Page 5 of 7
Posted: 20-11-2004 00:06
by Messy
Trees need to learn to shut the fuck up.
Posted: 20-11-2004 00:14
by GazMaN
StRaFe wrote:
buuauuha gazman, so true. But its obvious it does make a noise
. Fucking trees
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????
Posted: 20-11-2004 00:15
by GazMaN
CorDawg wrote:
he said no-one not nothing
yea, so i worded it wrong, my sincerest apologies
have a cookie
Posted: 22-11-2004 19:53
by TEZC_Robban
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
Posted: 22-11-2004 20:11
by Messy
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~
Posted: 22-11-2004 22:53
by l0afz
Dude it makes a sound when it falls next to you, what difference would it make if you werent there
Posted: 23-11-2004 00:57
by GazMaN
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
Posted: 23-11-2004 15:14
by Sixty
It all depends on what you think the word 'sound' means.
Posted: 23-11-2004 15:54
by StRaFe
Stop bullying the word count gazza
Posted: 23-11-2004 16:03
by Mongeh
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
Posted: 23-11-2004 18:38
by -plær-
aka Shroedinger's Cat...
Posted: 23-11-2004 19:28
by Mongeh
if id posted the link with tht quote idd,
Posted: 23-11-2004 19:40
by speedy
does anyone like hotdogs?
Posted: 23-11-2004 20:09
by -plær-
my point was that it wasn't Bohr who postulated the cat-in-a-box thought experiment, it was Shroedinger.
Posted: 23-11-2004 20:32
by [1234]Jr
Im glad we had this conversation.