I guess people who lack the necessary level of abstract thinking, will find scientific objectivity to be confusing, pointless, incoherent. Meanwhile, it's the standard in scientific discourse.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 6:59 amYes, a POV requires a POINT. Points have place. Noplace can not have a point.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 4th, 2021, 6:13 pm The whole point of "the view from nowhere" is that there is none. It's an incoherent idea.
A view from nowhere is pointless.
Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
Yes, the relativity in Newtonian physics is often called Galilean relativity. It's central to Newtonian mechanics and it's the principle that the laws of mechanics are the same for all observers. Einstein et al generalized it to apply to all the laws of physics (not just mechanics), including those of electromagnetism, leading to SR and GR.Scott wrote:I think we both agree that position, size, distance, and directional orientation (forwardness,backwardness,leftness,rightness) are all relative. In general, I think you and I both agree that physics--even classical physics--is generally relative.
Agreed.In other words, I think you and I agree that it's no more accurate or inaccurate to treat one object or point as stationary versus moving or to treat one object or point as the center of the universe versus another. For instance, I think you and I would agree that the concept of movement in a one particle universe is meaningless; movement describes at least a relationship between two things (namely an increasing or decreasing distance in all dimensions except one over the remaining dimension, namely meaning over time).
If we don't agree on any of that, then please do let me know.
Indeed, it looks like we don't agree on that, but as far as I recall we still haven't established whether the disagreement is just over the definitions of words. It probably is. They usually are. In the above (and elsewhere) you equate "objective" with "observer-independent", but as I've said elsewhere, I think phrases like "observer-independent" and "viewpoint independent" are apt to cause confusion between objectivity and relativity. You've explicitly said previously that you use those two words to mean different things. Apparently not everybody does.I'm not sure if we agree on this last point: Even though both distance and orientation are relative, I believe--unlike directional orientation--distance objectively exists as an objective observer-independent aspect of the physical reality (i.e. the physics), but objective orientation doesn't.
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 chirality (handedness) 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 chirality fictional in my view.I think the fact that relative distance exists in the 2D world shown in the image in the OP but directional orientation does not demonstrates that fundamental difference, the difference between (1) mere relativity versus (2) an observer-dependent conceptual construct, such as directional orientation (e.g. which direction of the infinite is considered the front/forward direction or which direction is considered the left direction). Such directional orientation, I argue, is as a made-up mathematical construct used to conceive and conceptually model the actual physics, just like the concept of a 0D point or a 1D line. Sure, we need things like 0D points and 1D lines to do geometry, algebra, and mathematical physics calculations, but that doesn't make them physically objectively real.
For sure, there is a difference between the objectively existing physical properties of length and chirality. But, in my view, the difference is that chirality applies to objects with the physical property of reflective asymmetry and length applies to the wider superset of objects. In my usage, that doesn't make one objective and the other non-objective.
In Newtonian physics (where spatial length measurements are not dependent on the observers' movements) yes. In Einsteinian physics the quantity that all would-be observers would agree on is the interval between events (using the words "interval" and "event" in their SR sense).In the 2D world shown in the image in the OP, us and all would-be observers in that world can relatively say how many car lengths one car is from another, and agree (under classical physics at least). Us and all would-be observers in that world can agree that the distance between the red car and the green car is greater (maybe about double) the distance between the red car and the blue car.
I agree while being careful about the interpretation of "observer-independent" as mentioned above. i.e. it doesn't have to be a measurement that doesn't involve the position and orientation of the observer. Using my own position and orientation in a measurement doesn't make that measurement any less objective. My position and orientation is an extra-mental property of me, relative to other objects.If we imagine a human driver in each car facing a random direction, each driver would still agree about those aforementioned relativistic distance measurements because it is observer-independent and objective.
Those particular facts are a consequence of the fact that relative distance measurements are invariant across the transformation types you mentioned. It's not specifically about the objectivity of the property being measured.If your computer screen is 54x bigger than my computer screen, you will still agree with me about those relativistic distance measurement because it is observer-independent and objective. If you I am a bat who computes on my computer upside down (from your perspective), we would still agree on that relativistic distance measurement. Neither magnifying, rotating, nor inverting the image will cause us to disagree about those objective observer-independent measurements.
Positing those observers amounts to declaring our intention to use language in a particular way to denote the different faces of multi-faceted objects.Positing observers with noses and single-directional-facing eyes into the 2D world will not change those objective observer-independent measurements.
Yes, and unlike Santa Claus those concepts also map to objectively existing properties of multi-faceted objects.Like the concept of Santa Claus, leftness and rightness objectively exist in the universe as concepts in the minds of humans.
If we get rid of anything made or labelled by humans then we can't say anything because we've decided to get rid of denotational language. 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.But what about if you get rid of all humans and anything made by or labeled by humans? What about if you get rid of all non-symmetrical life? What about if we get rid of all life and just look at the raw lifeless mindless objective fundamental physics?
We're going to have to agree to disagree.I believe the universe does not have a forward direction. I believe the universe does not have a left direction. I believe those are useful fictions created in the minds of humans, like 0D points and 1D lines. In contrast, I believe other relativistic things like relative distance are objectively real, unlike directional orientation.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
OK, well given that Scott has stated that he doesn't equate them, I think doing so probably doesn't help. And I don't think the notion that "objective" and "absolute" mean different things in different topics helps much either. Obviously I understand that the meanings of words can be context-dependent. But I think conflating "objective" with "absolute" is not useful. As I've said, if you do that then you have to invent some other word to mean what I would use "objective" to mean. Why not just use "objective"?Atla wrote:Objective leftness and rightness and absolute left and right don't mean exactly the same thing, but they are more closely related in this topic. I equated them to try to get across what the topic even is, because everyone seemed to be talking something totaly different.
Not to me. And not according to the guy who started the topic. He explicitly says that he doesn't conflate those two words.And that's not "my" usage of objective, the word has at least 4-5 different meanings depending on context. That's the usage which seemed obvious from the OP and the previous topic.
You're saying that using singular meanings for words leads to semantic misunderstandings? You say I'm forcing my non-relevant meaning for the word "objective" onto a topic in which you'd prefer to see it as equivalent to "absolute" even though the guy who wrote the topic apparently disagrees?I don't know why you force your non-relevant and singular meaning for the word, but this will usually lead to semantic misunderstandings.
I disagree. I think declaring singular usages for words helps semantic understanding and I think just declaring "words mean different things" or "words are ambiguous" or similar hinders understanding.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7096
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
Science is not pointless, it is objective. Objectivity requires a full understanding of perspective.Atla wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 10:46 amI guess people who lack the necessary level of abstract thinking, will find scientific objectivity to be confusing, pointless, incoherent. Meanwhile, it's the standard in scientific discourse.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 6:59 amYes, a POV requires a POINT. Points have place. Noplace can not have a point.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 4th, 2021, 6:13 pm The whole point of "the view from nowhere" is that there is none. It's an incoherent idea.
A view from nowhere is pointless.
All science understands the point of view and meticulously and painstakingly employs it.
In fact there can be no science without a referent. There is no "view from no where", since there can be no nowhere. It is as incoherent as Atla.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7096
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
Chirality is the way we use to describe to objects whose structures are reflexive. The fact that you call one left and one right might be subjective, but relates always to what you call up and down.
Nonetheless chirality is a big topic in chemistry since right handed and left handed molecules behave differently.
There is no escaping this whether or not cry subjective or objective.
Nature abides and does not ask your permission, it has nothing to do with your wishes, and whether you like its laws or dislike them, you are bound to accept things as they are, and consequently all natures conclusions.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
You also seem to be deliberately using a non-relevant meaning for "absolute", so you can try to claim that your non-relevant usage of "objective" is justified. As I said, it's true that objective leftness/rightness and absolute left/right aren't exactly the same thing, I equated them to get across what the topic even is. Clearly we are talking about an absolute point of view, viewing things from no particular reference frame. Haven't seen Scott disagree with me about that anywhere.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 12:59 pmOK, well given that Scott has stated that he doesn't equate them, I think doing so probably doesn't help. And I don't think the notion that "objective" and "absolute" mean different things in different topics helps much either. Obviously I understand that the meanings of words can be context-dependent. But I think conflating "objective" with "absolute" is not useful. As I've said, if you do that then you have to invent some other word to mean what I would use "objective" to mean. Why not just use "objective"?Atla wrote:Objective leftness and rightness and absolute left and right don't mean exactly the same thing, but they are more closely related in this topic. I equated them to try to get across what the topic even is, because everyone seemed to be talking something totaly different.
Not to me. And not according to the guy who started the topic. He explicitly says that he doesn't conflate those two words.And that's not "my" usage of objective, the word has at least 4-5 different meanings depending on context. That's the usage which seemed obvious from the OP and the previous topic.
You're saying that using singular meanings for words leads to semantic misunderstandings? You say I'm forcing my non-relevant meaning for the word "objective" onto a topic in which you'd prefer to see it as equivalent to "absolute" even though the guy who wrote the topic apparently disagrees?I don't know why you force your non-relevant and singular meaning for the word, but this will usually lead to semantic misunderstandings.
I disagree. I think declaring singular usages for words helps semantic understanding and I think just declaring "words mean different things" or "words are ambiguous" or similar hinders understanding.
We can't really use a singular meaning for a word like "objective" on a philosophy forum, even if we declare what that usage is. That just leads to a breakdown of communication, the word has different typical uses in different contexts.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
If you were somewhat familiar with science, you would know that this is all well understood, contained within science's "view from nowhere".Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 1:19 pmScience is not pointless, it is objective. Objectivity requires a full understanding of perspective.Atla wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 10:46 amI guess people who lack the necessary level of abstract thinking, will find scientific objectivity to be confusing, pointless, incoherent. Meanwhile, it's the standard in scientific discourse.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 6:59 amYes, a POV requires a POINT. Points have place. Noplace can not have a point.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 4th, 2021, 6:13 pm The whole point of "the view from nowhere" is that there is none. It's an incoherent idea.
A view from nowhere is pointless.
All science understands the point of view and meticulously and painstakingly employs it.
In fact there can be no science without a referent. There is no "view from no where", since there can be no nowhere. It is as incoherent as Atla.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
What is the non-relevant meaning of "absolute" that you believe me to be using?Atla wrote:You also seem to be deliberately using a non-relevant meaning for "absolute"...
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
I guess nothing in particular, the goal is to just avoid a relevant one.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
Can you quote some specific thing I've said (as opposed to just block-quoting a large post) that leads you to think that I use "absolute" to mean "nothing in particular" with that goal?Atla wrote:I guess nothing in particular, the goal is to just avoid a relevant one.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
And these sidetracking questions are just more attempts to NOT address the actual topic, but force your own singular interpretation onto it.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 1:45 pmCan you quote some specific thing I've said (as opposed to just block-quoting a large post) that leads you to think that I use "absolute" to mean "nothing in particular" with that goal?Atla wrote:I guess nothing in particular, the goal is to just avoid a relevant one.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
Didn't the side-track start by you telling me that I'm using "absolute" to mean "nothing in particular"? If you don't like side-tracks like that, how about not telling people, without evidence, how they're using words and what their goals are in those usages? Good idea? And while you're at it, more generally, how about breaking that habit of quoting a large post containing multiple posts by more than one poster and tacking an irrelevant comment on the end?Atla wrote:And these sidetracking questions are just more attempts to NOT address the actual topic, but force your own singular interpretation onto it.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
I said that you seem to have no particular meaning for absolute here, the only goal is to not address the topic. Where did I tacke an irrelevant comment?Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 1:53 pmDidn't the side-track start by you telling me that I'm using "absolute" to mean "nothing in particular"? If you don't like side-tracks like that, how about not telling people, without evidence, how they're using words and what their goals are in those usages? Good idea? And while you're at it, more generally, how about breaking that habit of quoting a large post containing multiple posts by more than one poster and tacking an irrelevant comment on the end?Atla wrote:And these sidetracking questions are just more attempts to NOT address the actual topic, but force your own singular interpretation onto it.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
And, just so we're clear, if I object to you telling me that about myself I'm side-tracking, yes? I'm not supposed to respond to what you tell me about myself?Atla wrote:I said that you seem to have no particular meaning for absolute here, the only goal is to not address the topic.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023