85 replies to this topic

[FlyingAngel]

The existence of sound depends on the environment. There is sound because there is air. If there is no air or whatever medium, there is no vibration thus no sound.

Rlyeh, on 20 November 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

These are called sound waves even if nothing around to perceive them.

It's called waves or vibration only, it's no where near to be called sound. You can have vibration that make no (hearable) sound

Edited by FlyingAngel, 20 November 2012 - 12:36 PM.

[freetoroam]

FlyingAngel, on 20 November 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

The existence of sound depends on the environment. There is sound because there is air. If there is no air or whatever medium, there is no vibration thus no sound.


It's called waves or vibration only, it's no where near to be called sound. You can have vibration that make no (hearable) sound

But the original statement was about sound and the vibration it makes, not about vibration or waves and the sound it could make.

[freetoroam]

The Id3al Experience, on 20 November 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

Sound is vibration, transmitted to our senses through the mechanism of the ear, and recognized as sound only at our nerve centers. The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound

that is correct, if the ears are not there to hear it!
But because you are not standing in its vicinity, does not mean it can not make a sound with out its vibration hiting something....If a tree falls on the ground, it hits the ground..hence a sound, it just so happens it did not hit your ears, but it did hit something...hence sound!
I see were you are coming from about the sound  to vibration, but it does not always work that way, hence the example i have given with the tree.
There are also sounds were nothing is hit, ie: creeks, will  the vibration keep travelling until it does hit an ear for it to be heard?

[Voyager]

There's a simple solution to this question: Just walk out in front of a speeding vehicle and you will find out whether or not absolute reality exists.

[The Id3al Experience]

freetoroam, on 20 November 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

that is correct, if the ears are not there to hear it!
But because you are not standing in its vicinity, does not mean it can not make a sound with out its vibration hiting something....If a tree falls on the ground, it hits the ground..hence a sound, it just so happens it did not hit your ears, but it did hit something...hence sound!
I see were you are coming from about the sound  to vibration, but it does not always work that way, hence the example i have given with the tree.
There are also sounds were nothing is hit, ie: creeks, will  the vibration keep travelling until it does hit an ear for it to be heard?

But its only a vibration, only a ear(nervous system converting it into a hearable sound) can make it a sound, it is only a vibration until converted.

if the vibration had enough momentum yes.

[freetoroam]

The Id3al Experience, on 21 November 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

But its only a vibration, only a ear(nervous system converting it into a hearable sound) can make it a sound, it is only a vibration until converted.

if the vibration had enough momentum yes.

How about you put a tape recorder in the woods, leave the area and wait for a tree to fall, would you hear the sound on the tape recorder? I would say yes, but you were not there when the tree fell and you are now listening, not to a vibration, but to the sound made at the time the tree fell in the wood.
How can you possibly make it a sound, unless the tape picked up the vibration, which means it would have had to make a sound.

Edited by freetoroam, 21 November 2012 - 12:53 AM.

[The Id3al Experience]

freetoroam, on 21 November 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

How about you put a tape recorder in the woods, leave the area and wait for a tree to fall, would you hear the sound on the tape recorder? I would say yes, but you were not there when the tree fell and you are now listening, not to a vibration, but to the sound made at the time the tree fell in the wood.
How can you possibly make it a sound, unless the tape picked up the vibration, which means it would have had to make a sound.

It captures the frequency/vibration, and recreates it, then the ear does what it does turns it into a percieved sound for us to hear.

audio tape or compact disc; the frequencies carried by the electrical signals are those to be produced as the sound signals. In the simplest case, the wires carrying the electrical signals are used to form an electromagnet which attracts and releases a metal diaphragm. This, in turn, causes the variations in the density in the air adjacent to the diaphragm. These variations in density will have the same frequencies as were in the original electrical signals.

it makes a vibration, depending on the circumtances on said virbation gives it its property. and our evolved sense of earing converts this to sound... the sound we hear could or might not be the same sound someone else, or thing heard, therefore what sound is correct?

Edited by The Id3al Experience, 21 November 2012 - 02:43 AM.

[Rlyeh]

FlyingAngel, on 20 November 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

It's called waves or vibration only, it's no where near to be called sound. You can have vibration that make no (hearable) sound

Nope. They don't even have to be in audible range.
http://dictionary.re...owse/sound wave
http://en.wikipedia....characteristics
http://www.wisegeek....-sound-wave.htm
http://whatis.techta...tion/sound-wave

Edited by Rlyeh, 21 November 2012 - 05:02 AM.

[UFO_Monster]

orangepeaceful79, on 16 November 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

My thought upon reading the initial post is that its a pretty self-centered human viewpoint to even wonder if our perception of reality is the only thing that validates it.  If every human on the planet somehow spontaneously and simultaneously vaporized into nothing reality would keep on trucking.  It'd be a whole hell of a lot quieter though, because there'd be nobody around to debate deep philosophical truths like this thread.  Might be kinda peaceful.....

Very excellent way of explaining it. Reality does not work for the individual. It will continue to exist long after we're gone.

Edited by UFO_Monster, 21 November 2012 - 08:08 AM.

[FlyingAngel]

Rlyeh, on 21 November 2012 - 04:58 AM, said:

Nope. They don't even have to be in audible range.

If they are not in audible range, then they shouldn't be called sound. They are simply waves

[The Id3al Experience]

UFO_Monster, on 21 November 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Very excellent way of explaining it. Reality does not work for the individual. It will continue to exist long after we're gone.

Th OP was more about absolute reality, not reality itself, of course once we are gone reality will be there, for whatever is left to percieve it in its own way. This of course, opens the question that if nothing is there to perceive it, is there still something.. and although seems logical to say yes - we can not prove, Nor deny this.

However my view is thats its in the eye of the individual, therefore there is no absolute reality. IMO.

Kind Regards

Edited by The Id3al Experience, 22 November 2012 - 02:16 AM.

[Beany]

UFO_Monster, on 21 November 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Very excellent way of explaining it. Reality does not work for the individual. It will continue to exist long after we're gone.

The problem with the question is in defining the terms of "reality", I think. My first instinct would be to say that something will continue to exist, but then I realize I don't know what that something might be, and don't really know if it might continue to exist as it currently is or if its nature would change. That would be an assumption on my part. When I was younger I loved assumptions, not not so much. I suspect that "reality" is far more complicated than most of us realize and that it would be very difficult to reach a consensus about the nature of reality.

[freetoroam]

The Id3al Experience, on 22 November 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

However my view is thats its in the eye of the individual, therefore there is no absolute reality. IMO.

the eye as in "sight"???

you can not mean that cos you are aware that not every one can see!

[behavioralist]

Reality is absolute as perceived to the evolved degree, because the evolved degree of perception is what is manifest, so that the manifest follows the evolution of the perception, courting it to evolve more.

The fact that an observer changes results, also means that a different observer changes that result differently. It is touching physics at a point where it is sensitive to a presence, which is the same as evolution per my statement above.

This also invites the question: how far can this relationship evolve, between the entities the cosmos has cultivated and "the stuff" of that cosmos?

The answer, most appropriate here at UM, is that stars are kept apart only socially (therefore not by physical astronomical distances, as it seems to our primitive perception of the compulsatory insult-preemptive barrier), for lacking the cosmic graces to join until evolution has come a bit farther along, graces one might call "UNIVERSAL", except for here.

[The Id3al Experience]

freetoroam, on 22 November 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

the eye as in "sight"???

you can not mean that cos you are aware that not every one can see!

No i meant how you perceive your reality. Obliously a blind person would 'see' his/her experience differently

Kind Regards