Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The two attached images are the same. They are merely rotated 90 degrees in relation to each other to give more perspective.

Objectively, is the blue car on the left or the right?

Objectively, is the red car on the left or the right?

Objectively, is the green car on the left or the right?

One might argue that rightness and leftness are objectively physically real but require a 'reference object' or a 'reference place' to be measured. If so, then I say let the 4-sided box be the reference place or reference object, and I ask:

Using the 4-sided box as the reference object, is the blue car on the left or the right?

Using the 4-sided box as the reference object, is the red car on the left or the right?

Using the 4-sided box as the reference object, is the green car on the left or the right?


We can easily create and specify a reference frame that entails left-right (e.g. an x-axis), forward-backward (e.g. a y-axis), or up-and-down (e.g. a z-axis). However, there are infinite ways to do that. The directional orientations such as leftness and rightness would be relative to the made-up created reference frame.

In other words, leftness and rightness are not merely relative in the way that distance is relative.

Directional orientation, such as leftness and rightness, is not merely a relationship between the physical objects in the image. It is relative to a made-up (and therefore transcendental) reference frame; That is, unless we posit consciousnesses (plural) and by extension real conscious presents (plural) that can each act like a reference frame but perhaps be real.


I realize it will be hard to have this discussion without us all getting distracted complimenting me on my incredible graphic design skills, and the unbelievably realistic way in which I can draw stunning images of cars with wonderful details such as beautifully constructed wheels. But, please, my ego can only take so much stroking. The utter amazingness of my drawing goes without saying.

Horizontal Version

cars-horizontal.png (50.46 KiB) Viewed 8226 times

***

Vertical Version

cars-vertical.png (51.84 KiB) Viewed 8264 times

[Terrapin Station]

This is not a difficult or controversial issue. In the first picture, the blue car is objectively on the left. In the second picture, it's objectively on the right.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is not a difficult or controversial issue. In the first picture, the blue car is objectively on the left. In the second picture, it's objectively on the right.

They are the same picture.

[Nick_A]

Scott

Descartes asked himself, “Is there anything I can know with real certainty?” His formula "I think therefore I am" assumes a person can experience and know where AM is. But if we don't know if it is left or right, vertical or horizontal, does AM exist even though something called I is thinking? Where is AM in relation to I? If AM is everything I is not, then perhaps AM is more real then I

[Count Lucanor]

They are the same picture.

They are not, following the usual convention based on a person's point of view from an upright position.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

They are the same picture.

They are not, following the usual convention based on a person's point of view from an upright position.

Print out a copy of each, and compare. You will find you have actually printed two copies of one image.

I don't have the best memory in the world, but I assure you I only made one drawing today.

[Terrapin Station]

This is not a difficult or controversial issue. In the first picture, the blue car is objectively on the left. In the second picture, it's objectively on the right.

They are the same picture.

Actually they're not, because they're numerically distinct first off. Secondly, the spatiotemporal reference point is different due to the rotation.

[Terrapin Station]

Just in general, numerically distinct xs cannot be identical.

[Terrapin Station]

Just to be clear, because it seems like some people are not quite grasping this (from numerous discussions about this in many different threads, and not just on this forum), I'm literally talking about (sets of) points in the actual world, spatial and temporal locations. There is always some spatial and temporal location from which relations and properties are what they are, and properties and relations can't be some way from "No spatial or temporal location," because it's not possible for anything to be situated or oriented in no spatial or temporal location. So when we ask a question such as "is this to the left of that," we have to be asking with the understanding that we're asking if this is to the left of that from spatiotemporal location L, or we could say from spatiotemporal situatedness or orientation L. The idea of asking the question "context-free"--that is without some location/situatedness/orientation is incoherent.

[Count Lucanor]

They are the same picture.

They are not, following the usual convention based on a person's point of view from an upright position.

Print out a copy of each, and compare. You will find you have actually printed two copies of one image.

I don't have the best memory in the world, but I assure you I only made one drawing today.

To print one copy of each, I would have to set the printer differently in each occasion. That adjustment is an indication of one of their main differences.

If you look at the size of the images in kilobytes, you see that one is 50.46 KiB and the other 51.84 KiB. Images may be similar in many aspects, but they have different properties, thus not being the same picture.

If you look closely, zooming in with an image viewer, you will notice that the pixels that conform each rounded shape are not the same for the same angle of the corresponding shapes. That's a necessary adjustment made with the graphic software when rotating the image over the matrix of square dots of the pixel canvas. Perhaps if you had used a vector graphics software, which provides mathematically accuracy, you would have had a better chance.

Regardless of all of this, the images are different solely from the standpoint of composition. It is because they are different that we can recognize them as one being the rotated version of the other. Angles do count as properties. Things can be different just by changing modes.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is not a difficult or controversial issue. In the first picture, the blue car is objectively on the left. In the second picture, it's objectively on the right.

They are the same picture.

Actually they're not, because they're numerically distinct first off. Secondly, the spatiotemporal reference point is different due to the rotation.

The reference point is the box, or if you would like 0D reference point, simply use the center of the box.

The idea of asking the question "context-free"--that is without some location/situatedness/orientation is incoherent.

I am not sure who you are quoting when you write the words "context-free" in quotes, but nonetheless assuming that person means "objectively", then I totally agree with your above statement.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

They are the same picture.

They are not, following the usual convention based on a person's point of view from an upright position.

Print out a copy of each, and compare. You will find you have actually printed two copies of one image.

I don't have the best memory in the world, but I assure you I only made one drawing today.

To print one copy of each, I would have to set the printer differently in each occasion. That adjustment is an indication of one of their main differences.

If you look at the size of the images in kilobytes, you see that one is 50.46 KiB and the other 51.84 KiB. Images may be similar in many aspects, but they have different properties, thus not being the same picture.

If you look closely, zooming in with an image viewer, you will notice that the pixels that conform each rounded shape are not the same for the same angle of the corresponding shapes. That's a necessary adjustment made with the graphic software when rotating the image over the matrix of square dots of the pixel canvas. Perhaps if you had used a vector graphics software, which provides mathematically accuracy, you would have had a better chance.

Regardless of all of this, the images are different solely from the standpoint of composition. It is because they are different that we can recognize them as one being the rotated version of the other. Angles do count as properties. Things can be different just by changing modes.

In this case, please print just one copy, and then you can examine it without touching or distorting the printed image.

I think will find that objective rightness and leftness do not exist, but if not let me know what you do find.

[Count Lucanor]

In this case, please print just one copy, and then you can examine it without touching or distorting the printed image.

I think will find that objective rightness and leftness do not exist, but if not let me know what you do find.

If I print one copy of one image, how could I compare? Against what?

You have not addressed any of the other arguments.

Right and left are cultural conventions which point at spatial relations from the point of view of a common observer. Those relations are objectively determined for all the common observers. If you split an apple in two and locate two people in opposite sides and perpendicular to the the cutting line, the same half of the apple will be at the left of the other half for one person, and at the right of the other half for the other person. It is however an objective property because it deals with the spatial relation between the object and the common observer. The same half of the apple will be at the left or right of the other for observers in the same side. It is the same half of the apple, though. In the case above, we are dealing with the spatial relations between elements of images in a flat plane and only one possible position of the observer, which allows us to objectively determine that the two images are different. Your argument simply implies taking those images out of the original context and placing them in a new context where the spatial relations between their elements can be modified to match one to the other.

[LuckyR]

This subject is identical to the fact that while there is a north pole and a south pole, there are no absolute west and east. East and west are relative descriptions. The descriptions not only include the reference point (which the OP included) but also an understanding of true north and south (which the OP omitted), thus the concept that the two pictures are "identical". If north and south are defined the two pictures are not identical.

In the case of left and right (as opposed to east and west), top and bottom can substitute for north and south.

[Atla]

“... so deeply ingrained is the unconscious northern hemisphere chauvinism in those of us who live there, and even some who don't."