BF2S Forums Born without eyes

ATG wrote:

JackerP wrote:

ATG wrote:

If a baby is born without eyes, is there anything to see?

Of course there's things to see. Will that baby see them?

Kinda negates that whole " if a tree falls in the forest " thing then, dodenit?

just because sound doesnt travel far enough for YOU to hear it doesnt mean there isnt any.

If a tree falls on a women in the forest then what was a kitchen doing in the forest?

ATG wrote:

JackerP wrote:

ATG wrote:

If a baby is born without eyes, is there anything to see?

Of course there's things to see. Will that baby see them?

Kinda negates that whole " if a tree falls in the forest " thing then, dodenit?

Your statement is assuming only 1 possible answer to that theory is right.

Macbeth wrote:

Of course the tree makes a sound, there just isn't anyone around to hear it.

Don't try to disprove physics with philosophy.

But when you observe that sound, is it not changed by our observation?

AussieReaper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Of course the tree makes a sound, there just isn't anyone around to hear it.

Don't try to disprove physics with philosophy.

But when you observe that sound, is it not changed by our observation?

that's going into the whole quantum physics thing innit

JackerP wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Of course the tree makes a sound, there just isn't anyone around to hear it.

Don't try to disprove physics with philosophy.

But when you observe that sound, is it not changed by our observation?

Why would it be?

In the world of Quantum Physics, the mere fact of observation changes the outcome, due to the instruments one would use in that observation.

Love how this went from rare case funny blooper to quantum physics.

Macbeth wrote:

The machine interprets the sound, doesn't change it.

duh.  so...if you send a machine out there to record the sound.  then listen to it later.  did the tree make a sound?  of course it did.

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-01-30 17:29:16)

Macbeth wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

The machine interprets the sound, doesn't change it.

duh.  so...if you send a machine out there to record the sound.  then listen to it later.  did the tree make a sound?  of course it did.

hence why I said

Macbeth wrote:

Of course the tree makes a sound, there just isn't anyone around to hear it.

Don't try to disprove physics with philosophy.

i know im not arguing with you, bellend.

11 Bravo wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

JackerP wrote:

Why would it be?

In the world of Quantum Physics, the mere fact of observation changes the outcome, due to the instruments one would use in that observation.

forget that stupid shit colleges use to justify their stupid ass money grab.  machines can translate sound.

But sound is the vibrations of molecules in air, causing sound waves. The machine only records those distortions from it's location within that wave.

So if a tree falls in a vacuum, does it still make a sound?

AussieReaper wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

In the world of Quantum Physics, the mere fact of observation changes the outcome, due to the instruments one would use in that observation.

forget that stupid shit colleges use to justify their stupid ass money grab.  machines can translate sound.

But sound is the vibrations of molecules in air, causing sound waves. The machine only records those distortions from it's location within that wave.

So if a tree falls in a vacuum, does it still make a sound?

no it wouldnt make a noise if i laid a shitload of nerf balls below it either to absord the shockwaves but hey.

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-01-30 17:36:03)

AussieReaper wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

In the world of Quantum Physics, the mere fact of observation changes the outcome, due to the instruments one would use in that observation.

forget that stupid shit colleges use to justify their stupid ass money grab.  machines can translate sound.

But sound is the vibrations of molecules in air, causing sound waves. The machine only records those distortions from it's location within that wave.

So if a tree falls in a vacuum, does it still make a sound?

We're talking about a forest not a vacuum. Put anything in a vacuum and of course the outcome would change.

Macbeth wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

forget that stupid shit colleges use to justify their stupid ass money grab.  machines can translate sound.

But sound is the vibrations of molecules in air, causing sound waves. The machine only records those distortions from it's location within that wave.

So if a tree falls in a vacuum, does it still make a sound?

We're talking about a forest not a vacuum. Put anything in a vacuum and of course the outcome would change.

But where is the sound coming from, the tree, or the air around the tree?

That's my point.