New edgy thread

So then Berkeley is defining sound as something you sense' -so he would give the answer 'no, if no one was there, there would be no sound'.

Again, a matter of definitions, define how the word sound is being used and the question answers itself.

The dissipation of pressure waves through an independent medium it is a theory not a hypothesis. [/pedant] :p

My point is that Berkeley has a serious reason for defining sound in that way for his purposes, and that makes it not just a matter of definition. He's interested in how we get from the things that are available to sense experience to things that aren't, and he is genuinely concerned about that. It's not as if it is in any way part of common sense to define 'sound' as anything other than something dependent on our senses.

And pedantry or no pedantry, the claim that the sound we hear is caused by the dissipation of pressure waves is a hypothesis and not a theory worthy of the name.