starting point that one must come back to again, is a /physical phenomenon/, both at the start and at the end of the analysis (although the middle bit entails passage through the above squishy bits).

The difficulties over language as being central to philosophy (esp. in the analytic sperglord tradition) are actually highlighted nicely by this old chestnut, and as we've developed our views, it would seem.

the wave function doesn't collapse without being observed

so if the tree isn't observed its wave function...

Yes because you can record it.

Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of Veeky Forums are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bait to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

No, that doesn't even remotely apply here

>Otherwise it's just vibrations in the air
so... sound?

it does though because it is the same general principle. iirc einstein asked pais if he really believed that the moon doesn't exist when it is not watched, see also einstein's mouse

buddhists might even claim they wuz kingz and knew quantum mechanics back then

that's the exact opposite of also op's question has long since been answered

>that's the exact opposite of
what
are you sure you understand it

Light, x-rays, infra red;. All waves

what's the definition of "sound"?

a flat circle apparently

Sound
noun
1.vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.

If someone shitposts on Veeky Forums but gets no (You)'s, did the shitpost really happen?

If a crime is committed and nobody witnesses it, did the crime really happen?
;^)

it was witnessed by the person who committed the crime dumbass

Stealing candies while sleepwalking dumbass

What if his eyes were closed?
What then, genius?