A Universe from Nothing?

[ArtieE]

I read the definition. It is a definition, once again, of the MECHANICS of sound, but not of sound itself. For you to know what sound is, you must have an auditory experience of it. A person deaf from birth cannot know what sound is via your clinical dictionary definition.

We aren't talking about knowing what sound is we are talking about the definition of sound.

 

[godnotgod]

We aren't talking about knowing what sound is we are talking about the definition of sound.

No, we are talking about whether there is sound if no one is present to hear it.

Artie, you are confused between the description of reality and reality itself.

Descriptions are not that which is being described.

The description of sound is not the sound itself.

Describe until the end of time the taste of a berry to someone who has never tasted of one, and he will never know what you are talking about. Until he experiences it's taste, he will never know what berry tastes like.

A definition of any sound cannot be understood as sound until it is heard.

The riddle did not ask what the definition of the sound of a tree falling in the forest. It asks if there is a sound when no one is present to hear it.

The answer is that there is no sound.

If you still think so, show me sound.

 

[godnotgod]

Sound cannot be a subjective experience since hearing a sound requires the presence of the physical phenomenon of existing sound waves.

When you listen to complex sounds, such as that of a symphony, your experience will be different than mine because your view is a personal one, through which the music takes shape.

Having said that, two meditators who have gone beyond their own personal views will see the same reality.

 

[ArtieE]

No, we are talking about whether there is sound if no one is present to hear it.

Just read definition 1a again. A microphone would pick up the sound of the tree falling even if nobody were there to hear it.

 

[ArtieE]

When you listen to complex sounds, such as that of a symphony, your experience will be different than mine because your view is a personal one, through which the music takes shape.

The sound waves emanating from the orchestra are the same.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The ultimate mystery of the universe could be cracked on this thread....it boils down to this..is the sound of a dog whistle a real sound if humans can't hear it? I'm for anti-discrimination, dogs matter!

 

[ArtieE]

The ultimate mystery of the universe could be cracked on this thread....it boils down to this..is the sound of a dog whistle a real sound if humans can't hear it? I'm for anti-discrimination, dogs matter!

Of course it is. We can use a microphone and an oscilloscope and demonstrate the presence of the sound wave.

 

[godnotgod]

Just read definition 1a again. A microphone would pick up the sound of the tree falling even if nobody were there to hear it.

Yes, I already mentioned that. But the microphone is merely an extension of human perceptual reality. But a mic alone will not provide sound. It requires a recording or listening device, and even then, finally requires a receptor and processor for sound to exist.

 

[godnotgod]

The sound waves emanating from the orchestra are the same.

There is only one set of orchestral sound waves, but two different versions of what is heard due to personal views.

 

[godnotgod]

The ultimate mystery of the universe could be cracked on this thread....it boils down to this..is the sound of a dog whistle a real sound if humans can't hear it? I'm for anti-discrimination, dogs matter!

There is no real sound for a human, but there is for a dog, assuming both are within range of the whistle. If the dog is not within range of the whistle, there is no sound. The ear is the other side of the equation. Where there are no ears present, there is only pressure waves.

 

[godnotgod]

"The universe and the observer exist as a pair," Linde says. "You can say that the universe is there only when there is an observer who can say, Yes, I see the universe there. These small words — it looks like it was here— for practical purposes it may not matter much, but for me as a human being, I do not know any sense in which I could claim that the universe is here in the absence of observers. We are together, the universe and us. The moment you say that the universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness. A recording device cannot play the role of an observer, because who will read what is written on this recording device? In order for us to see that something happens, and say to one another that something happens, you need to have a universe, you need to have a recording device, and you need to have us. It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely inaccessible to anybody. It's necessary for somebody to look at it. You need an observer who looks at the universe. In the absence of observers, our universe is dead."

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is no real sound for a human, but there is for a dog, assuming both are within range of the whistle. If the dog is not within range of the whistle, there is no sound. The ear is the other side of the equation. Where there are no ears present, there is only pressure waves.

But if there are ears present, but no pressure waves....is not this the same as no ears present and only pressure waves?

 

[ArtieE]

There is only one set of orchestral sound waves, but two different versions of what is heard due to personal views.

The definition of "hear" is "Perceive with the ear the sound made by (someone or something)". See oxforddictionaries.com
They both hear the same.

 

[ArtieE]

Where there are no ears present, there is only pressure waves.

And definition 1a defines pressure waves as sound.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you were, you would know what you're talking about. Unfortunately, you are stuck in the stagnant waters of your doctrine.

The point is that I understand what the doctrines actually are, in theory and practice, and I don't present a self-serving parody like you do. The only thing that is stagnant here is your attachment to new-age dogma, the tiresome nonsense you have been preaching here for years.

You would be better off actually doing some Zen practice, all your new-age metaphysical convolutions are a waste of time and only serve to increase the size of your ego.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The ultimate mystery of the universe could be cracked on this thread....it boils down to this..is the sound of a dog whistle a real sound if humans can't hear it? I'm for anti-discrimination, dogs matter!

It depends what you mean by "real", but I don't see a problem with saying that it is a sound for the dog, and also something we can measure on instruments.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Sound cannot be a subjective experience since hearing a sound requires the presence of the physical phenomenon of existing sound waves.

I am making a distinction between sound as a physical phenomenon, and our subjective experience of hearing. I am not saying the physical phenomenon doesn't exist, it clearly does.

 

[ArtieE]

"The universe and the observer exist as a pair," Linde says. "You can say that the universe is there only when there is an observer who can say, Yes, I see the universe there. These small words — it looks like it was here— for practical purposes it may not matter much, but for me as a human being, I do not know any sense in which I could claim that the universe is here in the absence of observers. We are together, the universe and us. The moment you say that the universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness. A recording device cannot play the role of an observer, because who will read what is written on this recording device? In order for us to see that something happens, and say to one another that something happens, you need to have a universe, you need to have a recording device, and you need to have us. It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely inaccessible to anybody. It's necessary for somebody to look at it. You need an observer who looks at the universe. In the absence of observers, our universe is dead."

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

I can only hope that this individual is undergoing appropriate treatment. One place it says he can't claim the universe is here in the absence of observers but in the last line it says "In the absence of observers, our universe is dead." Is it not here or is it dead?

 

[ArtieE]

I am making a distinction between sound as a physical phenomenon, and our subjective experience of hearing. I am not saying the physical phenomenon doesn't exist, it clearly does.

What we subjectively experience when hearing a sound has no bearing on the definition of sound.

 

[ArtieE]

The speed of sound is about 340 meters per second at sea level. The sound of thunder takes time to reach us. Oops... I forgot that sound isn't sound until it has already reached us.