Well said. And this is where I drop the “aCtuaLly….” So- there are levels of knowledge. If you ask a small child a question like “what color is the sky?” They might instantly respond “blue!” and someone in their cynical phase may say “it has no color you SEE color because…” and an adult will usually say “blue” and then those with more knowledge might point out color implies perception already and point out the non visible light spectrum or all sorts of broader and more specific issues of science and logic and perspective.
So if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? This question is, as you point out, more philosophical, a thought exercise- BUT- it’s actually a very literal and scientifically important question.
How so when “anyone with 2 brain cells” would “know” that sound propagates as a law? Well… because the broader implications underpin some pretty advanced quantum science at a fundamental level. It’s the question of the observer- which there is not only long standing evidence, but some very recent discoveries concerning the observer in physics. Current theories show several examples where the act of observing phenomenon changes the outcome. Sound isn’t currently on that list so much in any direction way- but we didn’t think light would be either or sub atomic particles. The question remains open then- anyone with 2 months of any scientific study would know we have the basis for hypothesis or speculation but little else until a theory is devised to test how to measure sound without observation.
Lastly- there are other ways the question still works literally- but to your point, THAT is the point of questions like this- as you formulate a hypothesis or conjecture on the question- you explore elements of your own knowledge and logic and cognition. What data or facts do you use to come to an answer? What if any experiences do you draw on and why do you believe them relevant? How do you puzzle out the question? This can help us learn to think better and also shows how we think and what we know. Looking at a question like this and saying it is stupid or the answer is simple is a bit like being asked to build a nuclear fusion reactor and saying “I totally could but it’s so easy and dumb that I won’t waste my time…” 9.9/10 times the person that says such things isn’t up to the task and is saving face or grossly overestimates their capabilities. So it is a touch ironic.
Did you mean nitwit? I've never heard or seen the word midwit.
deleted
· 1 year ago
From a quick google search it appears to be someone of SLIGHTLY above arvage intelligence. Smart enough to know stuff but dumb enough to not be able to truly understand it.
I imagine it like a wizard that knows about hundreds of spells but can cast none.
Ah thanks, yeah I didn't bother to google it. But now you've raised by interest in it to the point where I had to see where it came from. The best part is that the word got its start on reddit. It's been shortened from mid-witted coined in a 2012 article and first used in a meme on Jan. 1 2017. https://en.meming.world/wiki/Midwit
So if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? This question is, as you point out, more philosophical, a thought exercise- BUT- it’s actually a very literal and scientifically important question.
I imagine it like a wizard that knows about hundreds of spells but can cast none.