Ah. But that's still got to be received hasn't it? It's schematics in the original quote "if nothing is there to hear it". If you put an spider in that forest it would feel the vibration. The air would push it's web but because it doesn't hear it still wouldn't receive "sound" - ThreadSky

step39graffiti.bsky.social • 74 days ago

Ah. But that's still got to be received hasn't it? It's schematics in the original quote "if nothing is there to hear it". If you put an spider in that forest it would feel the vibration. The air would push it's web but because it doesn't hear it still wouldn't receive "sound"

Comments

matrixmushroom.bsky.social•74 days ago

Why would something have to be recieved to exist? Light doesn't, radiation doesn't, so why would sound, a word used to describe physical vibrations, be any different? What about intentional sound? If you put a speaker in these empty woods then walked away, would it stop making sound at some point?

step39graffiti.bsky.social•74 days ago

This is slightly different to my op. And at the same time not (ha!) We "know" it's making sound constantly however with nothing there to hear it how do we know it still is. This is a bit of a schrodingers cat question. Without a reciver we don't know.

grailseeker.bsky.social•74 days ago

It's called an assumption. It's not making 'sound', though. It's making 'vibrations'.

step39graffiti.bsky.social•74 days ago

Which would need a reciver to turn it into sound. Just like the tree in my op. Nothing there to do that? No sound just vibrating air

matrixmushroom.bsky.social•74 days ago

But the average person does say that things "make sound", which means that the average person does not subscribe to your definition of sound, making it useless as language is driven by the will of people.

grailseeker.bsky.social•74 days ago

For simplicity's sake, we all like to pretend perception and language equal reality. Sadly that's not the case, so things can get complicated, but it's all we have to go on.

matrixmushroom.bsky.social•74 days ago

We are arguing about language and language alone, because the differences between using the word "vibrations" or the word "sound" is purely linguistic. You're the one mistaking reality for language, not the other way around.

matrixmushroom.bsky.social•74 days ago

What if we assume that this is some sort of eternal speaker that never loses power or breaks? Does it stop making sound when we get out of earshot?

step39graffiti.bsky.social•74 days ago

Yes our ears stop turning the moving air into sound. It continues to move air until something able to turn that movement into sound via the auditory system returns close enough for that to happen https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/how-do-we-hear .

matrixmushroom.bsky.social•74 days ago

If you're going to say that the ear "turns it into sound" then another way to say that would be that the ear "makes sound out of vibrations".

With that definition of sound, nothing would ever "make" sound other than ears, so either "makes sound" is incorrect, or your definition of sound is obscure.

step39graffiti.bsky.social•74 days ago

But it isn't. It's literally science and you saying "makes sound out of vibration" is spot on. If "nothing is there" to do that it doesn't happen. Cause and effect

grailseeker.bsky.social•74 days ago

It is still vibrating, but our detector is out of range, so the vibration is not converted into 'sound'. If we detect vibrating air with an oscilloscope, it is converted into 'colour'. There would be no 'sound'.

matrixmushroom.bsky.social•74 days ago

Again, you're using an obscure definition of sound, which the vocabulary of most people, as well as the most popular dictionaries, do not agree with.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply