Understandably, most people who would be asked if a tree makes a sound when it falls it would still count as making a sound. After all, sounds are made everywhere and there is only so many our ears can process. But in the case of a sound no one hears, it does not really count as making a sound. You see, for a sound to be heard it needs an ear to hear it. And then the sound needs to be processed by a living being. If a human is present to hear a tree fall, he does not simply hear a tree falling. As the sound is made, the human’s brain processes the sound and recognizes it as a tree falling. The tree makes a sound with a human present because the human recognizes the sound as a tree falling. Now if, say, we were to substitute the animal with a human, then the animal would hear a different sound. A different sound in the sense that it hears something that is more like a rock falling onto a hard ground, not really. The animal has no comprehension of a tree. Since the animal has no concept of a tree, the sound of a tree falling is registered to the animal as just a sound. Does it think about what it heard? Chances are the animal would not. As Lisa Feldman Barrett writes in her novel, How Emotions Are Made, the sound of a tree falling “merely creates vibrations in the air and ground. These vibrations become sound only if something special is present to receive and translate them: say, an ear connected to a brain” (Barrett 206). One of the reasons this question stumbles people is because of everyone’s definition of what a sound is. Sounds, we tend to recall our middle-school or high-school science teachers teaching us, are produced by vibrations as an object moves. And that’s all there is to it. But a sound only becomes a sound when a living organism is present and mentally processes the sound that is made to recognize it with its understandings for the concepts of certain objects. Therefore, as Barrett emphasizes, sounds are not merely detected. A sound is, in actuality, “an experience constructed when the world interacts with a body that detects changes in air pressure, and a brain that can make those changes meaningful”. (Barrett 207) Another reason this statement stumbles people is because it deals directly with our personal assumptions about reality. We perceive the reality of sounds as vibrations produced by the movement from objects regardless of our presence. One of the reasons philosophers argue about the nature of reality, especially with sound, is because human senses as human experiences. Reality is different for everybody because reality itself is based on objects perceived dependently or independently by a human being. We may 'perceive' the sound of something such as a falling tree because people are present to experience the perception in order for the sound to be true. But what sounds that are not present such as a falling tree require physical evidence for the perception to be true. And this gets to why reality can be divisive. Because reality itself is dependent on the presence of humans to perceive that which is right in front of us, whether it's a physical object to be touched or a sound to be heard. CITATIONS: Feldman, Ph.D, Barrett Lisa. How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Illustrated, Mariner Books, 2018. Pages 207-208 Oxford University Press. “Quantum Theory: If a Tree Falls in the Forest...” OUPblog, 20 Jan. 2016, blog.oup.com/2011/02/quantum.

> "The animal has no comprehension of a tree. Since the animal has no concept of a tree, the sound of a tree falling is registered to the animal as just a sound. Does it think about what it heard? Chances are the animal would not." There's no way of knowing for certain that an animal can't comprehend a tree, and in fact, I would argue that it makes *more* sense for an animal *to* comprehend a tree. After all, the tree is a part of the animal's natural environment. It stands to reason that they would comprehend it, at the very least, as "home" or "landmark" or "obstacle" -- all three of which are very plausible realities of what one can perceive a tree to be. There's also no way of knowing whether or not an animal thinks about the sounds it hears -- but as an animal lover who has studied many species, and observed her own cats' behaviors very closely, I can confidently hypothesize that animals do, in fact, think very carefully about the sounds that they hear. Their very survival depends on them being able to identify threats fast enough to escape them -- and sounds are one such early indicator of a threat. For example, when one of my cats hears the sound of a dog barking outside, they stop and listen -- you can tell because they freeze up, and their ears are working every which way in order to pinpoint the sound. They are very obviously processing the sound and assessing whether or not it's a threat. If the sound gets too close to the window, they bolt -- thus acting on their *reasoning* (a.k.a. *thought process*) that the sound which they identify as "big, slobbering, dangerous animal" is getting too close for comfort. That being said -- and I *promise* that this is all leading up to the "tree falling in the forest" debate -- I also find this entire argument to be very human-centric... > "... reality itself is dependent on the presence of humans to perceive that which is right in front of us, whether it's a physical object to be touched or a sound to be heard." Contrary to popular belief, the world -- in fact -- does *not* revolve around humans. We are not the space particles that collided and stuck together to form the core of the planet, nor are we the single-celled organisms from which all life was born. Gravity does not pull in our direction, and we are too tiny -- a.k.a. insignificant -- for the world to revolve around us. Reality *especially* doesn't revolve around humans. Reality, by its very definition, is base existence: ["something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality). Note in particular how the Merriam-Webster definition specifies that reality is neither derivative -- aka the product of -- or dependent on anything. Humans didn't create reality -- reality was a higher power eons before humankind was even a speck in the sea. And reality has never been dependent on humans or anything else -- reality *defines* that which is, was, and will be. In fact, *we* depend on *reality* in order to perceive that which is right in front of us. If reality didn't ground us, we wouldn't have a clue as to what's going on. Now, finally, we get to the "tree" debate: Because reality exists outside of the almighty human's immediate orbit, it stands to reason that events occur where no human is present. We can reasonably extend this to animals, which are capable of perceiving sounds and reacting to them. With that clarified, we can now ask: If no human or animal is around to hear the tree fall, then does it make a sound? Merriam-Webster defines sound as ["mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (such as air) and is the objective cause of hearing"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sound). Note that the definition cites sound as the *cause* of hearing, not the other way around. Meaning that sound exists outside of hearing -- outside of cognitive perception. It is a physical phenomenon which occurs whether or not anyone is around to hear it. A simpler definition via [Googling "define sound"](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS788US788&sxsrf=ALeKk03ZckIe7qtdye9mFdnvN_hDCNG4-w%3A1610760126474&ei=vj8CYPC0HNKq5gKz4qPgCg&q=define+sound&oq=define+sound&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQR1AAWABg-RFoAHACeACAAQCIAQCSAQCYAQCqAQdnd3Mtd2l6yAEIwAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjwi6CJpZ_uAhVSlVkKHTPxCKwQ4dUDCA0&uact=5) makes this much clearer: "vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear." Sound wave vibrations are a physical process that happen outside of the ear -- in other words, they don't *need* the ear in order to happen. If no ears are around to receive the sound waves, then they simply keep sailing along in the air until they fade away. Any argument which claims that a falling tree doesn't make sound unless someone is around to hear it is rooted in the notion that sound is an abstraction -- a concept that only exists in the mind. [But sound is scientifically proven to be a physical process](https://www.explainthatstuff.com/sound.html) which occurs separate from a human or animal's sensory functions. Hearing sound, on the other hand, is a *psychological* process in which our brains react to the physical contact a sound wave makes with our ears -- very similar to how our brains psychologically react when something touches our skin. Last time I checked, touch -- too -- was a physical thing. So the tree definitely produces sound waves when it falls. Whether or not anyone is around to hear the sound is irrelevant. The sound was created. The sound exists. The sound lives on for a little while, then fades back out of existence. Maybe, because no one heard it, its existence was meaningless. But it did, nevertheless, exist.

Scientifically? Yes, obviously. Philosophically? That would depend on the metaphor you're going for here.

What is not observed does not mean what has not happened.

sorry, this just reminds me of that line from Dear Evan Hansen: "When you're falling in a forest, and there's nobody around- do you ever even crash? Or even make a sound?"

If we talk scientifically it still produces the vibrations we process as sound. This is very much something very strange to think about i enjoy thinking about this kinda stuff.

Considering I am leaning towards the stance of idealism, I would have to say that which occurs outside of our own experience does not exist at all!

From a scientific standpoint: a sound is a vibration travelling through air, and a tree falling would cause disturbances (vibrations) when falling through the air and when it hits the ground. Assuming that we know a tree has fallen, we know it made a sound

A sound is a sound as long as an ear or similarly functional biological apparatus perceives it. If a tree falls it makes a huge vibration in whatever it disturbs. It disturbs the ground it falls on, it disturbs the air around it. A sound is caused by movement and contact with something else as it moves, or movement within the object's own frame. As long as something biological perceives that vibration, then it has a social aspect, becoming sound. If a tree fell and there was no living thing to hear it, it wouldn't cause a sound but only a vibration. Once that vibration was perceived by a living thing, it would then be called a sound. In the arguments on this thread, it has been put forward that there must be interpretation to be a sound. This is incorrect. If I am sitting here typing, and i hear something, but don't know where that sound is coming from or what it describes, is what i have heard a sound? Well of course it is. Let us say the sound that i heard that i could not interpret at first, was later identified as coming from my stomach because i had not eaten. Would it now become a sound? Clearly, i think, identifing it or not, the mysterious sound is still a sound. Many animals have ears, and could certainly hear the sound of a tree falling. Does that mean because they can't identify the sound that what they hear is not a sound? I think to most people it is clear that if an animal can hear a sound, whether they can identify what makes it or not, it is still a sound. With the huge sound that a tree falling would make it, the animal would probably have the sense to run away from it. Many living creatures have alternatives to ears. They sense vibration. This gives them the ability to know that something around them, or at a distance, is happening. They may not know exactly what it is. But they don't ignore it as having no consequence. But what about plants? They are living. They do not have ears. Despite this the vibration from water running may influence the direction a plants roots grow. This is not the only example of plants being affected by vibration, there are many and varied. Most living things can sense vibrations even if they don't have ears.Being able to sense vibration is an ability that can be put to good use in survival. So could we say that if a tree falls the plants surrounding technically hear it? Would we call a plant a someone? So now we have examined the words meaning, of sound and someone, in the opening question. So now we can have a educated view, i think on the statement. Depending on our definition of what constitutes a sound and what constitutes a someone. "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it still makes a sound" My answer is yes it does. I believe any plant and animals would constitute a "someone" and so there would always be someone around to hear it. You can't have a forest without plants so then, there would always be someone around to hear it. But what about the questions metaphysical aspect. This philosophical idea that if consciousness is not present does anything really happen? My answer is who knows? The only way to test if reality would not exist without a conscious mind to perceive it, is for consciousness to never look to see what has happened, when it has not been observing. As to get the answer we must look. I would say this question of whether cconsciousness creates reality is unanswerable. Why? Because how can we be aware of anything without our consciousness. We are conscious and cannot escape it.