If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around, does it make a sound?


The answer is, of course, no. Just like a red ball isn't really red. If a ball is "red", it simply means that it reflects a certain wavelength of light, which hits our eyes, and our brain says, "that's red!" Without a human or, perhaps, an animal around to see and put a name to that effect of bouncing light, it is just a very interesting reflection of a certain wavelength of light.

The "red" and the "sound" of the tree are secondary properties of matter, meaning they aren't really there, they are only in our minds. The concept of Red and Loud only exist in my brain, they don't actually exist in the real world. Therefore, if a tree falls and nobody is there to hear it, it just happens to be an interesting collections of air molecules compressing themselves.

Actually if nobody and nothing is there to observe it, the tree exists as both a standing tree and a felled tree within a quantum probability matrix.

When you go to the woods to have a look, you collapse that waveform, much like the "Schrodinger's cat" thought experiment.

A more interesting question would be:

If a quantum probability matrix collapses in the the woods, does it make a sound? :P

[quote author=EvilCheese link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=0#msg21301 date=1063621790]
Actually if nobody and nothing is there to observe it, the tree exists as both a standing tree and a felled tree within a quantum probability matrix.

When you go to the woods to have a look, you collapse that waveform, much like the "Schrodinger's cat" thought experiment.

A more interesting question would be:

If a quantum probability matrix collapses in the the woods, does it make a sound? :P
[/quote]
Stop with the matrix and quantum stuff, I haven't learned that yet, it makes my head hurrrrt.

[quote]If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around, does it make a sound?[/quote]
[quote]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sound
sound n.

1.Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

2.Transmitted vibrations of any frequency. [/quote]
1. Yes
2. Yes

If a tree falls next to a 'sensitive avalanche' (not sure the scientific name of an avalanche which can be triggered by sound), what will happen?

I would say that the answer to the tree question lies within the definition of "sound." Isn't sound defined as the vibrated distribution of air and not what lifeforms hear? If so, then if a tree falls in the woods and no one's around, it would indeed make a sound, just that no one would be close enough to pick up on the vibration waves.

I've only seen sound defined as the matter itself, not what we hear. Feel free to prove me wrong.

It is my opinion that if there is nobody or nothing to observer the falling tree, then it doesn't exist and therefore cannot fall.

[quote author=Thing link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=0#msg21305 date=1063636558]
It is my opinion that if there is nobody or nothing to observer the falling tree, then it doesn't exist and therefore cannot fall.
[/quote]

That's only true in optimized games.

Still, even in optimized games, you should assume that it is there and falling. Some games do indeed have flaws that make things not happen when you're not there, and not appearing to have happened when you get there either, but that's just a bug.

You'll find that when dealing with items in reality, they don't behave so unpredictably as to automatically rebuild themselves and replenish when you leave the area and come back. You should therefore assume that the tree actually does fall when noone is there to watch, and that there is a sound.

There is no reason for it not to fall, and no reason to destroy and recreate all that matter when people come and go, as opposed to destroying a level in a game, destroying and rebuilding matter even with all we know about physics is a very expensive process, and it's just not worth it to save resources. For that reason, the law of laziness says that the tree will just simply fall down and make its noise unoptimized, much like a quick and dirty hack 3d game would have it done.

Such is the nature of reality, a quick hack by someone.

Ok this is going too far into theory I think...

The tree IS there whether you are there or not, and it DOES make a sound whether you are there or not. You are not the center of the universe, and it is illogical that it would not make a sound.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=0#msg21339 date=1063657508]
Ok this is going too far into theory I think...

The tree IS there whether you are there or not, and it DOES make a sound whether you are there or not. You are not the center of the universe, and it is illogical that it would not make a sound.
[/quote]
You are actually saying we ARE the center of the universe. What if an animal (I know they're fake, but take Shriekers from the second/third Tremors movies) that can only see heat signals looks at a red brick. It will think the brick has no color, because it is not hot. Now you are saying it is red no matter what because it is red to us, which is not true at all!

But. . .what if a deaf person is there? Would it still make or not make a sound? Technically, the vibrations are produced, but the deaf person is incapable of detecting them and realizing the sound has been made, so. . .It throws out the theory that it doesn't make a sound if no one is there to hear it. Because, technically, someone was there to hear it, but they just didn't hear it.

Or, it proves that it doesn't make a sound, because the deaf person didn't hear anything. :o

~Death_Ryder

Spht is right, in that it depends on the definition of sound. Like I tried to explain in my first post, the red ball would be a better example.

What about the question, if human beings didn't exist, and if there was no concious life. There would be nothing around to interpret or even name "sound" or "color". Color (and "sound") is an internal representation of an abstract concept, and that's the point the argument tries to make.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=0#msg21346 date=1063661016]
What about the question, if human beings didn't exist, and if there was no concious life. There would be nothing around to interpret or even name "sound" or "color". Color (and "sound") is an internal representation of an abstract concept, and that's the point the argument tries to make.
[/quote]

If human beings didn't exist, a ball could still be red. I don't have a practical example, but think of a concept borrowed from some now extinct species - as long as the concept is well defined, whether the original reason for its invention is still around is a nonissue. You should be able to come up with a definition of red that works.

I think the question of whether the world exists when we're not looking is more interesting, and that's what I thought you were talking about...

[quote]
[23:48] Talk CupHead[vL]: Someone really needs to write some sort of evil neural net to get past everything that uses one of those silly OCR-breaking images.
[23:48] well, then they'll just have it be a color
[23:48] and as we know, if no human is watching, colors don't exist
[23:49] so the problem becomes impossible
[23:49] Talk CupHead[vL]: By what logic?
[/quote]

[quote]I think the question of whether the world exists when we're not looking is more interesting, and that's what I thought you were talking about... [/quote]
That's exactly what I was talking about!
How do we know the tree or ball is there if they are not being observed? Just because you tell me "there is a falling tree", does not make it true. I could also say that the tree and ball only exists during the times that there is an observer, but that does not make it true. Both scenarios are possible.

[quote author=Thing link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=0#msg21357 date=1063662811]
I could also say that the tree and ball only exists during the times that there is an observer, but that does not make it true. Both scenarios are possible.
[/quote]

You could also say that they never existed, that they were always just figments of your imagination.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=0#msg21300 date=1063601997]If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around, does it make a sound?[/quote]
If a man is standing in the woods there are no women around, is he still wrong?

If a mute man gets his balls kicked, does it hurt?

You guys are by far the most whacked out bunch I've ever seen... Once again...
[quote]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sound
sound n.

1.Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

2.Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.[/quote]
YES, the tre DOES make a sound whether you are there to hear it or not.

Colours (or the fragment of light as we see as colours) is there whether we see it or not, they are not there 'because we see them', we see them because they are there. The same concept goes for the tree, it does not make a sound because we are there, we hear it because it makes a sound.

The universe exists, not for us, but it just does. The fact that we see it does not mean it is there for us, it is there and we just happen to be observers (I'm sorry if I'm being repetitive).

If all of this 'junk' you guys are talking about is true, then there is no door, you can walk through it if your eyes were closed, there is no gravity, you can fly if you wanted, and there is no time (because you can't see it) and you can live forever. All of these theories as we know, are false.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=15#msg21379 date=1063678440]
You guys are by far the most whacked out bunch I've ever seen... Once again...
[quote]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sound
sound n.

1.Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

2.Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.[/quote]
YES, the tre DOES make a sound whether you are there to hear it or not.
[/quote]

j0k3r, get your science out of this philosophy discussion. It has no place here. For reference, see Descartes, René.

Besides, havn't you ever seen The Matrix? [/obligatory]

But we "know" that these things are false? How, might I ask, do we know this?

To use a teleological argument, why would the universe exist if it wasn't for us? If there was nobody in the universe to sense time, space, and all the fun stuff, would it really exist?

There could have been an infinite number of universes created before ours, but if there was no life in them, they'd might as well not exist.

[quote author=UrbalT link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=15#msg21387 date=1063680348]
[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=15#msg21379 date=1063678440]
You guys are by far the most whacked out bunch I've ever seen... Once again...
[quote]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sound
sound n.

1.Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

2.Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.[/quote]
YES, the tre DOES make a sound whether you are there to hear it or not.
[/quote]

j0k3r, get your science out of this philosophy discussion. It has no place here. For reference, see Descartes, Rene.

Besides, havn't you ever seen The Matrix? [/obligatory]

But we "know" that these things are false? How, might I ask, do we know this?
[/quote]
Ah, I'll give you credit for being one of the only people ever to spell my name correctly.

Iago, you once again are under the impression the universe was created for you. Your (insert hero/idol's name here) does not get up at 5am and let the sun out for you, people's lives go on while you are there to witness them or not, and we do not live in a computer.

Of course the world wasn't created for me, and of course the sun doesn't rise for me. But if there was no sentient life, would it matter whether the universe existed or the sun came up every day? IF there was no sentient life, would it matter what color something was, whether a meteorite hit the earth, or if the earth fell into the sun? Of course not! If there was no sentient life, then for all intents and purposes, it wouldn't matter whether or not the universe exists. It doesn't exist for ME, it exists for ANY sentient life, or even for sentient life in general.

What is it about sentient life that all of a sudden makes the universe worthwhile?

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=0#msg21300 date=1063601997]
If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around, does it make a sound?[/quote]
I heard this as:

"If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around, what color is it?"

Eh. Why does everyone insist that we exist, that this is real, that the tree is red and the ball fell? Think for yourselves and stop believing that crap you read in textbooks.

[quote author=Thing link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=15#msg21405 date=1063691693]
Eh. Why does everyone insist that we exist, that this is real, that the tree is red and the ball fell? Think for yourselves and stop believing that crap you read in textbooks.
[/quote]

As my previous comment may have indicated, René Descartes felt the same way. He's the guy who started with "Cogito, ergo sum," and built his universe up from there.

[quote author=Thing link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=15#msg21405 date=1063691693]
Eh. Why does everyone insist that we exist, that this is real, that the tree is red and the ball fell? Think for yourselves and stop believing that crap you read in textbooks.
[/quote]
But then I'd be listening to what I read on a forum!

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=15#msg21398 date=1063682156]
What is it about sentient life that all of a sudden makes the universe worthwhile?
[/quote]

Sentient life acts as an observer. Life is different than normal matter. Refering to my other post about teleporters/copying people, we have something special, whether it be a mind or a soul, that allows all sorts of special stuff. For these arguments to work, you have to accept that there is something special about minds, which I also refered to in my other post. It follows from that, in a complicated argument which I don't feel like getting into yet, that God must exist. It's a really interesting argument, posted by Descartes.

And yes, Descartes was my main inspiration for posting this. Cogito ergo sum - I think <--> I exist.

To summarize the beginning of Descartes' argument:
The world may be a deception. I have no guarentee whether I'm dreaming or awake. I could be in the Matrix, being fed false sensory information. God could be the Great Deciever, giving us all sorts of false information and lying to us. Everything could be fake, except for the fact that I'm the one who is doubting the existance, which leads me to believe that my mind exists, even though everything else may be fake. From this, he follows that his body must exist, then that god must exist (using the Ontological Proof), then from that that everybody else in the world must exist. I don't want to go into it past that, but if this sounds interesting, read Descartes' "Confessions". It's a very interesting read.

That part sounds rather stupid. What's to say that you're really there to doubt your existence? You may feel so, but if you're not really there, that could be an illusion too. Just like time. In an unknown world, you cannot trust that you're really thinking. Maybe it's all fake.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=15#msg21410 date=1063706759]
That part sounds rather stupid. What's to say that you're really there to doubt your existence? You may feel so, but if you're not really there, that could be an illusion too. Just like time. In an unknown world, you cannot trust that you're really thinking. Maybe it's all fake.
[/quote]
OMG TAKE THE RED PILL!
[me=j0k3r]let's go of his opinion for a few momments[/me]
Even if everything was artificial, and created by a computer, do you not enjoy what you think food tastes like? Do you not enjoy being comfortable in the clothes of your choice? Do you enjoy not having to live in fear of being sliced in half by ARTIFICIAL intelligence? Although I have a lust for knowledge, had the opportunity presented itself I would rather stay here and learn, than to go live in poverty, fear, and whatever. All I want is my computer, nothing else really matters to me. I'm happy with life I guess.

Yes Iago, you think, therefore you exist I agree with about that. As for sentient life adding meaning to the universe, I still say no. Nothing you/I/we will ever do will ever affect anything (hey, there's no point to life! yeah that's right...) in the grand scheme of things (galaxy, universe, etc).

I can see this argument getting ever closer to its only possible outcome which is this.

How do you know sound is sound? Because it says so in a book? Because you think it is? What if you are wrong? You claim to have a brain that understands these concepts, What if you are wrong?

Sound is a manmade idea the word itself and the theory around it created by us, so from man's perception it is what it is. It doesn't mean that our understanding of it is correct, or for that matter wrong. We claim to be able to measure sound, What if we cannot? What about if the entire universe as we think we know it is completly diffrent.

How can you be sure thinking makes you exist? In order to do this you are claiming to understand the very principales of existance.

When viewing the world through a kaleidoscope there are many copies of whatever you see which are distorted and randomly arranged. Does this mean the world really looks like that? To somebody who had only ever seen through a kaleidoscope the answer would be yes. They would know no diffrent.

Maybe as humans we are a method of looking upon something, a preception altering view for some greater being or whatever you wish to imagine. How can any of you be sure that all your lives you have not been viewing the world through a human kaleidoscope?

*sorry for any spelling mistakes*

[quote author=Shadowrage link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=15#msg21416 date=1063716803]
I can see this argument getting ever closer to its only possible outcome which is this.
[/quote]

Yup. If we start doubting what our senses tell us, we might as well doubt everything. So, assuming that our senses are giving us a reasonable image of something, we can make definitions about sound and the color red, and if those definitions are generic enough they can live on whether we're there to look at them or not. Actually, if something that meets that definition occurred before we existed to make that definition, it can still be considered an instance of it.

[quote author=Shadowrage link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=15#msg21416 date=1063716803]
I can see this argument getting ever closer to its only possible outcome which is this.

How do you know sound is sound? Because it says so in a book? Because you think it is? What if you are wrong? You claim to have a brain that understands these concepts, What if you are wrong?
Sound is a manmade idea the word itself and the theory around it created by us, so from man's perception it is what it is. It doesn't mean that our understanding of it is correct, or for that matter wrong. We claim to be able to measure sound, What if we cannot? What about if the entire universe as we think we know it is completly diffrent.

How can you be sure thinking makes you exist? In order to do this you are claiming to understand the very principales of existance.
[/quote]
I gave you the definition of sound, and quoted myself for those who did not read it at first. As I have said, we did not invent sound, it is not there because we made it. We simply discovered it's existence and sought(sp?) to understand it. Everything we know and everything we are, is based upon our senses and what we have been taught.

[quote]
When viewing the world through a kaleidoscope there are many copies of whatever you see which are distorted and randomly arranged. Does this mean the world really looks like that? To somebody who had only ever seen through a kaleidoscope the answer would be yes. They would know no diffrent.

Maybe as humans we are a method of looking upon something, a preception altering view for some greater being or whatever you wish to imagine. How can any of you be sure that all your lives you have not been viewing the world through a human kaleidoscope?

*sorry for any spelling mistakes* [/quote]
I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion, perhaps rephrase? Comparing the world to a kaleidoscope is absurd, nothing in the world is identical...

We did invent sound without humans the term "sound" would not exist you are looking at it too scientifically.

The kaleidoscope comment makes pefect sense, i used it as just an example of something that can change how the world seems when looked through. Then drew a theortical comparison to human beings, how do we know our eye sight itself doesn't have a similar function?

The thread has also deviated like most threads do to not just discussing the falling tree problem :)

Nothing in the world is identical? Did i claim it was ?

Well, if you look at it in a theological way, then the most relevant answer is that you don't know anything, so you might as well stop trying to reason about it.

If you on the other hand look at it in a scientific way, then yes, the tree makes a sound when it falls, for the scientific definition of sound doesn't require anyone to be there to listen, it only requires the pressure waves.

Sure, it's possible that we are seeing the world through a kalidoscope of some sort. Yes it's possible that we are enslaved by AI's harvesting our bodies for energy. Yes, it's possible that nothing actually exists except in our minds (ie, a dream). But, although any of those may be true: we are still able to think. I can think that I don't exist, but I'm still thinking. I can think that what I'm seeing is fake, but I'm still thinking. If I think that I can't think, that's a contradiction. Thinking is the basis of existance. The existance of our mind, therefore, is necessary for us to exist.

[quote]The thread has also deviated like most threads do to not just discussing the falling tree problem [/quote]

yes, but we are getting into some interesting stuff, which is what I was aiming for. 3/5 of my courses are philosophy, so it's fun for me to post problems we discuss in class to see what others think of them :)

Just because humans invented the WORD sound, doesn't mean humans invented the sound itself. If sound was called kwyzaggradticfuarckticunt it would still be the same thing.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=30#msg21434 date=1063748136]
If I think that I can't think, that's a contradiction. Thinking is the basis of existance.
[/quote]

I don't see that being true. Your thinking could be fake. Your ability to think could be an illusion.

The description of sound is a bunch of wave lengths or whatever it was I posted, go read it.
[quote]We did invent sound without humans the term "sound" would not exist you are looking at it too scientifically. [/quote]
Sound is a name we gave to something, like a variable. Without humans, it would just be a bunch of wavelengths, without a name and we would address it as "wavelengths" or something along those lines. Everything we do or know is based on us, so to say that "it's just a word, it doens't mean anything 'in reality'" is absurd.

IF we hadn't named them, it would be just collections of wavelengths. And if there were no humans to sense them, it wouldn't be sound, it would just be compressed air.

And I'll respond to Adron's point tomorrow, when I'm more coherant :)

In eliminating everything we cannot be sure about, prehaps one day we will find something we can be certain of so taking things apart one by one though seemingly a futile action could be more helpful than you may think.

Sound is set in time, a man made concept, sound is produced by waves, the theory based upon a man made concept. I am not arguing that it definatly does not exist because to do so would be conridicting my own statement that everything is uncertain i am just saying that it possibly may not.

j0k3r you seem to be making too many assumptions, you assume sound is based upon waves, you assume we turn it into "sound". In a world where we truely know nothing as anything is possible you cannot asumme any base facts or theories. Though this is difficult to stop, we assume so many things in life, who is to say the floor will support you next time you step on it? yet we all confidently walk around.

In reference to "If I think that I can't think, that's a contradiction. Thinking is the basis of existance" i heard an intresting (not that it is my belief) comment on tv a few days ago "Many people believe they think yet all they do is rearrange their preconceptions"

Iago you are working on the basis that what you are doing is really thinking. Yes saying if i think i can't think makes a contradiction, but what if you say. *No word for it yet*ing that i can't think is a contridiction.. then the statement would be wrong.

"Many people believe they think yet all they do is rearrange their preconceptions"


I've heard that before, but I honestly forget who said it originally. Anyway, when I was 2, I couldn't reason about anything outside my house, yet now I can do calculus and stuff like that. That would imply that I can learn.

Now, what about inventions? I can learn stuff, but what about when I combine what I learn into new thoughts? It's true that that's a part of thinking, but I wouldn't call things I learn preconceptions.

[quote author=Shadowrage link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=30#msg21452 date=1063753818]
j0k3r you seem to be making too many assumptions, you assume sound is based upon waves, you assume we turn it into "sound". In a world where we truely know nothing as anything is possible you cannot asumme any base facts or theories. Though this is difficult to stop, we assume so many things in life, who is to say the floor will support you next time you step on it? yet we all confidently walk around.

In eliminating everything we cannot be sure about, prehaps one day we will find something we can be certain of so taking things apart one by one though seemingly a futile action could be more helpful than you may think.[/quote]
Yes, let's take apart the world, deconstruct everything, destroy all technology and start over, starting with philosophy first. If this happened we would never get anywhere.

[quote]Sound is set in time, a man made concept, sound is produced by waves, the theory based upon a man made concept. I am not arguing that it definatly does not exist because to do so would be conridicting my own statement that everything is uncertain i am just saying that it possibly may not.[/quote]
Time was not created by man, whether we were here or not there would still be time, it would still pass. We simply discovered a method of measuring it so we could further our understanding of it. If there was no such thing as 'time' as you speak, there would be nothing, because nothing could have happened. One of the most popular things in the world is based on our measurement of time -- music -- and to say that it is a thoery and can not be proven is proposturus, it is all around us.

At any rate you need get your head out of hotbox you've created, life is real, we cannot go to another universe where 'time doesn't exist' and 'things are created around you for your personal enjoyment'.

J0k3r there really seems little point in continuing to try and argue certain points with you as seemingly you are able to misunderstand everything i say.

I will leave you to your world of facts, solid evidence, and more importantly basic securties.


"Time was not created by man, whether we were here or not there would still be time"

Time is CLEARLY a man made concept how do you know time passes the same way for a fox? How do you know plants expriance time in the same way. Our theory is OUR preception of time we cannot be sure its everything else's. We created time as WE know it. We CANNOT and will NEVER know if time is really the way we think it is. Please stop arguing in the face of clear facts. The only thing we can ever be certain of is that we will never be certain of anything.. or can we ? ;)

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=30#msg21460 date=1063757416]
Now, what about inventions? I can learn stuff, but what about when I combine what I learn into new thoughts? It's true that that's a part of thinking, but I wouldn't call things I learn preconceptions.
[/quote]

It may seem to you like you learn stuff, but perhaps it's just like it might seem to a plant that it is "learning" to pick up sun better when in reality the summer is coming, and then suddenly it's getting old and forgetting about picking up sun when in reality winter's coming.

Time itself is either an abstact idea, or an actual thing, again depending on the definition of time. If you think of time as hours, minutes and seconds, no they technically are not real. If this time didn't exist, the world would still orbit the sun, and still spin. Still creating night and day. So if you think of it as in days and years, yes time does exist.

Edit: Ouch, noticing iago's post on the next page, I guess I was still thinking of the human interpretation of time. :-\

[quote author=Shadowrage link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=30#msg21507 date=1063802032]
Time is CLEARLY a man made concept how do you know time passes the same way for a fox? How do you know plants expriance time in the same way. Our theory is OUR preception of time we cannot be sure its everything else's. We created time as WE know it. We CANNOT and will NEVER know if time is really the way we think it is. Please stop arguing in the face of clear facts. The only thing we can ever be certain of is that we will never be certain of anything.. or can we ? ;)
[/quote]

I don't think your seeing my point... And I don't know how much more clearly I can state it. Time exists, it passes, things happen. I am NOT saying we created it, I am simply saying that we made a method of keeping track of it, that suits us. 1 second is pretty much the lowest we go because our mind's cannot really keep track of anything faster.

Know VB? Here's something that could help... Even if you don't know VB :P Think of it as a VB program without a timer, you need events to be triggered before anything can be done... And those events still rely on time (people, electricity, understand?). If you add a timer you can have things automated and things will progress... *sigh* Once again I feel like I have lost my point in a paragraph that is supposed to explain...

j0k3r: I understand what you're trying to say, as does shadowrage. But what you're saying has NOTHING to do with my point. Minutes and seconds were invented by humans, and before that there were other ways to measure time (Galileo used a constant stream of water and weighed it for timed experiments). That's not the type of time I'm talking about, just like sound as compression waves isn't the type of sound I'm talking about, and color as a certain type of light isn't what I'm talking about. Re-read my posts without constantly thinking about your prejudices.. they are real valid philosophical points which have stood for hundreds of years.

Science meets Philosophy (again)... Next time state that it's philosophical at the beginning of your post... :P You can avoid 4 pages of arguments.

Philosophically(sp?), I don't see how it matters whether a tree falls or not, it is not in your immediate presence and probably will not affect anything that will happen to you.

Well, since we all philosophically know nothing about anything, there's no use trying to make any philosophical point, and so we we can just abolish philosophy from the start :P

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=45#msg21545 date=1063852860]
Science meets Philosophy (again)... Next time state that it's philosophical at the beginning of your post... :P You can avoid 4 pages of arguments.

Philosophically(sp?), I don't see how it matters whether a tree falls or not, it is not in your immediate presence and probably will not affect anything that will happen to you.
[/quote]

Yes, see my post about "Best Argument Ever".

You clearly know nothing about philosophy, and your posts about it are unwelcome.

Which post is that?

https://davnit.net/bnet/vL/phpbbs/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=2653

Use the search! :P

Ah that one. Hmm.

I was referring to the argument about something that you don't see doesn't affect you :)

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2712;start=45#msg21646 date=1063936705]
I was referring to the argument about something that you don't see doesn't affect you :)
[/quote]

Ah, I didn't quite see where that linked post fit into this. The magic of the number 7 seemed to be rather unrelated ;)

Well, the way I see it, you should either embrace science and accept all the empirical knowledge that has been gathered there, or apply the strict philosophical "we do not know" stance, and then you can say nothing about anything :P