You check the crash logs
It’s an ontological argument. OP is creating a categorical distinction where “sound” is the cognitive process by which pressure waves are perceived, eg as information. I think it’s a fairly common distinction to make, but it is also kind of unsatisfying is the sense that it feels a bit like linguistic nihilism.
linguistic nihilism
i had a sudden vision of winning fediverse bingo with this entry being called
Is tinnitus a sound?
Is bone conduction sound?
Are the signals a cochlear implant produce sound?
Sound is a perception. Sound waves are what can generate that perception. But sound doesn’t always require soundwaves, so there is a difference.
It’s very much a “dancing on the head of a pin” distinction, but the baseline joke also requires it.
Yes, those all are sounds.
From Wikipedia:
Tinnitus is a variety of sound that is heard when no corresponding external sound is present.
Should have been more distinct. Sounds are just vibration, they don’t need to go through air.
Are you earnestly saying sound only exists if someone hears it?
A sound, also known as “air vibrations” to some, exists independently of a listener. It does not “become sound” only if someone hears it.
Yes and no. It all depends in what field you’re describing sound. In physics, a tree that fell in the forest most definitely made a sound. In psychology, it doesn’t.
In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid.
In human physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound
To be honest, I’m with the physicists.
