Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jckamjw wrote

Reply to comment by grundar in Discussion: the goal of human existence should be avoiding the heat death of the universe by Mickeymousse1

No, the sound example shows how the universe is fined tuned for life.

Sound isnt sound until puffs of air meet our eardrum. It’s a pretty straight forward concept: Prior to meeting an ear drum, sound is rapid little puffs of air and when those little puffs of air meet an ear drum, then we have what is known as sound.

What’s the difference between 40 and 30 hz? Nothing except one produces an experience of sound inside of our minds and other does not. If there is no ear, there is no sound, only puffs of air.

The observer effect is a well documented phenomenon https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/observer-effect-quantum-mechanics.html

Whether I understand the nuances of the experiment is irrelevant to understanding the concept, so my bad, I didn’t mean to caught up in a discussion on that but I have yet to see anything that debunk the observer effect.

1

grundar t1_jckoe1f wrote

> > It only seems like an observer is necessary for "sound" because you're using the wrong definition of the word; you're trying to reason about physics using a definition meant for human psychology. It's no more valid than trying to reason about calculus using the wrong definition of the word "integral".
>
> Sound isnt sound until puffs of air meet our eardrum.

That is incorrect if you're trying to do physics.

I get that you like the idea of the presence of a mind being necessary for something to be "sound", but that is literally wrong in a physics context. It's not even a matter of opinion, that's just not how the word "sound" is defined for use in physics.

> The observer effect is a well documented phenomenon

From that link:
> "The observer in this experiment was not human. Instead, they used a tiny electron detector that could spot the presence of passing electrons. The quantum “observer’s” capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it. Apart from “observing,” or detecting the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current."

i.e., the key is not "an observer" in the "conscious agent" sense, but rather detection or measurement in the "physically interacts with the system" sense. That article says exactly the same thing that I've been saying all along, which is that the difference is measurement, not a conscious observer.

Again, you're getting hung up on definitions of words that are not correct for a physics context. "Observer" does not imply that there is someone doing the observing; it just means measurement is occurring.

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcktg4b wrote

"In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid."

Sound is the RESULT of vibrations that propagate as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid, or solid making contact with your eardrum between 40 and 40,000 hz. Again, if the frequencies are below or above that range, there is no sound.

How can there be sound if no one can hear it? That's paradoxical and defies logic. Using a general term to describe both vibrations that can and can't be experienced by a human ear is imprecise. You can call puffs of air that can't be heard by a human ear "sound" all day long, it's wrong. There is obviously no sound because you can't describe what you can't hear. You can't describe the intervals, the notes, the tones, the timber, etc.

I'm not arguing the narrow and imprecise physics definition of sound. It's not a debate.

1