I see we come to this question from different directions, wether a sound is a stimulus, or the response to a stimulus. Allow me to quote the Standards of the Acoustical Society of America:Factually incorrect. Merriam-Webster:
Perception is inherent to all primary meanings. Otherwise, it's just acoustic energy.
Consider, a tree falls in the forest and only one deaf man is a witness. It doesn't make a sound.
The falling tree does make a sound, the deaf man is just not able to detect it. It all comes down to the question of Object Permanence, the understanding that whether an object can be sensed has no effect on whether it continues to exist.2.01 sound. (a) Oscillation in pressure, stress, particle displacement, particle velocity, etc., propagated in a medium with internal forces (e.g., elastic or viscous), or the superposition of such propagated oscillation. (b) Auditory sensation evoked by the oscillation described in (a).
Annotation 1 Not all sounds evoke an auditory sensation, e.g., ultrasound or infrasound. Not all auditory sensations are evoked by sound, e.g., tinnitus.
Again, factually incorrect. The universe is not locally real independent of observation. I don't need to point out that even the most technical definition that you quoted includes observation as part of its meaning.The falling tree does make a sound, the deaf man is just not able to detect it. It all comes down to the question of Object Permanence, the understanding that whether an object can be sensed has no effect on whether it continues to exist.
Consider: if a tree falls in the forest and there are more people around to hear it, does the tree make more noise?
The more complete interpretation -- them falling in love first and then crowning their relationship -- is favourable, because otherwise any intercourse would have sufficed.So this is a personal theory based on pure headcanon! Since the timeloop traps them as teenagers, it means they can never grow up. And "climbing the stairs to adulthood" is a euphemism for losing your virginity. Taking a deeper look, they are getting grimmer and more jaded the longer the loop goes on, and that's kind of like growing up too. So my theory is that "becoming an adult, aka having sex/maturing into a relationship" is the key to breaking the timeloop.
It's a thin theory based entirely on themes and making connections so I won't die on this hill or anything.
I swear man there's just something about the way the author draws those eyes. It just hits so damn hard and I don't know why.man this manga makes me feel some type of way idk how to explain it. Like I’m aware I’m reading a romcom and it certainly does feel like it, but at the same time there’s just some existential dread.
This chapter was nice because you can see them kind of escape from this hollow “life” that they’re in. I mean like fuck, look at their eyes man they’re fucking dead lmao.
Interesting article, thank you for bringing it to my attention. (Apologies for the late answer, real life got in the way).Again, factually incorrect. The universe is not locally real independent of observation. I don't need to point out that even the most technical definition that you quoted includes observation as part of its meaning.
That article does not support your statement. It states that "the universe is not locally real." and then goes on to explain what the terms "local" and "real" mean in this context. It also states that the universe cannot be both local and real. Then it explains the experiments that showed beyond reasonable doubt that the universe is not local.The fact is that objects do not exist until they are observed, both mechanically and, in the case of this manga, figuratively. It's a weird lesson that you have to unlearn, but that's the truth.
Trying to scale up quantum effects to something as decidedly macroscopic as a falling tree is ... bold, I'd say. We do know quantum effects do not scale. An electron can tunnel through a seemingly impossible barrier. Trees, not so much. And at the end of the day, if every time we observe an object we find it where we expect it, with the properties we expect, isn't that indistinguishable from permanence?A crowd of people will all hear different, though similar, sounds in the presence of the falling tree according to their relative position, aural acuity, and whether they are paying attention or distracted. So yes, the amount of sound is directly multiplied by the number of observers. That doesn't make it louder, but there is more of it.