AlanF, and other "tree falling makes a sound" realist

by jst2laws 63 Replies latest social current

• 

  jst2laws

  OK Alan, On the thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/73007/3.ashx you seemed to agree with my objection that sound is a matter of perception of energy waves, and that it is only our perception that makes it "sound". But then you went on to say we should "avoid useless definitions that really tell us nothing", and then said "it's existence is independent of whether anyone or anything receives "a particular auditory impression". But wait, "it's existence" is still the issue. What is it that exists? The energy the tree produced, only a small portion of which is detectable by mammals, is interpreted by our brains as a "particular auditory impression" we call sound. Without an "auditory impression", there was no experience we humans call sound. And the tape recorder only reproduced the energy patterns that our brains interpret as sound. So dude, lets focus on the big issues. This is not about dictionary definitions. It is about human PERCEPTION of reality. It is my impression that the question was originally raised simply to elevate our awareness of PERCEPTION. Everything is a matter of perception. You know from physics that all sorts of things are going on around us in the physical world (especially at the subatomic level) that we do not perceive. Only those events and energy wave lengths we are capable of perceiving do we label with terms such as "sound", "light"- -why even matter is nothing more than a perception. This discussion really boils down to a greater question than 'does the falling tree make a sound" to the real issues quantum physics is unraveling: "If we are not here to experience MATTER does it really exist?" I would like your opinion on this from the viewpoint of quantum mechanics. I'm not up to your level scientifically so be merciful. Jst2laws
• 

  Valis

  Hey Steve...get ahold of some Wittgenstein and see what you think...this is a short sample of the logic style you might find interesting..

  http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/t11en.html

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  Shutterbug

  Hey Steve, I'm having a problem worrying about something I don't understand. Sure hope you and AlanF can worry enough for all of us. Bug
• 

  jst2laws

  Thanks Valis,

  Hey Steve...get ahold of some Wittgenstein and see what you think...this is a short sample of the logic style you might find interesting..

  Always open to new ideas.

  Shutterbug,

  Hey Steve, I'm having a problem worrying about something I don't understand. Sure hope you and AlanF can worry enough for all of us. Bug

  Don't worry about something you "don't understand". I don't understand it either. But the interesting thing is understanding it is a secondary issue. Maybe we don't need to understand it. Maybe all we have to do is accept that it doesn't really exist, accept as we perceive it.

  Jst2laws

  
  
  
  
• 

  LittleToe

  What was never really addressed was my point about it falling in a vaccum (wherein no sound waves can exist).
  Does it make a bigger dent in the surface, since energy doesn't disappear.

  Moon craters show evidence that certain such phenomina have occured previously, even though there were no human's around to observe their creation from meteor impacts.
• 

  SixofNine

  But wait, "it's existence" is still the issue. What is it that exists? The energy the tree produced, only a small portion of which is detectable by mammals, is interpreted by our brains as a "particular auditory impression" we call sound. Without an "auditory impression", there was no experience we humans call sound. And the tape recorder only reproduced the energy patterns that our brains interpret as sound.

  I don't know man, that was a rather "definition" filled paragraph. And because it is so "definition filled", you covered the "it's existence" issue quite well. Problem solved. Good job, please continue worshiping at the alter of precise language, lest you be overcome by the Silly People.
• 

  onacruse

  The "tree falling in a vacuum" scenario is not only hypothetical, it's impossible: there is no vacuum in the universe.
• 

  jst2laws

  Sorry LittleToe, You noted that

  What was never really addressed was my point about it falling in a vaccum (wherein no sound waves can exist).
  Does it make a bigger dent in the surface, since energy doesn't disappear

  If you are interested I will give you my amateur science answer. Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed then whatever energy would have gone to producing that which our auditory senses would turn into a sensation of sound (though relatively little energy is involved compared to that released by a falling tree) would be changed into another form of energy such as the force of pounding an imperceptively larger crater. I'm not sure what you mean by

  Moon craters show evidence that certain such phenomina have occurred previously, even though there were no human's around to observe their creation from meteor impacts.

  I do not think this is an issue of whether or not physical phenomena is dependent on an observer, but rather it is about the physical world itself being dependent on the Perception of observers. Is it the solid stuff we think it to be, or is it actually very active, structured energy that we PERCEIVE as 'stuff'? How about the fact that 99.995 percent of what makes up an atom is empty space and the other .005% is not 'stuff' as we think of it. That small portion is made up of what is often called a particle/wave because sometimes it behaves like a particle and other times it behaves like a wave. In fact the only time, as far as I understand, it behaves as a particles is when we try to look at it, measure or weigh it. Yet by the time we make our observation of this particle/wave it has long ago moved on to other forms. It simply is not the 'stuff' we expected it to be according to our Newtonian perception of the world.

  This is why I said earlier it is all about PERCEPTION. Although extremely consistent from one observer to another it is a perception of energy, only a mental image of a none solid form before us.

  So Toe, have you tried putting that into your pipe and smoking it?

  Jst2laws
  
  
  
  
• 

  onacruse

  I hereby pass on the "mental-masturbating" baton to Steve.

  Go for it, man! Run like hell was burning your heels.

  LOL
• 

  SixofNine

  LOL. Don't forget the "in public" part, Craig.

  Steve, I think you're overdramatizing the issue. All you're really saying is "we've been wrong about what-*stuff*-is all along." Yes?

  It's no big deal. I mean, it's exciting intellectually, and it's the next frontier perhaps, but when all is said and done, it is what it is, and when what it is is figured out, once again it will be scientist who explain it to us, not philosophers and sure as hell not religious nuts.