New edgy thread

We're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about the scientific theory of sound; I'm talking about the philosophical leap from the subjective, heard sound, to its supposed origins in physical perturbations, which I maintain is a hypothesis, although it's not a particularly scientific or testable hypothesis, granted. It is, though, the hypothesis that Berkeley is grappling with.

Ah I see ! yes, everything is up for grabs epistemologically, everything is questionable, always, agreed.

But "I think therefore I am" (or whatever Mr D said) comes to mind - - - agree ?

This isn't just an ancient worry that physicists have moved on from entirely.

Not sure I agree, I could take that question, blank out the word 'sound' (or related words) and ask you to fill in the blanks, and the question would become axiomatic.

I could be wrong of course but I have never seen it as anything other than equivocation, I am sure you can attach interesting (and worthy/good/true) ideas onto the conceit - but the central question is a scientific question.

When the tree falls - is sound produced if no one there to hear it.

Define sound:

Sound is the air vibrating - then yes the air will vibrate whether someone is there or not, in that respect sound is produced.

Sound is your ear drums vibrating - then if you are not there and your ear drums do not vibrate then no sound is produced.