Something very odd with SMAC....

[YT]

The whole argument is academic. There are always creatures in a forest to hear the noise and see the tree fall, even if it is one lonely squirrel wondering why all this terrain is suddenly going up.

[c-maguire]

Here's one for you:

If the tree fell and no one was around to hear it, how do you know it fell then?

c-maguire, trying to give everyone a headache.

[Vi Vicdi]

The law of thermodynamics suggests that a tree cannot fall unless it makes a sound.

A quantum physics answer might be that the tree does not fall until it is observed, at which point it falls and makes a sound.

The question, "If a tree falls unobserved does it make a sound," seems founded on the premise that thermodynamics is dependent upon observation, when in fact evidence suggests the opposite to be true.

My answer to this question, then, would be this: either a tree cannot fall if there is no one around to hear it, or it must make a sound.

[Famyn]

Observe my post, above.

Sound is not created by atoms clashing against each other, such as when a 'tree' obeys the laws of gravity and 'falls' against the 'ground.'

This event creates high levels of vibration waves, or sonic vibrations.

Sound is the translation of these waves, using proper recepticles to register these said waves, by a living creature's brain into thought patterns that said brain can understand them. If there is no living creature around with the proper sensory recepticles, then the sonic waves will not be translated into sound such that a living being can comprehend it.

NOTE: vibration waves often have physical affects on matter. They cause atoms to vibrate as the wave passes over them. Usually, this is unnoticed. Several occurances, such as high levels of 'bass music' can be 'felt' by living creatures, again with the proper sensory organs (in this case, nerve endings). Likewise, if no creature with nerve endings is within the maximum affectory range of these vibration waves, then they will also not have this affect.

So, the answer, again, is: If a tree (or group of atoms acting in certain ways that a living mind associates with being a tree)falls in the woods and no one is around, it does not in fact make 'sound', only creates vibration waves that a living being, if in fact one would be around, would use its proper sensory recepticles to translate into sound so that its mind could understand them.

And dangit, don't argue with me anymore cause I've used up my entire scientific vocabulary. ('laser')

[joer]

Whee, back to definitions and acceptance of the classical scientific paradigm.

Taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica search (www.eb.com):


sound:
a mechanical disturbance from a state of equilibrium that propagates through an elastic material medium. A purely subjective definition of sound is also possible, as that which is perceived by the ear, but it is not particularly illuminating and is unduly restrictive, for it is useful to speak of sounds that cannot be heard by the human ear...


I'd be really interested in seeing the rest of the description, so completing it would be appreciated.

Looks like not everybody is agreeing with your definition, Famyn. And, sure, I think it makes sense to speak of a sound if I recorded the whole thing without (anybody with a nervous system) being there. Where'd you find that definition?

Vi Vidci: Thermodynamics states that trees can only fall if there's an elastic propagation medium around? Wow...where?

-joer
[This message has been edited by joer (edited May 02, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by joer (edited May 02, 2000).]

[YT]

Vi: Actually, a macroscopic application of quantum physics suggests that the tree exists in a state of having fallen and not having fallen, simultaneously, until it is resolved. Upon observation, the probability equation is resolved, and the tree has either fallen or not fallen.

Of course, there is no macroscopic application of quantum physics, but if the falling of the tree were dependant on the action of a single subatomic particle, then you could use the Schroedinger equation to determine the eigenstates at which the the tree might fall, and the probability assigned to each eigenstate. But the tree would still exist in a state of uncertainty until observed.

The other possibility is that one day physicists will get there heads out of their asses and determine what makes the equation resolve at one or another eigenstate. Then you could determine the exact time at which the tree might fall, and throw the parrallel universes theory into the trash where it belongs.

------------------
Yours Truly
[This message has been edited by YT (edited May 02, 2000).]

[joer]

quote: Originally posted by YT on 05-02-2000 11:30 AM The other possibility is that one day physicists will get there heads out of their asses and determine what makes the equation resolve at one or another eigenstate. Then you could determine the exact time at which the tree might fall, and throw the parrallel universes theory into the trash where it belongs.

Isn't the point of the Uncertainty principle of Heisenberg that there cannot be any such equation independant of the observer?
If there was...hey, I'm sure a lot of people would feel the world was whole and makes sense again.
-joer.

[joer]

quote: Originally posted by YT on 05-02-2000 12:25 PM [...] But this is a statement about our ability to abserve, not calculate. [...] Physicists have come up with two reasons to explain why one or the other actually occurs. 1) it must be observed by a conscious being. The act of observation causes the resolution of the equation. 2) Both occur at the point of resolution. One in one universe, and the other in another parrallel universe. Before the resolution, there is only one universe containing the potential for both (the tree has fallen and not at the same time), and the universe splits into two parrallel universes at the time of resolution. [...]

Good explanation, IMO.
Anyways, since I assumed that you refered to possibility 2 as 'the theory that belongs into the trash', we have to stick to 1.

So while physicists could theoretically come up with a theory to calculate the exact state the cat is in (other than 'both dead and alive), it'd be impossible to check it, since any checking would cause the equation to collapse, because of the underlying principle of the Heisenberg Uncertainty theorem (observing altering the state of the experiment).

I guess that's what I truly meant. In case it makes more sense.
Hey, don't you wish that explaining these things would be as simple as clicking a button and getting the message that you will discover the principles Quantum physics/the Unified Field Theory or Secrets of Creation in 3 turns?

-joer, trying to find more obscure ways to escape working.

[This message has been edited by joer (edited May 02, 2000).]

[YT]

Joer: you misunderstood what I said. Both 1 & 2 together are the explanation for what happens. Observation resolves the equation (ie - actually causes it to resolve), and parrallel universes explain how one and not the other occurs at the time of resolution. One is the trigger, and the other the process.

------------------
Yours Truly

[Velociryx]

Ahhh, but perhaps the more vexing question would be: If a man speaks and there's no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

(checking to make sure his wife isn't present)

Quantum Marriage Counselors have contemplated this same question.

In their terms

The uncertainty of the wifes response is such that one of two possible outcomes can be predicted.

1) The husband is wrong or
2) the wife is right

Now this means that a statement made outside of a woman's presence is not fully resolved until actually observing the womans response. The act of observation (as an observer your body language tends to influence the outcome) finally resolves the outcome of the statement.

Now if only I could find that parallel universe that allowed me to play SMAC till the wee hours of the am. while convincing my wife I was paying the bills.

[Depp]

Wow, my stupid topic triggred a discussion of total absurdom. Awesome !

[Helium Pond]

Once again, the literalists are using the question to quibble about definitions and theories, although I suppose the arcane tenets of quantum physics are the closest thing the western world has to koans. As the only one arguing on behalf of the monks, let me once again show you the error of your ways:

Example 1:
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear, does it make a sound?"
Remember: if you believe you have answered the question, you have not understood it.

Example 2:
"If a man speaks and there is no woman there to hear, is he still wrong?"
Remember: if you really loved her, you wouldn't have to ask.

[YT]

Ogie & Vel: I'm impressed with your quick understanding of the true meaning of quantum mechanics and it's applications

HP: What sound does one hand clapping make? I prefer this question because it's kind of hard to turn it into a debate on the scientific principles of sound, which is the usual response to the tree falling question.

If you believe you have understood the question, you have yet to comprehend the answer.

------------------
Yours Truly

[WhiteElephants]

I'm almost convinced by the "science" of sound, but you scientists forgot one thing. You haven't proved that the tree exists yet. Or that sound exists or that you exist or that I exist. How do you know you didn't dream me up and that I don't really exist? Can't you hear me talking in your head right now? Maybe I'm just part of your dream. How do you even know you even exist? Maybe your just part of my dream? How do you know your not dreaming right now? If you can't prove your not dreaming right now how am I ever going to believe your laws of science? How do I know you didn't just dream them up?
[This message has been edited by WhiteElephants (edited May 02, 2000).]