 |
|
Adam_Smith
|
|
The Raisin Capital of the World
Dec 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
We are expected to use our imagination. After all psi combat is not real.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joer
|
 |
Frankfurt, Germany
Apr 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
One simple explanation, really. It's only a suggestion, nothing authorative:
Mindworms create waves (call them bioresonance waves, if you want) that distribute all over the area. Those waves can go high up in the air and go through steel, just like regular radio waves.
Once those waves hit a brain, they manipulate the neurochemical reactions in that brain to evoce hallucinations, which will let the owner of that brain loose control.
That explanation works far better for bombers than for anybody else...most pilots suffering from hallucinations have problems flying their plane. 
And the bomber pilot would try to bomb the worms itself -- those do exist physically. His attack is just hindered by those hallucinative waves.
The mind worms don't even need to know you exist, just like the radio sender doesn't need to know you have an antenna on your house.
noise of falling tree: I looked it up in my lexicon. They state that the definition of noise encompasses only an accoustic wave. So, by that definition, yes, the falling tree still makes a noise.
Take on the definition of 'accoustic wave perceived by an ear', and things look different.
-A lazy Saturday morning joer, taking up any random thread to bite.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Helium Pond
|
|
Los Anheles, California, Good Ole U S of A
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Glib, scientific attempts to construct a definitive answer for the ancient koan entirely miss the point. A koan is a paradox intended to focus the mind towards enlightenment.
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear, does it still make a noise?"
The question is aimed at getting one to contemplate the fact that all reality is percieved through the senses, and therefore, what is real? By breaking down the hypothesis--a tree falling in the forest--into smaller observed phenomena, such as acoustic waves, you haven't answered the question, merely re-phrased it. Now the question becomes, "If a tree falls in the forest with no one there to hear, does it still generate acoustic waves?" Then you can define what acoustic waves are, and I can re-phrase the question to accomodate that definiton. This is a common mistunderstanding of the riddle. Many intellectuals confuse definition with explanation. This is a mistake.
What's being pondered here, is, does the world exist when we're not perceiving it? Most people will automatically answer yes, but how can you prove it? There is no way to prove that anything exists beyond our experience of it.
Thus, it is not a question designed to be answered. If there is any such thing as a final answer to the question, it would have to be no. "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear, does it still make a noise?" Of course not. Why? Because there is no tree, there is no forest. There's just words on a computer screen making you imagine these things. On the other hand, perhaps the imagined world is just as real as the experiential world. In which case, yes. You see? No final answer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joer
|
|
Frankfurt, Germany
Apr 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Very good and interesting explanation, HP.
Now, once again, I realize why I don't like koans.
The original question 'Does a falling tree make a sound if nobody hears it?' sounds very much like a scientific question. If one accepts that, the answer is trivial (it depends on the definition of sound), because one is inclined to already accept the underlying scientific 'common-place' worldview that there is a reality without anybody perceiving it. That's what we learn in natural sciences at school, at least.
The underlying question 'Is there a reality without perception?' is not so easily answered. However, stating the question in the above phrase makes it at least identifiable as philosophical question, as opposed to the original one.
Bottom line: If they want to ask me about reality, why do they keep bugging me about falling trees?
Oh, and I totally agree that you cannot prove it one way or the other. Most likely. Damn, we can't even prove that anything we experience exists, nor can we be very sure of it.
-joer, still bored, going off on tangents...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Helium Pond
|
|
Los Anheles, California, Good Ole U S of A
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Continuing to wander way way way off topic:
"Bottom line: If they want to ask me about reality, why do they keep bugging me about falling trees?"
Well, as far as I understand it, which is admittedly not very far, the idea is to move you past experiencing things with your brain. It's kind of like when they posed that logical question to that robot on Star Trek. Actually, it's very like that. Except that the robot exploded from the process, whereas supposedly humans can achieve enlightenment. The point is to get your brain to try really hard to do something it can't do, in the hopes that it will eventually just "turn off", allowing you to experience reality directly, without interference from the distorting prism of your mind.
But I wouldn't advise trying this without the guidance of a qualified zen master, otherwise you might go into some cosmic freak-out mode and eventually turn into the Zodiac Killer. In light of which, perhaps "Bla Bla Bla" is the best response, after all.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear, does it still make a noise?"
If no one was there, how do you know it fell?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Famyn
|
|
Austintown, Oh, USA
Apr 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
The answer to the question is in fact, "No, a tree falling in the woods with no one around does not in fact make noise."
Reason? The impact of the tree on the ground and potentially against other branches and trees simply creates high levels of vibration waves. If no living creature is in applicable distance (namely the distance it would take for the waves to lose so much power as too be unnoticeable) with the proper equipment (namely ears) to translate these vibration waves into something their brains can understand (namely noise), then the tree will make no such noise, and the waves will simply die out.
You can consider these vibration waves sound, as sound exists in the form of vibration waves, but without a mind with the proper sensory resepticles, regardless of intelligence level, to give them meaning, they are nothing more then waves.
The same can be said about no one being in the area to see it fall. Sight is nothing more then your brain putting together the sensory information from photon waves together into something more useable to you or whoever is 'seeing' the event or object. Remember - you don't actually 'see' things that are happening around you, you are simply picking up stray photon waves that have bounced off or been emmitted from nearby (or potentially not nearby) matter and energy sources. Without a brain to make these photon waves mean anything, they are simply photon waves and nothing more. Sure, the matter still changes locations in accordance with the rules of gravity, but without a mind to see the event happen, without the ears to translate to vibration waves into understandable sound, and without the mental knowledge to group atoms into larger, understandable objects like 'tree' and 'ground', or to even understand the base concept of gravity, then the things that happen are merely atoms that are bonded in certain ways acting the way they should according to the laws of the universe. The universe does not care if a bunch of atoms are a 'tree' or the 'ground'. It takes a creature with a mind to care about such things.
Anyone want to buy a bridge?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The whole argument is academic. There are always creatures in a forest to hear the noise and see the tree fall, even if it is one lonely squirrel wondering why all this terrain is suddenly going up. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
c-maguire
|
|
Here's one for you:
If the tree fell and no one was around to hear it, how do you know it fell then?
c-maguire, trying to give everyone a headache.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vi Vicdi
|
|
Killeen, TX, USA
Nov 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
The law of thermodynamics suggests that a tree cannot fall unless it makes a sound.
A quantum physics answer might be that the tree does not fall until it is observed, at which point it falls and makes a sound.
The question, "If a tree falls unobserved does it make a sound," seems founded on the premise that thermodynamics is dependent upon observation, when in fact evidence suggests the opposite to be true.
My answer to this question, then, would be this: either a tree cannot fall if there is no one around to hear it, or it must make a sound.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Famyn
|
|
Austintown, Oh, USA
Apr 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Observe my post, above.
Sound is not created by atoms clashing against each other, such as when a 'tree' obeys the laws of gravity and 'falls' against the 'ground.'
This event creates high levels of vibration waves, or sonic vibrations.
Sound is the translation of these waves, using proper recepticles to register these said waves, by a living creature's brain into thought patterns that said brain can understand them. If there is no living creature around with the proper sensory recepticles, then the sonic waves will not be translated into sound such that a living being can comprehend it.
NOTE: vibration waves often have physical affects on matter. They cause atoms to vibrate as the wave passes over them. Usually, this is unnoticed. Several occurances, such as high levels of 'bass music' can be 'felt' by living creatures, again with the proper sensory organs (in this case, nerve endings). Likewise, if no creature with nerve endings is within the maximum affectory range of these vibration waves, then they will also not have this affect.
So, the answer, again, is: If a tree (or group of atoms acting in certain ways that a living mind associates with being a tree)falls in the woods and no one is around, it does not in fact make 'sound', only creates vibration waves that a living being, if in fact one would be around, would use its proper sensory recepticles to translate into sound so that its mind could understand them.
And dangit, don't argue with me anymore cause I've used up my entire scientific vocabulary. ('laser')
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joer
|
|
Frankfurt, Germany
Apr 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Whee, back to definitions and acceptance of the classical scientific paradigm.
Taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica search (www.eb.com):
sound:
a mechanical disturbance from a state of equilibrium that propagates through an elastic material medium. A purely subjective definition of sound is also possible, as that which is perceived by the ear, but it is not particularly illuminating and is unduly restrictive, for it is useful to speak of sounds that cannot be heard by the human ear...
I'd be really interested in seeing the rest of the description, so completing it would be appreciated.
Looks like not everybody is agreeing with your definition, Famyn. And, sure, I think it makes sense to speak of a sound if I recorded the whole thing without (anybody with a nervous system) being there. Where'd you find that definition?
Vi Vidci: Thermodynamics states that trees can only fall if there's an elastic propagation medium around? Wow...where?
-joer
[This message has been edited by joer (edited May 02, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by joer (edited May 02, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vi: Actually, a macroscopic application of quantum physics suggests that the tree exists in a state of having fallen and not having fallen, simultaneously, until it is resolved. Upon observation, the probability equation is resolved, and the tree has either fallen or not fallen.
Of course, there is no macroscopic application of quantum physics, but if the falling of the tree were dependant on the action of a single subatomic particle, then you could use the Schroedinger equation to determine the eigenstates at which the the tree might fall, and the probability assigned to each eigenstate. But the tree would still exist in a state of uncertainty until observed.
The other possibility is that one day physicists will get there heads out of their asses and determine what makes the equation resolve at one or another eigenstate. Then you could determine the exact time at which the tree might fall, and throw the parrallel universes theory into the trash where it belongs.
------------------
Yours Truly
[This message has been edited by YT (edited May 02, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
joer
|
|
Frankfurt, Germany
Apr 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by YT on 05-02-2000 12:25 PM
[...] But this is a statement about our ability to abserve, not calculate. [...]
Physicists have come up with two reasons to explain why one or the other actually occurs.
1) it must be observed by a conscious being. The act of observation causes the resolution of the equation.
2) Both occur at the point of resolution. One in one universe, and the other in another parrallel universe. Before the resolution, there is only one universe containing the potential for both (the tree has fallen and not at the same time), and the universe splits into two parrallel universes at the time of resolution.
[...]
|
Good explanation, IMO.
Anyways, since I assumed that you refered to possibility 2 as 'the theory that belongs into the trash', we have to stick to 1.
So while physicists could theoretically come up with a theory to calculate the exact state the cat is in (other than 'both dead and alive), it'd be impossible to check it, since any checking would cause the equation to collapse, because of the underlying principle of the Heisenberg Uncertainty theorem (observing altering the state of the experiment).
I guess that's what I truly meant. In case it makes more sense.
Hey, don't you wish that explaining these things would be as simple as clicking a button and getting the message that you will discover the principles Quantum physics/the Unified Field Theory or Secrets of Creation in 3 turns? 
-joer, trying to find more obscure ways to escape working.
[This message has been edited by joer (edited May 02, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joer: you misunderstood what I said. Both 1 & 2 together are the explanation for what happens. Observation resolves the equation (ie - actually causes it to resolve), and parrallel universes explain how one and not the other occurs at the time of resolution. One is the trigger, and the other the process.
------------------
Yours Truly
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Helium Pond
|
|
Los Anheles, California, Good Ole U S of A
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Once again, the literalists are using the question to quibble about definitions and theories, although I suppose the arcane tenets of quantum physics are the closest thing the western world has to koans. As the only one arguing on behalf of the monks, let me once again show you the error of your ways:
Example 1:
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear, does it make a sound?"
Remember: if you believe you have answered the question, you have not understood it.
Example 2:
"If a man speaks and there is no woman there to hear, is he still wrong?"
Remember: if you really loved her, you wouldn't have to ask.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-04-2000 04:47
|