The definition says that sound is one thing or another thing. In other words, the concept can be interpreted in more ways than one, depending on the context in which the word is used. When the context is unclear, we can always speculate - or we can find many ways to answer the question.
Because there is more than one definition of sound and the context is unclear, there is no reason to insist that sound is "one thing" and "not another thing", or that sound is necessarily both of those things. Depending on the definition you use, you will come up with different answers. The answers are incompatible with each other, because some deal with perception and others with the absolute.
Here, the language is ambiguous. "[O]f a level sufficiently strong to be heard." can be interpreted in at least two ways:
1. Of a level sufficiently strong that it is actually heard.
2. Of a level sufficiently strong that it is capable of being heard.
One can use machines to record what I call sound, without any ears present (which might create what you call sound). It can then be analysed in various ways to determine whether or not it has a "level sufficiently strong that it is capable of being heard" when compared to sounds that have been heard, which had a "level sufficiently strong that [they were] actually heard".
Capability of detection is not necessarily the same as actual detection. It can only be interpreted as being the same thing if you already assume that something can only be capable of being detected if it has been detected. Our experience tells us this is wrong (we can predict the sound that something will make before we hear it), but our experience might also be wrong. All in all, there is no reason to make this assumption (although there is also no reason to dismiss the possibility entirely). The condition was that it be capable of being detected, not that it be detected. If "to be capable of committing murder" meant the same as "to commit murder", you might understand why the distinction is an important one. You might also be in prison.
Well, my only argument about absolute reality is the same thing as your last statement, so I will take the liberty of repeating you. "[T]here is no way to know the answer to that question."
It is very much based on the definition that you choose, as I mentioned and as you agreed. The reason why I don't wish to presume that the definition used establishes that sound is only sound when it is perceived is that it makes the answer self-evident and defeats the purpose of posing the question. That said, I answered it from that perspective anyway, moved on, and answered it from another.
Agapooka
Last edited:
