/sci/ - Science & Math

He's right. See double slit experiment.

I'd just say that no knowledge is absolute, so we must consider what is most likely. Is it likely or more likely that the behavior of trees depends on a human being there? Likely not. He's got his head in the sand.

OP here

The reason why I want to think about this further is that I feel this in a way discredits evidence based predictions which I'm sure the faithfuls in the room are gonna love.

Holy fuck, now I hate phylosophy even more.

>>7343243
Take it as a challenge to you science nuts.

And to be fair, I managed to get back at him at a later topic, so the score was 1-1.

>>7343223
Philosophy dude is right. You can infer that it made a sound, but you can't know for sure.
To somebody who is used to making inferences based on empirical evidence of previous events (ie. anybody studying or interested in science), this may seem a trivial distinction, but the point of philosophy is to challenge your assumptions which are not based on sound logic and explore their implications.
If you continue studying philosophy, you will bang up against many thought experiments like this where you immediately think "well that's fucking obvious", only to have your beliefs challenged by logic. It can be frustrating at times, and you may think your professor is being a twat, but you will come to question what you explicitly or implicitly believe, and it will be good for you in the long run. Basically, this won't be the last time you're frustrated by a hypothetical question.

>>7343259
So basically i could just say that yes we cannot be 100% sure, but we can at least try to be 99.999999% sure until we get an alternative that will somehow get us to 100%?

>>7343266
>until we get an alternative that will somehow get us to 100%?
Can you explain what you mean by this?

I don't even know if the universe exists.

>>7343271
a hypothetical alternative. Basically, although my prof made the case that we cannot know something 100% sure, it's not like he offered any solution.

>>7343283
I'm confused. You seem to be saying we can't be 100% sure but we also can?
Can you explain further? I don't think I understand what you're saying.

>>7343223
>but in the future if the topic comes back, I plan to argue that we cannot dismiss evidence-based prediction solely because it doesn't satisfy our philosophical demands and that prediction is the best tool we currently have to get to the most likely answer.
congratulations, you're playing into his hands

you and your professor are replaying the classic scientific operetta of the problem of induction, and your response is ignorant practicality. it's the same stereotyped answer of all empiricists when faced with the limitations of their tool

it's certainly a common response, but not a philosophically or intellectually valid one

>>7343291
No no no. Im saying that I accept that we cannot 100% know something but we can get pretty close. But if somehow SOMEHOW somebody figures out how to 100% know something, he can change the world.

>>7343259

> you will bang up against many thought experiments like this where you immediately think "well that's fucking obvious", only to have your beliefs challenged by logic

this

>>7343230
>>7343238
>>7343241
>>7343266

these dudes don't get it. the thought experiment is not about uncertainty, statistics or the "we cant know nuffin'" meme. it's about challenging situations where the human definition of natural phenomena are proven to be subjective. in this case, our definition of sound. i'd say that you can argue by imagining a world governed by our laws and theories of physics (no need to make it more complicated by turning it into a fairy tale world where E=me^2) and therefore we know for sure that the fallen tree releases energy into the system which partially is carried by mechanical, longitudinal waves (i.e. sound) BUT since there is no living being (human) in the system to observe and process these waves into sounds, these can only be defined as said type of waves and nothing more. maybe I'm missing something here but I'm almost sure that the aim of this hypothethical question is for you to distinguish between logical and intuistic deduction

>>7343306
>the human definition of natural phenomena are proven to be subjective

same anon, I know "arbitrary definition" is a redundant phrase. I simply meant "intuitive deductions"
sorry

>philosophy
Why bother?

>>7343223
you're both retarded.

>>7343306
>these dudes don't get it. the thought experiment is not about uncertainty, statistics or the "we cant know nuffin'" meme. it's about challenging situations where the human definition of natural phenomena are proven to be subjective. in this case, our definition of sound. i'd say that you can argue by imagining a world governed by our laws and theories of physics (no need to make it more complicated by turning it into a fairy tale world where E=me^2) and therefore we know for sure that the fallen tree releases energy into the system which partially is carried by mechanical, longitudinal waves (i.e. sound) BUT since there is no living being (human) in the system to observe and process these waves into sounds, these can only be defined as said type of waves and nothing more. maybe I'm missing something here but I'm almost sure that the aim of this hypothethical question is for you to distinguish between logical and intuistic deduction
So basically it's just a bunch of boring stupid bullshit? Aight.

>>7343223

The statement: "If a tree falls and no one was there to observe it", is a contradiction, it's absurd, how can you know if it fell if "no one was there to observe it"?. A tree can only be in one of two states, fallen, or, still standing, so you can't just assume that the tree did fall and talk about the consequences of it's fall because we will never know if the tree did fall or not so there's no point in even talking about it assuming as if it did fall.

This is just a confusing question that has no useful answer

>He called me out...we observe that every tree that falls makes a sound would not necessarilly make a sound

He's an idiot, if it wouldn't make a sound then what would it make? Ask him if he has a better theory for what would happen instead if this hypothetical tree perhaps happened to fall.

>>7343327
>bunch of boring stupid bullshit
if you wanna say so, why not? but know that thanks to this bullshit we now have advanced tech based on which i won't even bother to count or deconstruct. although i agree that not everyone interested in STEM needs to get into philosophy, but at least give it some credit. it is what distinguishes us from mindless savages and overenthusiastic physics undergrad shitposters

>>7343241
It doesn't discredit it, but maybe it seems like it does to people who didn't understand what science does in the first place. Science doesn't offer certainty. You may look at scientific findings and make a judgment like that, but the models of reality science constructs do not in of themselves make certainty claims. The models constructed through scientific investigation account for a particular set of phenomena, and if new findings come up which the model does not predict, we revise the model. But the model in of itself offers no probability information about whether something will happen that it can't account for.

>>7343241
It is called the problem of induction (as opposed to deductive proofs). How does one prove that the future will behave like the past without begging the question, "because it always behaved that way".

OP here again.

I have a question - what is the practical real life application of the idea that there is no way for us to be 100% sure?

>>7343223

Tell your dickhead professor that it's physically impossible for a tree to fall without making a sound.

>>7343428

Bayesian networks, confidence intervals, error, etc, etc.

Do we know 100% that we cannot know something 100%

>>7343428

To provide grants and tenure for smart people to waste their minds thinking about nothing.

>>7343447
No.

>>7343433
unless it falls endlessly

>>7343457
How can you be 100% sure it's a no or even a yes?

>>7343499
That would be an orbit, and there is no sound in space.

>>7343499
>>7343499
>>7343503

Let us define "falling" as the continuous change in position of a massive object.

When a tree falls in space the gravitational force relative to any other massive object in space changes. This change can be measured as a vibration, which is a sound.

If a tree fell and it didn't make a sound it either didn't fall or never existed in the first place.

>>7343223
> "If a tree falls and no one was there to observe it, was the sound made?"
I have never understood what the point of the question/riddle is. Or what the riddle is supposed to prove.
My experience has been that things happen whether I am there to observe them or not.
Some people have left their beautiful homes in the mountains only to return and to find it burned to the ground. It made no difference whether they were there to observe the event or not.
The idea that a tree will fall down and obey gravity, displace air as it falls but will not generate sound waves because there is no observer to record the event makes no sense whatsoever.
Can someone explain this faggotry?

>>7343223
"Fallacy of tradition"? Where the fuck did this philosophy "professor" get his degree? The internet?

>>7343558

it's a bullshit semantics argument that "sound" implies the existence of a human observer, unlike the word "noise"

>>7343567
Well he is my prof so there's nothing we can do about it. At least I managed to verify his lack of knowledge on quantum fluctuations and abiogenesis when he asked "can something come out from nothing"

>>7343590
>semantics argument
Oh....oh :(

>>7343223
clarify your concepts

nobody knows what to know means beyond some instantaneous perception. predictions are by their definition not knowledge. What is knowledge is at best the method to produce predictions. Also, you must motivate that to predict is to know. it is pure faith that your method does talk about the world; you have no proof of uniqueness of your method anyway, so there can be other mechanisms which produce the exact predictions that you get from your favourite model.

If I predict the weather for each fifteen minutes over a year, why would you call it knowledge before the year has passed ?

>>7343596
fag

>>7343628
>fag
symantics

>>7343558
>My experience has been that things happen whether I am there to observe them or not.
tell how you observe something without observing it

>>7343666
Because you can always observe the after effects.
The only assumption you have to make is that the universe is causal.
>Some people have left their beautiful homes in the mountains only to return and to find it burned to the ground. It made no difference whether they were there to observe the event or not.

Does the Moon exist because a mouse looks at it?

God damn I hate philosophy. Yes the tree made a fucking noise.

That's how physics works. Predictable, tested, proven, elementary physics.

>>7343676
>>7343676
>The only assumption you have to make is that the universe is causal.
and you have no demonstration of this. you also assume realism

>>7343223
>philosophy professor
Stopped reading there tbh

Ok OP here again and I really appreciate the productive discussion.

To recap, we can predict that the tree that fell did make a sound because we have a scientific explanation with how sound works. Furthermore, we also considered that sound is different from noise in that sound does not necessarily require an observer for it to have happened.

So I can ask "does existence of something depend upon the existence of an observer?"

The opposition argues that there is no way for us know that the sound of the isolated incident of a falling tree, because we are only making a prediction, and that prediction is different from actually knowing.

I tried to fight through this by asking "but how can you 100% know that we cannot 100% know?"

What Can we gather from this?

>>7343757
So in essence
>you cannot know nuttin

>>7343558
It's easily explained by the fact that people who study philosophy aren't smart enough to understand basic physics.

So basically philosophy works like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Za8HggalY

>>7343805
He's saying that knowing something is different from thinking that it is true.
You could be right about your prediction and still not know what happens.

Most anons in this thread are missing the point completely.

>>7343306
This
>>7343223
Definition of sound requires observer. Before you argue with your professor, open a dictionary.

>>7343805
>What Can we gather from this?
the conclusion is that the scientific method remains just a causal method that a subject plasters, out of its craving of explanations, on what the subject experiences, with the predictions re-enforcing its belief in the deductive method whereas there is nothing motivating this stance, especially not a scientific proof.

>>7343757
>and you have no demonstration of this.
Your entire life is a causal chain of events.
Causality is the most demonstrable experiment ever. It has been verified by every human every day for the past 100 000 years. Causality is also the basis of science e.g. repeat-ability.

>>7344027
then what are the proofs of causality

>>7343223
This problem is brought up in every philosophy101 because it helps you understand how philosophy is

arguing, debating, being confused, that's exactly what this problem is suppose to do, foo.

I mean, every philosopher you have heard of released a book with their own unique view to problems like this

You can choose to disregard parts you do not relate too, as did many philosophers

>>7344040
Proof (A practical experiment) : Take your hand, flatten it in front of you. Now connect it with your forehead at a rapid speed.
1. Experience the feeling of pain in your forehead.
2. Hear the sound as your hand connects your skin.
3. Observe the red mark when you look in the mirror after the fact.

>>7344051
So basically, while it is a fun thought experiment, it is useless?

>>7344056
and how does this prove causality ?

>>7344081
You can repeat the experiment as often as you like until you are satisfied that the result remains consistent.
That is your proof. That is science.

>>7344076
I think we both know the answer to this
>define useless

>>7344089
all you are saying is that there is causality as long as I can check that there is causality

>>7344092
>>7344092
>define useless
>define pointless
>define it leads nowhere
>define no practical application
>ad infinitum

I think that, like another anon here said, it demonstrates the point of philosophy - we are free to think and discuss all sorts of shit.

So nothing can be proven empirically because science is inductive and falsificationist in nature. Okay. I dont see why this is so hard to admit

>>7344097
> there is causality as long as I can check that there is causality
Sure. And we all check and attest to it every day and every minute and every second.
After one is satisfied that causality is a fundamental property, one can assume it from that point forward. But it can always be checked if the situation is warranted.

>>7343676
So, the house did not burn till they saw it burnt, that's just stupid.

>>7343957
>It's easily explained by the fact that people who study philosophy aren't smart enough to understand basic physics.

OP doesn't seem to understand basic philosophical concepts, and neither do most STEMfags in this board. So what does that make them?

>>7343423
because i make a bunch of predictions based on induction and they work most of the time therefore induction works

>>7343359
I agree and I'm enjoying your replies. Every great thinker in the past had some sort of philosophical background. Most of them were polymaths heavily educated in the fields of philosophy and math.

>>7344381
More like most people here don't care to understand philosophical concepts, especially when conversations about philosophy are just roundabout ways of saying you cannot know nuthin

>>7343299
Not to be a pretentious philosophical twat but nothing can be known with complete certainty.

Because in order to know something with perfect certainty first you need a tool which you are perfectly certain is perfectly accurate. Otherwise any measurement with the tool could not be garrunteed to be true with complete certainty as their could always have been a mistake with the tool. However to verify such a tool is perfectly certain requires the verifcation of another perfectly certain tool. If you suppose, and I'm open to arguments against this, that no such tool exists right now. Then the tool could never exist.

I should specify that when I say "tool" I refer to any measuring device. Your eyes are tools and are a good example of imperfect tools because your eyes will give you the wrong information in many optical illusions.

>>7343223
I get it very easily. He's right. What if every tree that fell and made a sound was only the tree that humans saw, what if there are trees that fall and don't make any sound, the problem is nobody sees them.
You could argue this is a bit matrix-type of thinking.
It's like colors, how can we know every human really sees every color the same way. We don't. For all we know, every person might react differently to the same electrical signal sent by the eyes, or even have different signals from eyes sent with different reactions.

>>7343590 here

The virtue of engaging in philosophical discourse like the one OP described is to train your brain to examine itself for instances of functional fixedness and break them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_fixedness

It's a well-known concept in psychology, which is why /sci/ didn't already produce this answer (read: they hate the entire field). Functional fixedness applies not only to objects, but to abstract concepts. That is why philosophy is sometimes described as "teaching people how to think".

Honing this particular skill will make you a more rigorous and methodical thinker, as well as increase your likelihood of possessing insight, but there are upper limits to the usefulness of doing so.

It's a more fruitful use of your time to focus on your field and on your work, and then argue about it with a philosopher once a month or so. They make excellent sounding boards.

>>7343223

You may wish to look up Hume's "Problem of Induction". A good place to get an overview of the problem and its implications would be "A Very Short Introduction: Philosophy of Science".

You might find a PDF somewhere, nifty little read.

>>7344752
>/sci/ is one person.

We're in the minority but it aint that bad.

All knowledge is subjective.
Its basic in philosophy (and still very useful in any science) - knowing something, even just one small thing, (absolutely) certainly practically amounts to knowing absolutely everything.

That is what axioms do in any science. They take the liberty of being absolute and unquestionable knowledge. Without accepting axioms (= admitting to not knowing something/anything for certain) you cannot reach a conclusion that every tree produces a sound when it falls.

>>7343594
Enjoying community college OP?

>>7343223
Tree falls don't make a sound by following a tradition they make a sound because making a sound is a property of falling trees.

>>7343223
Tell your professor, but I warn you someone who is rotting as a NEET, not a 'philosophy professor' is saying this:

>If a tree falls and no one was there to observe it, was the sound made?

There can be multiple interpretations, but let's go with just two broad options


>I responded that considering we know how sound works, we can predict that the tree did make a sound
This answer is right, if we are only talking about trees and sounds being made.
Tell him how you actually get to hear sound. sound is sound waves. from the moment the tree started to fall to the moment it fell and the resulting wave of effects it created on the ground, the air, everything around, it was creating these waves that we interpret as sound.
Infact when a tree grows, it makes sounds too, just because we don't register it doesn't mean it doesn't happen

Now if we are using the tree and sound as metaphors, as hypotheticals, and trying to extrapolate life based on just one aspect of life, a statement someone came up with as a way to try to understand it:
Yes, No, We can't know

Neither of you are right or wrong. Your interpretations are different based on what you consider the question to be. A question to be answered. Or a question to be mused on.
btw, faith v science....
You honestly need more faith in science than in 'faith'

>>7344816
Also as for the guy who said that sound refers to the human experience of sound waves hitting the eardrum and presumably then processed by the brain and since no human is present nor too could a sound, I have this to say;
A tree in fact refers to the human experience of what we identify as a tree just like with sound. So then how could you have a tree at all without a human there to observe it in some manner?
How does a tree fall if there is no tree? And so on.

>>7344696
>especially when conversations about philosophy are just roundabout ways of saying you cannot know nuthin

seems like you or most people here don't care that they're perpetuating a strawman.
>but its not a strawman and philosophy is totally about "u cannot know nuffin"

that's what i mean when i say that people here cannot understand philosophy.

>>7343666

>mathematical departments are disconnected from the computer science departments

what the fuck am I even reading and who wrote that shit.

I think we have to be careful and distinguish between a metaphysical question about the existence of something and the epistemological question about our knowledge of something firstly.

The metaphysical question would be "If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to here it does it make a sound?"

This as some posters are starting to suggest depends on how you define sound. If by sound you are referring to the sensation of a sound it is arguable that no sound exists independent of a hearer. That is the say there is no sensation without a subject which senses.

If we define sound as referring to the physical objects that have the power or disposition to produce auditory sensations, then so long as we are some sort of realist about physical or material things, a tree falling in the woods does make a sound independent of any hearing subject. This would be something like John Locke's position on the matter. He would distinguish between mind dependent sensations (or as he would call them "ideas" and the mind independent and material objects which due to their physical structure have the power to produce these sensations. The word "sound" for John Locke would have the double role of referring to the sensation and the power in the material object to produce the sensation.

To be honest the question isn't the most exciting to answer. I could go full on Berkeleyean idealism and suggest that not only does the tree not make a sound when there is no one around to here it but the tree itself does not exist independent of its being perceived for all a physical object is a collection of sensations. But that immediately begs the question: why be an idealist like Berkeley? (Or alternatively why be a realist like Locke?)

Hume's discussion on causality ought to be required reading for every scientist.

>>7344825
You're missing the point. The professors point is that we can't KNOW what happens. We can predict with a tremendous degree of confidence, but we can't claim to know what will happen. There's a fine difference.

>>7344930
Just tell him that our human world is not about knowing or not knowing (because you can't know) but about believing that you know (because you can believe).
One concept philosophers are weak in. Belief. Pinnacle of boredom, so even most autistic don't study it.

>>7344696
how do you know that?

>>7344945
There's an entire school of philosophy that deals with belief.

And we can know certain things. For instance, we know that a triangle must have three sides.

>>7344696
The depth of your actual knowledge is something you need to investigate if you ever want to learn more.

>>7344998
That is not knowledge. That is a uncertain conclusion for the supposed knowledge that a shape with exactly 3 ANGLES can be called a triangle.
IF we assume it to be true knowledge than we must assume everything that it consists of it true knowledge as well. But point, angle, (straight) line are all axioms. Axioms are only assumed true.

>>7345020
It's basic logic, bro. Once you define a triangle as something that has three sides or angles, then you know that anything that has more angles or fewer angles cannot be a triangle.

>>7345030
There are shapes with 3 angles and/or 3 sides that are never considered triangles.
And what is angle then?
How can you look at something and say yes, this is an angle, and this is and angle, and total of 3 of them, it a triangle then.

>>7345044
Because we have definitions of those things and the question hinges on definitions. We're not debating the existence of triangles, mind you.

>>7344106
/thread

The triangle comment got my interest - does this mean that if something is well defined, we know that it exists? Is there something that is 2 dimensional, 3 sided, 3 angled, and closed shape other than a triangle?

Philosophers cannot into science OP

>>7345134
op here - id like this to be refuted.

>>7343223
He was right. Remember here, that you are arguing from a philosophical standpoint.

>>7345134
>does this mean that if something is well defined, we know that it exists
This is roughly platonism.
No. There is obviously concepts we can define that don't exist.
Because I've recently taken some computing class I'll give an relevant example.
Imagine I have a shopping list with 8 items on it. What is the 12th item on the list?

>>7344930
>can't KNOW
So we cannot know nuthin?

>>7345191
>Imagine I have a shopping list with 8 items on it. What is the 12th item on the list?

your point?

He's right though.

Doesn't mean shit obviously, as all science uses induction anyway.

>>7343558
All your physics laws are not 100% true anyway, so technically it could happend for a tree to fall without sound.

>>7345134
Let me revise:

What is something that we either have observed or derived from what we have observed that can exist either in the mind as an idea or outside the mind as a feature from objects or phenomena that is a closed 2 dimensional shape with 3 corners pointed outward the shape and 3 sides that aren't curved to the point that the said 3 corners would disappear.

>>7345232
Not all well defined things exist.

>>7343359

He's an idiot, if it wouldn't make a sound then what would it make?

If the tree fall into some lake of very thick amber it's possible it makes no sound.

>>7343455
That seems better than finance at least.

>>7343517
>This change can be measured as a vibration, which is a sound.

No. Are deaf people also blind ? A lightwave is not a sound. Sound doesn't propagate in void. A tree changing position in the void (even imperfect void like outer space) would product no sound at all.

If you're going to make up definitions at least make sure they aren't retarded.

>>7343676
>The only assumption you have to make is that the universe is causal.

Which is the whole problem here, you nitwit.
So your answer is essentially: if we decide to ignore this problem, then we will have successfully ignored this problem !

>Put microphone next to an old dilapidated tree
>Leave forest so that no person is around
>Tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it
>Except for little mr.microphone
There puts to rest the stupidest shit idiot philosopher charlatans keep preaching.

Swear to god, philosophy is a academically accepted cult.

>>7344027
Causality is not a phenomena, it's an assumption. When you observe things you can only say: X happened, then Y happened. Assuming that Y happens after X because X causes Y is assuming causality.

What do physicist do when they expect consequences Y and get consequences Z instead ? Either they call it a statistical outlier and disregard it, or they say the model was wrong but there is still a causal explanation to this.

So whatever happens, physicists are going to assume causality. Causality can't be falsified, and isn't meant to be falsifiable.

You could probably study a few phenomena without causality, keeping up all other assumptions of physics (for instance electromagnetic waves in the void are described by equations that are invariant by reversing time order, so you don't need causality to account for them). However this is rather limited, most serious physics will have to assume causality in order to do what they want to do.

Any decent physicist would know this btw. Your babbling about causality being a "demonstrable experiment" (waht does that even means ?) shows enough that you understand little of what an experiment (or a demonstration for that matter) is.

>>7345366
Indeedly.
For one this problem assumes that enough of the world continues to function for a tree to maintain its integrity as a tree, forest to remain a forest, and (presumably) gravity to make the tree fall.
What is so difficult to imagine about its falling still making a sound?

>>7344109
>But it can always be checked if the situation is warranted.

Again, it's not meant to be checked, it's something you start with to make sense of event. I can remember various time in my life when I put some object on my bed in the morning (for instance), only to find it in another place at the evening, even when there was nobody else at home.

Of course you could say I have bad memory, or someone entered my room without me knowing, or that the things fell, but ultimately it's just you inventing explanation for why causation still works. All this shows is you can always make up some explanation to preserve causation. Which means causation is not falsfiable. It's not within the realm of testable phenomena, rather, it's a testing criterion.

It is true, we can never be 100% certain about any result until we have empirical data but in order to make meaningful relationships among phenomena, we have to make some assumptions. Read up on David Hume, Hume's fork, etc.

>>7345380
>All this shows is you can always make up some explanation to preserve causation.
indeed and the worst is that the uniqueness of the causes of some phenomenon is never proved.

>>7343223
>Thoughts?
Don't talk to philosophy professors if you don't want to waste your time

>>7343223

>ITT: /sci/ discovers axioms

there are things that you cannot prove, you just assume them and use these assumptions to prove other things. Otherwise you would end up looking for the proof of the proof of the proof ad inifinitum and your mind would collapse into a black hole.

>>7343306


I just.. wow

lol

>>7344752

See you're adding all this extra bullshit about the benefits of practicing philosophy and dancing around the point.

The question is, if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound.

Yes it does.

The end.

You can keep talking about other things all you want, but as for that particular question, there is a definite answer.

>>7343223
No it won't be sufficient. Your professor is basically using the Socratic method on your ass. Fortunately for you the scientific method was developed to be immune to the socractic method. What you need to say is the following.
>You cannot know for certain whether or not it will make a sound. However, by examining many falling trees and collecting evidence then we can propose theories and models that let us make a much more educated guess. Ultimately theory and evidence of other trees will never truly be sufficient and the only way to know if it made a sound is to have some direct observation. If it indeed did not make a sound then that would be truly remarkable and as such would call for further study since observing instances that contradict theory is the way that science makes progress.

>>7343590
This, but I wouldn't be quick to call it bullshit. It is an important distinction since for example sound can also be subject to to auditory illusions (like optical illusions)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzo45hWXRWU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_illusion

or even auditory hallucinations or deafness while vibrating air waves will not have such problems.

>>7344899
You're a faggot

>>7343223
>I plan to argue science with a philosopher
don't do this

>>7346225
this
/thread

>>7346225
>If it indeed did not make a sound then that would be truly remarkable and as such would call for further study

That is the shittiest argument I've ever heard. It is no surprise then that it comes from a 'scientific perspective'. I swear the more science caters to the masses and the more you shits jump on the bandwagon the stupider the whole field of research becomes. You are not smart just because you hang on the coattails of those who are, instead you only hold the true thinkers back. It is like you all forgot that the scientific method was the product of philosophy. Oh wait, you probably never knew that, or that it was all derived from a series of dreams; an oneiric message for you cucks. Science has become like this horrible monster eating its way through every aspect of the world with the same rehashed syllogisms; unfalsifiable argument, intellectually dishonesty etc. There's no reason why shouldn't learn these terms and what they mean, just remember to learn their place and yours also. You do not have all the answers. Stop pretending like you do and go eat a bag of dicks. This is should not be about science vs philosophy, it is about understanding truth, something you obviously know nothing about.

>>7346225
Concur that the professor is using the Socratic Method. Another counter reply would be to ask the prof to define "make a sound." I suspect that that definition contains the seeds of agreement.

>>7347184
nice copy pasta material you got there m8

>>7347184
>caters to the masses
>jump on the bandwagon
>hang on the coattails
Grandpa, are you on Mom's computer again?

>>7343230
But even if there is no conscious observer, as long as the light is observed and recorded by some kind of machine that was randomly built by dust, the quantum state would collapse.

Technically, he's right. There is, objectively, no such thing as sound. "Sound" is an abstraction that your brain imagines in response to vibrations being picked up by your ear, so while there were vibrations and oscillations, there is not sound unless an ear is there to perceive it. Make sense?

The qualifiers of his question aren't rigid enough. By what metrics are we defining sound? Is there a specific decibel volume that must be met? Is any vibration perceptible to the human ear drum enough? What if the tree slowly fell like a tenth of an inch each year over the course of hundreds of years until it was resting flush against the ground, but did so without making a 'sound'? What if the tree fell and never hit the ground because it was so tiny that it blew away upon being wrenched from the earth and was caught in flight by migratory birds and built into a nest?

By answering his questions without hardballing him on specifics, you had already lost. Apply more rigor - only way to rustle philosotards.