New edgy thread

using the tired example of a tree falling in a forest and there being no-one there to hear it. . . . .

I have never seen that apparent conunrum as anything more that an issue with defining terms.

If, before you pose the question, you tell me what you mean by sound, then the question asnswers itself.

If - for example - you define sound as a vibration of the air falling on your ears and then being electrochemically (through nerve impulses) translated into the abstract we call sound in our brains, then of course if there is no one there then there is no sound.

If- on the other hand - you define sound as the dissipation of pressure waves through a medium such as water or air - then regradless of whether there is anyone there the dissipation of pressure waves through air happens, thus sound (as defined) happens.

The question is not a profundity, it is sophistry and equivocation, it is a trick question that relies on the equivocation of the word 'sound'.

. . . is it not fair to say that in the same way, time is only capped when there is no-one/nothing left to count it?

Yes, time is simply a measure of change.

time for you, for example, is somewhat capped upon your demise, but that doesn't mean of course that time has stopped.

Of course, when we die, time continues.

What I meant by: "one day [. . . ] in the very very distant future [ . . . ] we will not only be dead but will have never have existed" - was that on one outcome of the three current candidates for how our universe plays out has time being brought to a halt, when that happens there will be no 'past', so not only are we dead, but we would have never existed.