# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Does Time Exist?

## cacian

What the eye can see and feel, hence the five senses, the eye comprehends and therefore it exists.
the quote 
_''I think therefore I am''_ is rather ambigeous to me because thinking is part of being and not as an establishement of it otherwise I can I say that ''I move talk therefore I am''.

So if seeing and feeling establishes existence then does something like TIME really exist?

Discuss.

----------


## Charles Darnay

Cogito ergo sum - or I think therefore I am - is often taken out of context and thereby creates the ambiguity. Descartes' conclusion came as a result of theory that to determine anything, you must doubt everything. But the one thing you cannot doubt is your ability to doubt, or your ability to think. Therefore, the only thing you can be sure of that exists is your ability to think and therefore you yourself. 

As for the overly empiricist view of "only what you can perceive with your 5 senses is real" is a bit faulty: energy cannot be perceived, but it exists. 

Time is an interesting factor. The answer is yes it exists, but in an arbitrary symbolic form created by people in order to function in a society. St. Augustine spends a book of Confessions riddling with Time and comes to the conclusion that only God can sort it out. But God did not create time. Actually, if you go by the Bible, it seems that Time exists before God (he created things on certain days, but did not create the days).

The reality is that a group of people observed the patterns of the sun, and decided to subdivide their reality to make life convenient: and this caught on.

During the French Revolution, Robespierre completely rearranged both the calendar and the number of hours in a day: it can be done, it just has to be agreed upon by a majority or else it is useless.

----------


## cacian

> Cogito ergo sum - or I think therefore I am - is often taken out of context and thereby creates the ambiguity. Descartes' conclusion came as a result of theory that to determine anything, you must doubt everything. But the one thing you cannot doubt is your ability to doubt, or your ability to think. Therefore, the only thing you can be sure of that exists is your ability to think and therefore you yourself.



Hi Charles I thank you for posting this I myself did not know it was Descartes.
I don't know why I have always quote this with ''to be or not to be'' it was almost inevitable in my mind that somehow they did link. It is perhaps the constant questioning of when one is and whether one is or is not.

Going back to Descartes I have to say that I do not quite get the idea of doubting( against this reminds me of Doubting of Thomas it is biblical!!) with the idea of determination.
To doubt is to question things that already are. One can doubt god but religion is . 
In order to determine one must start with something concrete. In order to determine the number 2 I must start with a number and that is one.
I see no link between doubts and determining something.
Maybe you could give me concrete example of what Descartes means.
Thinking as an internal process that is linked to language and communication. 
To think is to want and therefore it stems from the need to want to establish something or somebody. 
It is forward process and not a digressive one.
Thinking is a positive main stream and has everything to do with the ability to establish meanings ideas and feelings.
It is is different from doubts and certainty.

The whole approach of Descartes is very unclear to me.
I think because I want to establish something that already exist or is about to exist.
One thinks when one wants to talk and so words and language are as a result of thinking.

So doubting is negating something that already exists and thus is linked to thinking via existence.
Doubting is rejection or rebute of already established ideas or facts.

So to go back to the saying I think I would say that ''I think because I need to achieve something new''
Or ''I thin because I can and I can because I am''

The process of being is a positive approach because the more we produce the more we are.
Doubting is negating something and therefore cannot reinfore my existence as it takes away rather then add.




> As for the overly empiricist view of "only what you can perceive with your 5 senses is real" is a bit faulty: energy cannot be perceived, but it exists. 
> 
> Time is an interesting factor. The answer is yes it exists, but in an arbitrary symbolic form created by people in order to function in a society. St. Augustine spends a book of Confessions riddling with Time and comes to the conclusion that only God can sort it out. But God did not create time. Actually, if you go by the Bible, it seems that Time exists before God (he created things on certain days, but did not create the days).
> 
> The reality is that a group of people observed the patterns of the sun, and decided to subdivide their reality to make life convenient: and this caught on.


Time is to me is artificial and only is because one wants to establish something over and over again.
For a wheel to turn it needs constant movements and movements are constant stages of time.
Time is fitional tool that sustains a continous monotonic effect.
A bit like a machine it needs rewiding and winding and without a number it won't be.
The age of digital is one. Take the numbers out and there is no digital.
Time dictates evertyhing work money life people.
Time is about reproduction it is a sytem to control and therefore a power program.
Speed is as a consequence of time which can be harrowing and exhausting.
A bit like a race or a marathon which only configures one winner amongst the thousands of runners.
Not a very nice feeling of you are amongst those late runners.




> During the French Revolution, Robespierre completely rearranged both the calendar and the number of hours in a day: it can be done, it just has to be agreed upon by a majority or else it is useless.


Well they do say time is money and they mean just that.

Does it exist? only according to speed.
Can we live without time ? Tricky technology is time.
Can we live with it and ensure it does not run us down? I would say that would be a great challenge because it is worth it if we could control it and not the other way around.

----------


## /dev/null

The underlying logic behind "'I think therefore I am" is "I exist and I think, therefore I exist". This was alredy obvious to Nietzcshe and Kierkegaard.




> Time is an interesting factor. The answer is yes it exists, but in an arbitrary symbolic form created by people in order to function in a society.


So, if life on Earth ends tomorrow, the universe will just stop because it would run out of symbolic human form through which to move.

----------


## cacian

> The underlying logic behind "'I think therefore I am" is "I exist and I think, therefore I exist". This was alredy obvious to Nietzcshe and Kierkegaard.
> 
> 
> 
> So, if life on Earth ends tomorrow, the universe will just stop because it would run out of symbolic human form through which to move.


I feel that would be impossible for a universe to just stop because so long as human fauna and flora are about then life will always be.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> So, if life on Earth ends tomorrow, the universe will just stop because it would run out of symbolic human form through which to move.


If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Without thinking beings to perceive time there is no time. There is still entity, but entity without life is timeless.

My point about it being a symbolic human creation is to show that Time was not created by a "higher being" or by natural process - it is a human creation. You cannot speak about Time without referring to some arbitrary division established by humans (whether that is eras, years, seasons, hours &c.)

----------


## Lokasenna

Whilst I like the _cogito ergo sum_ approach to time, it is a little bit subjective. What about an objective view of time? My layman's understanding is that time is defined as the movement from one moment to the next, a theory that presupposes the existence of motion within the universe (as indeed it does - everything in the universe is in motion). My understanding, therefore, is that time would cease to exist at the exact point when all motion ceased in the universe.

----------


## Calidore

> Whilst I like the _cogito ergo sum_ approach to time, it is a little bit subjective. What about an objective view of time? My layman's understanding is that time is defined as the movement from one moment to the next, a theory that presupposes the existence of motion within the universe (as indeed it does - everything in the universe is in motion). My understanding, therefore, is that time would cease to exist at the exact point when all motion ceased in the universe.


I thought time was considered a fourth dimension. Is there a school of thought that has it caused by three-dimensional physical motion rather than enabling it by, as somebody once defined time, keeping everything from happening at once?

I can maybe answer my own question: There's a school of thought somewhere for everything. I think of time as a big four-dimensional space where everything happens, rather than an impetus itself.

On an unrelated note, Lokasenna, the last part of your sig, about defeating gravity through laughter, made me think of the "I Love to Laugh" bit from _Mary Poppins_, where laughter makes everyone rise to the ceiling. I'm now wondering if Nietzsche inspired a _Mary Poppins_ song, and what he would make of that.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

How can time _not_ exist?

----------


## cacian

> If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?


Sound as we know it and so yes it should make a noise.
What is the point of this question?






> Without thinking beings to perceive time there is no time. There is still entity, but entity without life is timeless.
> 
> My point about it being a symbolic human creation is to show that Time was not created by a "higher being" or by natural process - it is a human creation. You cannot speak about Time without referring to some arbitrary division established by humans (whether that is eras, years, seasons, hours &c.)


I think time is far as light goes meaning night and day alternating.
In this sense yes there is a lapse of lights from darkness to sun and so on.
The question here is 
Can man live without the clock?

----------


## cacian

> How can time _not_ exist?


I don't know I just thought about numbers and clock and wondered about time. Just because we see does not mean it exists.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> Sound as we know it and so yes it should make a noise.
> What is the point of this question?


The point is that the answer is "no." Sound cannot exist without a receiver. Sound waves only become sound when there is something to receive the sound that is capable of perceiving sound: a living being. Time works the same way.




> I think time is far as light goes meaning night and day alternating.
> In this sense yes there is a lapse of lights from darkness to sun and so on.
> The question here is 
> Can man live without the clock?


This is movement (space). The earth is spinning, causing the alternation of night and day.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> How can time _not_ exist?


It is not an objective force that can sustain itself or be explored by irrefutable facts and figures. Therefore it can be doubted. Therefore it can not exist.

----------


## Tim Aeus

So what you're driving at is that time, as we have regulated it, is a system designed for achieving maximum efficiency from the components of society. 

I think that this makes sense. But ultimately, I don't think this regulating is a practice that started with man. Animals do certain things during certain times of the day. Most animals spend their nights resting. They also migrate during the same time of the year. There is a trend of repetition in all life. It is just the way it is.

----------


## Volya

Time is a concept. And since concept are really just things humanity creates in our heads. The rest of the world does not keep track of time (as far as I am aware. Yeah squirrels hoard nuts and things, but I believe that is instinct not thought, right?). Now you could use that to argue that since time is only in the mind, then it does not exist. However, if we use that original principle of 'cogito ergo sum', which says that because we think, we are real, then really that would mean that yes, time is real, because we are real.

Thoughts?

----------


## Tim Aeus

I don't agree about that bit about time being in the mind. Just because something doesn't have the capacity to observe time, doesn't mean it isn't affected by time. Water boils over time. Sure, you add heat into the equation, but time is still necessary. Plants grow over time. Again, with the help of sunlight and water, but no amount of sunlight and water in a single instant would cause a redwood to grow 100 feet tall. Time is more than just something we think about. Just because we have the capacity to think doesn't make us an all important being that determines the fabric of our universe. Time exists. It is measurable. There is just some debate on the unit of measurement we should use. This seems most accurate to me, at least.

----------


## Volya

> I don't agree about that bit about time being in the mind. Just because something doesn't have the capacity to observe time, doesn't mean it isn't affected by time. Water boils over time. Sure, you add heat into the equation, but time is still necessary. Plants grow over time. Again, with the help of sunlight and water, but no amount of sunlight and water in a single instant would cause a redwood to grow 100 feet tall. Time is more than just something we think about. Just because we have the capacity to think doesn't make us an all important being that determines the fabric of our universe. Time exists. It is measurable. There is just some debate on the unit of measurement we should use. This seems most accurate to me, at least.


Another thing that occured to me upon reading your reply.
Is, the question of whether or not time exists, dependent on whether we view time as space within which we move, rather than being one linear line (doctor who explains this best - a ball of 'wibbley wobbley timey wimey' stuff), or if we view it as the progression and change of the things around us.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> It is not an objective force that can sustain itself or be explored by irrefutable facts and figures. Therefore it can be doubted. Therefore it can not exist.


Oh, come on, this metaphysical stuff gets a bit ridiculous. If time doesn't exist, what is there? How is one moment in continuity different from another if time doesn't exist? 

And don't we measure time in irrefutable figures--minutes, seconds, etc.

----------


## Volya

> Oh, come on, this metaphysical stuff gets a bit ridiculous. If time doesn't exist, what is there? How is one moment in continuity different from another if time doesn't exist? 
> 
> And don't we measure time in irrefutable figures--minutes, seconds, etc.


Progress comes about by discussing possibilities and thinking about matters in a different way. It could be that by discussing and thinking about time, the human race develops more understanding about the matter that we know so little about.

----------


## Tim Aeus

> And don't we measure time in irrefutable figures--minutes, seconds, etc.


We choose to. I believe this to be Cacian's struggle with time. However, the deregulation of time doesn't imply the end of time.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> So what you're driving at is that time, as we have regulated it, is a system designed for achieving maximum efficiency from the components of society. 
> 
> I think that this makes sense. But ultimately, I don't think this regulating is a practice that started with man. Animals do certain things during certain times of the day. Most animals spend their nights resting. They also migrate during the same time of the year. There is a trend of repetition in all life. It is just the way it is.


[/QUOTE]

You are right; animals are included, and probably beat us to the whole time thing.




> Oh, come on, this metaphysical stuff gets a bit ridiculous. If time doesn't exist, what is there? How is one moment in continuity different from another if time doesn't exist? 
> 
> And don't we measure time in irrefutable figures--minutes, seconds, etc.


It's not that time doesn't exist; it doesn't exist outside of human perception.

----------


## zoolane

My thoughts are time does exist, how we tell time clock, by sun also by moon and many years ago not sure how many for sure but human or animal told time of year by weather. Also reality is at time has exist but only up to point of clock be invent at we took notice.

----------


## OrphanPip

> It's not that time doesn't exist; it doesn't exist outside of human perception.


That would depend on what definition of time you're using. You're using it as the sense of an abstract concept (or rather as a structure generated by thought). Although, contemporary science thinks of time as a dimension in which things move, and fundamentally linked to matter and energy.

----------


## Charles Darnay

You're right, it does depend on the definition. Time is not an exact science, and moreover is it not a perceivable one. There are a growing number of valid holes being poked in Einstein's theory.

In everything, there is growth and decay. These changes have been used to objectify time. Time is the energy that causes growth and decay. In this way, time exists. This is the counter to my argument. 

Human (and to an extend animal) perception of time goes beyond growth and decay. We have utilized this concept in so many functions, that can only be measured through man-made symbols Thus, my definition of Time is symbolic.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

I don't have time to answer such questions.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> It's not that time doesn't exist; it doesn't exist outside of human perception.


I would agree that the _perception_ of time wouldn't exist without humans (and possibly some animals), but I can't see how if humans did not exist, time would somehow not exist--the universe would go on, moving from one moment to the next just as it does now, with or without us. It's like the "if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound" question. Of course it does--just because people aren't there doesn't mean it won't make the same vibrations that travel through the air. 

I get arguments about how our perception of time may be different--it may not be linear and all that stuff, sort of like the aliens from _Slaughter-House 5_--but claiming it doesn't exist at all without human perception just seems egocentric and completely unrealistic.

----------


## cacian

> We choose to. I believe this to be Cacian's struggle with time. However, the deregulation of time doesn't imply the end of time.


I believe this is a misconception.
I struggle not with time I thinkabout it.
Time is ephemeral but it is not something you can touch with your hands.
Just because you see something a clock it does not mean it actually exists.
That is not a struggle it is an observation worth making because if someone else has not I will.
PLus as Volya you never what might come out of this observation.

Which brings me to my next thouhgts:
Just because one sees something does not mean it exists.

----------


## cafolini

> I would agree that the _perception_ of time wouldn't exist without humans (and possibly some animals), but I can't see how if humans did not exist, time would somehow not exist--the universe would go on, moving from one moment to the next just as it does now, with or without us. It's like the "if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound" question. Of course it does--just because people aren't there doesn't mean it won't make the same vibrations that travel through the air. 
> 
> I get arguments about how our perception of time may be different--it may not be linear and all that stuff, sort of like the aliens from _Slaughter-House 5_--but claiming it doesn't exist at all without human perception just seems egocentric and completely unrealistic.


I would have to agree to that objectivity. But as always, it would look for trouble. Who cares, though?

----------


## cacian

The configuration of the universe is made up of livings innate as in natural nature,amd not, ie living, planets and atmosphere.
It is a threed animated configuration which imitates time but is not it.
The existence of time is entirely dependable on this configuration.
It is limitless as long as this configuration is and not vice versa.
In other words one cannot truly measure time because the configuartion itself an impossible measurement.

A closer realistic comparison with time is perhaps a feeling such as love and it is abit like saying:
_I love myself as long as you love me_.
This is a possibility but not rationality and so one should ask:
Is love dependable fractioned or long lasting?
That would apply to time also.

----------


## cacian

> The point is that the answer is "no." Sound cannot exist without a receiver. Sound waves only become sound when there is something to receive the sound that is capable of perceiving sound: a living being. Time works the same way.


Isn't the sound in the act of falling iself? There was sound as it was falling and then there was quiteness as it lay fallen.
In other word the act itself is sound and when one sees a fallen tree one sees/hears a silent sound?
A sound wave is a movement and movement is sound.
What moves makes sound and vice versa.




> This is movement (space). The earth is spinning, causing the alternation of night and day.[/QUOTE


 Nigh and day is a shift of lights and light is a type of sound only in colours.
What I am trying to say is that sound is not always heard but can also be seen.

----------


## cafolini

It's too mighty a long ways before it gets philosophical.

----------


## cafolini

> I don't agree about that bit about time being in the mind. Just because something doesn't have the capacity to observe time, doesn't mean it isn't affected by time. Water boils over time. Sure, you add heat into the equation, but time is still necessary. Plants grow over time. Again, with the help of sunlight and water, but no amount of sunlight and water in a single instant would cause a redwood to grow 100 feet tall. Time is more than just something we think about. Just because we have the capacity to think doesn't make us an all important being that determines the fabric of our universe. Time exists. It is measurable. There is just some debate on the unit of measurement we should use. This seems most accurate to me, at least.


Actually, units of measurement are arbitrary. The important thing is not the unit but that the units be the same for all measurements. Have fun.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> The configuration of the universe is made up of livings inate amd none planets and atmosphere.
> It is a threed animated configuration which imitates time but is not it.
> The existence of time is entirely dependable on this configuration.
> It is limitless as long as this configuration is and not vice versa.
> In other words one cannot truly measure time because the configuartion itself an impossible measurement.
> 
> A closer realistic comparison with time is perhaps a feeling such as love and it is abit like saying:
> _I love myself as long as you love me_.
> This is a possibility but not rationality and so one should ask:
> ...


So Mutatis was right after all....bravo.

"The configuration of the universe is made up of livings inate amd none planets and atmosphere." - What does this even mean?





> Isn't the sound in the act of falling iself? There was sound as it was falling and then there was quiteness as it lay fallen.
> In other word the act itself is sound and when one sees a fallen tree one sees/hears a silent sound?
> A sound wave is a movement and movement is sound.
> What moves makes sound and vice versa.


Locke divides qualities into primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are independent in of themselves. Gravity is such a quality. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, it still falls - gravity pulls it down. The motion (motion is another primary quality) still acts on it: we can see this is we go to said woods later.

Sound is a secondary quality. It relies on an receptor (in this case, a living thing to hear it). 

Colour is also a secondary quality. There are no red objects, but objects that give off more or less light to allow a receptor (an eye) to perceive colour.




> Nigh and day is a shift of lights and light is a type of sound only in colours.
> What I am trying to say is that sound is not always heard but can also be seen.


I suggest you watch Bill Nye the science guy, because your understanding of physics is as bad as your understanding of biology.

Night and day is not caused by a shift of lights. The sun (sorry to bust your geocentric universe) does not move. Night and day is caused by the movement of the earth.

And light is not sound in colours. That's like saying fruits are eggs on trees.

----------


## cafolini

They who would argue with Charles should do it at their own risk. LMAO.

----------


## cacian

> So Mutatis was right after all....bravo.
> 
> "The configuration of the universe is made up of livings inate amd none planets and atmosphere." - What does this even mean?


 I meant innate ,as in natural/nature, and not, as in living beings, planets and atmosphere.




> Locke divides qualities into primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are independent in of themselves. Gravity is such a quality. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, it still falls - gravity pulls it down. The motion (motion is another primary quality) still acts on it: we can see this is we go to said woods later.


What do YOU think.
A sound occurs regardless of one hearing or not. The receiver bit does not make sense.
Whether we like it or not sounds occur listening to it or not.
Sound does not rely on a receptor,
Sound occurs and the receptor is only confirming it heard it it does not help it occur.




> Sound is a secondary quality. It relies on an receptor (in this case, a living thing to hear it). Sound waves so not make a sound: you cannot hear waves.



Wave is a circular movement hence the word wave. I am going with the word here.
One must explain why and how sound occurs in the atmosphere. Reaction action theory.
In other words why does sound occur.
The same with echo not the defininition but how and why it occurs.
Echo is to do with movement and sound.




> Colour is also a secondary quality. There are no red objects, but objects that give off more or less light to allow a receptor (an eye) to perceive colour.
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you watch Bill Nye the science guy, because your understanding of physics is as bad as your understanding of biology.


My understanding of anything and everything is relative. Is Bill Nye god?




> Night and day is not caused by a shift of lights. The sun (sorry to bust your geocentric universe) does not move. Night and day is caused by the movement of the earth.
> 
> And light is not sound in colours. That's like saying fruits are eggs on trees.


Night as in dark and day as in light sun.
These are colours as we know them it is dark it is light.
A shift IS a movement.

Lights and sound are related fruits and eggs aren't.

----------


## OrphanPip

There's not much to argue with him about, time is difficult conceptually. However, I agree that sound and colour are essentially the product of perception, as their is a legitimate reason to think of them as separate from the material reality of sound and light waves. Time is different because it is both a product of perception (i.e. the feeling of past/present and the sense of the passage of time) and a dimension through which matter-energy moves.

I think of the photoreceptors on the skin of cockroaches, what must it be like to feel light through your skin? What is colour like for a cockroach?

----------


## cafolini

Once a roach, always a roach, eh?

----------


## Charles Darnay

> There's not much to argue with him about, time is difficult conceptually. However, I agree that sound and colour are essentially the product of perception, as their is a legitimate reason to think of them as separate from the material reality of sound and light waves. Time is different because it is both a product of perception (i.e. the feeling of past/present and the sense of the passage of time) and a dimension through which matter-energy moves.
> 
> I think of the photoreceptors on the skin of cockroaches, what must it be like to feel light through your skin? What is colour like for a cockroach?


There was a TED talk recently (here) about someone who hears colours, via the frequencies. I imagine feeling colour is the same sort of sensation: you would feel subtle vibrations and if you are adapted to it, you can feel the variance in vibrations to distinguish colour.

----------


## cafolini

Well. Once a roach, [at least] always a roach. Then there is the Unicornrach. LMAO.

----------


## Volya

> I suggest you watch Bill Nye the science guy, because your understanding of physics is as bad as your understanding of biology.


Bill Nye the Science Guy! That guys hilarious, we watch him in physics lessons xD

----------


## Calidore

> A sound occurs regardless of one hearing or not. The receiver bit does not make sense.
> Whether we like it or not sounds occur listening to it or not.
> Sound does not rely on a receptor,
> Sound occurs and the receptor is only confirming it heard it it does not help it occur.


Think of it like this. Sound is created by our eardrums from vibrations/waves that travel through the air like ripples in water. A tree falling in the forest vibrates the air, but with no eardrums to convert those vibrations to sound, there's no sound. Sound itself is created in our heads.

----------


## Anton Hermes

> Think of it like this. Sound is created by our eardrums from vibrations/waves that travel through the air like ripples in water. A tree falling in the forest vibrates the air, but with no eardrums to convert those vibrations to sound, there's no sound. Sound itself is created in our heads.


Or those vibrations in the air can be considered sound, which simply aren't _perceived_ as the sound of a tree falling because they weren't converted to sensory data by a being with ears.

What if a clinically deaf person were walking through the woods? The fact that he or she couldn't perceive the sound doesn't necessarily mean the falling tree made no sound. A hearing person walking through the woods with the deaf person could perceive the sound of the falling tree. Does the tree only make a sound for the person with hearing? Or does the hearing person merely perceive the sound that the deaf person doesn't?

And since we're talking about sensory data, if a tree falls in the forest but no one's around to see it, does it make a _sight?_

----------


## Volya

> Or those vibrations in the air can be considered sound, which simply aren't _perceived_ as the sound of a tree falling because they weren't converted to sensory data by a being with ears.
> 
> What if a clinically deaf person were walking through the woods? The fact that he or she couldn't perceive the sound doesn't necessarily mean the falling tree made no sound. A hearing person walking through the woods with the deaf person could perceive the sound of the falling tree. Does the tree only make a sound for the person with hearing? Or does the hearing person merely perceive the sound that the deaf person doesn't?
> 
> And since we're talking about sensory data, if a tree falls in the forest but no one's around to see it, does it make a _sight?_


Is it possible to apply to the whole tree falling scenario, that if it makes no sound, and makes no 'sight', then...
If a tree fell in the woods, and nobody knew about it (ever), then, did it actually fall?

----------


## cafolini

> Is it possible to apply to the whole tree falling scenario, that if it makes no sound, and makes no 'sight', then...
> If a tree fell in the woods, and nobody knew about it (ever), then, did it actually fall?


When we are there and we hear the sound, we then know that if it falls, it makes a sound. We don't have to be so stupid as to have to be there to hear it again. It's like anything else we know, if we know. You wouldn't cross the street with a big Mac coming at you in order to make sure your ash is no longer. Would you? Berkeley was retarded in posing that question if he actually thought it was questionable. There are stupid questions.

"Life is hard. If you are stupid, it is harder." ~ John Wayne

"Get off your horses and drink your milk for now." ~ John Wayne

----------


## Volya

> When we are there and we hear the sound, we then know that if it falls, it makes a sound. We don't have to be so stupid as to have to be there to hear it again. It's like anything else we know, if we know. You wouldn't cross the street with a big Mac coming at you in order to make sure your ash is no longer. Would you? Berkeley was retarded in posing that question if he actually thought it was questionable. There are stupid questions.
> 
> "Life is hard. If you are stupid, it is harder." ~ John Wayne
> 
> "Get off your horses and drink your milk for now." ~ John Wayne


Sorry if it wasn't clear, my point was to oppose people who think that it would make no noise.

----------


## cafolini

> Sorry if it wasn't clear, my point was to oppose people who think that it would make no noise.


Glad!

----------


## Charles Darnay

> Is it possible to apply to the whole tree falling scenario, that if it makes no sound, and makes no 'sight', then...
> If a tree fell in the woods, and nobody knew about it (ever), then, did it actually fall?


A tree falling has nothing to do with sight. If no one is around then no one saw the act of it falling, but it still fell. Again motion (and gravity) are primary qualities. If you walk into the forest post-fall you will see where the tree fell. There is empirical data. 

Sound is a secondary quality. Without the receptor, it is a series of arbitrary waves, useless. A clinically deaf person (without any AT) does not possess the receptors to convert the waves into sound, and therefore there is no sound for a deaf person.

----------


## Volya

But what if nobody went into the forest. Nobody ever knew the tree fell.

----------


## Anton Hermes

> Sound is a secondary quality. Without the receptor, it is a series of arbitrary waves, useless. A clinically deaf person (without any AT) does not possess the receptors to convert the waves into sound, and therefore there is no sound for a deaf person.


But like I already said, if there's a deaf person and a hearing person there when the tree falls, the tree both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound. How can that be? It's more accurate to say that sound, in the form of longitudinal waves, is created by the falling tree and may or may not be converted into sensory data by a sentient being.

You realize that sound waves resonate through other things than human eardrums. I dispute that the concept of _sound_ is only meaningful in terms of human perception and cognition.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> But what if nobody went into the forest. Nobody ever knew the tree fell.


Just because we don't know it fell doesn't mean it didn't.

----------


## cafolini

> But what if nobody went into the forest. Nobody ever knew the tree fell.


Then we are lost. I'm sure Mr. Berkeley went. Not reliable. Maybe Kant did also. Not reliable.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> But like I already said, if there's a deaf person and a hearing person there when the tree falls, the tree both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound. How can that be? It's more accurate to say that sound, in the form of longitudinal waves, is created by the falling tree and may or may not be converted into sensory data by a sentient being.
> 
> You realize that sound waves resonate through other things than human eardrums. I dispute that the concept of _sound_ is only meaningful in terms of human perception and cognition.


There is no such thing as objective sound. No two people will ever hear the exact same sound, just as no two people see the exact same shade of colour. Our eyes and ears generally are not perceptive enough to pick out the subtle differences, but that is another matter.

So yes, for the non-deaf person, the waves are produced and received and a sound is created. For the deaf person, waves are produced and not received, so there is no sound. Sort of. I'm not an expert on deaf people, but as far as I understand they do "hear" the vibrations (basically the waves hitting their ears) if the sound is loud enough - which a falling tree would be. But I ignore this for the purpose of your hypothetical argument.




> But what if nobody went into the forest. Nobody ever knew the tree fell.


That's the Schrodinger's cat level of metaphysics. But again, motion is not reliant on perception.

----------


## cafolini

Now Charles wants a high percentage of us to be deaf.




> That's the Schrodinger's cat level of metaphysics. But again, motion is not reliant on perception.


The best one to ask is Rush Limbaugh.

----------


## Calidore

> But like I already said, if there's a deaf person and a hearing person there when the tree falls, the tree both makes a sound and doesn't make a sound. How can that be?


And like we're saying, the tree is making waves in the air, and our eardrums are creating sound in our head from those waves. Both the deaf and hearing person's ears are being hit by these waves, but only the working ears are making sound from those waves.





> It's more accurate to say that sound, in the form of longitudinal waves, is created by the falling tree and may or may not be converted into sensory data by a sentient being.


How is that more accurate? Looks like exactly the same thing, just calling the waves themselves sound rather than the auditory sensation created from them. Sounds like six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Actually, looking it up, it is. Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say:

1. a : a particular auditory impression : tone 
b : the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing 
c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing 

So it looks like you're saying C while we're saying B, and we're both right.

----------


## OrphanPip

Calidore is pretty much right, in terms of semantics it is possible to define the sound waves as being sound. However, I think it is worthwhile to nuance the separate definitions and recognize that the material properties of sound waves are something different than the perception of those things. Even the mechanical sensations created by loud noises, like the feeling of vibration, are dependent on a number of neural receptors in your body.

----------


## Anton Hermes

> Looks like exactly the same thing, just calling the waves themselves sound rather than the auditory sensation created from them. Sounds like six of one, half-dozen of the other.
> 
> Actually, looking it up, it is. Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say:
> 
> 1. a : a particular auditory impression : tone 
> b : the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing 
> c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing 
> 
> So it looks like you're saying C while we're saying B, and we're both right.


Okay, it's a semantic parlor game and we're both right. I can live with that.

----------


## cacian

Now imagine all this did not happen and the tree never fell.
What then?
Is there ever a sound?

Anyone who would like to participate in explaining the echo effect would be great!
One I suppose would start with a tunnel as one approaches from one end shouts his name and and he or she enters the tunnel would actually miss it right?
As oppose to when one shouts their name into a tunnel while standing still should get a resounding hollow effect back of the sound of their name.
Echo effect is a delay I read but I am still not getting it.
I thought an echo was sound back like a flahsback.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> Now imagine all this did not happen and the tree never fell.
> What then?
> Is there ever a sound?


I'm not touching this one




> Anyone who would like to participate in explaining the echo effect would be great!
> One I suppose would start with a tunnel as one approaches from one end shouts his name and and he or she enters the tunnel would actually miss it right?
> As oppose to when one shouts their name into a tunnel while standing still should get a resounding hollow effect back of the sound of their name.
> Echo effect is a delay I read but I am still not getting it.
> I thought an echo was sound back like a flahsback.


When you produce (or something produces) a sound, the waves travel. If they do not hit anything they will disappear. If they hit a large enough surface, say a brick wall, they will bounce back - and if they are strong enough (loud, appropriate frequency) they will bounce back into the listener's ears and become a repetition of the same sound.

Also this

----------


## Tim Aeus

I'm really not satisfied.

The premise is that sound is only sound so long as a sentient being is there to perceive it as sound. A scenario has already been presented to you that reveals the contradiction in this premise. If a deaf person and a non-deaf person observe a tree fall, the non-deaf person will also hear the crash that accompanies the fall; whereas, the deaf person will see only the tree falling, and hear nothing of the crash. Therefore, under your premise, the sound both existed and did not exist. 

Take another example. You observe lightning strike in the distance, but it's too far to hear the thunder. It has been scientifically established that thunder is the sound following lightning. But you didn't hear the thunder. So you must have observed a new type of lightning, one without thunder. Right? No, you didn't. You just can't hear the thunder. The noise is still there, regardless of who is and isn't able to hear it.

----------


## cafolini

> I'm really not satisfied.
> 
> The premise is that sound is only sound so long as a sentient being is there to perceive it as sound. A scenario has already been presented to you that reveals the contradiction in this premise. If a deaf person and a non-deaf person observe a tree fall, the non-deaf person will also hear the crash that accompanies the fall; whereas, the deaf person will see only the tree falling, and hear nothing of the crash. Therefore, under your premise, the sound both existed and did not exist. 
> 
> Take another example. You observe lightning strike in the distance, but it's too far to hear the thunder. It has been scientifically established that thunder is the sound following lightning. But you didn't hear the thunder. So you must have observed a new type of lightning, one without thunder. Right? No, you didn't. You just can't hear the thunder. The noise is still there, regardless of who is and isn't able to hear it.


Will tell Rumney to argue this one. It will dignify him. LMAO

----------


## OrphanPip

> I'm really not satisfied.
> 
> The premise is that sound is only sound so long as a sentient being is there to perceive it as sound. A scenario has already been presented to you that reveals the contradiction in this premise. If a deaf person and a non-deaf person observe a tree fall, the non-deaf person will also hear the crash that accompanies the fall; whereas, the deaf person will see only the tree falling, and hear nothing of the crash. Therefore, under your premise, the sound both existed and did not exist.


A sound exists for the person who heard it. If another listener were placed at a different point they would hear a different sound. There is no contradiction here with the premise put forward by Charles. 




> Take another example. You observe lightning strike in the distance, but it's too far to hear the thunder. It has been scientifically established that thunder is the sound following lightning. But you didn't hear the thunder. So you must have observed a new type of lightning, one without thunder. Right? No, you didn't. You just can't hear the thunder. The noise is still there, regardless of who is and isn't able to hear it.


You are misunderstanding what Charles is saying, the sound waves, that is the material cause of the perception of sound, will exist regardless of any one being there to interpret them. However, sound is also the act of perceiving these waves, and as such it only exists as a product of perception. Two different phenomena that are not dependent on one another.

----------


## Charles Darnay

^ this

----------


## cacian

> I'm really not satisfied.
> 
> The premise is that sound is only sound so long as a sentient being is there to perceive it as sound. A scenario has already been presented to you that reveals the contradiction in this premise. If a deaf person and a non-deaf person observe a tree fall, the non-deaf person will also hear the crash that accompanies the fall; whereas, the deaf person will see only the tree falling, and hear nothing of the crash. Therefore, under your premise, the sound both existed and did not exist. 
> 
> Take another example. You observe lightning strike in the distance, but it's too far to hear the thunder. It has been scientifically established that thunder is the sound following lightning. But you didn't hear the thunder. So you must have observed a new type of lightning, one without thunder. Right? No, you didn't. You just can't hear the thunder. The noise is still there, regardless of who is and isn't able to hear it.


Tim I agree with you.
Sound is with or without our perception of it.
The mere fact that a tree has fallen is perhaps more or less because of sound and something else.
I am in search for a formula that defines sound ie something plus something equals something.
Think of a radion or a transistor. Sound travels and so music will play regardless of us listening to it. That is sound.
The reason why one can produce sound is because it travels.
One must ask themselves this:
An what if a tree never falls. Does that mean no sound whatsoever?

----------


## cafolini

> Tim I agree with you.
> Sound is with or without our perception of it.
> The mere fact that a tree has fallen is perhaps more or less because of sound and something else.
> I am in search for a formula that defines sound ie something plus something equals something.
> Think of a radion or a transistor. Sound travels and so music will play regardless of us listening to it. That is sound.
> The reason why one can produce sound is because it travels.
> One must ask themselves this:
> An what if a tree never falls. Does that mean no sound whatsoever?


Then you'll fall. What a splash, if the swimming pool has water.

----------


## Paulclem

> Tim I agree with you.
> Sound is with or without our perception of it.
> The mere fact that a tree has fallen is perhaps more or less because of sound and something else.
> I am in search for a formula that defines sound ie something plus something equals something.
> Think of a radion or a transistor. Sound travels and so music will play regardless of us listening to it. That is sound.
> The reason why one can produce sound is because it travels.
> One must ask themselves this:
> An what if a tree never falls. Does that mean no sound whatsoever?


Orphan is correct. Sound is not one thing but a series of effects. Sound is what you hear - the interaction of sound waves on your inner ear. 

I'm not sure why you ask whether there's any sound if a tree doesn't fall. It will eventually, but that's not the point.

Another permutation is that if a remote recording is made of the tree falling which no-one hears, then when the recording is played back, then the sound will become manifest then.

I think the problem lies within the language where we consider sound to be a thing rather than the series of events it encompasses.

----------


## Tim Aeus

I understand what you're saying. And after further thought it seems I was quite wrong. The vibrations caused from the tree falling is like a signal. The signal will go out regardless of who or what is around. If there is someone to hear it, they hear it only after their ear has done the work of processing the information and translating it into a form that is understandable: sound. 

There are signals everywhere these days. Cell phone signals, wireless internet signals, bluetooth, text messaging, etc. But the final product that we interact with is much different than the code that creates the signal. It requires a device to translate it before it's of any utility to us.

----------


## cacian

[QUOTE]


> Orphan is correct. Sound is not one thing but a series of effects. Sound is what you hear - the interaction of sound waves on your inner ear. 
> 
> I'm not sure why you ask whether there's any sound if a tree doesn't fall. It will eventually, but that's not the point.


Well if a sound is because of its receit ie one hears a tree fall then one conclude there is sound.
I am now turning it around because every theory must cover all corners.
So I suggest the tree never falls because there many that do not does that mean sound only is because of an act?
In other words one may never hear any sound because of the act of falling never happening.
Then what? 
Redefining sound, not because of something happening, but because it just is, is what I am trying to get at.
This made me think of Pavlov and the dog and and the act of salivation.
Sound and salivation is two different things.
One is and the other is because of an outside element.
I consider sound to be more then just an act and effect.
Relying on a tree falling to recordesound is not the way I would look it because it is saying unless two things happen, the tree falling and the receptor hearing it, then there is no sound.
Sound I believe already happens around us and that we do not hear all of it.



> Another permutation is that if a remote recording is made of the tree falling which no-one hears, then when the recording is played back, then the sound will become manifest then.


Again one is suggesting that sounds to be it must be recorded. The same idea as the tree.



> I think the problem lies within the language where we consider sound to be a thing rather than the series of events it encompasses.


I am more inclined to believe that sound is all around heard and not heard with or without our help.

----------


## Volya

If the tree doesn't fall then of course theres no sound...
If it does fall and theres nobody to hear it, the sound is still there. (Or rather, the vibrations and all that malarkey are still there). But it means that there will be nothing to interpret the vibrations into the 'sound' that we hear.

----------


## cacian

> If the tree doesn't fall then of course theres no sound...
> If it does fall and theres nobody to hear it, the sound is still there. (Or rather, the vibrations and all that malarkey are still there). But it means that there will be nothing to interpret the vibrations into the 'sound' that we hear.


It does not matter because the fact that it has fallen means it has made a sound without us present to hear it.
I understand it like this.
Imagine the radion you hear the sound but you cannot see any pictures.
Now think TV. We can see the pictures and not hear the sound because we have turned it down.
Now by looking at the pictures we know teh sound is there be cause the pictures are moving on the screen.
We know tha moving pictures mean sound.
That would be the same a seeing the fallen tree. No sound but we know the sound was there at some stage.
Now think computers you see pictures but you cannot hear the sound.
Once you put youtube you get sound.
In other words moving pictures are because of sound waves and something else. Without sound one cannot get moving pictures.
I think.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> It does not matter because the fact that it has fallen means it has made a sound without us present to hear it.
> I understand it like this.
> Imagine the radion you hear the sound but you cannot see any pictures.
> Now think TV. We can see the pictures and not hear the sound because we have turned it down.
> Now by looking at the pictures we know teh sound is there be cause the pictures are moving on the screen.
> We know tha moving pictures mean sound.
> That would be the same a seeing the fallen tree. No sound but we know the sound was there at some stage.
> Now think computers you see pictures but you cannot hear the sound.
> Once you put youtube you get sound.
> ...


This has officially crossed the line for me. I just.....I'm out. "without sound we cannot get moving pictures" - that's the line for me. I'm done with this stupidity.

----------


## Volya

....sound makes pictures...
cacian, I really think you need to go back to school and learn some basic science.

----------


## cacian

> ....sound makes pictures...
> cacian, I really think you need to go back to school and learn some basic science.


I do haha. One can only speculate. It is healthy.

----------


## cafolini

Bottomline. Sound is molecular agitation of air. For it to occur you don't need an ear. You only need a tree falling where there are air molecules to be agitated. You need an atmosphere and a tree falling in the midst.

----------


## cacian

> This has officially crossed the line for me. I just.....I'm out. "without sound we cannot get moving pictures" - that's the line for me. I'm done with this stupidity.


What!! 
why do you get so agitated about it all?
I am speculating about things that I find interesting. I am merely learning about things by airing ideas out be it silly false or something else.
One is allowed to make mistakes compare and hopefully pick up other things in the way.
It is propably the way I have said it.
WHat I am trying to say is that with moving images ie films sound is crucial otherwise there is not point of having a television.
What would be the point of watching television if there was no sound and only moving pictures?
No point right?




> Bottomline. Sound is molecular agitation of air. For it to occur you don't need an ear. You only need a tree falling where there are air molecules to be agitated. You need an atmosphere and a tree falling in the midst.


Exactly. So there is something in the atmosphere that is when shaken alter a sound.
A bit like a musical instrument, a guitar strings once you string it you get sound.
The same with the atmosphere, there 'strings' or molecules of air then once vibrated or moved sounds occurs.

----------


## Anton Hermes

> I am merely learning about things by airing ideas out be it silly false or something else.


As opposed to learning about things by doing research, which is what _learning_ involves.

----------


## Volya

http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/01/sound-waves.html

cacian, I suggest reading through the above link to better understand how sound works.

----------


## cafolini

Thanks, Volya. Excellent link.

----------


## cacian

Thank you for the link.
I was wondering whether it is possible to see and hear at the same time?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

If a book is in a library, and no one is there to read it...is it still literature? But I'm sure many of you would argue about that...and have...

The "fallen tree" question is really an exercise to show how educated (and presumably intelligent) people can discuss the ridiculous.

If the same tree is in the woods in the bright sunshine, is it visible?

----------


## Charles Darnay

> If a book is in a library, and no one is there to read it...is it still literature? But I'm sure many of you would argue about that...and have...
> 
> The "fallen tree" question is really an exercise to show how educated (and presumably intelligent) people can discuss the ridiculous.
> 
> If the same tree is in the woods in the bright sunshine, is it visible?


I introduced it as a more earthly analogy to the original question - did not expect it to derail the whole matter.

----------


## cafolini

> I introduced it as a more earthly analogy to the original question - did not expect it to derail the whole matter.


I don't think you derail anything, Charles. Have fun. :Nopity:

----------


## Volya

cacian, it is perfectly possible to see and hear things at the same time... (unless you mean can you see a sound/hear a sight, which you cannot)

----------


## Sydneysider

Very interesting read. Thanks everyone.

I would like to answer this time question very simply as a musician who deals with time every day.

Without time there could be no music. Music exists.

----------


## cacian

> QUOTE=BienvenuJDC;1169187]If a book is in a library, and no one is there to read it...is it still literature?


I would say yes because it is called a book. The title 'book' gives it the literary meaning.





> The "fallen tree" question is really an exercise to show how educated (and presumably intelligent) people can discuss the ridiculous.


I am not sure I follow.
What do you mean by 'the ridiculous'?
The fact that someone is trying to advance in ensuring that all corners/possibilities of a fallen tree/something that has occured are covered or the fact that one settles for what one sees and hears.





> If the same tree is in the woods in the bright sunshine, is it visible?


It depends I think.
One need a reason to want to know about visibility.

If I am trying to find out about something then I shall bring an example as a mean to compare and deduct.




> cacian, it is perfectly possible to see and hear things at the same time... (unless you mean can you see a sound/hear a sight, which you cannot)


Agreed.
The next question is which is faster the seeing or the hearing of the tree?
Sorry about the tree again.
Another of what I mean.
When a phone rings 
Does one think 'phone' or does one think 'ringing' ?

----------


## cafolini

> I would say yes because it is called a book. The title 'book' gives it the literary meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure I follow.
> What do you mean by 'the ridiculous'?
> The fact that someone is trying to advance in ensuring that all corners/possinilities of a fallen tree/something that has occured are covered or the fact that one settles for what one sees and hears.
> 
> 
> ...


Some good answers, but the last one spoils it. What matters reason? It is a resident of both the sober and the drunkard, the mentally healthy and the insane.

"Insanity - a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world." ~ R.D. Laing

----------


## Volya

Seeing the tree is faster because light travels faster than sound.

----------


## cacian

> Some good answers, but the last one spoils it. What matters reason? It is a resident of both the sober and the drunkard, the mentally healthy and the insane.
> 
> "Insanity - a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world." ~ R.D. Laing


A reason is what drives somebody to do or think something or not.
A motivator.



> "Insanity - a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world." ~ R.D. Laing


I could not agree with this because it is hard to match an existing condition.
It is also up to me to decide whether something is insane or not.
Once I have made up my mind I shall act accordingly to counteract it disperse it or become it.
In other words
I might as well consider taking ballet dancing because ballet dancing is what makes one popular or famous.
I neither take for ballet nor I believe it will make me happy.
I will take up what I feel is right for me.

Secondly insanity by insanity leads to destruction and is totally pointless thinking in my views.
The reason is this: 
My actions should be dependent on my judgement first and not because others tell me to.
'when in rome do like the romans'
well I would rather 
'when in rome I do like me first then will see'.

----------


## cafolini

Closed case. It took you quite a while to respond. It did not help you nor any listener.

----------


## Paulclem

> If a book is in a library, and no one is there to read it...is it still literature? But I'm sure many of you would argue about that...and have...
> 
> The "fallen tree" question is really an exercise to show how educated (and presumably intelligent) people can discuss the ridiculous.
> 
> If the same tree is in the woods in the bright sunshine, is it visible?


It's not ridiculous, but perfectly sensible. It rests upon the definition of sound being sond waves interpreted by an ear. If there is no ear to interpret the sound, then there is no sound, just vibrations that dissipate without affecting an ear. 

The book analogy doesn't work because the book has already been put there and designated already by someone. Whether it is literature is a matter of opinion not phenomenon.

----------


## Paulclem

> Very interesting read. Thanks everyone.
> 
> I would like to answer this time question very simply as a musician who deals with time every day.
> 
> Without time there could be no music. Music exists.


I think it depends how you look at it. If you are saying that it exists of itself, then I would disagree. It cannot exist without other factors such as atmosphere, instruments or voice, ears or vibratory organs, (never mind the trees), and a player. Music, for its existence, depends upon other things, therefore cannot exist of itself.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> It's not ridiculous, but perfectly sensible. It rests upon the definition of sound being sond waves interpreted by an ear. If there is no ear to interpret the sound, then there is no sound, just vibrations that dissipate without affecting an ear. 
> 
> The book analogy doesn't work because the book has already been put there and designated already by someone. Whether it is literature is a matter of opinion not phenomenon.


But if one believes in an Omniscient God, then nothing is uninterpreted.

----------


## Paulclem

> But if one believes in an Omniscient God, then nothing is uninterpreted.


I might believe that there was a sound in the forest, but I can hardly convince someone else that this is the case. They have to find a reason to believe it themselves. 

I can hear and prove a sound in the forest - by recording it. I can then convince someone who stated the opposite.

The two positions are irreconcileable except through belief or non belief, which is not what the discussion was about.

----------


## cafolini

> I think it depends how you look at it. If you are saying that it exists of itself, then I would disagree. It cannot exist without other factors such as atmosphere, instruments or voice, ears or vibratory organs, (never mind the trees), and a player. Music, for its existence, depends upon other things, therefore cannot exist of itself.


There is not a single thing that exists of itself, Paul.  :Yawnb:

----------


## Sydneysider

> I think it depends how you look at it. If you are saying that it exists of itself, then I would disagree. It cannot exist without other factors such as atmosphere, instruments or voice, ears or vibratory organs, (never mind the trees), and a player. Music, for its existence, depends upon other things, therefore cannot exist of itself.




Hi there.
I did not mean music exists in and of itself. Simply that music is measured time.

----------


## Paulclem

> There is not a single thing that exists of itself, Paul.


Agreed.

----------


## Paulclem

> Hi there.
> I did not mean music exists in and of itself. Simply that music is measured time.


No worries. 

I've heard mathematicians claim that numbers exist of themselves, though I would reject this too.

----------


## cacian

> Closed case. It took you quite a while to respond. It did not help you nor any listener.


Help is not what it is needed.
Listening may be understanding is better.

----------


## cacian

> I might believe that there was a sound in the forest, but I can hardly convince someone else that this is the case. They have to find a reason to believe it themselves. 
> 
> I can hear and prove a sound in the forest - by recording it. I can then convince someone who stated the opposite.
> 
> The two positions are irreconcileable except through belief or non belief, which is not what the discussion was about.


Here is a thought that came up as I watched someone trying to jump off a plane to travel faster then sound.

a) what could ever travel/react faster then sound?I am not sure travelling is the right word here.
and 
b) why would be the reason why would one want to beat the sound record?
Bearing in mind sound is ephemere and fast is a number that is long lasting.

----------


## Ser Nevarc

> Here is a thought that came up as I watched someone trying to jump off a plane to travel faster then sound.
> 
> a) what could ever travel/react faster then sound?I am not sure travelling is the right word here.


A bullet; a jet, hence the BOOMs.

----------


## SkyCetacean

There is no consensus on whether time exists outside of human perception; whether it is "fundumantal," as it were. A lot of the posts in this thread are highly speculative and while not incorrect per se (We can't judge that yet) lack a foundation in known fact.

Now I personally am inclined to believe that time does and has always existed for as long as there has been a universe because it's a simpler hypothesis and wins over "time exists purely in human perception," in an Occam's Razor test, but really, as I've said, nobody really knows.

Wow, I sound kinda condescending there... I hope I didn't offend anyone. =[

----------


## Volya

> Here is a thought that came up as I watched someone trying to jump off a plane to travel faster then sound.
> 
> a) what could ever travel/react faster then sound?I am not sure travelling is the right word here.
> and 
> b) why would be the reason why would one want to beat the sound record?
> Bearing in mind sound is ephemere and fast is a number that is long lasting.


a) Many things. Light. Anything that's 'supersonic'. Have you ever noticed that you see the flash of lightning before the thunder?

b) Why do we want to beat any records? To prove we can, and to show we're better than anyone else.

----------


## cacian

> There is no consensus on whether time exists outside of human perception; whether it is "fundumantal," as it were. A lot of the posts in this thread are highly speculative and while not incorrect per se (We can't judge that yet) lack a foundation in known fact.
> 
> Now I personally am inclined to believe that time does and has always existed for as long as there has been a universe because it's a simpler hypothesis and wins over "time exists purely in human perception," in an Occam's Razor test, but really, as I've said, nobody really knows.
> 
> Wow, I sound kinda condescending there... I hope I didn't offend anyone. =[


Would you agree that time is a number?

----------


## SkyCetacean

> Would you agree that time is a number?


Um... No. It can be measured in numbers, but time itself isn't a number.

----------


## cacian

> Um... No. It can be measured in numbers, but time itself isn't a number.


Then what is time in terms of a figure or a measurement?
In other words how does one measure time?

----------


## cacian

> a) Many things. Light. Anything that's 'supersonic'. Have you ever noticed that you see the flash of lightning before the thunder?
> 
> b) Why do we want to beat any records? To prove we can, and to show we're better than anyone else.


Ok.
I am thinking now how does one measure speed of light?

----------


## SkyCetacean

Minutes, seconds, the like.

----------


## jlcox

> It's not ridiculous, but perfectly sensible. It rests upon the definition of sound being sond waves interpreted by an ear. If there is no ear to interpret the sound, then there is no sound, just vibrations that dissipate without affecting an ear. 
> 
> The book analogy doesn't work because the book has already been put there and designated already by someone. Whether it is literature is a matter of opinion not phenomenon.


I disagree: sound is a series of vibrating waves that CAN BE perceived by the ear. Just because you don't perceive it doesn't mean it didn't happen or doesn't exist. Did the planets in other galaxies not exist because there was no human sense to perceive them before high-powered telescopes exist?

----------


## cacian

> Minutes, seconds, the like.


Speed of light is faster then seconds and minutes or so I know.

----------


## SkyCetacean

> Speed of light is faster then seconds and minutes or so I know.


I meant that's the units used to measures time. D:

----------


## Cioran

You cannot separate time from space, as Minkowksi noted in 1908, deriving this from special relativity. So what we get is spacetime. Each event in spacetime has four coordinates: three of space, and one of time. They are called spacetime events. The distance between them is known as the spacetime interval. This implies that just as all locations in space exist, so too do all events in time. The past, present and future all exist.

----------


## cacian

> You cannot separate time from space, as Minkowksi noted in 1908, deriving this from special relativity. So what we get is spacetime. Each event in spacetime has four coordinates: three of space, and one of time. They are called spacetime events. The distance between them is known as the spacetime interval. This implies that just as all locations in space exist, so too do all events in time. The past, present and future all exist.


This makes me think.
What is the evenest line on earth if there is such a thing?

----------


## mal4mac

> This makes me think.
> What is the evenest line on earth if there is such a thing?


Maybe the straight lines in the word IBM? IBM researchers put down the letters atom by atom at the nanoscale, getting atoms lined up is pretty straight...

----------


## Paulclem

> I disagree: sound is a series of vibrating waves that CAN BE perceived by the ear. Just because you don't perceive it doesn't mean it didn't happen or doesn't exist. Did the planets in other galaxies not exist because there was no human sense to perceive them before high-powered telescopes exist?


I don't dispute what you say - vibrations exist whether they are heard or not. Perhaps we disagree on the definition of sound. I'm taking sound as defined as vibrations perceived in an ear and thus interpreted by the brain.

----------


## mal4mac

> I don't dispute what you say - vibrations exist whether they are heard or not. Perhaps we disagree on the definition of sound. I'm taking sound as defined as vibrations perceived in an ear and thus interpreted by the brain.


What about tinnitus - that's a sound, but not perceived in an ear. Or the memory of a sound? And given that you can't hear everything this precise moment, then doesn't sound almost always involve memory? And what about auditory hallucinations? Or the Buddha speaking to you from the God Realm?

----------


## Paulclem

> What about tinnitus - that's a sound, but not perceived in an ear. Or the memory of a sound? And given that you can't hear everything this precise moment, then doesn't sound almost always involve memory? And what about auditory hallucinations? Or the Buddha speaking to you from the God Realm?


What we were referring to was the definition of sound and whether there is sound if no-one hears it - you know the tree falling in the forest idea when no-one is around. The point I was making is that there can't be a sound unless it is perceived by an ear to interpret it.

Your points take us outside of that definition. Tinnitus - I can't comment because i don't kow what causes it, but as it is an abnormal medical condition is it a fair point?

The memory of a sound is still previously interpreted, so I don't see there's a problem with that. As for the memory of sound, presumably this is he gap between the sensory organs picking up the sound and the brain interpreting it. That seems consistent with what we've been saying that sound is perceived and modified by the brain; that it is not inherently existing of itself. 

Presumably auditory hallucinations are produced by the chemical interaction of the sensory organs, brain and memory. More than that I can really say, but it seems consistent with the theory. 

The Buddha speaking rom the God realms is an intersting idea. I think that ability is developed/ karmically present - not bestowed. Again I know nothing of how that would work, but idon't think it contradicts the theory.

----------


## cacian

Timing existence is an impossible task.
Exitentialism goes beyond time even further then it.
If we are unable to time existence then time only exists in relation to one. Meaning timing is one to one.

So if time is not palpable then it is only half met.
Everything else that is is certain to be because we not only see it but we feel it too.

----------


## mal4mac

> Tinnitus - I can't comment because i don't kow what causes it...


The cause is uncertain - but why do you need to know the cause? It's a ringing sound, I can vouch for that through experience!

----------


## Paulclem

> The cause is uncertain - but why do you need to know the cause? It's a ringing sound, I can vouch for that through experience!


Just because we are talking about cause and effect - vibrations to sound interpreted by the ear. Tinnitus is the effect, but is the cause a physical problem or something else.? Anyway, I didn't feel I could usefully comment. An unpleasant condition I'm told.

----------


## mal4mac

> Just because we are talking about cause and effect - vibrations to sound interpreted by the ear. Tinnitus is the effect, but is the cause a physical problem or something else.? Anyway, I didn't feel I could usefully comment. An unpleasant condition I'm told.


Unpleasant, but not impossible. Mindfulness meditation helps me live happily with the condition. In fact, tinnitus makes it plain that mindfulness meditation is not new age nonsense. For Buddhists, tinnitus may be a great positive!

----------


## cacian

> You cannot separate time from space, as Minkowksi noted in 1908, deriving this from special relativity. So what we get is spacetime. Each event in spacetime has four coordinates: three of space, and one of time. They are called spacetime events. The distance between them is known as the spacetime interval. This implies that just as all locations in space exist, so too do all events in time. The past, present and future all exist.


How do you mean 
_''You cannot separate time from space''_ ?
Are you saying that space equals time and vice versa?

----------

