Stephen reacts so well in this, under pressure from someone who knows him well and is just as confident in his own knowledge as he is yet so easily manages to seemingly come out on top!
"If a tree falls down and nobody is there to see it, technically it should still be upright" I always laugh my ass off at that, Vegas is nowhere near as dense as he makes himself out to be
The 'philosophical' question is just pedantic semantics but Johnny vegas's joke about the tree being still standing is much more interesting its almost schrodinger's cat
This isn't even a philosophical question. It's just a pedantic argument about the definition of 'sound'. It's either: 1) the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. 2) mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, travelling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level. And so the answer depends on the definition you use.
1) That's _hearing_ not sound. 2) That's sound. Sound does not, by any definition need to be heard to be classified as sound. Sub and hypersonic sounds. End of argument.
I should point out also, sound can travel at different speeds - e.g. if you were to listen to sound through a particularly thick wall, or underwater perhaps.
I think the point is that neither definition makes sense for all real-world cases. If a "sound" can be made but never heard, does it make sense to call it a sound? Likewise, if a sound can be perceived but never measured (think about dreams or virtual reality) does the mechanical vibrations definition hold? No on both counts.
Johhny: if there's the speed of sound and its only what happens in the ear.. how do you get that speed between that and your ear? .. narrow eyes Legend!
I don't like the idea that certain things don't happen or can exist in either state simply because no human or other sentient being observes it. I find that argument arrogant. Things happen everywhere with no regard toward whether something has observed it happening. The universe doesn't care if you see it existing.
Right ... but that isn't the point of the question. It not if they do exist or do happen, it's how you prove it. If you think the tree makes sound, I can say 'prove it' and no-one can, only assume from prior evidence on how sound works. If you think the tree does not make a sound, I can say what you basically say, and say that all falling trees make sound. The answer is is that the tree most differently did make a sound, but you'll never prove it.
That would be up to you to show that trees somehow behave differently when a human isn't around. Uniformity in nature is the null hypothesis. You're putting forward that uniformity doesn't hold when a human isn't around, it's up to you to prove the tree behaves differently.
"Observation can actually change the way physics works, sort of." At the quantum level. There's no evidence that human observation changes the way a tree falls in the forest.
Because sound is just vibrations, so it is only sound if it is translated from vibration to "sound" by a creatures ear. Atleast that's what that definition of sound is.
Let's say I bring my guitar amp equipped with my favourite speaker to that forest and with the longest cable ever made purposely play something so loud through it that the speaker blows. If no one hears the sound does that mean my speaker isn't broken because "the sound doesn't exist"? I've always hated this "philosophical question". It's physics full stop, of course the sound exists...
It's meaningless semantics. The people disputing aren't arguing against physics, they're trying to separate the physics from the word "sound" and say that sound is defined by human experience of the sound. It's like asking if nobody sees a beautiful vista, is it still a sight? It's entirely contained in what the definition of a sight or a sound is.
hamaaaaaaaa They're not arguing wether a sound is aesthetically pleasing or not. Beauty is unique to each individual based on their experience of life, your example makes no sense. The question is weather the sound 'exists' or not which is stupid. It physically affects the surrounding regardless of human perception. It exists. Duh.
On the purely philosophical side, of whether you can know whether something outside your perception or memory _actually exists_ (which is a terribly narcissistic viewpoint, honestly), I would always answer the question of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" with "What tree?" No one ever got what I meant.
What makes it a sound wave instead of just an "air wave" and are all vibrations in the air equal to sound even if no living thing can perceive it as the wave length is to low or high?
@@SwedishNeo In response to your first question: nothing. 'Sound wave' and your invented idea of 'air wave' are completely synonymous and there is no practical reason that we would need two different words to describe this. In response to your second question, yes. All _longitudinal waves_ in air (and in other materials) are sound waves, regardless of whether it's actually possible for a human to hear them. It's really far more simple than you're making it out to be.
@@SwedishNeo air waves, as you describe them, _are_ sound waves but sound is the propagation of matter through _any_ medium. Submarine sonar uses sound waves in water. So not all sound waves are air waves
You could argue that a sound wave is just a wave until there is a receptacle that can interpret it into a sound. So, the concept of a "sound wave" doesn't exist, you'd just have a wave that gets propagated until it can be intepreted.
@@theDataStudent I do not understand this argument. So deaf people are silent in all their actions because they cannot interpret the sound wave? Sound is just vibrations in the air. If we limit it to 'vibrations within the human hearing range', yes, if a tree fell down in the woods and no-one was around, it would make a sound since energy can't be be created or destroyed, only changed, and so naturally you can't expect physics to simply not exist when humans aren't observing. All this being said, it does raise some fun conversation 🤣, and it actually makes me think that a funny alternative to this hypothetical would be the original Alien movie's tagline of 'In space, no one can hear you scream'. Because with that you remove the 'physics of sound waves' part and reduce it all that stuff that isn't what I just said 🤣🤣.
Jeremy Fede A falling tree makes a lot of noise if it rubs against other trees as it falls. Also if it rips it's roots out or the trunk just fractures. I know, I'm a tree.
i swear the point of the argument is that it is supposed to convince you that the tree does not even physically exist and that colour and sound are just things your mind makes up. Then i vaguely remember him trying to prove god had to exist to make his argument not one of those querky solipsistic theories.
John's talking out his arse, totally agree with Johnny & Stephen the vibration is sound, hence speed-of-sound & sound-wave. But!! ...disagree with all 3 of them as to what the philosophical question means. My take is quite literal, trees always make a sound falling when observed (which strongly indicates they would also make a sound when unobserved) but it is impossible to observe "a tree falling unobserved", therefore impossible to prove (despite overwhelming evidence/logic/reasoning). It's like arguing the existence of god imo.
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. It's up to you as to whether you're pedantic enough to say it isn't "sound" without the ear to receive it.
@Samwd1 His point is that if sound only exists once it is inside the ear, then the 'speed of sound' has no meaning because to have a speed it needs to travel a certain distance. If it only exists in the ear, it hasn't travelled any distance, it has just appeared in the ear and so has no 'speed'. Hope that makes sense. :)
@ItsOttis That was actually a profound question though If sound only counts as sound when it's heard, how can the SPEED of sound be achieved? Have we wrongly named it?
@PJDesseyn Actually, they discussed this in the explanation about neurologists and semanticists and physicists all having different views on the subject. The whole point was that it wasn't a simple yes or no answer. It depends on weaselly definitions.
@gyqz ah, but because your own throat and your own ear are connected with more particles than are in the air, you will be able to hear it. Because the particles in your throat will vibrate, causing the ones next to them to vibrate and so on until your ear and then your ear bones will pick up the vibrations and stuff.... I totally just made that up. I have no idea if that actually happens... :(
Don't worry I completely understand the point of the quote, I just wanted to write a witty remark lool (If I write a witty remark and no one is there to acknowledge it, does it make it witty/humorous?)
I see your point, but in this situation he was making that point that light is invisible. And yes. While it's true that all light is invisible if you're not looking at it (so to speak), it's a bit of a meaningless term to describe something that isn't being looked at as invisible, because it's a term which describes objects which when looked at can't be seen. What stephen should have said is not that you can't see light, but that you can't see light not going in the direction of your eyes.
My least favourite point about this question is the lack of acknowledgement that forests are simply full of ears, and are drums are not exclusive to humans.
Light is clearly not invisible. It's only visible once it hits your eyes, which is kind of the idea behind light. What he's describing is a situation in which the light doesn't come into contact with the retina. Like when you shoot a lazer in a cool, dry room, you can't see the beam, just the dot where the beam is diffusing.
The question is: 'did it make a sound?' not 'is a sound heard?'. So the answer is: yes it did make a sound. The sound is a by-product of the event. The fact that you can go and SEE the tree in its fallen state proves the event took place, therefore the by-product of the event took place, therefore the tree made a sound. Johnny cleverly hints towards this with his comment at the end. The same applies to the light by-product of the tree falling. With the 'no' logic if no one was there to see the tree fall it should still be upright.
No. This is not a hypothetical. It has nothing to do with the 'eardrum', it has to do with the fact that sound is an abstract concept within the mind. The proof of this is directly above our heads; if a star explodes in a vacuum and we can't hear it, does it make a sound? No, it does not. The tree falling creates a SHOCK wave which is then interpreted by our audio centers as what we've learned to label 'the sound of a falling tree' AFTER those vibrations hit the eardrum. It would be more accurate to say 'If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there to hear it, does it MAKE anyone HEAR a sound?' Fry suggests a microphone might 'hear' the sound? No, it doesn't. Audio equipment doesn't interpret sound, it records the waveforms in magnetic format and then translates them back, then when we listen and interpret it, THAT makes us hear sound, but even if it's live, we're not listening to the sound of a falling tree, we are listening to an electronic facsimile. It IS that simple. It might be interesting to ask 'If a child goes into the forest who has never been there before, and a tree falls near him, does it make a sound FOR him?" In other words, being a sound the boy has never heard in his life or would recognize before, does that shockwave only BECOME the sound of a falling tree AFTER he's heard it?
"sound is an abstract concept within the mind" Sound is an empiricably measurable property in the universe. "if a star explodes in a vacuum and we can't hear it, does it make a sound?" That's because there is no medium to carry the sound waves.
more to the point, it would be if a tree fell in the forest does it make a sound.. no, there isn't anyone to hear it. If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound WAVE, yes, it does cause the vibration wave, but it isn't sound until its interpreted by hearing it.
" sound is an abstract concept within the mind." No. Sound is a wave of pressure in the air "if a star explodes in a vacuum and we can't hear it, does it make a sound? No" Correct, but not because we can't hear it, but because it doesn't produce sound waves. "Audio equipment doesn't interpret sound, it records the waveforms in magnetic format" The waveforms are the soud. "does that shockwave only BECOME the sound of a falling tree AFTER he's heard it?" No.
I know the answer and the answer is sound is a physical property of moving air that has the possibility of getting recieved by something that can recognize it. So yes it made a sound. The definition of sound according to oxford english dictionary; Sound is vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear. The important part is the can be heard not must be heard therefore it's not a hypothetical question.
It's ultimately a somewhat silly question, but it depends on your definition of sound, rather than vibration. There are certain vibrations that humans are capable of interpreting as noise. There are slower and faster vibrations that we do not "hear," but they are the exact same phenomenon. If you felt your chair vibrate, but didn't hear anything, would you say "my chair just made a noise" or would you say "my chair just vibrated." ? They are the same thing.
Am I the only one who actually realized what Johnny meant with his question? If sound is only what happens in the ear, then what exactly is the "speed of sound"? Also tied into that, if sound is made in the ear, why is it that something will sound quieter, the more distance there is between you and the source? Feels kinda like the audience and other panelists just laughed at his question because it was worded weirdly. Kind of a shame really, since these are legitimate questions (legit questions for the average person to ask anyway. Even if there's easy explanations for them).
@LanteanKnight What about a sound that's too low or too high for some people to hear, like those cursed mosquito tones? Are you saying that it would be a sound for only some people?
Surely there's a difference between sound and audio? Sound is the movement, or popping if you prefer, of sound particles and atoms, and audio is the receiving of sound through one's ear? So in relation to the question, does it make a sound? Yes, but it has no audio?
It boils down to how you wish to define sound. The air vibration is by far the most common understanding. We know about the speed of sound, thus the vibration is sound.
If there is a tree in the forest, there is someone around to hear it when it falls. We have seen that plants react to sound waves. Thusly, plants "Hear" soundwaves. Perhaps not in the same way we do, but yeah. Thusly, falling or not, the plant "hears" the soundwave, and therefore, a sound has been created. So even if we attach ourself to the silly solipsistic idea of sound not existing if no one can hear it(considering we can't hear a great many sounds, sounds that Dogs, or Bees, or whatever else can hear just fine), that sound was "heard" by something.
@ybra very true indeed.. the theory ofcourse is based on something, is there something there when you cant hear or see it.. is there sound if you cant hear, are there lights when you cant see etc.. nonetheless, you make a good point
Saying that whether something is a sound or light depends on whether or not it reaches a person seems rather conceited of us. I'm with Vegas and the physicists... a sound wave is a sound. If a tree falls in a forest, it causes the air around it to vibrate, creating a sound wave, which is a sound. Whether or not someone's close enough for the wave to vibrate their eardrum is moot.
@LeftyHandedGuns All trees on the ground have "fallen". Some trees have been "felled" by a person. This hypothetical tree has not. It "fell" without anyone there to hear it.
Yes it does make a sound. If there is a tree there is soil, and in those things insects and animals live. Those things have ears that percieve sounds so no matter where the tree is, it makes a sound heard by some form of life.
I suppose it's still a valid point that A LOT of people now know about schrodingers cat because of the big bang theory. Although that's not the point he was making so I am in no means defending him, and you are correct that it's a stupid assertion.
The sound is still being created. I was thinking about this and I determined that if vibrational waves are being created that would impact the eardrums to create what we call sound, then there is, indeed a sound. We see ears as "perceiving sound" rather than "creating" it. Therefore the tree is the one creating the sound. Therefore a sound is being made. You can argue it and see it how you like, but in my eyes, so long as that source of that sound is at work, heard or not, the sound exists. Anything further is just semantics and, ultimately, pointless. ...but fun for a quiz show.
I say, it does. For a couple reasons. for one. If you had a clear soundproof box bot a ticking clock inside of it, there are still physically soundwaves in the box. So in the box it's making noise. And also for semantics. If you had a child ask you this question and you say that it didn't, they would take away that there was no "bang" as in it didn't make a noise.
@ExEverest10 Actually, the theory in Shrodinger's cat works on both a micro and macro scale. I suggest you whate What the Bleep Do We Know (that's the actual title, I'm not sensoring), I think it talks about how it works on a macro scale in that, though I'm not sure. And physics, I believe, is meant to connect the micro with the macro, so compartmentalizing this in a micro scale would defeat the purpose of physics.
i suppose this makes a distinction between the 'thing' and one's 'consciousness' of the thing itself. so when a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? to answer 'no' means that 'sound' is only when one becomes conscious of it. but to answer 'yes' is a 'logical yes' or accepting the notion that a falling tree would produce a sound. but does that make the logical actually true when you weren't there when the tree fell?
You're right there is no way to tell, but neither do we have any reason to think things stop existing just because they aren't observed. And wouldn't is be quite a mad thing to assume that the minute you close your closet all your clothes stop existing?
the point of the question isnt whether or not there will be anything to hear the tree falling. It assumes that there is nothing there to hear it, as improbable as it seems, and then asks whether it is still a sound if nothing can hear it.
Well for one we could use a recording device to measure the waves even if no one is there. And what alternative do you propose? That the laws of physics only works when someone is close?
If you define sound as reception of vibration, you can only answer the question "whether a specific sound exit TO YOU" can't you. The question "whether a specific sound EXIST AT ALL" is virtually impossible to be answered in the negative except in a hypothetical situation where there is no receptive at all.
Yes the tree makes a sound but it does not make a noise as a noise is the human perception of sound. Sound exists whether humans perceive it or not, for a small example think about how many insect species we discover on a daily basis that have mating habits involving sound, whether it be chirping or clicking, they make a sound and have done so long before human discovery. The question was never meant to be philosophical but instead a trick of semantics.
"Look how everyone only knows this because they've seen The Big Bang Theory." "See how they tell me they haven't seen it, clearly their style of writing proves my point that they have!" Precious babby
One of the situations where the scientific definition makes the philosophical one sound inane, pedantic and ridiculous... A sound wave is the vibration of the molecules within a medium, the speed of sound is the maximum speed that these vibrations can travel through a medium. Light are the energy packets that travel as particles/waves. Just because we evolved to have receivers for these, doesn't make them more meaningful to the natural world...
I don't see what this has to do with Shrödinger's Cat. Johnny Vegas was just making a joke going off of the "it's not sound unless someone hears it" thing.
I expected them to mention something about the Shrodinger's cat thought experiment. Taking that into account (and I know this is only theory), the tree makes a sound and it doesn't.
Jonny's "speed of sound" remark should pretty much settle it, no? if we accept that speed of sound describes what it says it does, then sound refers to the pressure waves, not the reception of sound. otherwise we would have to rename the physical parameter of speed of sound to something else whenever the sound it refers to is not perceived...
Isn't this actually two questions? (In regards to science) One is of definition of the word "sound," the other of quantum mechanics. We laughed when he said the tree should still be upright but that's essentially Schrodinger's cat. Until it is observed/ measured, and as far as we know mechanically counts, the tree exists in both states. This all sound nonsensical until you go down to the quantum level. To cite an experiment, look into the Double Slit Experiment.
@TheLemonGrenade Yeah but where are you gonna find an ear in outer space? Sound can't travel in a vacuum so it's irrelevant outside of planet Earth, where most ears are located funnily enough. Light can travel the circumference of the Earth 7 times every second, that's as instant as you can get.
@sinprelic But they are still measurable waves, even you admitted that, so its the specific definitions or labels we give these phenomena (the color "red" or the different pitches, as you've said) that are simply "perceptions"... The fact that there can be multiple definitions for the same thing seems to escape many people... "Sound" can be either a disturbance in an elastic medium (i.e. the wave itself) or the experience of hearing... Just sayin' :/
@MrMudkipKing So then nothing existed before sentient beings arrived? Then how did the matter that would later come to form conscious systems form if they could only be considered "real" once they have been registered by a mind?
Theoretically, The cat in the box works for this hypothetical, both answers are possible therefore they must be assumed that they are simultaneously occurring...
@leaguesmanoframsgate Yes, but the neurologist's definition runs into a lot more problem, like the recording device, or a beam of light not hitting anyone's eyes, is it still light, all of that. Applying Occam's razor, the physicist's answer is the most simple and the most elegant, and therefore correct. So if you wanted the *most* correct answer, it would be yes.
@ItsOttis Well, see, it's actually not because you can be so Instant that you can travel an infinite distance in so small a time as it cannot be measured THAT'S instant
Actually I agree with John Lloyd. Continue the discussion.... in that case a 'sound-wave' is a different thing to a 'sound'....it's not just a matter of one word having two meanings.....you should work backwards from the conclusions. If there are two meanings [because now we know about air, vibrations & audiology]... then there we are talking about two different concepts. They should present it as 'sound-wave' being a misnomer that exists precisely because of the human-centricity of auditory perception. To Stephen's point.... Even a recording device doesn't record 'sound'... it transcribes the air vibrations into analogue or digital dots which could be used to produce light signals if we so designed the machine...In which case on what basis could we call it a 'sound wave'?
@jursle Fair enough. I am a physicist, though... so I just wanted the others to have their go. I mean, neurology doesn't have that achingly pretty Dr. Cox...
I think the bloke is just actually confusing noise and sound. NOISE is something that is interpretation, and interpretation needs a reciever. sound on the other hand is not, because per definition we describe the wave as sound, which exists independend from reciever/interpretation.
I see your point, but as I said that kinda makes the question meaningless and silly. In that case the question is kinda trying to hide the fact that it only deals with perception and make it seam like it's the outside world that is changing, when it's not. And if it's only about perception the tree never makes a sound even when you are there, the tree just makes a wave in the air. The sounds isn't created until the wave is picked up by our ear and received by our brain.
@Wellsypig15 Bah, that's most likely short range electromagnetic interference of the recording device. Regardless, the electrons in that experiment exist either way, their behavior is simply altered. As the sound/light waves exist when a tree falls, no matter if observing them alters them in some way or not. The correct answer to the question is yes. The wrong answer is no. There may be a circumstance where that is not true... but I can not think of one. QI isn't always very accurate.
Not really. With Shrödinger's Cat the cat could be two different things until it's observed and then it becomes one of those things. In this case sound is one thing until it's observed, and then it becomes a completely different thing.
Well, it's an analogy used to illustrate the weirdness of quantum physics. I doubt there'd be a physics student that had never heard of Schrodinger's Cat.
A sound doesn't need to be heard to be a sound. Light doesn't have to be seen to exist. It's like arguing that if something hasn't been observed yet then it doesn't exist until it is observed. It obviously does. Human ignorance or inability does not mean something doesn't exist.
Lloyd is not suited for this game. I have to say Fry also blundered though, by not making it clear that "yes" is also a forfeit. I don't like the "haha of course theres a sound" crowd; when you realise that there's no such thing as colour, it's clear that it's all about how you define sound. sinprelic nailed it in his/her comment. QI tends to play with semantics to pick the more interesting answer anyway! You could have wagered that they would pick "no" as the right answer in a normal day.
@CruelLatitude sure, we have bands of wavelengths that, if interact with specific photoreceptor molecules on retinal cells, produce sensations of 'redishness' to varying degrees (luminosity, brightness, etc). but, can you agree that COLOR is not the same as LIGHT; that SOUND is not the same as PROPAGATING VIBRATIONS? after all, a machine can 'sense' wavelengths, but it obviously cannot 'sense' and distinguish between colors, merely wavelength! would you not agree?
By everyone. I meant this generation. Look at how much this style of writing emphasises my point. Thanks I'm gonna use it more often, I'm sure it impresses a lot of chicks.
But if you define sound as only the perception of hearing doesn't the whole question become a tautology? As in "If a tree falls and no one hears it, does is still get heard?". If it's only perception, what about if we play a high pitch sound through a speaker in a room with a kid and an old man in. The kid can hear it and the old man can't as his ears no longer can pick up that frequency. Does the speaker make a sound or not?
Stephen reacts so well in this, under pressure from someone who knows him well and is just as confident in his own knowledge as he is yet so easily manages to seemingly come out on top!
"If a tree falls down and nobody is there to see it, technically it should still be upright"
I always laugh my ass off at that, Vegas is nowhere near as dense as he makes himself out to be
He plays a character; a very funny, dumb, lovable one, but in reality he is very clever, and he lets it shine through from time to time.
Schrödingers tree 😁
The 'philosophical' question is just pedantic semantics but Johnny vegas's joke about the tree being still standing is much more interesting its almost schrodinger's cat
This isn't even a philosophical question. It's just a pedantic argument about the definition of 'sound'. It's either:
1) the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
2) mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, travelling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.
And so the answer depends on the definition you use.
1) That's _hearing_ not sound.
2) That's sound.
Sound does not, by any definition need to be heard to be classified as sound.
Sub and hypersonic sounds. End of argument.
I just took the definition of 'sound' from the English dictionary. Both are correct, depending on which definition you choose to use.
I should point out also, sound can travel at different speeds - e.g. if you were to listen to sound through a particularly thick wall, or underwater perhaps.
I think the point is that neither definition makes sense for all real-world cases. If a "sound" can be made but never heard, does it make sense to call it a sound? Likewise, if a sound can be perceived but never measured (think about dreams or virtual reality) does the mechanical vibrations definition hold? No on both counts.
Lee Nicholson - further proving that it is more than just a perception of something if it can be acted upon by outside forces.
Johhny: if there's the speed of sound and its only what happens in the ear.. how do you get that speed between that and your ear? .. narrow eyes
Legend!
And he was right!
hisxmark It barely makes sense, and wasn't right.
Sandi's final punctuation is perfect.
I don't like the idea that certain things don't happen or can exist in either state simply because no human or other sentient being observes it. I find that argument arrogant.
Things happen everywhere with no regard toward whether something has observed it happening. The universe doesn't care if you see it existing.
Nothing todo with human ears; just ears in general.
Right ... but that isn't the point of the question.
It not if they do exist or do happen, it's how you prove it.
If you think the tree makes sound, I can say 'prove it' and no-one can, only assume from prior evidence on how sound works.
If you think the tree does not make a sound, I can say what you basically say, and say that all falling trees make sound.
The answer is is that the tree most differently did make a sound, but you'll never prove it.
Have you read much about quantum mechanics? Observation can actually change the way physics works, sort of. It's a.. freaky thing.
That would be up to you to show that trees somehow behave differently when a human isn't around. Uniformity in nature is the null hypothesis. You're putting forward that uniformity doesn't hold when a human isn't around, it's up to you to prove the tree behaves differently.
"Observation can actually change the way physics works, sort of."
At the quantum level. There's no evidence that human observation changes the way a tree falls in the forest.
When was the definition of sound only what someone hears?
Never heard of that before.
Because sound is just vibrations, so it is only sound if it is translated from vibration to "sound" by a creatures ear. Atleast that's what that definition of sound is.
Let's say I bring my guitar amp equipped with my favourite speaker to that forest and with the longest cable ever made purposely play something so loud through it that the speaker blows. If no one hears the sound does that mean my speaker isn't broken because "the sound doesn't exist"?
I've always hated this "philosophical question". It's physics full stop, of course the sound exists...
It's meaningless semantics. The people disputing aren't arguing against physics, they're trying to separate the physics from the word "sound" and say that sound is defined by human experience of the sound. It's like asking if nobody sees a beautiful vista, is it still a sight? It's entirely contained in what the definition of a sight or a sound is.
hamaaaaaaaa They're not arguing wether a sound is aesthetically pleasing or not.
Beauty is unique to each individual based on their experience of life, your example makes no sense. The question is weather the sound 'exists' or not which is stupid.
It physically affects the surrounding regardless of human perception. It exists. Duh.
If it's an idea that you've never heard before then clearly it's not a sound idea.
On the purely philosophical side, of whether you can know whether something outside your perception or memory _actually exists_ (which is a terribly narcissistic viewpoint, honestly), I would always answer the question of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" with "What tree?"
No one ever got what I meant.
You're a genius!
ScoopMeisterGeneral I don't get it
ScoopMeisterGeneral I don't get it
Explained: If you don't see it, does it really exist?
Oh right, you're referring to solipsism
The propagation of a sound wave is absolutely sound regardless of whether it is received by anything
What makes it a sound wave instead of just an "air wave" and are all vibrations in the air equal to sound even if no living thing can perceive it as the wave length is to low or high?
@@SwedishNeo In response to your first question: nothing. 'Sound wave' and your invented idea of 'air wave' are completely synonymous and there is no practical reason that we would need two different words to describe this.
In response to your second question, yes. All _longitudinal waves_ in air (and in other materials) are sound waves, regardless of whether it's actually possible for a human to hear them. It's really far more simple than you're making it out to be.
@@SwedishNeo air waves, as you describe them, _are_ sound waves but sound is the propagation of matter through _any_ medium. Submarine sonar uses sound waves in water. So not all sound waves are air waves
You could argue that a sound wave is just a wave until there is a receptacle that can interpret it into a sound. So, the concept of a "sound wave" doesn't exist, you'd just have a wave that gets propagated until it can be intepreted.
@@theDataStudent I do not understand this argument. So deaf people are silent in all their actions because they cannot interpret the sound wave? Sound is just vibrations in the air. If we limit it to 'vibrations within the human hearing range', yes, if a tree fell down in the woods and no-one was around, it would make a sound since energy can't be be created or destroyed, only changed, and so naturally you can't expect physics to simply not exist when humans aren't observing.
All this being said, it does raise some fun conversation 🤣, and it actually makes me think that a funny alternative to this hypothetical would be the original Alien movie's tagline of 'In space, no one can hear you scream'. Because with that you remove the 'physics of sound waves' part and reduce it all that stuff that isn't what I just said 🤣🤣.
To be fair, the tree doesn't really make as much sound when its falling as when it suddenly stops falling.
Jeremy Fede A falling tree makes a lot of noise if it rubs against other trees as it falls. Also if it rips it's roots out or the trunk just fractures. I know, I'm a tree.
+c0mputer What, a binary tree?
By the same logic, if there's a tree in the forest, but there's no one around to see it, then the tree has no colour.
Shfinkle Bobbins exactly, so if there're no eyes around to receive the light reflecting from the tree, it doesn't have colour.
That's what colour is, Patryk.
xonxt no, by their logic then the tree doesn't even exist.
i swear the point of the argument is that it is supposed to convince you that the tree does not even physically exist and that colour and sound are just things your mind makes up. Then i vaguely remember him trying to prove god had to exist to make his argument not one of those querky solipsistic theories.
what's a tree?
John's talking out his arse, totally agree with Johnny & Stephen the vibration is sound, hence speed-of-sound & sound-wave. But!! ...disagree with all 3 of them as to what the philosophical question means. My take is quite literal, trees always make a sound falling when observed (which strongly indicates they would also make a sound when unobserved) but it is impossible to observe "a tree falling unobserved", therefore impossible to prove (despite overwhelming evidence/logic/reasoning). It's like arguing the existence of god imo.
They're arguing the definition of sound and god doesn't exist.
I know and I know.
WarwickkkT101
It takes a master to hone an edge that sharp.
@@SMgrimbldoo That's not even edge, that's just the most empirically accurate statement someone can make.
The pause when people realise Vegas has made a valid point is epic.
Not valid though. It's just a joke.
The man beside Allan is the creator of QI!
And evidently a very boring panellist.
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.
It's up to you as to whether you're pedantic enough to say it isn't "sound" without the ear to receive it.
@Samwd1 His point is that if sound only exists once it is inside the ear, then the 'speed of sound' has no meaning because to have a speed it needs to travel a certain distance. If it only exists in the ear, it hasn't travelled any distance, it has just appeared in the ear and so has no 'speed'. Hope that makes sense. :)
Stephen said "*as* it fell..." as in, *while* falling. Falling objects with nothing more make no sound. Thus, the answer "no" was correct.
The last question is why while I'm bummed about Stephen leaving, I'm hopeful Sandi can fill his place :)
I like how Vegas unknowingly said something about schroedingers cat.
@ItsOttis That was actually a profound question though
If sound only counts as sound when it's heard,
how can the SPEED of sound be achieved?
Have we wrongly named it?
@PJDesseyn Actually, they discussed this in the explanation about neurologists and semanticists and physicists all having different views on the subject. The whole point was that it wasn't a simple yes or no answer. It depends on weaselly definitions.
I never understood why people get so flummoxed over this question..
then I think you don't really understand the point of the question.
That's because it's hard to understand morons.
@gyqz ah, but because your own throat and your own ear are connected with more particles than are in the air, you will be able to hear it. Because the particles in your throat will vibrate, causing the ones next to them to vibrate and so on until your ear and then your ear bones will pick up the vibrations and stuff....
I totally just made that up. I have no idea if that actually happens... :(
A bird is bound to hear the tree fall
Don't worry I completely understand the point of the quote, I just wanted to write a witty remark lool (If I write a witty remark and no one is there to acknowledge it, does it make it witty/humorous?)
One of life's greatest mysteries
I see your point, but in this situation he was making that point that light is invisible. And yes. While it's true that all light is invisible if you're not looking at it (so to speak), it's a bit of a meaningless term to describe something that isn't being looked at as invisible, because it's a term which describes objects which when looked at can't be seen.
What stephen should have said is not that you can't see light, but that you can't see light not going in the direction of your eyes.
My least favourite point about this question is the lack of acknowledgement that forests are simply full of ears, and are drums are not exclusive to humans.
Light is clearly not invisible. It's only visible once it hits your eyes, which is kind of the idea behind light. What he's describing is a situation in which the light doesn't come into contact with the retina. Like when you shoot a lazer in a cool, dry room, you can't see the beam, just the dot where the beam is diffusing.
The question is: 'did it make a sound?' not 'is a sound heard?'.
So the answer is: yes it did make a sound.
The sound is a by-product of the event.
The fact that you can go and SEE the tree in its fallen state proves the event took place, therefore the by-product of the event took place, therefore the tree made a sound.
Johnny cleverly hints towards this with his comment at the end. The same applies to the light by-product of the tree falling. With the 'no' logic if no one was there to see the tree fall it should still be upright.
No. This is not a hypothetical. It has nothing to do with the 'eardrum', it has to do with the fact that sound is an abstract concept within the mind. The proof of this is directly above our heads; if a star explodes in a vacuum and we can't hear it, does it make a sound? No, it does not. The tree falling creates a SHOCK wave which is then interpreted by our audio centers as what we've learned to label 'the sound of a falling tree' AFTER those vibrations hit the eardrum. It would be more accurate to say 'If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there to hear it, does it MAKE anyone HEAR a sound?'
Fry suggests a microphone might 'hear' the sound? No, it doesn't. Audio equipment doesn't interpret sound, it records the waveforms in magnetic format and then translates them back, then when we listen and interpret it, THAT makes us hear sound, but even if it's live, we're not listening to the sound of a falling tree, we are listening to an electronic facsimile. It IS that simple.
It might be interesting to ask 'If a child goes into the forest who has never been there before, and a tree falls near him, does it make a sound FOR him?" In other words, being a sound the boy has never heard in his life or would recognize before, does that shockwave only BECOME the sound of a falling tree AFTER he's heard it?
"sound is an abstract concept within the mind"
Sound is an empiricably measurable property in the universe.
"if a star explodes in a vacuum and we can't hear it, does it make a sound?"
That's because there is no medium to carry the sound waves.
"The tree falling creates a SHOCK wave"
That IS what sound is. A series of shock eaves.
more to the point, it would be if a tree fell in the forest does it make a sound.. no, there isn't anyone to hear it. If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound WAVE, yes, it does cause the vibration wave, but it isn't sound until its interpreted by hearing it.
" sound is an abstract concept within the mind."
No. Sound is a wave of pressure in the air
"if a star explodes in a vacuum and we can't hear it, does it make a sound? No"
Correct, but not because we can't hear it, but because it doesn't produce sound waves.
"Audio equipment doesn't interpret sound, it records the waveforms in magnetic format"
The waveforms are the soud.
"does that shockwave only BECOME the sound of a falling tree AFTER he's heard it?"
No.
I know the answer and the answer is sound is a physical property of moving air that has the possibility of getting recieved by something that can recognize it. So yes it made a sound.
The definition of sound according to oxford english dictionary; Sound is vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear. The important part is the can be heard not must be heard therefore it's not a hypothetical question.
It's ultimately a somewhat silly question, but it depends on your definition of sound, rather than vibration. There are certain vibrations that humans are capable of interpreting as noise. There are slower and faster vibrations that we do not "hear," but they are the exact same phenomenon. If you felt your chair vibrate, but didn't hear anything, would you say "my chair just made a noise" or would you say "my chair just vibrated." ? They are the same thing.
Am I the only one who actually realized what Johnny meant with his question? If sound is only what happens in the ear, then what exactly is the "speed of sound"? Also tied into that, if sound is made in the ear, why is it that something will sound quieter, the more distance there is between you and the source? Feels kinda like the audience and other panelists just laughed at his question because it was worded weirdly. Kind of a shame really, since these are legitimate questions (legit questions for the average person to ask anyway. Even if there's easy explanations for them).
@LanteanKnight What about a sound that's too low or too high for some people to hear, like those cursed mosquito tones? Are you saying that it would be a sound for only some people?
Surely there's a difference between sound and audio? Sound is the movement, or popping if you prefer, of sound particles and atoms, and audio is the receiving of sound through one's ear? So in relation to the question, does it make a sound? Yes, but it has no audio?
It boils down to how you wish to define sound. The air vibration is by far the most common understanding. We know about the speed of sound, thus the vibration is sound.
If there is a tree in the forest, there is someone around to hear it when it falls. We have seen that plants react to sound waves. Thusly, plants "Hear" soundwaves. Perhaps not in the same way we do, but yeah. Thusly, falling or not, the plant "hears" the soundwave, and therefore, a sound has been created.
So even if we attach ourself to the silly solipsistic idea of sound not existing if no one can hear it(considering we can't hear a great many sounds, sounds that Dogs, or Bees, or whatever else can hear just fine), that sound was "heard" by something.
@AlexsEscape "that guy" is the creator and chief elf on QI. Curious to see him so reluctant to drop his point though
@ybra very true indeed.. the theory ofcourse is based on something, is there something there when you cant hear or see it.. is there sound if you cant hear, are there lights when you cant see etc..
nonetheless, you make a good point
Who's cutting all those trees anyway ?
Saying that whether something is a sound or light depends on whether or not it reaches a person seems rather conceited of us. I'm with Vegas and the physicists... a sound wave is a sound. If a tree falls in a forest, it causes the air around it to vibrate, creating a sound wave, which is a sound. Whether or not someone's close enough for the wave to vibrate their eardrum is moot.
@LeftyHandedGuns All trees on the ground have "fallen". Some trees have been "felled" by a person. This hypothetical tree has not. It "fell" without anyone there to hear it.
Yes it does make a sound.
If there is a tree there is soil, and in those things insects and animals live.
Those things have ears that percieve sounds so no matter where the tree is, it makes a sound heard by some form of life.
I suppose it's still a valid point that A LOT of people now know about schrodingers cat because of the big bang theory.
Although that's not the point he was making so I am in no means defending him, and you are correct that it's a stupid assertion.
The sound is still being created. I was thinking about this and I determined that if vibrational waves are being created that would impact the eardrums to create what we call sound, then there is, indeed a sound.
We see ears as "perceiving sound" rather than "creating" it. Therefore the tree is the one creating the sound. Therefore a sound is being made.
You can argue it and see it how you like, but in my eyes, so long as that source of that sound is at work, heard or not, the sound exists. Anything further is just semantics and, ultimately, pointless.
...but fun for a quiz show.
@mgblue that 'pretentious tit' is the shows creator, John Lloyd. Also, Stephen did not prove him wrong, he said there was no yes-or-no answer.
I say, it does. For a couple reasons. for one. If you had a clear soundproof box bot a ticking clock inside of it, there are still physically soundwaves in the box. So in the box it's making noise.
And also for semantics. If you had a child ask you this question and you say that it didn't, they would take away that there was no "bang" as in it didn't make a noise.
@ItsOttis It's actually nowehre near instant if you have a big enough distance
@ExEverest10 Actually, the theory in Shrodinger's cat works on both a micro and macro scale. I suggest you whate What the Bleep Do We Know (that's the actual title, I'm not sensoring), I think it talks about how it works on a macro scale in that, though I'm not sure. And physics, I believe, is meant to connect the micro with the macro, so compartmentalizing this in a micro scale would defeat the purpose of physics.
i suppose this makes a distinction between the 'thing' and one's 'consciousness' of the thing itself. so when a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? to answer 'no' means that 'sound' is only when one becomes conscious of it. but to answer 'yes' is a 'logical yes' or accepting the notion that a falling tree would produce a sound. but does that make the logical actually true when you weren't there when the tree fell?
I quite like this moment, it's fun too see Stephen in a situation like this where his argument and logic is more or less equally challenged.
Until he shuts down the guy on the left (I don't know his name), and doesn't even wait to hear what he wants to say.
That is the creator/producer of the show, John Lloyd.
He didn't shut him down, he said what he thought.
You're right there is no way to tell, but neither do we have any reason to think things stop existing just because they aren't observed. And wouldn't is be quite a mad thing to assume that the minute you close your closet all your clothes stop existing?
the point of the question isnt whether or not there will be anything to hear the tree falling. It assumes that there is nothing there to hear it, as improbable as it seems, and then asks whether it is still a sound if nothing can hear it.
"You would have penalized me with either answer? What kind of bs is that?"
"I don't know, you should take it up with the shows creator."
Shrodingers tree
I'm just imagining a meowing tree in a box now....I think that's enough UA-cam for one night.
+Ash Inka That's my cue to get some sleep, I suppose.
Well for one we could use a recording device to measure the waves even if no one is there.
And what alternative do you propose? That the laws of physics only works when someone is close?
love the Fibonacci spirals in the desk
"How do you get that speed between that and your ear?"
*narrows eyes*
If you define sound as reception of vibration, you can only answer the question "whether a specific sound exit TO YOU" can't you. The question "whether a specific sound EXIST AT ALL" is virtually impossible to be answered in the negative except in a hypothetical situation where there is no receptive at all.
Yes the tree makes a sound but it does not make a noise as a noise is the human perception of sound. Sound exists whether humans perceive it or not, for a small example think about how many insect species we discover on a daily basis that have mating habits involving sound, whether it be chirping or clicking, they make a sound and have done so long before human discovery. The question was never meant to be philosophical but instead a trick of semantics.
"Look how everyone only knows this because they've seen The Big Bang Theory."
"See how they tell me they haven't seen it, clearly their style of writing proves my point that they have!"
Precious babby
One of the situations where the scientific definition makes the philosophical one sound inane, pedantic and ridiculous...
A sound wave is the vibration of the molecules within a medium, the speed of sound is the maximum speed that these vibrations can travel through a medium.
Light are the energy packets that travel as particles/waves. Just because we evolved to have receivers for these, doesn't make them more meaningful to the natural world...
I don't see what this has to do with Shrödinger's Cat. Johnny Vegas was just making a joke going off of the "it's not sound unless someone hears it" thing.
I expected them to mention something about the Shrodinger's cat thought experiment. Taking that into account (and I know this is only theory), the tree makes a sound and it doesn't.
I love Stephen Fry, he makes me feel dumb lol!
Jonny's "speed of sound" remark should pretty much settle it, no? if we accept that speed of sound describes what it says it does, then sound refers to the pressure waves, not the reception of sound. otherwise we would have to rename the physical parameter of speed of sound to something else whenever the sound it refers to is not perceived...
@sposhmash Stephen is just saying "darling" in that way that luvvies do, like normal people say "mate".
Not one second of this show is worth watching without Stephen Fry at the center.
Isn't this actually two questions? (In regards to science) One is of definition of the word "sound," the other of quantum mechanics. We laughed when he said the tree should still be upright but that's essentially Schrodinger's cat. Until it is observed/ measured, and as far as we know mechanically counts, the tree exists in both states. This all sound nonsensical until you go down to the quantum level. To cite an experiment, look into the Double Slit Experiment.
@TheLemonGrenade Yeah but where are you gonna find an ear in outer space? Sound can't travel in a vacuum so it's irrelevant outside of planet Earth, where most ears are located funnily enough. Light can travel the circumference of the Earth 7 times every second, that's as instant as you can get.
1:53 Is it me or is someone saying 'Stephen'? Mixing of channels perhaps?
+Alex Newport i think alan's just muttering into his hand
@sinprelic But they are still measurable waves, even you admitted that, so its the specific definitions or labels we give these phenomena (the color "red" or the different pitches, as you've said) that are simply "perceptions"... The fact that there can be multiple definitions for the same thing seems to escape many people... "Sound" can be either a disturbance in an elastic medium (i.e. the wave itself) or the experience of hearing... Just sayin' :/
But did the tree exist when it fell, seeing that there was no-one there to observe it?
If it didn't exist, then it cannot have made a sound either.
@MrMudkipKing
So then nothing existed before sentient beings arrived?
Then how did the matter that would later come to form conscious systems form if they could only be considered "real" once they have been registered by a mind?
Theoretically, The cat in the box works for this hypothetical, both answers are possible therefore they must be assumed that they are simultaneously occurring...
@leaguesmanoframsgate Yes, but the neurologist's definition runs into a lot more problem, like the recording device, or a beam of light not hitting anyone's eyes, is it still light, all of that. Applying Occam's razor, the physicist's answer is the most simple and the most elegant, and therefore correct.
So if you wanted the *most* correct answer, it would be yes.
@ItsOttis Well, see, it's actually not
because you can be so Instant that you can travel an infinite distance in so small a time as it cannot be measured
THAT'S instant
Actually I agree with John Lloyd. Continue the discussion.... in that case a 'sound-wave' is a different thing to a 'sound'....it's not just a matter of one word having two meanings.....you should work backwards from the conclusions. If there are two meanings [because now we know about air, vibrations & audiology]... then there we are talking about two different concepts. They should present it as 'sound-wave' being a misnomer that exists precisely because of the human-centricity of auditory perception. To Stephen's point.... Even a recording device doesn't record 'sound'... it transcribes the air vibrations into analogue or digital dots which could be used to produce light signals if we so designed the machine...In which case on what basis could we call it a 'sound wave'?
Cont. Although I guess that really depends on how you define the phrase 'A lot'
@LanteanKnight What about tape recorders, as Mr. Fry points out?
@jursle Fair enough. I am a physicist, though... so I just wanted the others to have their go. I mean, neurology doesn't have that achingly pretty Dr. Cox...
I think the bloke is just actually confusing noise and sound. NOISE is something that is interpretation, and interpretation needs a reciever. sound on the other hand is not, because per definition we describe the wave as sound, which exists independend from reciever/interpretation.
I see your point, but as I said that kinda makes the question meaningless and silly. In that case the question is kinda trying to hide the fact that it only deals with perception and make it seam like it's the outside world that is changing, when it's not.
And if it's only about perception the tree never makes a sound even when you are there, the tree just makes a wave in the air. The sounds isn't created until the wave is picked up by our ear and received by our brain.
@Wellsypig15
Bah, that's most likely short range electromagnetic interference of the recording device.
Regardless, the electrons in that experiment exist either way, their behavior is simply altered. As the sound/light waves exist when a tree falls, no matter if observing them alters them in some way or not.
The correct answer to the question is yes. The wrong answer is no. There may be a circumstance where that is not true... but I can not think of one. QI isn't always very accurate.
Not really. With Shrödinger's Cat the cat could be two different things until it's observed and then it becomes one of those things. In this case sound is one thing until it's observed, and then it becomes a completely different thing.
Well, it's an analogy used to illustrate the weirdness of quantum physics. I doubt there'd be a physics student that had never heard of Schrodinger's Cat.
@preytec you make a good point
I freaking love Jonny Vegas
kyphilburg The only one of them with any sense
A sound doesn't need to be heard to be a sound. Light doesn't have to be seen to exist. It's like arguing that if something hasn't been observed yet then it doesn't exist until it is observed. It obviously does. Human ignorance or inability does not mean something doesn't exist.
@kustomkure hehe It is Moot point I just think he likes making up words sometimes.
@BuskingHobo I don't get how 'tool' is an insult. Tools are useful, yes? They build things and stuff. So you're basically calling tie guy useful.
Hahaha got deep there huh! Can't wait to see the whole ep
Alan borrowed a shirt from James May in this episode
You're right there.
Lloyd is not suited for this game. I have to say Fry also blundered though, by not making it clear that "yes" is also a forfeit.
I don't like the "haha of course theres a sound" crowd; when you realise that there's no such thing as colour, it's clear that it's all about how you define sound. sinprelic nailed it in his/her comment.
QI tends to play with semantics to pick the more interesting answer anyway! You could have wagered that they would pick "no" as the right answer in a normal day.
good for you, I'm sure you'll be a future nobel prize winner
@CruelLatitude
sure, we have bands of wavelengths that, if interact with specific photoreceptor molecules on retinal cells, produce sensations of 'redishness' to varying degrees (luminosity, brightness, etc).
but, can you agree that COLOR is not the same as LIGHT; that SOUND is not the same as PROPAGATING VIBRATIONS? after all, a machine can 'sense' wavelengths, but it obviously cannot 'sense' and distinguish between colors, merely wavelength! would you not agree?
By everyone.
I meant this generation.
Look at how much this style of writing emphasises my point.
Thanks I'm gonna use it more often, I'm sure it impresses a lot of chicks.
A famous philosophical question by Bishop Berkley.
But if you define sound as only the perception of hearing doesn't the whole question become a tautology? As in "If a tree falls and no one hears it, does is still get heard?".
If it's only perception, what about if we play a high pitch sound through a speaker in a room with a kid and an old man in. The kid can hear it and the old man can't as his ears no longer can pick up that frequency. Does the speaker make a sound or not?