[2012-Feb-27] If a comic updates in a forest...

[Snowyowl]

The question depends on whether you define "sound" as "vibrations in the air" or "the impression of those vibrations in a conscious mind". More specifically, the question is which of those two definitions is better?

"Vibrations in the air" is simpler and probably more useful, but it can't be observed directly. So... bit of a trade-off there.

Engineer is missing the point.

[Oldrac the Chitinous]

Don't worry, you're not missing much.

[Snowyowl]

Badum-tish.

[GUTCHUCKER]

I define it as one of those stupid questions that sounds really wise 'n' shit.

[Dindong]

You define sound as a question? Very insightful, GUTCHUCKER.

[Kaharz]

The question depends on whether you define "sound" as "vibrations in the air" or "the impression of those vibrations in a conscious mind". More specifically, the question is which of those two definitions is better?

"Vibrations in the air" is simpler and probably more useful, but it can't be observed directly. So... bit of a trade-off there.

Engineer is missing the point.

The question is not meant to be answered rationally.

[Gangler]

Well then it's not really a question worth answering is it?

[stvdvs]

This question is as easy to answer as the chicken or egg question. Our koans are in serious need of updating at this point...

[Dindong]

What's the answer to the chicken and egg question then? Is a chicken egg an egg laid by a chicken or one that contains a chicken?

[Guest]

When the question was first asked people were actually worried about wether or not the unobserved world exists. The question is philosophical in that it is a question of science without any information to back an answer. A common misconception is that the question is, at its worst, a semantic one and ,at its best, a conceptual one.
Let me reiterate, when the question was first asked they wondered, even beyond will it make a sound, when unobserved does the tree exist, does the forest exist or does the very act of observing call from the ether the being into existence. One theory, Plato's, posited that their was a perfect version of the universe in our minds where all the perfect circles and trees and buildings lived. Further more, when we engage in the act of observing we call into existence flawed approximations of this perfect universe.
The trouble comes in with the question of is their a universe that exists when it isn't being observed is that we can only participate in the observed universe.
The engineer in the comic does not miss the point of the question but actually get's to the heart of coming up with a concrete answer. If the universe has a rules that maintain a continuity that does not require observation to perpetuate, then one can begin to assert that yes the universe does still exist when it is unobserved.
The question of "what is a sound?" or "what is the nature of a sound?" is not the issue. When a person shifts the meaning to these things all they are doing is talking about how words have no inherent meaning and only assigned meaning. When we look at it this way the scientist quickly moves to "Operational Definitions." Once the the obvious advantages of using Operational Definitions becomes apparent, one is selected, and the question of wether or not the tree makes a sound is answered.
BUT THE POINT OF THE QUESTION IS LOST! The engineer is correct in bringing up the conservation of energy. It is paramount to the argument that it does make a sound. Furthermore, there is a counter argument. Are the Law of Physics upheld because our greater understanding expands the amount of the world that we are observing and therefore forces the cohesion of events? See, now we've gotten to the strange logical impasses that are the hallmark of philosophy but not because of some stupid question of semantics.

Yes, I liked this comic a bit too much.

[Dindong]

You didn't like the comic, you like the topic.

[tehpineapple]

The question is not meant to be answered rationally.

Well then it's not really a question worth answering is it?

Win!

A better question might be: If Mitt Romney is in a forest, and no voters are around, are the trees still all the right height?

[Guest]

You didn't like the comic, you like the topic.

I actually loved the comic because this is how I've always felt in philosophy classes. When I start to introduce historical context, advances in science, and philosophy into the debate I was booted out the door.

[Kytael]

I've found Eliezer Yudkowsky from Less wrong addresses this issue well: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_belie ... periences/

[lgstarn]

If a person uneducated about Buddhism blows a dog whistle but nobody hears it, did it really make a sound?

This is a Zen or Chan question. Drawing monastics kicking you out of a monastery is really quite unrealistic. They would work with you to help you overcome your ignorance. The fact that this person wants to answer it is perfect - he thinks he has all the answers, which he certainly does not, and that will get his wheels spinning and spinning until, hopefully, one day "poof!" they will wake up to the ineffable truth of life, the Universe, and everything.

It's a pretty neat system if you actually understand it.