Conscious intentional communication, which we perhaps too hastily attribute to human beings as a mark of distinction, becomes a limited domain, the only domain where the distinction between desirable and ‘spurious’ uncertainty pertains. We may have to concede that the centrality of human communication, understood as a semantic and culturally saturated information system is, at least in principle, neither the first system in which information processes occur, nor necessarily the most efficient.
Does a tree make a cracking sound in the forest if nobody’s around to hear it? Well, depending on the circumstances, the answer could be yes, no, or both. According to classical mechanics, the answer is definitely yes.
Classical mechanics, a physics subfield, studies the motion of large objects like planets and galaxies. Determinism and reversibility are central to our comprehension of the physical world; they allow us to predict future object behavior based on initial conditions and the laws of nature, suggesting we can trace motion history back to its initial state.
In classical mechanics, sound is described as a pressure wave propagating through a medium like air or water. When an object, such as a tree, is subjected to an external force, it may crack, causing a rapid release of energy transferred to surrounding air molecules, creating pressure waves or sound waves that travel until reaching a listener’s ear.
Sound waves cause the eardrum to vibrate, creating an electrical signal transmitted to the brain, resulting in the perception of sound. Thus, according to classical mechanics, the cracking sound by the tree is an objective physical phenomenon, occurring regardless of observation.
However, quantum mechanics introduces uncertainty. In this realm, particles exist in multiple states simultaneously, as seen in Schrödinger’s Cat. The presence or absence of the sound of a cracking tree is uncertain until observed, known as superposition.
In quantum mechanics, a particle is in superposition until observed, lacking a definite property. Observation causes the wave function to collapse, fixing properties. Thus, whether a tree makes a sound in the forest without an observer remains unclear until the particle is observed.
Observation’s impact extends to sound waves’ particle components, affecting their behavior. While the sound itself is objective, the act of observation can influence the experience of that sound.
In conclusion, the question of whether a tree makes a sound if no one hears it is straightforward in classical mechanics but introduces uncertainty in quantum mechanics. The Schrödinger’s Cat paradox exemplifies the complexities, challenging our understanding of reality as we continue to explore fundamental principles in our evolving understanding of the universe.
This doesn’t sound very accurate. For starters, classical mechanics fails to describe even motion of Mercury. But more importantly, uncertainty in this context means someting else in this context. And while it is true that Schrödinger’s cat is both alive and dead until observed, once observed, it’s been dead or alive all along. Same with a tree, once it is determined it has fallen, it has already made the sound and produced all the consequences some time ago. While I don’t understand quantum mechanics, I’m fairly sure the person who wrote the copypasta understands it even less than me.
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." -- Richard Feynman
"Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them." -- John von Neumann.
The latter quote didn't occur in response to Feynman, which might be hinted at by the subjects not being aligned, but together they serve my point.
Both these men were terrifyingly intelligent and worked as physicists at least some of the time. If they couldn't understand quantum mechanics, then we mortals don't have much of a chance.
Most importantly, the question is supposed to highlight the difference between sound as in physical waves and sound as in perception. The answer completely misses the point.
But the interaction of a quantum particle (in the system of the falling tree) with other particles and, on a larger scale, molecules, already represents an observation and information exchange. Therefore, while not 100% certain, it is extremely probable that the falling tree will make a sound. Isn’t it?
But neither tinnitus or cochlear implants have any vibration associated. If they are sounds then sounds are more than just vibrations. At the same time, not all vibrations are sounds.
The argument is that sound is part of our internal processing of sensations. If there is no brain to perceive it, is it a sound, or just a vibration in the air?
It’s an ontological argument. OP is creating a categorical distinction where “sound” is the cognitive process by which pressure waves are perceived, eg as information. I think it’s a fairly common distinction to make, but it is also kind of unsatisfying is the sense that it feels a bit like linguistic nihilism.
Yes and no. It all depends in what field you're describing sound. In physics, a tree that fell in the forest most definitely made a sound. In psychology, it doesn't.
In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid.
In human physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain.
Add comment