English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

22 answers

Not necessarily, but you can bet he's in that forest because he wouldn't ask directions! *LOL*

2006-08-09 11:30:36 · answer #1 · answered by nimbleminx 5 · 1 1

YES, in this case. Wives are telepathic - didn't you know.

If you ask a question and there is no one there to answer it, is it still a question?

But seriously folks - I've heard this one before, and It is actually paraphrasing a deep philosophical question, and it is not put like you have - incorrectly.

A comedian - I can't remember who - said:

"If a man speaks in the middle of a forest, and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?

paraphrased from philosopher Immanuel Kant's famous words:

"If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

The answer is No.

Physical Explanation:
A tree creates a series of vibrations in the air. But this alone does not constitute Sound. Vibrations in the carrier medium are not sound. The tree has to be objectified in order for sound to be recognised. One of the six properties of sound is a receiver. If no one is in the forest to hear the falling tree, then no sound exists because there was no receiver.

Sound only exists when there is someone to receive those vibrations and therefore hears sound i.e. there is an actor / receiver to perceive the object (tree).

A really philosophical answer from Everything says:

"This question is inconsistent, because it assumes that a world which doesn't produce sounds that are not heard would have trees that fall outside of perception. Perhaps the tree is seen from a distance? In any case, the intended question is really "Does the physical universe exist outside of our perceptions?"

The world we perceive (the phenomenal world) is fully and consistently conceptualizeable in physical terms. If the nature of the universe is in fact not physical (so that the falling tree does not make a sound), this fact is epistemically inaccessible. However, the fact that the universe acts consistently enough that our theories of its operation are consistently corroborated makes them useful concepts even if they are, objectively speaking, false. They may or may not be objectively correct, but they are intersubjectively correct.

Theories which produce accurate predictions can become conceptual frameworks . If we refer to a 'sound wave' as a real thing, that is a valid concept even if there is no 'real' air to be vibrating: our concept merely refers to a different underlying numenon than we imagine. Our constructed world is consistent, and has a place for sound; so long as the universe continues to supply us with phenomena which support these constructions, sound is a valid concept.

If we wish to make the application of these constructions completely valid, we must make our claims in terms of perceptions (that way they can be tested). Well, we are assuming we don't hear the sound of the tree - and sound is transient. But it could have effects, knocking dust around in a particular way or something recognizable. This would be indirect, yes. But if we saw the wave on an oscilloscope would we have really seen any more? What about hearing the sound directly? In all three cases have perceived that something affected the environment in a way which we characterize as 'sound'. Whether the universe actually had vibrating waves or filled in the details as we looked for them, the end effect upon us is the same. We could choose to call all of these effects sound.

Essentially, we have information about what the noumenon can be, because whatever it is, is must be something which is capable of producing our perceptions. Any noumenon which could not cause our perceptions must be rejected. We are not a simulation run on a two-state Turing machine with a four-bit-long tape, because at any given moment we perceive more information than that entire system contains."

2006-08-08 14:06:39 · answer #2 · answered by Hebrew Hammer 3 · 0 0

What is the point between speaking in the forest and being wrong without his wife.

2006-08-08 13:45:58 · answer #3 · answered by pelancha 6 · 0 0

He Is Not Wrong Because No One Was There To Tell Him He Was Wrong And He Would Not Have Said Somthing Wrong For No Reason

2006-08-08 13:41:39 · answer #4 · answered by harleycheetham 2 · 0 0

That replace real right into a plenty greater desirable beneficial question..... Um, see if I relatively have been given this precise......incredibly he's incorrect, and additionally submit to in techniques.. How did he finally finally end up indoors the path of the woodland?? He did no longer ask for rules!!!! So yeah he's incorrect

2016-12-11 05:21:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You have been drinking too much coffee - I suggest you have a long cool bath, like I'm about to and think about things that are white. White snow, white paint, white clouds etc.,,,,,

And deep breathing that should help as well - but lay off the coffee, and the alcohol and the drugs and stick to self abuse - no side affects - just natural release !

2006-08-08 13:26:07 · answer #6 · answered by beiterspace 2 · 0 0

Women feel the need to feel right ALL the time due to the fact that EVE fucked up and ate the apple and brought sin into the world. And we all know that women are easily subdued by low self-esteem, sooooooooooo....women NEED to be right to make up for that grandiose ****-up at the beginning of time and brought sin into the world. Hence...they are compensating for a HUGE mistake with regards to succumbing to the "serpent".

2006-08-09 12:27:00 · answer #7 · answered by RangerBob 2 · 0 0

for the first time in his life he is absolutely right. Chances are he is always right. It is just that his decisions are being scrutinised by his wife. All men know that women think they know what is right all of the time. Problem is that they have chiefly learned the bulk of what they know from other women. Their concept of what is right is skewed by a gender bias. enough said.

2006-08-08 22:10:49 · answer #8 · answered by sonnyd 2 · 0 0

Yes he is...

And believe me... alone in the forest: at the top of the highest mountain: or at the bottom of the deepest sea!!!

She would still bloody hear him!!!

2006-08-08 13:20:55 · answer #9 · answered by englands.glory 4 · 0 0

Only in his wife's eyes...which not being an organ of hearing, proves he must be wrong.

2006-08-08 13:19:12 · answer #10 · answered by ben b 5 · 0 0

Are you kidding? the wife can hear every word you say from the other side of the planet!!!

Ouch!!!!!!

I have just been told to say YES!

....and she can hear what I typed!

2006-08-08 13:20:53 · answer #11 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers