October 16, 2012 5:15 pm at 5:15 pm #605222
If a tree falls with noone around does it make a noise?October 17, 2012 1:15 am at 1:15 am #944028
That’s not a philosophical Q, it’s asking “what is the definition of noise?”.
Zvei DinimOctober 17, 2012 2:38 am at 2:38 am #944029
Can you have philosophical questions without kefirah?October 17, 2012 2:45 am at 2:45 am #944030
maybe if it’s an tree an Asheira tree…October 17, 2012 2:55 am at 2:55 am #944031
No questions are Kfira-dik. We are not Catholicism. We believe that all questions have an answer and therefore all philosophical questions are okay. It’s the wrong answers that can be Kfira. (Yes, the Mishnah in Chagigah says not to ask 4 questions because those are beyond human comprehension and therefore could lead to people giving wrong answers.)October 17, 2012 3:14 am at 3:14 am #944032
I agree with Sam.October 17, 2012 3:41 am at 3:41 am #944033
Sound is only defined as sound vis a vis the resonance of sound waves on your inner aural workings. So technically, the oscillations without the ear are not sound.
^_^October 17, 2012 1:28 pm at 1:28 pm #944034
Aha. So you don’t really ‘hear’ a sound, since that would be a redundancy.October 17, 2012 4:30 pm at 4:30 pm #944035
The Kfira is not in the question. It’s in the answer.October 17, 2012 4:52 pm at 4:52 pm #944036
Depends how you define “hear.” ðŸ˜›October 17, 2012 5:07 pm at 5:07 pm #944037
OyOctober 18, 2012 12:37 am at 12:37 am #944038
Hey, I didn’t start this. ðŸ˜›October 18, 2012 12:45 am at 12:45 am #944039
I think we disagree on what it means to define.October 18, 2012 12:48 am at 12:48 am #944040
By the way, a question might not be Kfira but it can still be the Rasha’s question.October 18, 2012 1:07 am at 1:07 am #944041
snortOctober 18, 2012 1:34 am at 1:34 am #944042
ED IT ORParticipant
Takkah a good question, Now how we gonna prove an answer hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmOctober 18, 2012 3:07 am at 3:07 am #944043
Well,you don’t refer to vacancy of animals as “no one around,” so there might be a moose, hawk, or squirrel there who heard the tree fall. Then the answer would be yes.October 18, 2012 3:21 am at 3:21 am #944044
Da mah Lehashiv L’apikores means that (even though you shouldn’t say k’fira) you should be able to disprove it. That means you may listen to it to legitimately disprove it. Therefore, censoring statements isn’t the solution. Truth is. Saying “No Kfira” isn’t productive.October 18, 2012 3:55 am at 3:55 am #944045
As oppose to “light” which was created on the first day, “sound” was never created. Therefore, I would say that sound is only how one’s brain interprets vibrations in the air.
Too bad those who spent years figuring out if light is made of particles or only waves didn’t just LEARN the first few psukim of Chumash.October 18, 2012 4:19 am at 4:19 am #944046
Difference between sound and hearing:(From wiki)
Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing.  Sound also travels through plasma.
Hearing, auditory perception, or audition  is the ability to perceive sound by detecting vibrations through an organ such as the ear.  It is one of the traditional five senses.
It would seem that the sound produced by a falling tree is not predicated upon one with hearing abilities being within earshot.
So I think the answer is yes it would make a sound or noise, however nobody would hear it.October 18, 2012 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm #944047
WIY: The point is that the sound that you hear is not just registered by your ear – it is synthesized by it. So calling sound waves sound (which is not a very solid delineation, Wikipedia or not – what about the ultrasonic vibrations that are sound to dogs? Note the label ultrasonic) is rather imprecise – because you do not hear sound waves. You hear sound, created by the resonance of the waves on your ear stuffs.October 18, 2012 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm #944048
A) What is philosophical about the question?
B) Can somebody explain the ????? here? I fail to understand why it shouldn’t be a noise?
Da mah Lehashiv L’apikores means that (even though you shouldn’t say k’fira) you should be able to disprove it. That means you may listen to it to legitimately disprove it. Therefore, censoring statements isn’t the solution. Truth is. Saying “No Kfira” isn’t productive.
I used to argue with missionaries a lot, and one of my Rebbes said: “Da mah lehashiv lapikores” is FOR YOU that you should know what to answer – it never says ‘ANSWER THE APIKORES’. If an Apikores comes to YOU and asks you something, you should have the answer in your heart so that you are not influenced.
D) ???? we can bring a ???? from ??? ???? ?”? – the Gemara is differentiating between when half a ????? is before the ??? ????, and when half the ????? took place in a cave [where those outside are not ????] – the ???? says ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ???? — It is a place of ???? for those inside the cave .
Why does the ???? have to say ‘for those inside the cave’? That isn’t the point we are coming to answer; the point is that it is a ????? ?? ????, whereas before the Time of the ???? it isn’t a ????? ?? ????? (I think one of the ??????? asks the question)
According to this question, maybe we can answer: It is only a ???? ???? if somebody is there; if nobody is there, then it isn’t ‘HEARING THE SHOFAR’!!!October 18, 2012 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm #944049
yekke2: There are philosophical implications to the question – that are validated, in fact, by technical explanations of the phenomenon. Technically, sound waves needs to be processed by aural receptors before you can call it sound (because the waves that are in the air are actually changed by your ear, creating what you hear.) This ties into an issue that a large body of philosophy is concerned about – human perception and reality.
But really, unless you like them from the purely analytical perspective, such conundrums are best summed up as “the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct.”October 18, 2012 10:12 pm at 10:12 pm #944050
And when were the vibrations in the air (SOUND) created?October 18, 2012 10:49 pm at 10:49 pm #944051
The SOUND WAVES were created when the tree fell.October 19, 2012 4:34 am at 4:34 am #944052
“sound” was never created
What? You think it created itself?
Just because the Torah didn’t explicitly state it, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t created. The Torah is silent on the formation of tornadoes, but certainly you believe that God created them.
The WolfOctober 19, 2012 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm #944053
The creation of sound was included in the creation of eardrums. Tornadoes were included in shomayim,earth etc.
I’m just surprised that no one responded to my statement about light by saying that the pasuk is referring to the or haganuz. It seems that everyone agrees that physical light was also created on day one.October 31, 2012 11:23 pm at 11:23 pm #944054
The “No Kfirah” was referring to the answers that might be posted as a response to the questions.November 2, 2012 12:41 am at 12:41 am #944055
When any tree anywhere falls it makes noise, and Hashem hears.November 2, 2012 1:25 am at 1:25 am #944056
Now THAT might be kefira.November 2, 2012 1:36 am at 1:36 am #944057
If a tree falls on a mime, does he make a noise?November 2, 2012 1:56 am at 1:56 am #944058
To even suggest that Hashem having created the entire universe and being fully in charge of it, is not all- hearing all- seeing, omniscient and a witness to everthing that has ever happened or will ever happen is entirely against the fundamentals of Yiddishkeit.November 2, 2012 3:28 am at 3:28 am #944059
Hashem does not hear.November 2, 2012 3:41 am at 3:41 am #944060
What do you mean? Obviously Hashem hears everything. He may not have “ears” but he can hear although hearing would obviously be different by Hashem than by us because we need ears and He doesnt.November 2, 2012 3:59 am at 3:59 am #944061
But if you can say he hears then you are saying that he is subject to your perceptions. The Rambam would probably call you a kofer for saying Hashem hears.November 2, 2012 5:18 am at 5:18 am #944062
WIY: According to my definition of hearing, it would be kefira to say Hashem is subject to such a phenomenon. Hashem’s powers of observation and knowledge (if we can even use such words do describe them) are not derived from physical processes.November 2, 2012 5:19 am at 5:19 am #944063
But what about Dovid Hamelech’s Kal Vachomer?November 4, 2012 12:23 am at 12:23 am #944064November 4, 2012 4:14 am at 4:14 am #944065
If you are proving from pesukim that Hashem hears, I have much better stuff. The pesukim say that Hashem has an arm, a back, eyes, and so on. It’s mefurash, Hashem has a body…
I quote from the Rambam:
“You, however, know that, strictly speaking, the condition of all the sensations is the same, that the same argument which is employed against the existence of touch and taste in God, may be used against sight, hearing, and smell; for they all are material perceptions and impressions which are subject to change… In truth, however, no real attribute, implying an addition to His essence, can be applied to Him, as will be proved.” – Guide 2:47
The Rambam is clear about his opinion in numerous places: Hashem’s existence cannot be described in any way whatsoever, and ascribing any of the senses to him is tantamount to saying he has a body. Accordingly, every pasuk which seems to contradict this is to be taken figuratively.
Whether you like it or not, to assert that Hashem hears is by definition a denial of the Rambam’s third Principle of Faith.November 4, 2012 12:15 pm at 12:15 pm #944066
No, Hashem does not have a body, although He has spoken of Himself in terms which may give some ignorant people the idea to ascribe actual physical corporeality to Him, and that would be a big mistake because He has no physical existence at all.November 4, 2012 8:18 pm at 8:18 pm #944067
Yitay, you probably meant 1:47.
The Rambam did indeed invest energy in explaining that when it says that Hashem saw it wasn’t through eyes and when it says that Hashem hears it is not through ears. Nobody here suggested otherwise.
Moreover, today we actually use these terms without connecting them to specific limbs. Don’t we call sonar detection, vision? A computer sees and hears, without being aware of it.
The main idea is that Hashem does not have to come on to light or sound to be aware of what is happening. This too is a well understood concept in an age of infrared, sonar, magnetic, radio, and electron detection.
The Rambam discusses the Kal Vachomer.November 5, 2012 12:26 am at 12:26 am #944068November 5, 2012 3:34 am at 3:34 am #944069
I’m confused – who are you arguing with?November 7, 2012 4:55 am at 4:55 am #944070
Sound is the “format” that our auditory organs use in order to transmit to our brains the knowledge that they have just recieved vibrations from the air, thereby informing us of an event that has just taken place. However, as the Rambam says in several places Hashem and his knowledge are one. Even though this concept is particularly difficult to understand and may not even be intended to be understood by anyone, one can deduce that since Hashem is above any form his “knowledge” is also not dependent upon any method requiring finite science. Also Hashem’s knowledge of an act before it has taken place and “heard” by anyone is a great proof to the aforementioned. Therefore, that that Hashem hears all doesn’t affect the question that we started with.
P.S. Advils are available at any drugstoreNovember 7, 2012 8:27 am at 8:27 am #944071November 7, 2012 4:00 pm at 4:00 pm #944073
ready now-The fact that Hashem is always around doesn’t affect the answer. If you will accept that a tree falling with no one around doesn’t make a sound only vibrations in the air, then Hashem’s presence won’t change this since “hearing” is only figurative when referring to Hashem. All it means is that Hashem knows everything including those things which we perceive as sound.
Does anyone have a different question to post here this is sort of getting redundant?November 7, 2012 10:57 pm at 10:57 pm #944074November 7, 2012 11:25 pm at 11:25 pm #944075
Can form really exist without matter?November 8, 2012 11:30 pm at 11:30 pm #944076
Ready now- Hashem knows all without having to “perceive” it. Meaning that Hashem doesn’t need to come on to anything in order to know about it.
Haleivi-If that is supposed to be connected to the above discussion I fail to understand the question.November 9, 2012 2:50 am at 2:50 am #944077
Wisey- Haleivi said “come on to anything”.
I was explaining that Hashem does not do that – He is everywhere. I quoted, then corrected his words – notice the quotation marks?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.