I agree that if that was the argument it would be insufficent.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 12:55 pm So it seems to me from this part that at least one difference between us is that I don't think the linguistic conventions used to describe a phenomenon make that phenomenon a fiction. I think[directional orientation (e.g. forwardness, rightness, backwardness, leftness, etc.)]is an objective phenomenon despite the fact that the sides we call "left" and "right" are chosen arbitrarily. i.e. the fact that we could reverse the meanings of those two words doesn't make [directional orientation (e.g. forwardness, rightness, backwardness, leftness, etc.)] fictional in my view.

For instance, we could swap the meaning of the word "further" to mean "closer" and "closer" to mean "further", but that doesn't logically conclude that the objective (but still relative) distance measurements do not exist, independent of our labels. Quite the opposite: Distance measurements (e.g. the fact that the distance between the blue car and red car is less than the distance between the blue car and the green car) are objective and observer-independent, and exist independently of made-up labels or reference frames. Thus, all observers will agree on that measurement, even if they use different words or whole different languages to describe that fact. In all reference frames, that distance measurement will be the same. If measured in feet or meters, it will still work out the same. It's an

**objective observer-independent fact**that the distance between the blue car and red car is less than the distance between the blue car and the green car.

We don't need to change the meaning of the English words leftness and rightness for it to be true that whether the blue car is on the left or the right is observer-dependent and/or reference-frame-dependent.

The issue isn't (merely) that the side labeled as left side could be labeled as right and that the right side could be labeled as left, but rather the issues is in part that there are no two sides at all to even be labeled, not without a reference frame (something observer-dependent). The concept of there being two sides that need to be labeled comes from

*imagining*a 0-width divider between the two would-be sides that doesn't really exist, and can be imagined as being anywhere, and will be imagined differently by different observers making it utterly observer-dependent. The divider between the would-be left-or-right side and the other would-be left-or-right side does not exist, not objectively in an observer-independent and/or reference-frame-independent way.

Thus, just like you cannot say whether the blue car is on the left or the right (because it is not observer-independent and not reference-frame-independent), you also cannot even say which cars are on the same side as each other.

In terms of the left side and right side, are the blue car and the red car on the same side? (Meaning if one is on the left both are on the left, and if one is one on the right then both are on the right.)

Are the green car and the blue on the same side?

There is no observer-independent reference-frame-independent 1D line dividing the singular whole into two sides of pre-labeled would-be left and would-be right. There are no observer-independent reference-frame-independent sides to be labeled.

No, we don't need to get rid of asymmetrical things, only asymmetrical observers, and only as a hypothetical to prove that something is reference-frame-dependent and thus observer-dependent. (Humans carry their subjectivity and imaginary things with them in their brain as baggage, constantly mistaking the made-up or subjective as real and objective.)Steve3007 wrote: If we get rid of non-symmetrical things then we get rid of leftness and rightness because chirality is an objective property of non-symmetrical things.

The objects in the 2D world depicted in the image in the OP are not symmetrical. The 2D world is not symmetrical. Asymmetry (a.k.a. chirality) does not provide observer-independent or reference-frame-independent directional orientation (e.g. forwardness, leftness, backwardness, rightness, etc.). The following questions about the asymmetrical 2D world prove that fact:

You

**can**answer this question because it asks about an objective (albeit relative) observer-independent reference-frame-indepenent physical fact:

*Is the blue car closer to the red car or is it closer to the green car?*

You

**cannot**answer this question because it is reference-frame-dependent and thus also observer-dependent (directional orientation):

*Is the blue car on the left or the right?*

You

**can**answer this question because it asks about an objective (albeit relative) observer-independent reference-frame-indepenent physical fact (distance):

*How many car-lengths away is the red car from the green car?*

You

**cannot**answer this question because it is reference-frame-dependent and thus also observer-dependent (directional orientation):

*In terms of left and right, are the blue car and the green car on the same side or on opposite side?*