Face It

Messy · Post by **Messy** » 20-11-2004 00:06

Trees need to learn to shut the fuck up.

GazMaN · Post by **GazMaN** » 20-11-2004 00:14

StRaFe wrote: buuauuha gazman, so true. But its obvious it does make a noise $\o/$ . Fucking trees $\o/$

no it doesnt, to make a noise you need somthing to capture the soundwaves, if nothing is there to capture the sound, it doesnt make any noise.......

does it????

GazMaN · Post by **GazMaN** » 20-11-2004 00:15

CorDawg wrote: he said no-one not nothing

yea, so i worded it wrong, my sincerest apologies

have a cookie

TEZC_Robban · Post by **TEZC_Robban** » 22-11-2004 19:53

GazMaN wrote: no it doesnt, to make a noise you need somthing to capture the soundwaves, if nothing is there to capture the sound, it doesnt make any noise.......

does it????

You're pretty much giving yourself away :p
'nothing is there to capture the sound'

imo noise is a kind of sound :p

Messy · Post by **Messy** » 22-11-2004 20:11

Actually, GazMaN very well illustrates how we can be sure of nothing.

As both Kant and Socrates (or Plato, people who know about them would probably know why I can hardly be sure) described, we can never know the truth, because we will always be held back by our ever-misguiding senses.

The objective truth is unknown to us.

And, as Sartre said..the only thing we can really be sure of is doubt

(since when you doubt the existence of doubt..you're proving it!)

Either that...or GazMaN is making an attempt at a really lame joke

Could it be? -- Nahh! :O~

l0afz · Post by **l0afz** » 22-11-2004 22:53

Dude it makes a sound when it falls next to you, what difference would it make if you werent there

GazMaN · Post by **GazMaN** » 23-11-2004 00:57

if u wernt there, there would be no instrument to convert the soundwaves traveling thru the air into an actual noise ( instrument being your ears in this case) and therefore there would be no noise only sound waves.

imagine if you will radio waves, without some sort of receiver you can not hear any noise, very crude example i agree but makes the point.

discuss

Sixty · Post by **Sixty** » 23-11-2004 15:14

It all depends on what you think the word 'sound' means.

StRaFe · Post by **StRaFe** » 23-11-2004 15:54

Stop bullying the word count gazza

$\o/$

Mongeh · Post by **Mongeh** » 23-11-2004 16:03

for all ye geared up on the old quantum physics, and wave-particle duality i put forth the notion of the cat in the box with poison, nothing occurs until it is noticed/measured... shit i shud remember.. meh some famous bloke put it forward (Niels Bohr)

The link between reality and observation is based on what has been called the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum mechanics because it was proposed by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and other physicists working in that city. A more colorful and memorable reference, however, is probably one based on a thought experiment. That experiment puts a cat in a box with a device triggered by a single particle's quantum behavior. The device, if activated, kills the cat. Since quantum theory says that the particle's behavior is indeterminate until its probability wave 'collapses' upon observation, the cat can be considered both alive and dead at the same time until the box is opened and one or the other condition is observed

-plær- · Post by **-plær-** » 23-11-2004 18:38

aka Shroedinger's Cat...

Mongeh · Post by **Mongeh** » 23-11-2004 19:28

if id posted the link with tht quote idd,

speedy · Post by **speedy** » 23-11-2004 19:40

does anyone like hotdogs?

-plær- · Post by **-plær-** » 23-11-2004 20:09

my point was that it wasn't Bohr who postulated the cat-in-a-box thought experiment, it was Shroedinger.

[1234]Jr · Post by **[1234]Jr** » 23-11-2004 20:32

Im glad we had this conversation.