Quickfire Hypotheticals! - QI Series 8 Episode 8 Hypothetical Preview - BBC One
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 окт 2010
- Subscribe and 🔔 to the BBC 👉 bit.ly/BBCRUclipsSub
Watch the BBC first on iPlayer 👉 bbc.in/iPlayer-Home More on this programme: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vs4h4
Stephen Fry begins a round of 'quickfire hypotheticals' questioning whether sound exists if there's no one to hear it?
#bbc
All our TV channels and S4C are available to watch live through BBC iPlayer, although some programmes may not be available to stream online due to rights. If you would like to read more on what types of programmes are available to watch live, check the 'Are all programmes that are broadcast available on BBC iPlayer?' FAQ 👉 bbc.in/2m8ks6v. 
Приколы
"If a tree falls down and nobody is there to see it, technically it should still be upright"
I always laugh my ass off at that, Vegas is nowhere near as dense as he makes himself out to be
He plays a character; a very funny, dumb, lovable one, but in reality he is very clever, and he lets it shine through from time to time.
Schrödingers tree 😁
Stephen reacts so well in this, under pressure from someone who knows him well and is just as confident in his own knowledge as he is yet so easily manages to seemingly come out on top!
This isn't even a philosophical question. It's just a pedantic argument about the definition of 'sound'. It's either:
1) the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
2) mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, travelling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.
And so the answer depends on the definition you use.
1) That's _hearing_ not sound.
2) That's sound.
Sound does not, by any definition need to be heard to be classified as sound.
Sub and hypersonic sounds. End of argument.
I just took the definition of 'sound' from the English dictionary. Both are correct, depending on which definition you choose to use.
I should point out also, sound can travel at different speeds - e.g. if you were to listen to sound through a particularly thick wall, or underwater perhaps.
I think the point is that neither definition makes sense for all real-world cases. If a "sound" can be made but never heard, does it make sense to call it a sound? Likewise, if a sound can be perceived but never measured (think about dreams or virtual reality) does the mechanical vibrations definition hold? No on both counts.
Lee Nicholson - further proving that it is more than just a perception of something if it can be acted upon by outside forces.
The 'philosophical' question is just pedantic semantics but Johnny vegas's joke about the tree being still standing is much more interesting its almost schrodinger's cat
The propagation of a sound wave is absolutely sound regardless of whether it is received by anything
What makes it a sound wave instead of just an "air wave" and are all vibrations in the air equal to sound even if no living thing can perceive it as the wave length is to low or high?
@@SwedishNeo In response to your first question: nothing. 'Sound wave' and your invented idea of 'air wave' are completely synonymous and there is no practical reason that we would need two different words to describe this.
In response to your second question, yes. All _longitudinal waves_ in air (and in other materials) are sound waves, regardless of whether it's actually possible for a human to hear them. It's really far more simple than you're making it out to be.
@@SwedishNeo air waves, as you describe them, _are_ sound waves but sound is the propagation of matter through _any_ medium. Submarine sonar uses sound waves in water. So not all sound waves are air waves
You could argue that a sound wave is just a wave until there is a receptacle that can interpret it into a sound. So, the concept of a "sound wave" doesn't exist, you'd just have a wave that gets propagated until it can be intepreted.
@@theDataStudent I do not understand this argument. So deaf people are silent in all their actions because they cannot interpret the sound wave? Sound is just vibrations in the air. If we limit it to 'vibrations within the human hearing range', yes, if a tree fell down in the woods and no-one was around, it would make a sound since energy can't be be created or destroyed, only changed, and so naturally you can't expect physics to simply not exist when humans aren't observing.
All this being said, it does raise some fun conversation 🤣, and it actually makes me think that a funny alternative to this hypothetical would be the original Alien movie's tagline of 'In space, no one can hear you scream'. Because with that you remove the 'physics of sound waves' part and reduce it all that stuff that isn't what I just said 🤣🤣.
Johhny: if there's the speed of sound and its only what happens in the ear.. how do you get that speed between that and your ear? .. narrow eyes
Legend!
And he was right!
hisxmark It barely makes sense, and wasn't right.
Sandi's final punctuation is perfect.
To be fair, the tree doesn't really make as much sound when its falling as when it suddenly stops falling.
Jeremy Fede A falling tree makes a lot of noise if it rubs against other trees as it falls. Also if it rips it's roots out or the trunk just fractures. I know, I'm a tree.
+c0mputer What, a binary tree?
When was the definition of sound only what someone hears?
Never heard of that before.
Because sound is just vibrations, so it is only sound if it is translated from vibration to "sound" by a creatures ear. Atleast that's what that definition of sound is.
Let's say I bring my guitar amp equipped with my favourite speaker to that forest and with the longest cable ever made purposely play something so loud through it that the speaker blows. If no one hears the sound does that mean my speaker isn't broken because "the sound doesn't exist"?
I've always hated this "philosophical question". It's physics full stop, of course the sound exists...
It's meaningless semantics. The people disputing aren't arguing against physics, they're trying to separate the physics from the word "sound" and say that sound is defined by human experience of the sound. It's like asking if nobody sees a beautiful vista, is it still a sight? It's entirely contained in what the definition of a sight or a sound is.
hamaaaaaaaa They're not arguing wether a sound is aesthetically pleasing or not.
Beauty is unique to each individual based on their experience of life, your example makes no sense. The question is weather the sound 'exists' or not which is stupid.
It physically affects the surrounding regardless of human perception. It exists. Duh.
If it's an idea that you've never heard before then clearly it's not a sound idea.
By the same logic, if there's a tree in the forest, but there's no one around to see it, then the tree has no colour.
Shfinkle Bobbins exactly, so if there're no eyes around to receive the light reflecting from the tree, it doesn't have colour.
That's what colour is, Patryk.
xonxt no, by their logic then the tree doesn't even exist.
i swear the point of the argument is that it is supposed to convince you that the tree does not even physically exist and that colour and sound are just things your mind makes up. Then i vaguely remember him trying to prove god had to exist to make his argument not one of those querky solipsistic theories.
what's a tree?
I don't like the idea that certain things don't happen or can exist in either state simply because no human or other sentient being observes it. I find that argument arrogant.
Things happen everywhere with no regard toward whether something has observed it happening. The universe doesn't care if you see it existing.
Nothing todo with human ears; just ears in general.
Right ... but that isn't the point of the question.
It not if they do exist or do happen, it's how you prove it.
If you think the tree makes sound, I can say 'prove it' and no-one can, only assume from prior evidence on how sound works.
If you think the tree does not make a sound, I can say what you basically say, and say that all falling trees make sound.
The answer is is that the tree most differently did make a sound, but you'll never prove it.
Have you read much about quantum mechanics? Observation can actually change the way physics works, sort of. It's a.. freaky thing.
That would be up to you to show that trees somehow behave differently when a human isn't around. Uniformity in nature is the null hypothesis. You're putting forward that uniformity doesn't hold when a human isn't around, it's up to you to prove the tree behaves differently.
"Observation can actually change the way physics works, sort of."
At the quantum level. There's no evidence that human observation changes the way a tree falls in the forest.
On the purely philosophical side, of whether you can know whether something outside your perception or memory _actually exists_ (which is a terribly narcissistic viewpoint, honestly), I would always answer the question of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" with "What tree?"
No one ever got what I meant.
You're a genius!
ScoopMeisterGeneral I don't get it
ScoopMeisterGeneral I don't get it
Explained: If you don't see it, does it really exist?
Oh right, you're referring to solipsism
The pause when people realise Vegas has made a valid point is epic.
Not valid though. It's just a joke.
The man beside Allan is the creator of QI!
And evidently a very boring panellist.
John's talking out his arse, totally agree with Johnny & Stephen the vibration is sound, hence speed-of-sound & sound-wave. But!! ...disagree with all 3 of them as to what the philosophical question means. My take is quite literal, trees always make a sound falling when observed (which strongly indicates they would also make a sound when unobserved) but it is impossible to observe "a tree falling unobserved", therefore impossible to prove (despite overwhelming evidence/logic/reasoning). It's like arguing the existence of god imo.
They're arguing the definition of sound and god doesn't exist.
I know and I know.
WarwickkkT101
It takes a master to hone an edge that sharp.
@@SMgrimbldoo That's not even edge, that's just the most empirically accurate statement someone can make.
A bird is bound to hear the tree fall
Don't worry I completely understand the point of the quote, I just wanted to write a witty remark lool (If I write a witty remark and no one is there to acknowledge it, does it make it witty/humorous?)
One of life's greatest mysteries
Stephen said "*as* it fell..." as in, *while* falling. Falling objects with nothing more make no sound. Thus, the answer "no" was correct.
I like how Vegas unknowingly said something about schroedingers cat.
The last question is why while I'm bummed about Stephen leaving, I'm hopeful Sandi can fill his place :)
My least favourite point about this question is the lack of acknowledgement that forests are simply full of ears, and are drums are not exclusive to humans.
I never understood why people get so flummoxed over this question..
then I think you don't really understand the point of the question.
That's because it's hard to understand morons.
Sound:
noun
1.
vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.
It's up to you as to whether you're pedantic enough to say it isn't "sound" without the ear to receive it.
"You would have penalized me with either answer? What kind of bs is that?"
"I don't know, you should take it up with the shows creator."
Shrodingers tree
I'm just imagining a meowing tree in a box now....I think that's enough RUclips for one night.
+Ash Inka That's my cue to get some sleep, I suppose.
epic face at @1:21 LOL
Who's cutting all those trees anyway ?
I love Stephen Fry, he makes me feel dumb lol!
Light is clearly not invisible. It's only visible once it hits your eyes, which is kind of the idea behind light. What he's describing is a situation in which the light doesn't come into contact with the retina. Like when you shoot a lazer in a cool, dry room, you can't see the beam, just the dot where the beam is diffusing.
Hahaha got deep there huh! Can't wait to see the whole ep
@ItsOttis That was actually a profound question though
If sound only counts as sound when it's heard,
how can the SPEED of sound be achieved?
Have we wrongly named it?
"How do you get that speed between that and your ear?"
*narrows eyes*
@PJDesseyn Actually, they discussed this in the explanation about neurologists and semanticists and physicists all having different views on the subject. The whole point was that it wasn't a simple yes or no answer. It depends on weaselly definitions.
Am I the only one who actually realized what Johnny meant with his question? If sound is only what happens in the ear, then what exactly is the "speed of sound"? Also tied into that, if sound is made in the ear, why is it that something will sound quieter, the more distance there is between you and the source? Feels kinda like the audience and other panelists just laughed at his question because it was worded weirdly. Kind of a shame really, since these are legitimate questions (legit questions for the average person to ask anyway. Even if there's easy explanations for them).
If there is a tree in the forest, there is someone around to hear it when it falls. We have seen that plants react to sound waves. Thusly, plants "Hear" soundwaves. Perhaps not in the same way we do, but yeah. Thusly, falling or not, the plant "hears" the soundwave, and therefore, a sound has been created.
So even if we attach ourself to the silly solipsistic idea of sound not existing if no one can hear it(considering we can't hear a great many sounds, sounds that Dogs, or Bees, or whatever else can hear just fine), that sound was "heard" by something.
I quite like this moment, it's fun too see Stephen in a situation like this where his argument and logic is more or less equally challenged.
Until he shuts down the guy on the left (I don't know his name), and doesn't even wait to hear what he wants to say.
That is the creator/producer of the show, John Lloyd.
He didn't shut him down, he said what he thought.
Not one second of this show is worth watching without Stephen Fry at the center.
It boils down to how you wish to define sound. The air vibration is by far the most common understanding. We know about the speed of sound, thus the vibration is sound.
@gyqz ah, but because your own throat and your own ear are connected with more particles than are in the air, you will be able to hear it. Because the particles in your throat will vibrate, causing the ones next to them to vibrate and so on until your ear and then your ear bones will pick up the vibrations and stuff....
I totally just made that up. I have no idea if that actually happens... :(
@Samwd1 His point is that if sound only exists once it is inside the ear, then the 'speed of sound' has no meaning because to have a speed it needs to travel a certain distance. If it only exists in the ear, it hasn't travelled any distance, it has just appeared in the ear and so has no 'speed'. Hope that makes sense. :)
the point of the question isnt whether or not there will be anything to hear the tree falling. It assumes that there is nothing there to hear it, as improbable as it seems, and then asks whether it is still a sound if nothing can hear it.
No. This is not a hypothetical. It has nothing to do with the 'eardrum', it has to do with the fact that sound is an abstract concept within the mind. The proof of this is directly above our heads; if a star explodes in a vacuum and we can't hear it, does it make a sound? No, it does not. The tree falling creates a SHOCK wave which is then interpreted by our audio centers as what we've learned to label 'the sound of a falling tree' AFTER those vibrations hit the eardrum. It would be more accurate to say 'If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there to hear it, does it MAKE anyone HEAR a sound?'
Fry suggests a microphone might 'hear' the sound? No, it doesn't. Audio equipment doesn't interpret sound, it records the waveforms in magnetic format and then translates them back, then when we listen and interpret it, THAT makes us hear sound, but even if it's live, we're not listening to the sound of a falling tree, we are listening to an electronic facsimile. It IS that simple.
It might be interesting to ask 'If a child goes into the forest who has never been there before, and a tree falls near him, does it make a sound FOR him?" In other words, being a sound the boy has never heard in his life or would recognize before, does that shockwave only BECOME the sound of a falling tree AFTER he's heard it?
"sound is an abstract concept within the mind"
Sound is an empiricably measurable property in the universe.
"if a star explodes in a vacuum and we can't hear it, does it make a sound?"
That's because there is no medium to carry the sound waves.
"The tree falling creates a SHOCK wave"
That IS what sound is. A series of shock eaves.
more to the point, it would be if a tree fell in the forest does it make a sound.. no, there isn't anyone to hear it. If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound WAVE, yes, it does cause the vibration wave, but it isn't sound until its interpreted by hearing it.
" sound is an abstract concept within the mind."
No. Sound is a wave of pressure in the air
"if a star explodes in a vacuum and we can't hear it, does it make a sound? No"
Correct, but not because we can't hear it, but because it doesn't produce sound waves.
"Audio equipment doesn't interpret sound, it records the waveforms in magnetic format"
The waveforms are the soud.
"does that shockwave only BECOME the sound of a falling tree AFTER he's heard it?"
No.
Thanks
The question is: 'did it make a sound?' not 'is a sound heard?'.
So the answer is: yes it did make a sound.
The sound is a by-product of the event.
The fact that you can go and SEE the tree in its fallen state proves the event took place, therefore the by-product of the event took place, therefore the tree made a sound.
Johnny cleverly hints towards this with his comment at the end. The same applies to the light by-product of the tree falling. With the 'no' logic if no one was there to see the tree fall it should still be upright.
@AlexsEscape "that guy" is the creator and chief elf on QI. Curious to see him so reluctant to drop his point though
I expected them to mention something about the Shrodinger's cat thought experiment. Taking that into account (and I know this is only theory), the tree makes a sound and it doesn't.
@ybra very true indeed.. the theory ofcourse is based on something, is there something there when you cant hear or see it.. is there sound if you cant hear, are there lights when you cant see etc..
nonetheless, you make a good point
love the Fibonacci spirals in the desk
Surely there's a difference between sound and audio? Sound is the movement, or popping if you prefer, of sound particles and atoms, and audio is the receiving of sound through one's ear? So in relation to the question, does it make a sound? Yes, but it has no audio?
A famous philosophical question by Bishop Berkley.
I see your point, but in this situation he was making that point that light is invisible. And yes. While it's true that all light is invisible if you're not looking at it (so to speak), it's a bit of a meaningless term to describe something that isn't being looked at as invisible, because it's a term which describes objects which when looked at can't be seen.
What stephen should have said is not that you can't see light, but that you can't see light not going in the direction of your eyes.
Theoretically, The cat in the box works for this hypothetical, both answers are possible therefore they must be assumed that they are simultaneously occurring...
maybe when the tree fell there was a bear shitting in the woods.....even more when he heard the tree fall,
You're right there.
@LanteanKnight What about a sound that's too low or too high for some people to hear, like those cursed mosquito tones? Are you saying that it would be a sound for only some people?
The sound is still being created. I was thinking about this and I determined that if vibrational waves are being created that would impact the eardrums to create what we call sound, then there is, indeed a sound.
We see ears as "perceiving sound" rather than "creating" it. Therefore the tree is the one creating the sound. Therefore a sound is being made.
You can argue it and see it how you like, but in my eyes, so long as that source of that sound is at work, heard or not, the sound exists. Anything further is just semantics and, ultimately, pointless.
...but fun for a quiz show.
If you define sound as reception of vibration, you can only answer the question "whether a specific sound exit TO YOU" can't you. The question "whether a specific sound EXIST AT ALL" is virtually impossible to be answered in the negative except in a hypothetical situation where there is no receptive at all.
good for you, I'm sure you'll be a future nobel prize winner
You're right there is no way to tell, but neither do we have any reason to think things stop existing just because they aren't observed. And wouldn't is be quite a mad thing to assume that the minute you close your closet all your clothes stop existing?
I don't see what this has to do with Shrödinger's Cat. Johnny Vegas was just making a joke going off of the "it's not sound unless someone hears it" thing.
@preytec you make a good point
"If tree falls ..." is a very old Zen koan.
"How d'you get that speed between that and your ear?" -_-
The disappointing moment when the clip stops and you thought for some reason you were watching a full episode :(
I freaking love Jonny Vegas
kyphilburg The only one of them with any sense
I say, it does. For a couple reasons. for one. If you had a clear soundproof box bot a ticking clock inside of it, there are still physically soundwaves in the box. So in the box it's making noise.
And also for semantics. If you had a child ask you this question and you say that it didn't, they would take away that there was no "bang" as in it didn't make a noise.
Alan borrowed a shirt from James May in this episode
i suppose this makes a distinction between the 'thing' and one's 'consciousness' of the thing itself. so when a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? to answer 'no' means that 'sound' is only when one becomes conscious of it. but to answer 'yes' is a 'logical yes' or accepting the notion that a falling tree would produce a sound. but does that make the logical actually true when you weren't there when the tree fell?
It's ultimately a somewhat silly question, but it depends on your definition of sound, rather than vibration. There are certain vibrations that humans are capable of interpreting as noise. There are slower and faster vibrations that we do not "hear," but they are the exact same phenomenon. If you felt your chair vibrate, but didn't hear anything, would you say "my chair just made a noise" or would you say "my chair just vibrated." ? They are the same thing.
@KoosSpee nice one! :)
I suppose it's still a valid point that A LOT of people now know about schrodingers cat because of the big bang theory.
Although that's not the point he was making so I am in no means defending him, and you are correct that it's a stupid assertion.
@ItsOttis It's actually nowehre near instant if you have a big enough distance
I know the answer and the answer is sound is a physical property of moving air that has the possibility of getting recieved by something that can recognize it. So yes it made a sound.
The definition of sound according to oxford english dictionary; Sound is vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear. The important part is the can be heard not must be heard therefore it's not a hypothetical question.
Well for one we could use a recording device to measure the waves even if no one is there.
And what alternative do you propose? That the laws of physics only works when someone is close?
Yes it does make a sound.
If there is a tree there is soil, and in those things insects and animals live.
Those things have ears that percieve sounds so no matter where the tree is, it makes a sound heard by some form of life.
@ExEverest10 Actually, the theory in Shrodinger's cat works on both a micro and macro scale. I suggest you whate What the Bleep Do We Know (that's the actual title, I'm not sensoring), I think it talks about how it works on a macro scale in that, though I'm not sure. And physics, I believe, is meant to connect the micro with the macro, so compartmentalizing this in a micro scale would defeat the purpose of physics.
@sinprelic Thank you! Finally, someone who took a psychology class or something similar!
@LanteanKnight What about tape recorders, as Mr. Fry points out?
2:45
"[oops]"
Isn't this actually two questions? (In regards to science) One is of definition of the word "sound," the other of quantum mechanics. We laughed when he said the tree should still be upright but that's essentially Schrodinger's cat. Until it is observed/ measured, and as far as we know mechanically counts, the tree exists in both states. This all sound nonsensical until you go down to the quantum level. To cite an experiment, look into the Double Slit Experiment.
Jonny's "speed of sound" remark should pretty much settle it, no? if we accept that speed of sound describes what it says it does, then sound refers to the pressure waves, not the reception of sound. otherwise we would have to rename the physical parameter of speed of sound to something else whenever the sound it refers to is not perceived...
But surely, if one left a recording device in the forest and a tree fell, the recording device would pick up the sound of the falling tree.
Shroedinger's cat was memetic on the internet long before Big Bang Theory referenced it.
you can tell the producer's really annoyed about losing those points :)
When you realise that the guy on the left is John Lloyd, the author behind the QI idea...
@LeftyHandedGuns All trees on the ground have "fallen". Some trees have been "felled" by a person. This hypothetical tree has not. It "fell" without anyone there to hear it.
@mgblue that 'pretentious tit' is the shows creator, John Lloyd. Also, Stephen did not prove him wrong, he said there was no yes-or-no answer.
Why do we only consider what humans can hear, what about the frequencies out of "our" hearing range, just because we can't hear it doesn't mean that it wasn't a sound.
Think again, grasshoppers. There was a 'noise' at that moment, if there was someone to witness it, it would have been received as 'a sound' that our ears, pick up and our brains record as an event. To argue, it did not happened, would be absurd since it goes against laws of physics.
Cont. Although I guess that really depends on how you define the phrase 'A lot'
Well, it's an analogy used to illustrate the weirdness of quantum physics. I doubt there'd be a physics student that had never heard of Schrodinger's Cat.
We can use the pressure wave that is a sound wave to affect things that are not ears. I
1:53 Is it me or is someone saying 'Stephen'? Mixing of channels perhaps?
+Alex Newport i think alan's just muttering into his hand
is that the explanation as to why you serve food on your table, then you look away for one moment, and in the next the food is suddenly gone? is that Schroedinger's cat?
But did the tree exist when it fell, seeing that there was no-one there to observe it?
If it didn't exist, then it cannot have made a sound either.
Well done! All you've managed to do is demonstrate that YOU didn't know what it was before The Big Band Theory...
The sound, the experience we feel when a sound wave transmits to the brain is arbitrary, just as the colour we see is arbitrary.
Bahahaha, extra points to Stephen Fry for also starting the philosophical debate in the comments.
@theguywithoutafoot How did I not see that, thank you for pointing that out haha... I love irony
ohh...mind-tickling
Heimdall heard it fall.