A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

Sound is vibration.Recognized as sound! Sound is sound whether it's recognized as sound or not. As we just saw above sound is vibration.This is of course nonsense and contradicts the previous statement Sound is vibration.Doesn't matter to an existing tree if we know it exists or not. It still exists.The difference between perception and reality is that what is real is real and the reality of it has nothing to do with how we perceive it.

Read again:

Perhaps the most important topic the riddle offers is the division between perception of an object and how an object really is. If a tree exists outside of perception then there is no way for us to know that the tree exists. So then, what do we mean by 'existence', what is the difference between perception and reality? Also, people may also say, if the tree exists outside of perception (as common sense would dictate), then it will produce sound waves. However, these sound waves will not actually sound like anything. Sound as it is mechanically understood will occur, but sound as it is understood by sensation will not occur. So then, how is it known that 'sound as it is mechanically understood' will occur if that sound is not perceived?

Wikipedia

 

[ArtieE]

Read again:

Perhaps the most important topic the riddle offers is the division between perception of an object and how an object really is. If a tree exists outside of perception then there is no way for us to know that the tree exists. So then, what do we mean by 'existence', what is the difference between perception and reality? Also, people may also say, if the tree exists outside of perception (as common sense would dictate), then it will produce sound waves. However, these sound waves will not actually sound like anything. Sound as it is mechanically understood will occur, but sound as it is understood by sensation will not occur. So then, how is it known that 'sound as it is mechanically understood' will occur if that sound is not perceived?

Wikipedia

Because the laws of physics says that when a tree falls it has to create sound as it is mechanically understood whether somebody hears the sounds or not.
Unless the tree manages to fall without disturbing the air. A tree falling on the moon would make no sound.

 

[godnotgod]

Because the laws of physics says that when a tree falls it has to create sound as it is mechanically understood whether somebody hears the sounds or not.

It doesn't create sound, but creates pressure waves. The sound of 'falling tree' is created when ear and brain receive and interpret the pressure waves.

Read again:

However, these sound waves will not actually sound like anything. Sound as it is mechanically understood will occur, but sound as it is understood by sensation will not occur. So then, how is it known that 'sound as it is mechanically understood' will occur if that sound is not perceived?

Do you understand the problem presented and the question being asked?

Unless the tree manages to fall without disturbing the air. A tree falling on the moon would make no sound.

That's a different animal, because the moon has no atmosphere. But even if it did, there is no sound if no one is present.

 

[ArtieE]

It doesn't create sound, but creates pressure waves. The sound of 'falling tree' is created when ear and brain receive and interpret the pressure waves.

Read again:

However, these sound waves will not actually sound like anything. Sound as it is mechanically understood will occur, but sound as it is understood by sensation will not occur. So then, how is it known that 'sound as it is mechanically understood' will occur if that sound is not perceived?

Do you understand the problem presented and the question being asked?



That's a different animal, because the moon has no atmosphere. But even if it did, there is no sound if no one is present.

Since sound as it is mechanically understood is already present there's no need for the sound to be understood by sensation to exist.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It doesn't create sound, but creates pressure waves. The sound of 'falling tree' is created when ear and brain receive and interpret the pressure waves.
Read again:
However, these sound waves will not actually sound like anything. Sound as it is mechanically understood will occur, but sound as it is understood by sensation will not occur. So then, how is it known that 'sound as it is mechanically understood' will occur if that sound is not perceived?

Do you understand the problem presented and the question being asked?
That's a different animal, because the moon has no atmosphere. But even if it did, there is no sound if no one is present.

You are muddling up physics and the psychology of perception. As the Wiki article explains "sound" can refer to both the physical phenomenon ( pressure waves ) and the human perception of "falling tree".

I think you are still scrabbling around trying to find support for your belief in "Cosmic Consciousness", but this is a pointless exercise. "Cosmic Consciousness" and the big bang being an "event in consciousness" are new-age religious beliefs, not things which can be proved or demonstrated.

You are free to believe what you like, but I think everyone here is fed up with your preaching, arrogance and patronising attitude.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Cosmic Consciousness is not the issue here.

What a lame evasion. This is typical behaviour from you, you hijack threads to preach your new-age nonsense and then move the goalposts when your devious fabrications are exposed.

 

[godnotgod]

Since sound as it is mechanically understood is already present there's no need for the sound to be understood by sensation to exist.

'mechanically understood', not 'mechanically experienced'. Therefore it is NOT present. There is no 'mechanically understood' sound that is present; there are only pressure waves.

 

[godnotgod]

You are muddling up physics and the psychology of perception. As the Wiki article explains "sound" can refer to both the physical phenomenon ( pressure waves ) and the human perception of "falling tree".

Yes, but you are not understanding the problem posed and the question as a result, as noted in the article, here:

"However, these sound waves will not actually sound like anything. Sound as it is mechanically understood will occur, but sound as it is understood by sensation will not occur. So then, how is it known that 'sound as it is mechanically understood' will occur if that sound is not perceived?"

note: 'these sound waves will not actually sound like anything', as in: 'there is no sound'.

which translates to: 'if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, is there a sound?' to which the answer is: 'no, there is no sound', as in 'there is no sound'.

 

[godnotgod]

What a lame evasion. This is typical behaviour from you, you hijack threads to preach your new-age nonsense and then move the goalposts when your devious fabrications are exposed.

Show us where Cosmic Consciousness relates to the discussion.

 

[godnotgod]

What a lame evasion. This is typical behaviour from you, you hijack threads to preach your new-age nonsense and then move the goalposts when your devious fabrications are exposed.

Show us where Cosmic Consciousness relates to the discussion.

What a lame evasion. This is typical behaviour from you, you hijack threads to preach your new-age nonsense and then move the goalposts when your devious fabrications are exposed.

You're giving me far too much credit and recognition.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You're giving me far too much credit and recognition.

No, just pointing out the truth, that you are on an attention-seeking ego-trip, and I think everyone here is now thoroughly bored with your games. You might do better preaching on a new-age forum where people are likely to be more gullible.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wrt attention seeking Ricky, you have more posts in 3 years than gng in 7....just sayin...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Wrt attention seeking Ricky, you have more posts in 3 years than gng in 7....just sayin...

I have contributed to a wide range of threads here, many different discussions, unlike gng. And unlike gng I don't single out threads and take them over to preach new-age dogma. I don't claim to know it all, I don't patronise other contributors, and I don't tell them they are stupid when they disagree with me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'll let others judge that.. But this I say with full confidence...you can not serve two masters without serving one second best. If you are not practicing religion as the dominant purpose of living, you will never understand. I mean that in the absolute sense...if you put your working career ahead of learning what and who you are in the context of the big picture.....you will reap what you sow...you will become best at that where your heart is...

 

[godnotgod]

No, just pointing out the truth, that you are on an attention-seeking ego-trip, and I think everyone here is now thoroughly bored with your games. You might do better preaching on a new-age forum where people are likely to be more gullible.

I think the true reason you want me to go away has made itself clear, but I promise to keep it our little secret, OK?

 

[godnotgod]

No, just pointing out the truth, that you are on an attention-seeking ego-trip, and I think everyone here is now thoroughly bored with your games. You might do better preaching on a new-age forum where people are likely to be more gullible.

Nah. At least for now, I like it right here, in spite of your silly protests. You know, none of what you say is true about me, but I will never convince you of that, and I really don't care what you think, actually. But my real motivation is simple: to attempt to demonstrate that what most of us think to be the case, is not really the case.

 

[godnotgod]

I have contributed to a wide range of threads here, many different discussions, unlike gng. And unlike gng I don't single out threads and take them over.....

As I stated, you give me much too much credit. I am in no way capable of hijacking threads, nor do I have any interest in doing so. For some strange reason, you have allowed this notion to dominate your mind to the point of being hypnotized by it, a fixation of some sort.

Perhaps I focus on only one ortwo threads at a time as a means of giving my full attention to them in the Zen fashion of developing and practising one-pointedness of mind.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Perhaps I focus on only one ortwo threads at a time as a means of giving my full attention to them in the Zen fashion of developing and practising one-pointedness of mind.

Not what I have seen. It is more like random emission of your "material" dumped into threads, a new-age muddle of ideas from eastern religion and pseudo-science. Like I said, a real Zennie wouldn't touch this stuff with a bargepole.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But my real motivation is simple: to attempt to demonstrate that what most of us think to be the case, is not really the case.

Don't you realise how patronising and arrogant you sound when you make statements like this?

Like I said, you are here to preach, not to discuss.

 

[`mud]

One can't even imagine,
what spills from 'nothing',
into most this thread !
~
'mud