Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

[Good_Egg]

...the absolute/relative and the context-free/context-dependent distinctions aren't the same thing as the objective/subjective distinction.

You nailed it with this one.

Thanks - I'll try to remember this.

[Elindeque1992]

From what I read and from my point of view, I believe it is left of the box. It is interesting how this image is causing an argument though.

[zampadamszz]

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.

[Jenna Padayachee]

Scott, your drawings are the problem!!

Your turning the pages is creating the illusion that there are two different pictures ( yes, I noted the comments; otherwise, I suspect my brain was going to do loop the loops).

So I guess from the pictures with references to all commentary concerning them and my own initial possible conclusions ( nothing was conclusive, really), other than perhaps that we as human beings come to conclusions based on what we see, our initial judgments; upon closer inspection, we find the truth ( that when things are looked at holistically from different angles, these things can simply be one thing with limitless possibilities).

[Sushan]

This is a fascinating thought experiment. The images clearly illustrate how the concept of "left" and "right" depends on the observer's perspective and reference frame. Objectively, there is no inherent left or right for any of the cars without defining a reference point. This aligns with the relativistic views in physics where spatial orientation is not absolute but relative to the observer's frame of reference. In Flatland, as in our own universe, such directions are subjective and depend on individual perception and agreed-upon reference points. Great illustration and thought-provoking questions!

[LuckyR]

Leftness and rightness definitely exist. Your left hand is not a duplicate of your right hand, they are (roughly) mirror images of one another and thus are distinct. Enantiomers are exact mirror images of each other and cannot be superimposed upon one another, ie they can accurately be labeled as "right" and "left" as separate concepts.

[Lagayscienza]

Do north and south, east and west really exist? Aren't they just human conventions. If so, then if the first maps of the world had been drawn by people in the Southern hemisphere, Antarctica probably would have been positioned at the top instead of at the bottom of the map. Try flipping a map, or better, a globe. Now imagine an alien approaching Earth from another galaxy and imagine the alien’s view as he approach Earth with what we call the South Pole dead ahead. The alien will be seeing the earth for the first time and will not have the impression he is seeing the earth upside down. So aren't north and south, east and west, forward and backward, up and down all just relative to us on Earth and dependent on our points of view or frame of reference?

And what about left and right? On earth, east and west will change from your right to your left side depending on which direction you are facing, but your left and right hands remain your left and your right hands. So our left and our right are not identical to east and west. Try superimposing your hands – you can’t get them to look the same no matter how you try to rotate of flip them. As LuckyR mentioned, there are enantiomers which are objects which cannot be superposed on their mirror images.

So I’d say that objective left and right, unlike north and south, east and west, up and down and backwards and forwards, do exist. However, if you were a perfectly spherical being with no surface markings, and able to spin in any direction on any axis, you would be achiral - you could be superimposed on your mirror image and left and right would have no meaning.

[LuckyR]

Do north and south, east and west really exist? Aren't they just human conventions. If so, then if the first maps of the world had been drawn by people in the Southern hemisphere, Antarctica probably would have been positioned at the top instead of at the bottom of the map. Try flipping a map, or better, a globe. Now imagine an alien approaching Earth from another galaxy and imagine the alien’s view as he approach Earth with what we call the South Pole dead ahead. The alien will be seeing the earth for the first time and will not have the impression he is seeing the earth upside down. So aren't north and south, east and west, forward and backward, up and down all just relative to us on Earth and dependent on our points of view or frame of reference?

And what about left and right? On earth, east and west will change from your right to your left side depending on which direction you are facing, but your left and right hands remain your left and your right hands. So our left and our right are not identical to east and west. Try superimposing your hands – you can’t get them to look the same no matter how you try to rotate of flip them. As LuckyR mentioned, there are enantiomers which are objects which cannot be superposed on their mirror images.

So I’d say that objective left and right, unlike north and south, east and west, up and down and backwards and forwards, do exist. However, if you were a perfectly spherical being with no surface markings, and able to spin in any direction on any axis, you would be achiral - you could be superimposed on your mirror image and left and right would have no meaning.

North and South definitely exist as there are north and south poles, as a separate concept it is a northern hemisphere bias that puts the north on the top of the page of maps.

Obviously there are no poles for east and west. Thus they have relative frames of reference unlike north and south which have absolute reference points.

[Lagayscienza]

Yes, there are opposite magnetic poles. But what about a body that had no means of generating magnetic poles? And what about an isolated non-polar body that had no spin? What, objectively, could north and south mean then? What meaning could notions of north and south have to anyone approaching such a body after a journey from another galaxy?

[LuckyR]

Yes, there are opposite magnetic poles. But what about a body that had no means of generating magnetic poles? And what about an isolated non-polar body that had no spin? What, objectively, could north and south mean then? What meaning could notions of north and south have to anyone approaching such a body after a journey from another galaxy?

Well this entire thread suffers from lazy syntax in the sense that "left" and "right" are used instead of the more accurate "left of center" and "right of center". Acknowledging the (required) frame of reference when using terms that only have meaning within such a context is superior to ignoring them.

[Good_Egg]

Left and right are objective but relative.

If I'm giving you directions to my house, they might go something like "...coming from the station, turn left into High Street..."

Such directions could be correct or incorrect. If they're correct then anyone who understands the English language could follow them and successfully locate my house. If I inadvertently type "right" when I mean "left" (perhaps because I usually make that journey in the opposite direction) then the directions are wrong and anyone following them will end up in the wrong place.

LuckyR has it right - any confusion is a result of "lazy syntax".

[Samana Johann]

Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

An object always relays on a subject and then there are conventions. As for left: thats where the dumb is on the right side. As for right, thats where the dumb is on the left side. Children usually get it after a while.