Can u perceive beyond infinity?

[her209]

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious

Originally posted by: her209
These vibrations/sound waves are sound. They are physical descriptions of what sound is.

No, they are vibrations/sound waves, that is why they have independent names and definitons. They become sound when they are perceived.

Nope, why do we call it "the speed of sound"?

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious

Originally posted by: her209
The real question is did the Big Bang make a really loud sound when it banged?

No. For sound to exist it must be perceived. There was nothing to perceive, thus the sound did not exist.

So if a tree falls in a forest and hits a mime, does anyone care?

Fixed

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious

Originally posted by: her209
These vibrations/sound waves are sound. They are physical descriptions of what sound is.

No, they are vibrations/sound waves, that is why they have independent names and definitons. They become sound when they are perceived.

Nope, why do we call it "the speed of sound"?

Why do we call jellyfish, "jellyfish?" They are not fish. Speed of sound is much simpler, and pleasing, than speed of vibrations through the air.

Sound is:

the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

 

[iamaelephant]

I think CollectiveUnconcious has watched "What the !@#$% do we Know?" one too many times.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
Sound is:

the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

You obviously took that defintion from Dictionary.com.

Why not quote #2?

2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

Originally posted by: her209
You obviously took that defintion from Dictionary.com.

Why not quote #2?

2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.

Why not quote #3 from source #4?

3. the air bladder of a fish.

This thread is about perception, thus the definition I quoted applies more directly than any other.

Now, how about you finally wise up and say:
"There are two understandings of sound. First, there is a purely physical understanding in that sound is a pattern of vibrations in the air. Second, there is a psychological understanding of sound. It is a perceived sensory experience. Now, since this thread is about perceiving, albeit perceiving beyond infinity, we should use a psychological understanding. Thus, CollectiveUnconscious, you are correct."

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
Sound is:

the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

You obviously took that defintion from Dictionary.com.

Why not quote #2?

2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.

I would think that they're ranked in order of relevance. When applicable to humans, use #1.

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
I think CollectiveUnconcious has watched "What the !@#$% do we Know?" one too many times.

I am a psychologist. We are a mad breed of human.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
Now, how about you finally wise up and say:
"There are two understandings of sound. First, there is a purely physical understanding in that sound is a pattern of vibrations in the air. Second, there is a psychological understanding of sound. It is a perceived sensory experience. Now, since this thread is about perceiving, albeit perceiving beyond infinity, we should use a psychological understanding. Thus, CollectiveUnconscious, you are correct."

Nope, the question was about the tree falling in a forest when no one is around, will it still make a sound? The obvious answer here is yes. Why not just admit you're wrong?

EDIT: Oh, and did read my original question?

did the Big Bang make a really loud sound when it banged?

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
Now, how about you finally wise up and say:
"There are two understandings of sound. First, there is a purely physical understanding in that sound is a pattern of vibrations in the air. Second, there is a psychological understanding of sound. It is a perceived sensory experience. Now, since this thread is about perceiving, albeit perceiving beyond infinity, we should use a psychological understanding. Thus, CollectiveUnconscious, you are correct."

Nope, the question was about the tree falling in a forest when no one is around, will it still make a sound? The obvious answer here is yes. Why not just admit you're wrong?

EDIT: Oh, and did read my original question?

did the Big Bang make a really loud sound when it banged?

By his definition, sound doesn't exist without someone to hear it. You're both correct using your own definitions. Surely you realize this.

EDIT: Does sound exist in a vacuum? I wouldn't think the Big Bang made a sound because wouldn't it (sound) have to exist before the Big Bang?

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: CollectiveUnconscious
Now, how about you finally wise up and say:
"There are two understandings of sound. First, there is a purely physical understanding in that sound is a pattern of vibrations in the air. Second, there is a psychological understanding of sound. It is a perceived sensory experience. Now, since this thread is about perceiving, albeit perceiving beyond infinity, we should use a psychological understanding. Thus, CollectiveUnconscious, you are correct."

Nope, the question was about the tree falling in a forest when no one is around, will it still make a sound? The obvious answer here is yes. Why not just admit you're wrong?

Because I am not. My whole stance, from the beginning, is that sound is a perception of sensation. If you do not perceive sound, it does not exist as sound, only as vibrations with the possibility of being sound. We only know what we can perceive, the rest is just ideas and imagination. Now, why not just admit you are wrong? Because you are not. We are using differing definitions for sound (though my definition is as it applies to humans).

So, if a tree falls and no one is around, does it still make a sound? Yes, it makes physical vibrations that can be dubbed sound. No, it does not make sound in the sense that nothing is perceiving the sound, so it cannot exist in anything but an idea.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: chambersc
EDIT: Does sound exist in a vacuum?

No it cannot. It needs a medium to travel through.

 

[Oblivionaire]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: chambersc
EDIT: Does sound exist in a vacuum?

No it cannot. It needs a medium to travel through.

It has a medium. All the air and dust in the vacuum's bag.

harrrr harrrrrrrrrr sry /wrists

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Originally posted by: Oblivionaire

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: chambersc
EDIT: Does sound exist in a vacuum?

No it cannot. It needs a medium to travel through.

It has a medium. All the air and dust in the vacuum's bag.

harrrr harrrrrrrrrr sry /wrists

LOL that was.... nevermind!

 

[Eeezee]

You obviously don't understand what infinity is.

 

[DainBramaged]

Think I just did. Whoa...

 

[invidia]

Thanos and the infinity gauntlet?