Quickfire Hypotheticals! - QI Series 8 Episode 8 Hypothetical Preview - BBC One

[ItsOttis]

Jonny vegas needs to go back to his council flat

[TheDefiantBadger]

@ItsOttis ItsOttis needs to leave his elitism at the door.

[ahmedsarwar]

schrodinger's cat...... 

[beingsensible]

Let's go with Shrodinger's Cat.

[xTheGerbilx]

03:25, did Vegas just discover Shrödering's cat hypothesis on his own? O.o

[sykotik04]

No one knew how to react when Vegas said something smart and made a Schroedinger's cat reference..

[SuddenReal]

@sykotik04 Schroedinger's forest.

[Kgeddoe]

Lloyd is not suited for this game. I have to say Fry also blundered though, by not making it clear that "yes" is also a forfeit.

I don't like the "haha of course theres a sound" crowd; when you realise that there's no such thing as colour, it's clear that it's all about how you define sound. sinprelic nailed it in his/her comment.

QI tends to play with semantics to pick the more interesting answer anyway! You could have wagered that they would pick "no" as the right answer in a normal day.

[TheHiya2009]

I like how Vegas unknowingly said something about schroedingers cat.

[markhayes69]

I think this should be: If there is no human around to invent the word sound, does sound exist? Vibrations and distubances in the universe exist well beyond our perception and when they are within it we may call them light and sound but they exist without us. A human percieving a vibration and calling it a sound is all this is really.The vibration exists without being named.

[sinprelic]

AND YET YOU MISS THE POINT! light is a perception. sound is a perception. noise is a perception. they are NOT occurrences that exist outside of our perception of reality. we see colors not because they exist out there, but because colors were invented, as it were, by the brain during evolution. apparently distinguishing between wavelengths helps! a high pitched noise.. a low pitched noise.. or a red or blue color.. they are the same thing! waves! we only give them meaning with our monkey brains.

[ItalianChick93]

@sinprelic Thank you! Finally, someone who took a psychology class or something similar!

[CruelLatitude]

@sinprelic But they are still measurable waves, even you admitted that, so its the specific definitions or labels we give these phenomena (the color "red" or the different pitches, as you've said) that are simply "perceptions"... The fact that there can be multiple definitions for the same thing seems to escape many people... "Sound" can be either a disturbance in an elastic medium (i.e. the wave itself) or the experience of hearing... Just sayin' :/

[sinprelic]

@CruelLatitude

sure, we have bands of wavelengths that, if interact with specific photoreceptor molecules on retinal cells, produce sensations of 'redishness' to varying degrees (luminosity, brightness, etc).

but, can you agree that COLOR is not the same as LIGHT; that SOUND is not the same as PROPAGATING VIBRATIONS? after all, a machine can 'sense' wavelengths, but it obviously cannot 'sense' and distinguish between colors, merely wavelength! would you not agree?

[myopium]

I don't wish to 'sound' (excuse) pretentious, but Vegas's point is interesting. IF we are to decide that ontologically (i.e concerning the existence of things) sound only exists until the vibrations are received then it makes no sense to measure the speed with reference to the object giving off the vibrations. After all, sound only comes into existence after its reception in the brain. We'd be testing the speed of vibrations (i.e. not sound) and then at the end of the process sound would flicker

[mgblue]

lol glad stephen shut that pretentious tit up and ofc there is sound whether someone is there or not...

[ConradMcBad]

@mgblue that 'pretentious tit' is the shows creator, John Lloyd. Also, Stephen did not prove him wrong, he said there was no yes-or-no answer.

[mgblue]

@ConradMcBad lol shows creator...gimme a break, stephen and alan are that show, and there is a yes or no answer...its semantics and wording but 'sound waves' are 'sound waves' whether there is someone there to hear it or not

[hammeredshitsteak]

If a man speaks his mind and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?

[CrissCross407]

Johnny Vegas reminds me of Fat Bastard from Austin Powers

[Elzebub666]

Wow, Stephen Fry looks young

[QWieke]

@Elzebub666 Dispite this clip being from season H, the second to last season.

[sama31655]

Is Sandi a Hufflepuff?

[MrEdLoop]

1:19= Best squint ever.

[JDLupus]

Vegas is like a lesser form of Pilkington, both of whom can offer astounding insights through illogical thought :)

[Samwd1]

I dont understand johnys question, someone explain it to me please.

[crsohr]

@Samwd1 His point is that if sound only exists once it is inside the ear, then the 'speed of sound' has no meaning because to have a speed it needs to travel a certain distance. If it only exists in the ear, it hasn't travelled any distance, it has just appeared in the ear and so has no 'speed'. Hope that makes sense. :)

[Bloodlovefreak]

Love how the plebs are thumbing up the simpletons answer.

[tomharding]

If only someone cloned a few hundred Stephen Frys.....

[BuskingHobo]

Tie guy is a moron, obviously if a beam of light in a vacuum passed in front of you you couldn't see it as the light isn't going into your eyes. What a tool.

[MrGuvnah]

@BuskingHobo

That IS sort of exactly what he said, though.

[BadWolfRose2007]

@BuskingHobo I don't get how 'tool' is an insult. Tools are useful, yes? They build things and stuff. So you're basically calling tie guy useful.

[tintiringa]

Johnny Vegas talking sense for once!

[ybra]

This is bollox, sound is the compression wave in the air regardless if anyone is there to hear it. It is like saying "are there any waves on the ocean if there isn't a surfer there to surf it?".

[BigMisterApple]

@ybra very true indeed.. the theory ofcourse is based on something, is there something there when you cant hear or see it.. is there sound if you cant hear, are there lights when you cant see etc..

nonetheless, you make a good point

[KoosSpee]

at 3:21 Schrödinger's tree

[smoki666x666]

@KoosSpee nice one! :)

[free2singxgrl]

"How do you get that speed between that and your ear?"

*narrows eyes*

[mrhenk007]

@free2singxgrl -.-

[travisoffline36]

Theoretically, The cat in the box works for this hypothetical, both answers are possible therefore they must be assumed that they are simultaneously occurring...

[Wellsypig15]

@ForgotMyName3 A valid point, but if you look at "youngs double slit experiment" the results appear to differ depending on whether or not the experiment is observed. There is more to this world than we understand...

[Ryakki]

@Wellsypig15

Bah, that's most likely short range electromagnetic interference of the recording device.

Regardless, the electrons in that experiment exist either way, their behavior is simply altered.  As the sound/light waves exist when a tree falls, no matter if observing them alters them in some way or not.

The correct answer to the question is yes. The wrong answer is no. There may be a circumstance where that is not true... but I can not think of one. QI isn't always very accurate.

[01hcirich01]

Sound isn't the human perception, thats called hearing.

[deathoctober]

epic face at @1:21 LOL

[CakesnakeFilms]

i am in awe at how stupid that man is

[ploik21]

how exactly was this quickfire...

[LethalJizzle]

The pause when people realise Vegas has made a valid point is epic.

[oneworldfamily]

Which is better - QI or HIGNFY?

[JasonNerdbane]

@oneworldfamily I like HIGQINFY

[HITMANSPIKE007]

"If the tree fell and nobody was there to see if fall, it should still be upright."

^^^^^^^^^ Fucking This. ^^^^^^^^^

[ramG35]

bunch of idiots talking semantics

[VanargrandsEnd]

@ramG35 Idiots talking semantics... Oh the irony and stupidity of that statement

[ramG35]

@VanargrandsEnd which part? is it the part where your retarded?

[VanargrandsEnd]

@ramG35 The very idea that an idiot can talk about semantics. That is also where the irony lies just incase you are confused. Would you like me to explain what the irony is? How am I retarded if you could not even figure out what I was talking about smartass.

[theguywithoutafoot]

@VanargrandsEnd Your well thought out and intelligent retort could easily have been replaced by pointing out the fact he put 'your' instead of 'you're' whilst calling you retarded, that's the irony.

[VanargrandsEnd]

@theguywithoutafoot How did I not see that, thank you for pointing that out haha... I love irony

[SkrateBeastin]

"You may disagree. You're just wrong."

I wish he had said that...

[TwiztidShet]

What if it well on a badger?

[PJDesseyn]

QI failed this one...the existence of sound doesn't require a perceiver, it merely needs a medium. In this case, air is the medium, so when the tree fell, there was sound involved. Hence, the answer is "yes".

[leaguesmanoframsgate]

@PJDesseyn Actually, they discussed this in the explanation about neurologists and semanticists and physicists all having different views on the subject. The whole point was that it wasn't a simple yes or no answer. It depends on weaselly definitions.

[jursle]

@leaguesmanoframsgate Yes, but the neurologist's definition runs into a lot more problem, like the recording device, or a beam of light not hitting anyone's eyes, is it still light, all of that. Applying Occam's razor, the physicist's answer is the most simple and the most elegant, and therefore correct.

So if you wanted the *most* correct answer, it would be yes.

[leaguesmanoframsgate]

@jursle Fair enough. I am a physicist, though... so I just wanted the others to have their go. I mean, neurology doesn't have that achingly pretty Dr. Cox...

[kustomkure]

ohh...mind-tickling

[kustomkure]

I am sorry, but why did Stephen say "mooty point"? Isn't it "moot point"? Or am I missing something here?

[Megadoomface]

@kustomkure hehe It is Moot point I just think he likes making up words sometimes.

[badmovebaker]

Bahahaha, extra points to Stephen Fry for also starting the philosophical debate in the comments.

[thevampirefrog06]

Saying that whether something is a sound or light depends on whether or not it reaches a person seems rather conceited of us. I'm with Vegas and the physicists... a sound wave is a sound. If a tree falls in a forest, it causes the air around it to vibrate, creating a sound wave, which is a sound. Whether or not someone's close enough for the wave to vibrate their eardrum is moot.

[LanteanKnight]

@thevampirefrog06

No of course not. A sound is only a sound when the information reached the brain and is processed. It's all vibrations before that.

[thevampirefrog06]

@LanteanKnight What about a sound that's too low or too high for some people to hear, like those cursed mosquito tones? Are you saying that it would be a sound for only some people?

[LanteanKnight]

@thevampirefrog06

Yes I suppose so

[thevampirefrog06]

@LanteanKnight What about tape recorders, as Mr. Fry points out?

[LanteanKnight]

@thevampirefrog06

They aren't brains and do nothing else than translate the vibrations into dots on tape. Once the information is put into vibrations again and the brain is able to process it and there is sound.

[thevampirefrog06]

@LanteanKnight Well, I think most scientists would disagree with you, but to each their own.

[lostfanvanjellies22]

@thevampirefrog06 Vibrating air doesn't sound like anything.

[ExEverest10]

(Unless one would like to propose the idea that we live in a system which only exists in our immediate surrounding, i.e. there's no sound if nobody hears it, because there's no object, nor anything that exists, if it's not in the immediate surrounding of a sentient being. Perhaps following up with the idea that, how do we know something happened if we didn't see it happen? Seems a little baseless, but 'd like to find out if that's what the author implied by this hypothetical-feel free to reply)

[ExEverest10]

I disagree with Stephen on the point that there's no right answer-this doesn't strike me as a philosophical question, but rather, a linguistic one. If you define sound as the vibration of molecules at a certain frequency, or a group of frequencies, then the answer is that there is a sound. If you define sound as something that a sentient recipient hears through his/her/its cognitional organs, and if there's no recipient, then there's no sound. Simple. (at least in my opinion)

[Ishkur23]

He only considers sound once it enters the ear, but he didn't specify what kind of ear. There would have most certainly been other animals in the vicinity that would have heard the falling tree. Therefore, it made a sound. Deer, wolves, bears..... maybe the beaver that chopped the tree down. They all heard the sound. This is a stupid paradox.

[ultraviolet128]

you can tell the producer's really annoyed about losing those points :)

[MtheGate]

What if a deaf person is there?

[npon]

i didn't enjoy this episode as much due to the producer/ creator being on it.. he was really pretentious

[SluzBag1993]

0:04

[preytec]

what about ultrasound? we can't hear that but it's still sound.

[Vennificus]

@preytec you make a good point

[soylentgreenb]

Rubbish. A sound is just a mechanical wave transmitted as an oscillation in pressure through matter. There is no requirement for it to be heard by anyone or any thing.

[bobbysnobby]

@soylentgreenb

Sound. Noun. The sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. Is also a viable definition and is listed as #1 for dictionary.reference. The point is it depends on how the individuals define sound there are more than one definitions and thus have more than one answer.

[soylentgreenb]

@bobbysnobby Yes, that's the science illiterate definition of sound and can be safely ignored when around adults.

[bobbysnobby]

@soylentgreenb Your kinda missing the point of the debate its about linguistics not physics. When Fry brings up Semanticist it is because a Semanticist studies the meanings of words and phrases. The point is that it could be argued that sound is the experience which is created by the work conducted to our ear drum via a pressure wave. The wave exists regardless but what you could call it is a wholly different argument. Now child, go back to your science class this debate is for a linguist.

[soylentgreenb]

@bobbysnobby Don't revive archaic and operationally useless definitions that have not just been put out to pasture, but are fertilizing it from below.

When someone says they are hearing a sound they do not mean that they are hearing a sensation produced by stimulation of their auditory system; because hearing IS the sensation. When somebody says they have recorded a sound, they do not mean that they have recorded an FMRI of the brain of a person.

Go back to your linguistics circle-jerk.

[bobbysnobby]

@soylentgreenb The distinction between a P-wave and a sound wave is a observer biased distinction. when someone says they are hearing a sound what they mean whether or not they know it is that they take a pattern of pressure and interpret it into a sensation we call this sensation hearing and what we hear as a sound. Sound does not cause us to hear, what causes us to hear is a pressure wave. If we didnt have ears we wouldnt have seen a difference between a pressure through air or a earthquake.

[ASaxonAtHeart]

@soylentgreenb Amen!

[sliver321123]

@soylentgreenb

Exactly. How silly that man with the tie is. Same thing for light. Things exist outside our perception. Herpin and derpin.

[gyqz]

@soylentgreenb Yup.....and for the less intelligent people : If you are talking to a born deaf person, does that make your words non existent? NO, because sound doesn't need a recipient!

[BadWolfRose2007]

@gyqz But, you'll be able to hear it, so there is a recipient, therefore your words exist.

........ I confused myself D: I think I just argued both sides of the argument in one sentence. erm... I don't know :(

[gyqz]

@BadWolfRose2007 Not unless you yourself are deaf! :-)

[BadWolfRose2007]

@gyqz ah, but because your own throat and your own ear are connected with more particles than are in the air, you will be able to hear it. Because the particles in your throat will vibrate, causing the ones next to them to vibrate and so on until your ear and then your ear bones will pick up the vibrations and stuff....

I totally just made that up. I have no idea if that actually happens... :(

[gyqz]

@BadWolfRose2007 Ok...to test that out, I will have my ear bones removed tomorrow and see if you are right! I will also have my ears sucked ( eeeww) to a vacuum, so no particles are left to vibrate ( who wants a vibrating ear anyway?). Did you notice just now, what I will do in the name of science?? LOL. But to be serious : You might have totally made that story up, but is sounds believable!! :-D

[Dougieslittlejoanna]

I expected them to mention something about the Shrodinger's cat thought experiment. Taking that into account (and I know this is only theory), the tree makes a sound and it doesn't.

[ExEverest10]

@Dougieslittlejoanna I'm not wholly familiar with quantum mechanics, but I think schordinger's cat was an experiment based on a single electron, not a collection of electrons, or other subatomic particles. The tree, made up of *a lot* of atoms, will most definitely make a sound, as (at least far as I know) on a macro scale-newtonian physics apply, everything is very certain. Micro scale-we deal with distinct particles, and everything is uncertain. I'm not sure if the comparison's appropriate.

[Dougieslittlejoanna]

@ExEverest10 Actually, the theory in Shrodinger's cat works on both a micro and macro scale. I suggest you whate What the Bleep Do We Know (that's the actual title, I'm not sensoring), I think it talks about how it works on a macro scale in that, though I'm not sure. And physics, I believe, is meant to connect the micro with the macro, so compartmentalizing this in a micro scale would defeat the purpose of physics.

[ExEverest10]

@Dougieslittlejoanna I am getting a strong indication that you're disagreeing with me purely on principle. Physics is a general term for a science which describes the properties of matter and energy, as well as the interaction of the two, so it's not concerned with the 'connection' of the micro/macro scales, as they are inherentely connected, but represent a different picture respectively; imo akin to looking at something from the ground, and from space. Both times you're looking at the same

[ExEverest10]

@Dougieslittlejoanna thing, but looks different. It's fairly simple to look this, and the 'cat' thought experiment up, so there's no need to rely on a documentary. Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment meant to purely reflect the percieved ridiculousness of the copenhagen quantum mechanics theory, where the micro can't translate to the macro. The tree falling is purely macro, as there's no unique micro intervention that somehow affects the process, as it does in the cat experiment.

[ExEverest10]

@ExEverest10 but it* looks different

[ExEverest10]

@Dougieslittlejoanna Nobody is strictly compartmentalizing micro in regards to the macro, it's just that the uncertainty, which is very relevant on the micro scale, is almost irrelevant on the macro scale. i.e. you wouldn't be concerned with suddenly exploding into hundreds of mols (6x10^23) of protons, and yet, there's a highly unlikely chance of that according to quantum mechanics.

[LeftyHandedGuns]

FELLED tree! Not "fallen"! lol

[SanchoSanchoSancho]

@LeftyHandedGuns All trees on the ground have "fallen". Some trees have been "felled" by a person.  This hypothetical tree has not. It "fell" without anyone there to hear it.

[meauxtheaverage]

John Lloyd's, shut up -_-

[kawless]

Silly philosophers!

[peggysav83]

Hahaha got deep there huh! Can't wait to see the whole ep

[MissChessur]

I love his smile at the start! roflmao! :D

[RaymondCorrigan]

The whole time I was saying under my breath "What about a tape recorder, what about a tape recorder, what about a F%&$'ing tape recorder!"

Then Stephen says it and the guys face at 2:42 is just priceless!

[bangaw79]

No arguments.. I love that chief elf's and Stephen's tie..

[sissyboi]

@AlexsEscape "that guy" is the creator and chief elf on QI. Curious to see him so reluctant to drop his point though

[liiiiiiiiiike]

the vibrations are obviously there anyway but a physical vibration or wave from a tree falling is very different to the qualia (subjective experience) we get when our brain interprets those vibrations. we know that if nobody is there to hear it then the former still happens yet the latter doesnt, the question is whether the word 'sound' applies to the physical vibrations or the qualia. so really its just a linguistic point.

[MusicMadSuperAwesome]

The guy in the pink tie is wrong. :D

[mediumdensityfibre1]

Curious to see John Lloyd becoming entangled in a narky point about what is "sound" on the show HE created. You might expect a comedy producer of his pedigree to know when to let a point go.

[chazmeistro]

Who knew? Johnny Vegas is a brilliant philosopher...

[MrMudkipKing]

A tree falls and no one hears it. As I believe so much it would make a sound, to me it would make a sound. The noise however will never exist

[MrMudkipKing]

Something cannot exist without being discovered by a mind first

Something cannot carry on existing if it is forgotten as memories give what we discover a point

We cannot know anything..... only suspect like facts are just extremely convincing points of view.

And Each man has his own world

[koreindian1]

@MrMudkipKing

So then nothing existed before sentient beings arrived?

Then how did the matter that would later come to form conscious systems form if they could only be considered "real" once they have been registered by a mind?

[MrMudkipKing]

@koreindian1 you've answered your own question. When connscious systems arrived they thought, therefore they were, therefore existed and they noticed they arrived from evolution and what not.

To me Things existed before consious beings could notice them because I myself believe they were as do you it seems.

[RaymondCorrigan]

@MrMudkipKing

Hey, I hope you understand that I don`t want to come off as rude.

It sounds a lot like you`re repeating something you got from the movie "What the bleep do we know?". Am I correct in assuming that?

Either way, the premise is flawed. This idea came from a simple misunderstanding of the word `observer`, as used by quantum physicists when they describe their experiments.

An observer is necessary to create a particle from a wave function, but observer just means `interacting particle`.

[MrMudkipKing]

@RaymondCorrigan

????? 1 Never seen that movie, 2 These sayings are quotes, I have heard them many times before especially by philothisers. 3 No its not flawed as its controled by the opinion and i doubt your wiser than plato and isn't called that, thats a physics term. I agree that probabilities rely on the view of the situation but it has nothing to do with what i said. Your reading out the wrong book

[MrMudkipKing]

@RaymondCorrigan I don't know why but a comment you sent a week ago has just come threw, its also been flagged as spam and i can kinda see why. My exact words are not quotes by plato, physics did not give the philosophers the ideas, how could they there not scientist. Light sound.... they were just talking about aspects of science controlled by the opinion so leave the scientist part alone. Plato never said I think therefore i am. I didn't say that nor imply it. O.K

[RaymondCorrigan]

@MrMudkipKing

It wasn`t flagged as spam (No "spam"). I removed it because I realised the wording made it look like I was saying Plato said "I think therefore I am.". In the end I just decided to leave the wording as it was, because that is only 1 interpretation of the sentence.

Anyway, let`s get back to your claims.

"Something cannot exist without being discovered by a mind first"

1. What is the reason to hold this opinion? (An actual reason would be better than an argument from authority)

[RaymondCorrigan]

@RaymondCorrigan

You`re obviously going to say that it`s an opinion, so therefore you don`t need any proof.

If so then your point is just as valid as me saying that it is my opinion that fairies exist, therefore fairies exist.

(If you respond that your point is fairies do exist because I believe in them, you have missed the point. If your position is wrong then your belief in it cannot cause it to exist as that is circular logic.)

Also, remember to give me actual reasons to believe what you say.

[MrMudkipKing]

@RaymondCorrigan 1 One of your comments has been removed... I assumed it was you who removed it, 2 the other WAS flagged as spam. 3 You have responded to yourself. 4 The only time believing something exist just because you want it too is in religion. You will never believe in fairies as you have used it to explain something you find ridiculous. You can say they exist if you want, all that says is you want what you know is fake to be true. ok

[RazielCuts]

Has this guy ever seen/been on QI before?

[sposhmash]

Did anyone cop Stephen Fry's Blackadder reference at 3:47 "yes you can, Darling"

[VSL123]

@sposhmash That's just Fry being Fry.

[XboxSolo]

@sposhmash yh i heard that lol

[JohnsonLobster]

@sposhmash Darling is also a word.

[FoxesNat159]

@sposhmash "What do you want Darling?" - "It's Captain Darling to you." Love Blackadder

[kisbie]

@sposhmash Stephen is just saying "darling" in that way that luvvies do, like normal people say "mate".

[carpeinfinitum]

I love Sandi Toksvig .. she's much funnier than most other entertainers.

[TheDavelogan]

Vegas owned that round

[TommyEck10]

1st



[theunhappyhours]

@TommyEck10 congrats.