/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7591734
If an autistic failure kills himself and nobody is his friend, does he get a funeral?

>>7591762

He still has parents, so yes.

>>7591734
It does.

>>7591768
>>7591762
So the tree has animals in the woods to hear it too. Case solved.

>>7591778

What if there's no animals or parents?

>>7591782
Put a mic and camera and see if it makes noise

>>7591734

The trees wave function won't even collapse. It remains in a superposition of its standing and fallen eigenstates.

>>7591734
>nobody is around
every tree is inhabited

>>7591734
>If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, does it make a noise?
I assume the tree doenst have a life detector thing
even if it had it would take into account the possible living beings with better ears that evolution could throw at the jungle at the future

So the answer is yes

If I fuck your mom and no one is around to see it, does she make a noise?

"Noise" and "Sound" are subjective terms used to describe the ways that our ears interpret fluid vibrations.

Does the tree create vibrations? Yes.
Does it create sound or noise? No. Without a concious observer, no qualitative value can be placed on the vibrations.

>>7591824
This tbh, OPs question is moot because there is no way the tree could be assumed fallen until someone observes it.

>>7591824
Wrong. The ground observes the tree. The only reason why we can measure say voltages is because the wire observes the electrons flowing, and all the bla bla collapse all the way to the meter. Theres nothing magical about being human that magically causes wavefunctions to collapse.

This is one of the reasons why it's so hard to make quantum computers. The qubits must interact with literally nothing at all in order not to collapse prematurely.

>>7593236
>>7593225
>>7593225
>>7593236
>>7593225
"As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means anything can happen at any time for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal and animals never had a war. Who's the real animals?"
-Professor Farnsworth

>>7591734
If a man says something in a forest and a woman isn't around, is he wrong?

>>7593193
Horseshit, and obvious about it.

Also, someone define "conciousness" for me in any meaningful way, and then take your nobel prize for it.

>>7591778
Observation simply means particulate and force interaction

outside shines insides is mess

>>7591734
No, because sound only exists in your mind. Waves in air are just waves, not sound unto itself. For that, your brain needs to process the signals the waves produce in your ear. So no, there is no noise if nobody hears it. Only waves.

>>7593253
Better question, define "noise" in any meaningful way.

All I'm asking is for an object capable of displaying some sort of reaction to the fluid vibrations.

>>7593225
Wave function is not real tbh fam.

>>7591734
Depends what you define noise as

If it's what humans perceive in their mind, then no.

If you're referring to the oscillations that make sound, then yes.

Events are not dependent on observation.
-______

>>7593572
No, but an events interpretation depends on observation.

If the falling tree fell fell at 1000hz, did it make "noise" or did it make "sound"? Could a frequency at that level even be considered unpleasant?

Air is constantly vibrating, so what vibrations to we determine are "sound" or not?

Yes, the event still occurs. It's just that no one is around to be it's observer. The fact that people think that things occur merely because we observe them occuring is a clear testament to how far science still has to go to reach any semblance of truth.

>>7591734

Depends if its a talking tree.

Who's to say the tree itself isn't an observer?
Or, for that matter, what if particles themselves have observers?

>>7593236
>>7593850

mfw when people still can't see the light

>engineers and physic/math cucks snubbing philosophy as if it's all bullshit and they know because they work with numb3rs and are supr smart

>>7594559
>philosophers think their problems have a deeper meaning other than infer from logic and do what works and disregard which don't

>>7593874
>Who's to say the tree itself isn't an observer?
We have zero reason to believe that the tree is capable of responding to, let alone recognizing the sound that it makes as it falls.

What you're saying is like asking if dogs observe the color red.

>>7593193
This is the correct answer.

>>7593193
No you stupid shit. It does create a sound. We just don't hear it. The universe was here way before conscious beings and will be here way after we're gone. Get off your high horse heels.

observers change quantum outcomes dudes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
while it might not have an application to the macroworld, you can't deny observing an event doesn't have any effect, at least on the quantum level
Schrödinger anyone?

>>7594559
>>7594597
>scientists and philosophers dosent realies that these subjects should be closely related

>>7594672
>missing the whole point

>>7594672
You understood nothing I was getting at.

Congrats on the wanton display of your stupidity.

>It does create a sound. We just don't hear it.
If it's not observed, then it's not "sound".

There are countless vibrations in the air right now around you, operating at frequencies too soft or too fine for you to recognize. Unless you observe them, though, they're not sound. They're just vibrations.

>>7594663
>This is the correct answer.
Only if you're severely autistic.

>>7594677
>observers change quantum outcomes dudes
I'm going to assume all QM references ITT are "ironic posting".

The point of this question isn't "does it make a sound?", the point is "how do you know?".
The answer is "you don't".
It's philosophy 101, so sorry iffen I got trolled.

>>7594713
Sound quite literally refers to the mental response humans have to fluid acoustics.

If no one hears the tree, it literally does not make sound.

>>7594713
sound waves are produced = "noise"
>If it's not observed, then it's not "sound".
yes it is you retard, unless you prefer the psychological definition over the physics definition

>>7594713
>The point of this question isn't "does it make a sound?", the point is "how do you know?"
Don't you know that you can't know nuffin?

And you call yourself a philosopher.

>>7594715
>Sound quite literally refers to the mental response humans have to fluid acoustics.
in psychology, not in physics. high school faggots please leave

>>7594716
>unless you prefer the psychological definition over the physics definition
If it was a discussion of the physics definition, then we'd be talking about accoustics.

Are you done embarrassing yourself yet?

>>7594719
>Sound is defined by ANSI/ASA S1.1-2013 as "(a) Oscillation in pressure, stress, particle displacement, particle velocity, etc., propagated in a medium with internal forces (e.g., elastic or viscous), or the superposition of such propagated oscillation. (b) Auditory sensation evoked by the oscillation described in (a)."
> (b) Auditory sensation evoked by the oscillation described in (a)."

>>7594722
"Oscillation in pressure, stress, particle displacement, particle velocity, etc., propagated in a medium with internal forces (e.g., elastic or viscous), or the superposition of such propagated oscillation."
that's sound m8. gtfo with your edgy teenage pseudoscience you dumb fuck

>>7594725
> (b) Auditory sensation evoked by the oscillation described in (a)."
Leaving out parts that are inconvenient to you, I see.

>>7594716
>sound waves are produced = "noise"
>>If it's not observed, then it's not "sound".

I'm not making that claim, that's this guy: >>7594715
>Sound quite literally refers to the mental response humans have to fluid acoustics.

He's a 'tard, or maybe, worse yet, a psychologist (and a 'tard).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound
>In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as a typically audible mechanical wave of pressure and displacement, through a medium such as air or water.
>In physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain.[1]

MY claim is that this whole question is a philosophical exercise, and has nothing to do with the semantics of "what is sound".

>>7594723
>>7594730
a preceding definition supersedes subordinate definitions.

>>7594725
This isn't pseudoscience, you dumb faggot. Your own fucking quote recognizes sound as being distinct to human perception.

>>7594736
0/10

>>7594736
"A distinct use of the term sound from its use in physics is that in physiology and psychology, where the term refers to the subject of perception by the brain."

>>7594732
>>7594733
So where's the part that you come to the crushing realization that OP referred to noise instead of sound?

>>7594743
"define noise"

>>7594746
I'll let you do that one. You seem to think you're an expert on this subject.

>>7594749
it fucking depends you retard thats the point. i could define noise as garbage electronic signal, which a falling tree would certainly cause if it fell near any specialized equipment recording data

>>7594752
Then that means you're observing it.

>>7594756
>nobody is around
satisfies OP's criteria

>>7594759
But it still means that the existence of "noise" inherently relies on an observer.

But God is always around

>>7594762
no. stop this autistic QM garbage. that's not how shit works

Phonons.

>>7594763

But he might be taking a nap

>>7594765
This has nothing to do with QM, you faggot. This is just an explanation of the role interpretation plays in seeking results.

This is extremely rudimentary.

>>7591824

If a wavefunction falls down in a forest...

>>7594765

>QM garbage

Do you also think this guy was talking about QM?