A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture

Roland Karlsson commented courteously ...

[snip]

And, like the old saw, if a tree falls in a forest and
nobody is around, does it make a sound?

I understand what you said in the part I snipped but I'm
an engineer, and I was taught that the tree causes sound
waves whether anybody "hears" them or not.

--
[when I get un-lazy, my sig will go here]

In article ,
All Things Mopar wrote:

I understand what you said in the part I snipped but I'm
an engineer, and I was taught that the tree causes sound
waves whether anybody "hears" them or not.

"Typical engineer" = moron.

Let me ask you this if you had never been born, would
you still be able to hear those sound waves if in fact the
tree feel in a woods that no one was in?

"Inaccessible" wrote in message news
In article ,
All Things Mopar wrote:

I understand what you said in the part I snipped but I'm
an engineer, and I was taught that the tree causes sound
waves whether anybody "hears" them or not.

"Typical engineer" = moron.

Ad hominem = weak debating skills.

Let me ask you this if you had never been born, would
you still be able to hear those sound waves if in fact the
tree feel in a woods that no one was in?

The answer depends entirely on how one chooses to define
"sound". When a tree falls in a forest, the waves that travel
through the air neither know nor care whether a receiver is
present. So in that respect "sound" exists regardless of
whether anyone is there to hear it.

But some people take it a step further, and limit the definition
of "sound" to a combination of the waves traveling through
the air, AND the recompression of those waves against some
object, whether it's inside the ear canals of a living being, or
as an echo against a mountain side, or against a microphone
diaphragm, etc. In other words, in their view a receiver has
to make a change in the waves before they become "sound".

So in the first case the answer to the question is yes, in the
second case, no.

Roland Karlsson writes:

Personally - I don't think this interpretation is reasonable.
The main reason for this is the simple question - what happened
before there were any concious beings?

There have always been conscious beings.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Inaccessible wrote in newsandemonium-
:


I understand what you said in the part I snipped but I'm
an engineer, and I was taught that the tree causes sound
waves whether anybody "hears" them or not.

"Typical engineer" = moron.

Hmmmm ....

Let me ask you this if you had never been born, would
you still be able to hear those sound waves if in fact the
tree feel in a woods that no one was in?

You have totally missed the reason for the "tree and sound
in the wood" argument. It has nothing to do with any
philosophic mumbo jumbo. It is a real fact that there are
some strange things going on in Quantum Theory, and Quantum
Theory describes events in the world with a high degree
of accuracy. One interpretation of the strange things is that
something (an observer) is needed as a catalysator, otherwise
nothing happens. But ... the observer ... what is that?
What gets the observer going? Another observer?

Personally I believe it is much simpler. I believe that the
sound in the wood (in the form of sound waves and not in the
form someone hearing the sound) still happens even if no one
is there and is listening.

I also believe that the galaxies and stars etc were created
long before any one could see them. I don't think that the
universe (plus the whole history of the universe) was created
the first time a concious being looked at it.


/Roland

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

There have always been conscious beings.


OK -. so we are back in religion now - are we?


/Roland

Inaccessible commented courteously ...


"Typical engineer" = moron.

Yes, just like the ones that built everything you use in
your pathetic everyday life!

Let me ask you this if you had never been born,

I was never born, I was adopted...

--
[when I get un-lazy, my sig will go here]

Roland Karlsson commented courteously ...

[snip]
I also believe that the galaxies and stars etc were
created long before any one could see them. I
don't think that the universe (plus the whole
history of the universe) was created the first
time a concious being looked at it.

Yes. And, astronomers are looking at millions of stars
that no longer exist but no will know that for 10's of
thousands of years. So, does that mean these non-stars no
longer emit light waves?

--
[when I get un-lazy, my sig will go here]

In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:

Inaccessible wrote in newsandemonium-
:


I understand what you said in the part I snipped but I'm
an engineer, and I was taught that the tree causes sound
waves whether anybody "hears" them or not.

"Typical engineer" = moron.

Hmmmm ....

Ever seen road design in America? Ever seen how land for
development is being used? Book learned twits.


Let me ask you this if you had never been born, would
you still be able to hear those sound waves if in fact the
tree feel in a woods that no one was in?

You have totally missed the reason for the "tree and sound
in the wood" argument. It has nothing to do with any
philosophic mumbo jumbo. It is a real fact that there are
some strange things going on in Quantum Theory, and Quantum
Theory describes events in the world with a high degree
of accuracy.

Its a series of opinions founded on human intellect and
these theories assume that without a witness the universe
can exist. Flawed reasoning. Simple fact of the matter
without a witness, "you" couldn't make your assertion.


One interpretation of the strange things is that
something (an observer) is needed as a catalysator, otherwise
nothing happens. But ... the observer ... what is that?
What gets the observer going? Another observer?

Personally I believe it is much simpler. I believe that the
sound in the wood (in the form of sound waves and not in the
form someone hearing the sound) still happens even if no one
is there and is listening.

I also believe that the galaxies and stars etc were created
long before any one could see them. I don't think that the
universe (plus the whole history of the universe) was created
the first time a concious being looked at it.

Hmmmmm, without a doubt human kind is younger than the cosmos,
surely there are things in the vast void of space that will confound
our puny reasoning abilities. Mankind is a being driven by rather impure
motives, correct those motives and the rest of the learning will be easy,
not until.

Roland Karlsson writes:

OK -. so we are back in religion now - are we?

One cannot be anywhere else when speaking of consciousness, since
consciousness is not a physical phenomenon and thus is outside
conventional science (i.e., it is metaphysical--religious).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.