Question on mind.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nobody is ever 'present' at an event. Information can only travel at or below light speed and thus we can only witness past events.
We are still witnessing some of the big bang event via a number of means including:
1. actual radiation that can be 'seen'.
2. the fact that we are here.

So...? Then the BigBang were created at the very moment we first observed it? Only some 14 billion of years earlier?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So...? Then the BigBang were created at the very moment we first observed it? Only some 14 billion of years earlier?

I don't understand the question.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't understand the question.

I know, that is really a tough one.

Let us assume first that nothing can happen if there is no one to observe it. I know that this postulate is questionable, but still, let's assume that it is true for a while.

At the moment of BigBang, there was no one there to observe it, therefore it was not happening, bigBang didn't existed at that time.

Let us assume further, for simplicity's sake, that we Earthlings are the only observing beings in the universe. I know this is also questionable, but still, again, assume that it is true for a while.

The idea of bigBang was brought up in the 20th (?) but was not confirmed until the first radio telescope was built. I think of the discovery of the background radiation emanating from some 400 thousand years after the BigBang (?). The discovery was made at the 60th (?).

Okay, BigBang was not observed until the 60th, therefore BigBang didn't existed earlier. But when it was observed for the first time the BigBang started to exist. Right? And when did BigBang happen? Some 14 billion years ago.

So the conclusion is that the BigBang didn't exist the 14 billion first years until it at the first time was observed, then it started to exist 14 billion of years ago.

Complicated, huh?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Complicated, huh?

No, just nonsense.

You are essentially redefining the meaning of the words 'existence' and 'observe' and then showing a contradiction when you contrast them with their standard meanings. The big bang really has nothing to do with any of it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, just nonsense.

You are essentially redefining the meaning of the words 'existence' and 'observe' and then showing a contradiction when you contrast them with their standard meanings. The big bang really has nothing to do with any of it.

Of course it is nonsense, only a game with thoughts.

But when we're talking of Schrödingers cat, which is proposed with a seriousness along with it, then people believes it.

What's the difference? Cat or a particle or the whole universe? The same thoughts should apply regardless of size.

We know that when we open the lid, the cat has been dead for a while, or sound and living for the same amount of a while. It cannot be alive and dead at the same time. Exactly as the universe, it exist or it doesn't exist. Happily now, we know for sure that it is an existing universe. And (as this is my point) it existed long time before it was first detected by any observing beings.

Does a falling tree produce any sound if noone is there to hear it? The origin of this thread. Did the big bang occured if noone was there observing it?

Don't take this too serious. It is only a game of thoughts.

Originally posted by KevinMWHM
So if I'm lost in the woods, and there are no women around, am I still wrong?

😀 That's a good one.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I know, that is really a tough one.

Let us assume first that nothing can happen if there is no one to observe it. I know that this postulate is questionable, but still, let's assume that it is true for a while.

At the moment of BigBang, there was no one there to observe it, therefore it was not happening, bigBang didn't existed at that time.

Let ...[text shortened]... t time was observed, then it started to exist 14 billion of years ago.

Complicated, huh?

Big Bang was not confirmed, never. Big Bang is just a bandaged theory with as many faults as virtues.
Background radiation was already expected by thermodynamical arguments, independent of Big Bang.
Big Bang is just a huge extrapolation, where the model is adapted to the "predictions".

Originally posted by twhitehead
That famous question is based on the common belief that sound means the experience of sound - which is not the case. We do not say that we 'sound'. We say that we [b]heard as sound. Whether or not you experience a sound has no bearing on whether or not the sound exists. In reality, we will actually be affected by the sound and thus do experience it ev ...[text shortened]... f hearing. So no, it will not turn into a lesser spotted leopard shark and do the hokey-Cokey.[/b]

Unfortunately this is wrong. Sound is the culmination of the auditory processing your brain does on input gathered through your ears. Therefore if there's no one around to hear it, there is no sound. Of course, the falling tree still produces the same vibrations if no one's around, but that's not the question.

Originally posted by serigado
Big Bang was not confirmed, never. Big Bang is just a bandaged theory with as many faults as virtues.
Background radiation was already expected by thermodynamical arguments, independent of Big Bang.
Big Bang is just a huge extrapolation, where the model is adapted to the "predictions".

Ah, you have the same opinion as me? BigBang is a flawed theory because noone was there to see it? Interesting...

Sir Edward Hoyle didn't believe in BigBang either, but he was actually the man who minted the very term: Big Bang. Noone heard it bang so there was no bang at all. Compare with the fallen soundless tree because noone was there to hear it.

Actually, no theory is better than the theory of BigBang to explain the existance of Universe and its early stages. So BigBang it is.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Ah, you have the same opinion as me? BigBang is a flawed theory because noone was there to see it? Interesting...

Sir Edward Hoyle didn't believe in BigBang either, but he was actually the man who minted the very term: Big Bang. Noone heard it bang so there was no bang at all. Compare with the fallen soundless tree because noone was there to hear it.
...[text shortened]... theory of BigBang to explain the existance of Universe and its early stages. So BigBang it is.

Well... my philosophy is things we can't know aren't worth thinking about.
I only care how the present works to make the future the best way possible.
About the past, we can never know for sure, so I don't really care. Unless it's to learn from one's mistakes.
So... if no one was there to see it, my answer is: who cares? it might have made a bang or not. Can't be known. Same for the tree.

Maybe the tree never fell, my answer.

If a tree falls in a......................OF COURSE IT MAKES A SOUND.

Well, due to our understanding of sound as being the mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium...😴...http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary


So unless when an object (a tree in this case) falls if it does not produce any "radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium" then I guess you get no sound.

If the tree fell in space, there would be no sound.

Why is this stupid question repeatedly asked?😕

Back to the question, since there is a material medium in a forest, you do have sound! 😲 Everyone happy now?

Originally posted by PBE6
Unfortunately this is wrong. Sound is the culmination of the auditory processing your brain does on input gathered through your ears. Therefore if there's no one around to hear it, there is no sound. Of course, the falling tree still produces the same vibrations if no one's around, but that's not the question.

At last someone who understands.

The main problem in understanding this question stems from the use of language. Commonly in language the vibrations of air molecules are described as "sound waves". This makes it so much more difficult to make the realisation that the conciouss experience that is sound and the vibration of air molecules are two very seperate things. The former is the cause and the latter the effect. It is easier to understand the total seperation of the two when in fact you look at the fact the ear creats an electrical signal to the brain to convey the sensory information. Now it is easy to see an electrical signal is not "sound".

The pathway is vibration of air molecules to electrical signal to concious experience which is a sound. So in fact there are three (can be broken down further) very different phenomena.

The question is a good scientific colledge level learning tool (not a philosophical question), which beautifully demonstrates the reality of the natural world is often counter intuitive to just what are senses tell us.

Originally posted by PBE6
Unfortunately this is wrong. Sound is the culmination of the auditory processing your brain does on input gathered through your ears. Therefore if there's no one around to hear it, there is no sound. Of course, the falling tree still produces the same vibrations if no one's around, but that's not the question.

Having looked it up in the dictionary, I find that the word can mean both the physical process as well as the experience of it. However, that obviously depends on context and use. If we say that a tree falls and 'makes a sound' then we are obviously talking about the physical process and not the experience of it. So I remain correct, and you are wrong.
According to you, we:
1. cannot record sound with a microphone.
2. cannot feel sound. (deep tones can be felt without aid of the ears).
Also your definition is too loose for the question anyway as you do not say how complex a brain or ear is required. For example if an animal hears it, is it still a sound? What if a work hears it? What if the tree hears it?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Did the Big Bang really happen when noone was there witness it?

And you know nobody was observing the big bang because?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Having looked it up in the dictionary, I find that the word can mean both the physical process as well as the experience of it. However, that obviously depends on context and use. If we say that a tree falls and 'makes a sound' then we are obviously talking about the physical process and not the experience of it. So I remain correct, and you are wrong.
A ...[text shortened]... f an animal hears it, is it still a sound? What if a work hears it? What if the tree hears it?

Whats a 'work'?
I agree with you one that one anyway, the main idea here is sound has to be experienced by someone intelligent. But putting all the physicality of pressure waves aside, a mouse can hear quite well and will react to it, even if it can't do calculus, so you have to say that a sound is generated even if it is only heard by a mouse or a spider that has hearing organs. Its still a sound because it potentially produces a reaction in the listener, depending on the nature of the sound. The sound might be a chitter that means 'I'm horny' or it might mean the sound of a rattlesnake that frightens away a mouse. It could also be a tree crashing down warning that mouse it better get out of the way if it does not want to be food for the ants. So the concept of 'sound' has to be expanded beyond its implied definition of humans experiencing it.