It's hypothetical, hypothetically the tree fell. Please allow the tree to be fallen, having fallen, as in Timberrrrr.....

I refuse. Logic is about the sequential relationship between various facts. It cannot be taken in isolation. You might as well make the initial: "Do we know if a tree fell if we do not know if a tree fell." Basically what you're doing here, in direct reaction to your frustrations in your previous two threads, is framing a question to direct people to the answer that you like.

It's called begging the question. It's a logical fallacy. You know what that is through experience though, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Not at all. Let me try a different tack.

I am asking the reader to recall a situation where they have seen or could imagine the sight of a tree falling.

You on the other hand (Sir) , are just an argumentative awkward belligerent old sod floundering in the theory of infallible logic and the ability to press my buttons.
Shoo !

See now I'm going to have to sue you for libel.

However: please explain why you refused to accept my assertion that there are multiple definitions of "sound" even though I provided, and can continue to provide, huge numbers of popular dictionaries and their definitions. You claim that "sound" is just the sensory perception of sound waves, and this contrasts with basically all dictionaries, which list both definitions in sequence.

Since it has taken 3 pages, I'll let you all in on the answer: yes a falling tree does make a sound, unless of course you define "make a sound" to mean "bakes cupcakes" in which case a falling tree does not bake cupcakes and the answer is no.

However, in such a case, everybody's time might have been more profitably employed had questioner used the normally accepted definition of "make a sound" in the first place.

It's not libel. I can prove it

You quoted, or used a definition that was out of context. In this context, and for the record, I am concerned with audible sound as heard by an ear and as something interpreted in a brain.

And who are you? These OPs really believe they retain ownership of the thread. You should have stated your definition in the first post. I'm continuing this thread with the assumption of both definitions of sound, as per all dictionaries. You may go put on your party frock. Byeee

Not ownership. But certainly responsible for clarifying.

We can compare frocks later.

Who cut my fricken tree down??

It was there earlier you know!!

But this seems to contradict your Schrodinger's Cat argument because... If no one was there to hear it, then nor was there anyone there to collapse the wave function and perceive the event of the tree falling into existence. I just feel that it's wrong for you to raise a theoretical question and "beg the answer" but then deny the plausibility of other theoretical explanations or answers that oppose your own.

If a mod makes a comment and nobody is listening, is that mod still a plonker ?

How do you know if the tree was cut down if you did not witness it being cut down? How do you know it was there before, if it is not there now? It could have just been a vivid dream? If you cannot hear a tree, how do you know if it's a magic, silent tree? If you do see and hear a tree, how do you know it's not a bee in disguise?

Tut....tut. And in case you were wondering....economisto closed this thread. And in case you were wondering, it's because you don't seem interested in it any longer.