Say Something Jedi.

[Blairgowrie]

The silence is killing me.

[Snacko]

[Jediteo]

Silence is an interesting topic actually. Sound is usually defined by most people as something one can hear, thereby implying some form of observer requisite. However, as we all know the physical definition of sound is vibrations of mass in certain patterns and wavelengths. Therefore one may ponder if the age of question whether a tree falling in the woods but no observer is present, is actually a sound emitted. If one postulates that sound is needed to be heard to be called a sound, i.e an observer hearing the falling, the absence of an audible reception would render the tree silent. One would then assume that all the myriad of vibrations that occur are merely a cacophony of vibrations and not sounds unless they are actually heard. However this would require some form of definition or quantification of what can actually be regarded as heard.

In conclusion, there are two separate paradigms evolving from this dispute, one stringently positivist and the other relying on largely normative statements. To return the the original topic, silence may not be silence after all.

How about that?

[Blairgowrie]

Snough!

[DD_Arthur]

[Pooka]

Silence can be golden.

Thanks Jedi... Pooka

[Streak]

[JensenPark]

Please Jim and everyone:

Never wake a sleeping Jedi again.

[Tribunus]

One would then assume that all the myriad of vibrations that occur are merely a cacophony of vibrations and not sounds unless they are actually heard. However this would require some form of definition or quantification of what can actually be regarded as heard.

In conclusion, there are two separate paradigms evolving from this dispute, one stringently positivist and the other relying on largely normative statements. To return the the original topic, silence may not be silence after all.

How about that?

Mate, anyone who has ever been married is well aware of that.

[Sid]

One would then assume that all the myriad of vibrations that occur are merely a cacophony of vibrations and not sounds unless they are actually heard. However this would require some form of definition or quantification of what can actually be regarded as heard.

In conclusion, there are two separate paradigms evolving from this dispute, one stringently positivist and the other relying on largely normative statements. To return the the original topic, silence may not be silence after all.

How about that?

Mate, anyone who has ever been married is well aware of that.

Absolutely Tribunus. In fact, in that respect silence can be likened to the scenario of an elephant in the room that no-one wants to talk about - something huge is in the way and is acting as a block but people walk around it rather than deal with it.

So, for once I agree with Jedi (cr@p) in that silence may not be silence after all. Silence = elephant

I'm glad I can type this silently rather than saying it......believe me!