It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Before The Beginning There Was...

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Visitor2012

Sorry but sound waves are the cause of sound. You philosophy guys always love to find ways to argue against reality. The sun actually makes LOTS of loud noise, we just can't hear it from earth because it's 93 million miles away. If you were near the sun, the noise would be deafening provided you haven't burned up yet. When a tree falls in the woods, it creates a sound wave. That sound wave will be heard by anything nearby that can hear. I get what you are saying about sound being interpreted by the brain, but the point is that the sound is there (or vibration in the air as you call it), whether we hear it or not. It is physically measurable. That vibration in the air IS sound.
edit on 7 12 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




That vibration in the air IS sound.

It seems we are now arguing semantics. What you call soundwaves, I call vibrations which do not become sound until the brain and ear mechanism converts the vibrational energy into the phenomenon you experience. And this can only happen if there's a medium for vibrational propagation. What I call the phenomenon of sound, is that which the brain generates for you to perceive these vibrations.

If you were near the sun, the noise would be deafening provided you haven't burned up yet.


If I were near the sun, I would hear absolutely nothing.

Without a propagating medium for the solar energy, the sun makes NO sound. it's not philosophy, it's science 101
edit on 12-7-2016 by Visitor2012 because: Added a few sentences.
edit on 12-7-2016 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Visitor2012
a reply to: Barcs




That vibration in the air IS sound.

It seems we are now arguing semantics. What you call soundwaves, I call vibrations which do not become sound until the brain and ear mechanism converts the vibrational energy into the phenomenon you experience. what I call the phenomenon of sound, is that which the brain generates for you to perceive these vibrations.

Without a propagating medium for the solar energy, the sun makes NO sound.
Yeah... what he said.Thanks for injecting some intelligent discourse to this thread.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: MissSmartypants

Your claim is that "Before the Beginning...." So when exactly was that?? When is before the Beginning??? Please explain that concept to me please.

Because whenever that Before was, That would be the Beginning. Because you're talking about a reference in Time with no distinction between events or divisions of Time meaning there is only one Beginning.

I'm not arguing semantics at all. I'm arguing your incorrect temporal concepts which make no sense.
Sigh...obviously time to coin a new word. How about "ginning"? Before the beginning there was the ginning. And you are arguing semantics. MissSmartypants has spoken.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Visitor2012
a reply to: Barcs




That vibration in the air IS sound.

It seems we are now arguing semantics. What you call soundwaves, I call vibrations which do not become sound until the brain and ear mechanism converts the vibrational energy into the phenomenon you experience. And this can only happen if there's a medium for vibrational propagation. What I call the phenomenon of sound, is that which the brain generates for you to perceive these vibrations.

If you were near the sun, the noise would be deafening provided you haven't burned up yet.


If I were near the sun, I would hear absolutely nothing.

Without a propagating medium for the solar energy, the sun makes NO sound.


The "vibrations" are what creates the sound wave.

Yes, the sound wave is then converted by our brains.

Whether we convert it or not, the sound is still there and measurable.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MissSmartypants

Right. You're making up words like ginning and yet I'm the one who's arguing semantics.

Makes perfect sense.


Oh, and no "pre-beginning" either since you've already admitted that was BS too.

According to your recycled fractal universe theory which repeats into infinity, Ouroboros style, why not just say there isn't a beginning but infinite iterations or something??? (Now I'm arguing semantics.)
edit on 12-7-2016 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum




The "vibrations" are what creates the sound wave. Yes, the sound wave is then converted by our brains.


Exactly, converting it into the sound you perceive. Before this conversion there is no sound..only vibration. You seem to think that soundwaves -and- sound are one in the same. They are not. The ears do not receive sound, they receive vibration (biology 101). The brain does not receive what comes into the ears, it receives electrical impulses which is converted to the phenomenon you percieve called sound. Are you refuting science?



Whether we convert it or not, the sound is still there and measurable.


Wait, Converting what.... into what? Sound into sound? Or vibrations into auditory phenomenon?



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
And then some other stuff happened and you read this thread.


The above is the only reason I gave you a star and a flag. I did read the whole thing, but that bit made me laugh.

I made me laugh too. I love that about me.

C
So is this Gnosticism (sp?)?
No. Of course not. It's MissSmartypantsism. And how about me figuring out where God came from? You're welcome, Humanity.


if you want to help humanity, then there are far more important mysteries to resolve than the one you pretended to in the op. like who decided that smarties candy would make fitting material for dressing your lower extremities? but kudos for the funny stuff, could always use a laugh around here.
edit on 12-7-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Chaos was void?

Doesn't sound right.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Visitor2012
If I were near the sun, I would hear absolutely nothing.


The only reason you would not hear it is because sound waves can't travel in a vacuum, not because it doesn't make sound. It is pure semantics to suggest sound waves are not sound. Sound waves are a simple reality of nature. Whether you hear them or not is irrelevant. Things happen, they create sound waves, some creatures hear them, some detect them in other ways. It's a survival tool.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Visitor2012

There is still measurable sound waves in the air whether we hear it or not.

Sound can be a physical phenomenon or sound can be a human experience.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


It seems we are at an empasse. My stance is this. A falling tree makes molecules of air vibrate, compressing them into waves of varying air pressure. The purpose and function of the auditory system is to convert the physical properties of sound-wave energy into electrochemical neural activity that travels to the brain, which we then perceive as sound. The waves themselves make no sounds. Sound is a perception..not a physical phenomenon like the soundwaves.

Soundwaves do not become sound until this conversion takes place. Which is why they're called "sound waves" as opposed to "sound". The only sound phenomenon that humans have ever experienced and thus know it to exist, is that which is created in the brain via the auditory processing of the physical vibrations of these molecules. this is borderline arguing semantics indeed, but science is science and your use of scientific terminology is, in MY opinion, ungrounded and unsound.

No pun intended

edit on 12-7-2016 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Visitor2012

They are called sound waves as opposed to sound? Do you not see the word sound before the word wave?

Here is the definition of sound:


sound

noun
1.
vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.
"light travels faster than sound"
2.
sound produced by continuous and regular vibrations, as opposed to noise.


Sound waves ARE sound. It is irrelevant if YOU hear it. Sorry.

It's a silly semantics argument that is a complete red herring because my original point was about how the universe exists whether it is observed or not, a rebuttal to MissSmartyPants that went unanswered. I mentioned the tree falling in the woods as an "aside" to that. If you want to keep going back and forth over something that wasn't even my point, feel free, but does anybody have a rebuttal to my point about the universe? Can't help notice that it was completely ignored in favor of a purely philosophical question about sound that isn't relevant to the thread or science.


edit on 7 13 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I realize I am probably making a huge mistake stepping blind onto the last page of an argument, so if what I say is completely irrelevant, please accept my apology. But this whole "does a tree make a sound if no one hears it" question is of particular interest to me, as I've revisited it often.

All of this is just to say that I'd like to make a few points:

Sound can be defined in three ways:
1) as the "sound wave," irrespective of any observer or observation instrument.
2) Specifically, the vibration of the human ear drum.
3) a broader version of 2, where any listening instrument or conscious listener will suffice.

1 and 2 are common definitions given in certain (but not all) dictionaries, whereas 3 is a more context specific definition.

At first glance, the philosophical question of whether a tree makes a sound if it falls in the forest appears to be entirely dependent upon whether one is using definition 1 or 2.

However, if one considers quantum mechanics, it's quite possible that reality itself does not exist except as a probability distribution unless it is observed (see definition 3), and at the moment of observation, the wave function collapses to a single outcome.

So the truth is that barring some observer, or observation instrument, or some remote AFFECT that can be observed by one of the above, we can't even say for sure that the tree even fell. It may be that only at the moment of observation does the tree materialize in an already fallen state.

Given that this thread is in the Creation forum, I highly doubt my post is directly relevant to any argument one is attempting to make here. It's just a philosophical challenge (with scientific causes and affects) that has interested me.
edit on 13-7-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I think you've missed the point of this debate entirely.

The basis of the argument- 'when a tree falls and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?' Is not referring to the vibrations in the air molecules (sound waves) that are OBVIOUSLY created when a tree falls. Nobody is arguing physics. OBVIOUSLY, the physical affect of a tree falling is not being argued. The fact that the air molecules vibrate is NOT being debated or disputed. The problem being postulated is not about the existence or non existence of soundwaves which is already proven to exist through science, thus would never be a topic of scholarly debate to begin with!

What IS being debated is something much deeper, and that is the existence of the PHENOMENON of sound as we experience it. The phenomenon which is generated by the FACT of these vibrating molecules. Does THAT exist when there is no listener? Is the PHENOMENON inherent in the vibrations themselves....That is what I am talking about. And the answer is NO.

Nobody in their right mind would argue wether or not the falling tree has an affect on the surrounding molecules of air. Of course it does! regardless of who is around to see it.

To explain what I mean, consider this: If a beam of light is shining through a dusty room, does it create a visual light beam? Yes. This beam I'm referring to is NOT the lightwaves themselves, it is the combination of light and the visual phenomenon created when the light bounces off of the surrounding particles.

Now, when the light is shining through the vacuum of space, the visual PHENOMENON called the BEAM, does NOT exist. Does it mean that I'm refuting the existence of the light waves? Of course not. But the PHENOMENON of the light as we experience it, does NOT exist in space as an object of perception. Because there is nothing for the light to propagate or reflect off of to create the phenomenon called the "beam of light". You only see light when it is reflected off of something. Lightwaves however, exists regardless. Get it?

So, in conclusion, sound as YOU know it, is not perceived as vibrations of air molecules, it is perceived as the phenomenon which is generated by the combination of soundwaves and its conversion within the auditory system of your ear' and brain. THAT phenomenon does NOT exist within the soundwaves themselves, it exists in the brain of the listener. If the Phenomenon of sound DID exist in the soundwaves themselves, why would we need eardrums, inne ear and our brain to convert it into sound?

Again, I am not refuting the fact that when a tree falls, molecules vibrate through the air. If you think that's what this debate is about, you are missing a very important aspect of the problem being pointed to. I AM saying, that the PHENOMENON of sound, does NOT exist without the innate, complex process of converting vibration of air molecules INTO the phenomenon we experience called sound.

PHENOMENON: Websters dictionary:

1 plural phenomena : an observable fact or event
2 plural phenomena
a : an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition
b : a temporal or spatiotemporal object of sensory experience as distinguished from a noumenon
c : a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation


edit on 13-7-2016 by Visitor2012 because: BILLIONS of edits.

edit on 13-7-2016 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Visitor2012
Actually I think you missed MY point. You are debating an entirely different thing than I postulated in my post that you initially responded to. Did I say anywhere in my first post sound as I KNOW it or interpret it? No I didn't, I simply said the tree makes a sound and based on the definition I used that is correct.

As Greggers stated above it depends what definition of the word sound that you use. They are not all equal. If you are debating a different definition than I am using, it is the equivocation fallacy. When I made the post I was referring to the sound waves that are created by the action of the tree falling (definition #1 of sound posted above). I can't really put it any simpler.

If you want to get into a deep debate about the interpretation of this sound in our brains, that's a completely different topic, but that is not what I suggested in my post that again was related to observation of the universe, not just trees making sounds. Essentially, I'm just talking about the science behind sound. Philosophy doesn't over ride science, simply because you change the meaning of the words I use. Philosophy folks LOVE semantics discussions for some reason. Not all definitions of a word are equal and they shouldn't be treated as such. It is a logical fallacy to do that.

edit on 7 14 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Philosophy folks eh? Hehe, There's nothing philosophical about the science behind sound. In fact, I think it is completely silly you would even propose such a question if you aren't talking about the phenonenon of sound itself. Of course a tree makes soundwaves when it falls, did you really need to affirm that? I think anyone with a high school diploma knows that, and if that were the true nature of such a well known topic of debate...it would've never been a topic of debate to begin with. Alas, I think we're beating a dead horse here. However, I've THOROUGHLY enjoyed this conversation. Cheers.



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
For the record, the commonly accepted purpose of the "does a tree make a sound" debate is meant to probe the nature of reality itself.

Put more simply, the salient question becomes: Does reality exist if it is not observed?

And my contention is that we simply do not know, as nearly all the applicable arguments are philosophical rather than scientific. One of the few scientific arguments involves quantum mechanics (see the double slit experiment), which leaves open the possibility that reality exists only as a non-rendered probability distribution until it is observed, but that's about as close as science can come to it, since science requires observation by definition.

Unfortunately, what happens in the absence of a conscious observer (or observation instrument) is neither falsifiable nor testable.
edit on 14-7-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

I agree with you for the most part, although how can you consider an inanimate object a " conscious observer". Double slit experiment is a big misconstrued. The reason it may appear to react to being observed is because the electron microscope interferes with particles being studied. It's not actually because the act of looking at or observing something can change it. This is one of those common misconceptions with quantum mechanics.

To say something does not exist until observed is a catch 22. If it wasn't there in the first place to be observed, how could it suddenly start existing merely by looking at it. I see that argument as putting too much value on human senses, making them special. Scientists can look back in time by looking into space. It takes the light from those stars millions or even billions of years to reach earth, so it's safe to say that they existed before being observed. How is it we can look back and see the aftermath of the big bang background radiation and claim it's only there because we looked at it? I don't personally buy it, although it's interesting to think about.



posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Greggers

I agree with you for the most part, although how can you consider an inanimate object a " conscious observer". Double slit experiment is a big misconstrued. The reason it may appear to react to being observed is because the electron microscope interferes with particles being studied. It's not actually because the act of looking at or observing something can change it. This is one of those common misconceptions with quantum mechanics.


A couple of points:
1) The electron (or photon) detector is not a conscious observer. It does, however, matter whether the information it detects is attainable by a conscious observer, as this does appear to directly effect the outcome.
2) Here is a link to one of the best videos I've found that proves that the observation instrument is NOT WHAT CAUSES THE COLLAPSE. In fact, it is whether or not the measurement is KNOWABLE that causes the collapse.

There may be other explanations, but I haven't heard a good one.





If it wasn't there in the first place to be observed, how could it suddenly start existing merely by looking at it. I see that argument as putting too much value on human senses, making them special. Scientists can look back in time by looking into space. It takes the light from those stars millions or even billions of years to reach earth, so it's safe to say that they existed before being observed. How is it we can look back and see the aftermath of the big bang background radiation and claim it's only there because we looked at it? I don't personally buy it, although it's interesting to think about.


In my earlier example, I said it was possible that the tree would manifest in an "already fallen" state. This would come part and parcel with the manifestation of the end-result of its entire history. So, in the end, there is no way to tell the difference between this type of reality and one where physical objects continue to persist even when they are not observed.

This is far easier to think about if you consider the possibility of the universe as a computer simulation, and reality both as what is rendered on the screen and what is floating about in RAM or on Disk.
edit on 14-7-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join