Return to my Logic pages
Go to
my home page
© Copyright 1997, Jim Loy
Let me ask you a very deep question:
If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one there to hear it, was there sound?
Heavy philosophy, right? Something that Socrates and Nietzsche (pronounced Neet-Chah) were concerned with, right? Bull.
The above question involves nothing more than how we define the word "sound." We all have our own private definitions of most of the words that we use. I have my own private definition of "sound." Does it match yours?
But, who cares what one person's private definitions of words are? These definitions may reflect his/her philosophy, his/her erudition, his/her ignorance, or his/her occupation. But, if we are looking for a standard definition, why not look in a dictionary:
Sound: 1. That which is or can be heard; the sensation of hearing, resulting from the stimulation of the auditory nerves by vibrations carried in the air, water, etc. 2. Such vibrations. 3...
(Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition, 1964)
That satisfies me. There certainly was sound in that stupid forest.
I hope I've made your philosophical thoughts a little bit shallower.
Addendum:
I occasionally get email expressing the view opposite to mine, that there is no sound (or color) without a human to sense it. This is, of course, completely at odds with the scientific community, which measures sound and color without necessarily hearing or seeing it. A certain pitch is vibrations with a certain frequency or range of frequencies. And the intensity of sound is measured in decibels, with instruments, not with ears. Your tape recorder records sound, whether you are there or not. I left my apartment while my computer was playing Mozart. Did it cease to be Mozart when I was gone? Color is very similar. It is a frequency or range of frequencies of light. Did my painting cease to be blue when I left the room?
Sound and color do indeed have some very subjective features. And I am sure that there are interesting philosophical implications to them. But I, and my dictionary, and the scientific community use the words "sound" and "light" and "color" in a more concrete sense. It is a matter of semantics. We have our definition of "sound;" other people have their definitions, which they won't (or can't) spell out for me. And if I point to my dictionary, they say I am wrong.
I have asked these people, "What about the squirrels and insects in the forest? Do you count them as observers?" I was surprised to find that they do not (at least the ones (humans, not squirrels) who emailed me). They aren't sure how these animals relate to sound. Well, according to biologists, these animals hear sound, usually better than we do. I imagine these philosophers think that this would be a drab and boring universe without us to observe it.
Are there any trees in the forest, if you am not there to see them? I am sure that some people believe that there are not.