Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

[RJG]

...even if 2D cars did exist, then these 2D cars will still have spatial orientation (directions) between these cars and to the sides/lines of these cars.

Then, regarding the image in the OP, is the blue car objectively on the left or objectively on the right?

...from which other car are you referring to?

The reference point is not another car. It is the 4-sided box. The "from which" is the 4-sided box.

Scott, do you not see the nonsense of this answer?

• If you ask me: "How far away is Tokyo?"
  And I reply: "...from where?"
  And you reply: "From planet Earth"

Doesn't this response seem intentionally evasive and just "playing games"? ...it certainly does to me.

Okay, let me try to be a little more specific so as to prevent any further wiggling. Here goes → so you say the reference is the 4-sided box, okay, so then from which line of this 4-sided box are you referring to?

Are you saying you need to know which direction from the 4-sided box is considered forward?

No, all I need is a 1D line as a reference (since these are 2D cars). Just tell me which line on which 2D car that you are referring to (or if you insist on continuing to play games, then tell me which line on the 4-sided box that you are referring to).

Again, if objects exist, then relationships (spatial orientations between objects) also objectively exist. You can't deny one without denying the other. It's a package deal.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

RJG,

Are you using the word objective to mean something other than observer-independent? If so, what do you mean by the word objective?

Do you agree that observer-independent forwardness, leftness, and rightness do not really exist?

so you say the reference is the 4-sided box, okay, so then from which line of this 4-sided box are you referring to?

I don't know which you mean by "from which line". Are you asking which side of the 4-sided box is the front side?

Are you saying you need to know which direction from the 4-sided box is considered forward?

No, all I need is a 1D line as a reference (since these are 2D cars). Just tell me which line on which 2D car that you are referring to

[Emphasis Added.]

I don't know what you mean by "which line on which 2D car that you are referring to".

Again, if objects exist, then relationships (spatial orientations between objects) also objectively exist. You can't deny one without denying the other. It's a package deal.

You absolutely 100% can have one without the other as shown in the 2D image in the OP. There are objects in the 2D image. Those objects have objective physical relationships (namely distance), but there is no observer-independent and reference-frame-independent directional orientation. One exists; the other doesn't.

As already shown in earlier posts, relative distance exists objectively in an observer-independent way, but directional orientation (e.g. which way is forward) does not.

All observers can agree on the relative distance between the red car and the blue car because it is observer-independent and reference-frame-independent.

Directional orientation (e.g. fowardness, rightness, leftness, etc.) are depend on the observer and/or reference frame.

[-0+]

nobody can say--in an observer-independent way--whether the blue car is objectively on the right or objectively on the left.

Rather than query objective left/right in a binary way, another approach can be to ask: What, if anything, can be said objectively about leftness/rightness with respect to the blue car in the original image?

Also it can be asked if any additional information is required. What additional information, if any, will allow the binary right or left question to be answered objectively, or at least allow more to be said objectively about leftness/rightness, with respect to the blue car?

When ask whether the blue car is on the left, this is normally a question of "is on the left of" which requires a reference plane or a reference object that can provide this plane. If the question does not provide this then the question "is on the left" can be answered subjectively by providing a reference object (typically the subject) or a reference plane (like based on a line down the middle of the image as this appears to the subject).

To answer this objectively, there needs to be an objective reference plane/object. If there isn't one then "is on the left" is not objective but "is on the left of" could potentially be objective - this may be main question of interest here.

If ask whether the blue car is on left of the red car or not, there is still the question of "relative to what?". It may be assumed this means relative to the red car but this can't objectively be assumed as answers may vary depending on the relative-to viewpoint. Relative-to can be the same as the reference object. If it is, then the reference object needs to be able to provide a forward direction and an upward direction. (What are the forward and upward directions of the red car in the original image? It appears some subjective imagination is needed to answer that?) ... If it isn't, then the reference object only needs to provide a single point and the relative-to reference just needs to provide a position and upward direction - the forward direction can be determined from the line between the two (eg, from the reference box to the red car: both can provide a position, but how can the 2D box provide an upward direction without additional information?).

Alternatively, a reference plane can be provided without referring to any objects. At least 3 points are needed to define a plane. Is this all the additional information that is required?

If "is on the left of" is objective, then someone could demonstrate this by providing a method that: accepts all required additional information as parameters; and calculates the answer objectively the whole way, without any subjective intermediate steps, and without any references to "left" or "right" (or anything the depends on left or right) along the way.

Would anyone like to do this (or point to where this has already been done)?

[RJG]

Do you agree that observer-independent forwardness, leftness, and rightness do not really exist?

No. It is not that they "don't exist", it is that their positions/values are "relative" to us human observers.

A 2D universe (as depicted in your picture) can't be a 2D universe without 2 dimensions. These dimensions objectively exist. The X dimension (that we may call "left-right") and the Y dimension (that we may call "up-down") objectively exist in a 2D universe at any and every reference point within this 2D universe.

With ANY XY axis reference point on any line of any 2D car, there objectively exists an XY spatial relationship to any other point (on any line of any other 2D car). This XY spatial relationship objectively exists - independent of human perceptions.

Again, if objects exist, then relationships (spatial orientations between objects) also objectively exist. You can't deny one without denying the other. It's a package deal.

You absolutely 100% can have one without the other as shown in the 2D image in the OP. There are objects in the 2D image. Those objects have objective physical relationships (namely distance)...

But "distance" (nor the XY relative coordinates that represent distance) doesn't go out of existence when we close our eyes. This spatial relationship still exists independent of human perception.

...but there is no observer-independent and reference-frame-independent directional orientation. One exists; the other doesn't.

I understand and agree that there is no "absolute" leftness-rightness, but this does not mean that relative leftness-rightness (the X dimension) does not "objectively" exist. It seems you are confusing one for the other.

Or are you trying to say that the spatial relationships (including "distance") of these objects suddenly go out of existence if we humans are not perceiving them?

The relationships are still objectively there. Leftness-rightness and upness-downness are just the "labels" that we humans arbitrarily call any perpendicular (XY) reference point in this universe. The X and Y dimensions still objectively exist in a 2D universe independent of human perception. ...they don't pop out of existence when we close our eyes!

It seems that you are trying to deny the objective existence of the 2 dimensions within a 2D universe.

[-0+]

Yes, the relations in question are going to be objective. The assignment of what side counts as what isn't, or the selection of the point of reference/situatedness/orientation doesn't, but that's not what we're talking about. The relations are objective; it's just that they're relative.

Bingo! (spot on).

Okay, if all the values that are needed to determine the left-right relation of one object to another are already acquired without caring how subjectively they may have been acquired, so the question "Is the blue car to the left of the red car (relative to the red car)?" is reduced to something like, "Is position X (of the blue car) to the left of reference frame Y (of the red car)?", would anyone like to provide a method that can objectively determine this? (This may or may not be easy.)

Next there is the question of providing a method that can objectively determine if any object X is to the left of any object Y (relative to object Y), where X and Y are parameters of this method, and objects like "blue car" and "red car" can be passed as arguments to this method. This method needs to objectively determine the reference frame of object Y from the details of object Y. This method cannot include any subjective steps otherwise answers may vary subjectively and this method won't qualify as objective.

This next step is more in line with practical questions, like: "Is this dog to the left of that tree?" ... If not enough information is provided for the method to objectively determine left or right, that's okay. The method can define what details are needed , and a question can be rejected if it doesn't provide all the required details. (This may just be conditionally objective?)

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Do you agree that observer-independent forwardness, leftness, and rightness do not really exist?

No. It is not that they "don't exist", it is that their positions/values are "relative" to us human observers.

In this case, it sounds like we may be just using different words to describe the same idea. I could be misunderstanding what you are meaning say, but is seems like what I call "observer-dependent" is what you call ""relative to us human observers".

If so, then I think we agree on pretty much everything in regard to this forum topic.

A 2D universe (as depicted in your picture) can't be a 2D universe without 2 dimensions. These dimensions objectively exist. The X dimension (that we may call "left-right") and the Y dimension (that we may call "up-down") objectively exist in a 2D universe at any and every reference point within this 2D universe.

In a 2D world, you can draw/imagine two perpendicular axises through any point, and you can label those two axises X and Y, but there infinite ways to draw them through any point and infinite points through which you could draw them. So even if the origin point is specified ,there are still infinite potential reference frames that could be created. For instance, for any one specific point in the 2D image in the OP, there are infinite possible Y-axises that could be drawn using that one point as the origin point. This is why if I tell you what to use as the origin point (e.g. the center of the 4-sided box), there is still no objective (observer-independent reference-frame-independent) y-axis dividing left-and-right.

Different observers will disagree about their preferred reference frame, meaning where they would tend to draw/imagine the x-axis and y-axis.

I understand and agree that there is no "absolute" leftness-rightness, but this does not mean that relative leftness-rightness (the X dimension) does not "objectively" exist.

The first part doesn't mean the second part, but both parts happens to be true, at least if we use objective as a word for observer-independent and/or reference-frame-independent. The "x axis (or the dimension of leftness-rightness") and the "y axis" (or the 0-width dividing line between would-be left and would-be right) are relative to the reference frame and/or observer. In short, the issue isn't simply that they are relative (which they are) but rather that they are relative to observers (and/or reference frames). They are, ipso facto, not objective because they are observer-dependent and/or reference-frame-dependent.

If you are using the word "objective" in some other way, then most likely it's not that we disagree but rather that we are talking about two completely different things.

The x-axis and y-axis and where they happen to in respect to the actual physical objects in the image is a quality of a reference frame, and in that way they are merely conceptual. The 2D image doesn't have an x-axis or a y-axis, per se, but instead you (or anyone) can imagine (i.e. conceptually construct) any one of infinite possible x-axises/y-axises in the image.

Again, if objects exist, then relationships (spatial orientations between objects) also objectively exist. You can't deny one without denying the other. It's a package deal.

You absolutely 100% can have one without the other as shown in the 2D image in the OP. There are objects in the 2D image. Those objects have objective physical relationships (namely distance)...

But "distance" (nor the XY relative coordinates that represent distance) doesn't go out of existence when we close our eyes. This spatial relationship still exists independent of human perception.

I agree; distance is relative but reflects an objective observer-independent reference-frame-independent relationship between the physical objects.

are you trying to say that the spatial relationships (including "distance") of these objects suddenly go out of existence if we humans are not perceiving them?.

No.

For instance, there are no observers in the 2D world depicted in the image in the OP but there is objective (albeit relative) distance.

For example, in regard to the 2D world in the OP, it is objectively true (i.e. true in an observer-independent and reference-frame-independent way) that the red car and the blue car are closer together than the red car and the green car. All would-be observers would agree on that fact; that fact is true in all would-be reference frames; and that fact is true without any observers or reference frames (or with our eyes closed).

It seems that you are trying to deny the objective existence of the 2 dimensions within a 2D universe.

I am open to denying that 1D lines exist in the 2D world.

In conceptualized math, we describe a 2D world by imagining two perpendicular lines intersecting at a 0D point. Those two imagined 0-width lines thus conceptually cut the singular 2D reality into 4 quadrants that can then be labeled. Then, we can make more clear or mathematically descriptions to other observers (or to our ourselves) by measuring things in relation to that constructed (i.e. imagined) reference frame. The most common human convention is to treat oneself as the stationary center of the universe (i.e. the origin point) with one's own eyes as pointing forward. Thus, if I was to draw some humans in the 2D image, and label their hands so that you know which hand they call their left hand and which hand they call their right hand, we could easily then take an educated guess about which reference frame those humans would tend to use, even though those reference frames would likely conflict. When dealing with observer-dependent things, conflicts are aplenty. One person's forward is another person's backward. One person's past is another person's future. That is simply the nature of things that are not objective (i.e. observer-independent and reference-frame-independent). Different observers will disagree and neither will be wrong or right.

[The Beast]

Objectivity exist but lies outside the individual POV. Know the system; express the objectivity.
Left and right are controls of a personal point of view. To have objectivity a paradigm is reached. So, there is a possible objective POV (the truth) and our control is to superimpose our left and right. If the paradigm is reached, then most will agree with right or left. Using the paradigm or no using it. That is the question.
So, there are 4 objects in a (x y) plane. The z plane and rotation are not included.
The plane (x, y) has a dimension (not infinity) and the objects dimensions are in it.
Plane A and plane B are the same plane.
Plane A and plane B have the same Z
Possible explanation:
1.- The plane rotated
2.- Count individual POVs
. . Being objective is to find the truth matching most rational POVs. It is possible to think/have objectivity and be far from right. Totally normal… and I not constructing it. So there is an objective point of view and several individual POV… and meteors exist.

[Sculptor1]

There is a very simple empirical experiement that utterly reduces this thread to meaningless verbage.

Simple put your shoes on the worng way and see how it feels.

For a more interesting test imagine what would happen if a surgeon tried to swap your feet or hands.

Handedness is a fundemental truth of reality, and have significance from the macrocosm of rotating galaxies, to bodily appendages, right the way down to left handed molecules such as inverted sugar even unto the left hand of the electron as described by Isaac Asimov in his book of the same name.

[-0+]

No, all I need is a 1D line as a reference (since these are 2D cars). Just tell me which line on which 2D car that you are referring to (or if you insist on continuing to play games, then tell me which line on the 4-sided box that you are referring to).

If a 1D reference line is all that is needed, then who can describe a method that can objectively and unambiguously determine left/right relative to any given 1D reference line?

If more reference information is needed, that's okay. (At least 2 directions in different dimensions to left-right dimension may be needed: forward and upward.) The first step can be to determine the set of all the reference information that is needed. It doesn't matter how many items of reference information are needed. Then describe a method that anyone can use to objectively determine leftness/rightness for any given set of required reference information.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, the relations in question are going to be objective. The assignment of what side counts as what isn't, or the selection of the point of reference/situatedness/orientation doesn't, but that's not what we're talking about. The relations are objective; it's just that they're relative.

Bingo! (spot on).

Okay, if all the values that are needed to determine the left-right relation of one object to another are already acquired without caring how subjectively they may have been acquired, so the question "Is the blue car to the left of the red car (relative to the red car)?" is reduced to something like, "Is position X (of the blue car) to the left of reference frame Y (of the red car)?", would anyone like to provide a method that can objectively determine this? (This may or may not be easy.)

Next there is the question of providing a method that can objectively determine if any object X is to the left of any object Y (relative to object Y), where X and Y are parameters of this method, and objects like "blue car" and "red car" can be passed as arguments to this method. This method needs to objectively determine the reference frame of object Y from the details of object Y. This method cannot include any subjective steps otherwise answers may vary subjectively and this method won't qualify as objective.

This next step is more in line with practical questions, like: "Is this dog to the left of that tree?" ... If not enough information is provided for the method to objectively determine left or right, that's okay. The method can define what details are needed , and a question can be rejected if it doesn't provide all the required details. (This may just be conditionally objective?)

What would you say counts as an example of "objectively determining" something? It's hard to answer your questions without knowing what sort of thing you'd consider to uncontroversially be an "objective determination" of anything, since "determination" seems like maybe an odd metric to use here.

[-0+]

Okay, if all the values that are needed to determine the left-right relation of one object to another are already acquired without caring how subjectively they may have been acquired, so the question "Is the blue car to the left of the red car (relative to the red car)?" is reduced to something like, "Is position X (of the blue car) to the left of reference frame Y (of the red car)?", would anyone like to provide a method that can objectively determine this? (This may or may not be easy.)

Next there is the question of providing a method that can objectively determine if any object X is to the left of any object Y (relative to object Y), where X and Y are parameters of this method, and objects like "blue car" and "red car" can be passed as arguments to this method. This method needs to objectively determine the reference frame of object Y from the details of object Y. This method cannot include any subjective steps otherwise answers may vary subjectively and this method won't qualify as objective.

This next step is more in line with practical questions, like: "Is this dog to the left of that tree?" ... If not enough information is provided for the method to objectively determine left or right, that's okay. The method can define what details are needed , and a question can be rejected if it doesn't provide all the required details. (This may just be conditionally objective?)

What would you say counts as an example of "objectively determining" something? It's hard to answer your questions without knowing what sort of thing you'd consider to uncontroversially be an "objective determination" of anything, since "determination" seems like maybe an odd metric to use here.

"Calculated" can be used instead of "determined" if that helps.

Given a spatial coordinate system (which may need to be arbitrarily defined), the distance to point A relative to point B can be mathematically calculated from the coordinates of the two points. This may not be controversial. Just the coordinates of the two points are needed to calculate the distance between them.

Regarding "What is the leftness/rightness of A relative to B?", the first aim can be to describe this mathematically where A and B are mathematical constructs located in the same spatial coordinate system. What properties of A and B are needed to calculate the leftness/rightness of
A relative to B? It appears that just the position of A is needed, but B needs to be a more complex mathematical construct: its position, its "forward" direction in one dimension, and its "upward" dimension in a second dimension may all be needed to calculate A's leftness/rightness in a third dimension.

This leftness/rightness could be viewed as a quality of B rather than a quality of A, and it is just a question of A's location in B's left/right "field". Leftness/rightness could be expressed numerically as a distance or angle relative to directions in B's other 2 dimensions, and "left" and "right" can be functions of this (eg, if left-right is less than zero then "is left" ...).

Leftness/rightness may be more complex than distance but it may be possible to express this mathematically in ways that aren't controversial.

How real/objective are mathematical constructs?

The next step of calculating leftness/rightness relative to real physical objects is likely to be a lot more complex as different classes of objects may may require different calculations for forwards and upwards before leftness/rightness can be calculated. For example, calculations for humans may be based around the positioning of their eyes. Calculations for cars may be based around the positioning of their headlights. The left bank of a river is relative to up or down stream, but "true" left may be defined as relative to down stream and this may be useful. Other classes of objects may require quite different calculations that are considered to be useful.

Then there may be classes of objects for which no useful method for calculating front/back (and therefore left/right) can be found. What is the front side of a tree? The method could specify a contrived "objective" way to calculate the front side of trees or it could say that trees don't objectively have left or right sides. What might be practically more useful?

If people can declare that A is objectively left relative to B then either: they will be able to describe the method they used to "objectively" calculate this, or they don't know what they are talking about?

It is up to those who believe that something is objective (eg: good/bad; left/right) to provide a method that can demonstrate this. If such a method isn't provided, this doesn't mean that it isn't objective, just that this hasn't been demonstrated yet. It may not be easy to demonstrate. If any controversy arises then the objectivity of this may be questionable, the method has room for improvement, or some people need more time to see the light?

[RJG]

For example, in regard to the 2D world in the OP, it is objectively true (i.e. true in an observer-independent and reference-frame-independent way) that the red car and the blue car are closer together than the red car and the green car. All would-be observers would agree on that fact; that fact is true in all would-be reference frames; and that fact is true without any observers or reference frames (or with our eyes closed).

Yes, but don't stop there. Not only do 1D relationships (distance between objects) objectively exist, but also 2D relationships.

In the 2D world in the OP (represented in the image), it is objectively (independent of human perception) true that:

• 1. There exists a Red car and a Blue car.
  2. There exists a 1D relationship (distance line) from any reference point on the Red car to any reference point on the Blue car.
  3. There exists a 2D relationship (X-Y coordinates or polar (distance/angle)) from any reference point and axis on the Red car to any reference point on the Blue car.

Therefore, in this 2D world:

• 1. Objects (Red and Blue car) exist independent of human perception; i.e. they objectively exist.
  2. 1D (distance) relationships exist independent of human perception; i.e. they objectively exist.
  3. 2D (X-Y or polar) relationships exist independent of human perception; i.e. they objectively exist.

...agreed?

To put it more simply -- in a 2D universe, if objects exist then the relationships (both 1D and 2D relationships) between these objects likewise exist.

In a 2D world, you can draw/imagine two perpendicular axises through any point, and you can label those two axises X and Y, but there infinite ways to draw them through any point and infinite points through which you could draw them. So even if the origin point is specified ,there are still infinite potential reference frames that could be created.

Correct. But this doesn't mean that X-Y relationships do not "objectively" exist. All it means is that there is no "absolute" orientation of the X-Y axis. X-Y relationships exist nonetheless, at any and all orientations.

***********
These X-Y relationships (that we call "left/right - up/down") objectively exist between any and all reference points/axis's.
Therefore, although leftness-rightness is relative (not-absolute) to its reference, leftness-rightness nonetheless objectively exists.

[Terrapin Station]

Okay, if all the values that are needed to determine the left-right relation of one object to another are already acquired without caring how subjectively they may have been acquired, so the question "Is the blue car to the left of the red car (relative to the red car)?" is reduced to something like, "Is position X (of the blue car) to the left of reference frame Y (of the red car)?", would anyone like to provide a method that can objectively determine this? (This may or may not be easy.)

Next there is the question of providing a method that can objectively determine if any object X is to the left of any object Y (relative to object Y), where X and Y are parameters of this method, and objects like "blue car" and "red car" can be passed as arguments to this method. This method needs to objectively determine the reference frame of object Y from the details of object Y. This method cannot include any subjective steps otherwise answers may vary subjectively and this method won't qualify as objective.

This next step is more in line with practical questions, like: "Is this dog to the left of that tree?" ... If not enough information is provided for the method to objectively determine left or right, that's okay. The method can define what details are needed , and a question can be rejected if it doesn't provide all the required details. (This may just be conditionally objective?)

What would you say counts as an example of "objectively determining" something? It's hard to answer your questions without knowing what sort of thing you'd consider to uncontroversially be an "objective determination" of anything, since "determination" seems like maybe an odd metric to use here.

"Calculated" can be used instead of "determined" if that helps.

Given a spatial coordinate system (which may need to be arbitrarily defined), the distance to point A relative to point B can be mathematically calculated from the coordinates of the two points. This may not be controversial. Just the coordinates of the two points are needed to calculate the distance between them.

Regarding "What is the leftness/rightness of A relative to B?", the first aim can be to describe this mathematically where A and B are mathematical constructs located in the same spatial coordinate system. What properties of A and B are needed to calculate the leftness/rightness of
A relative to B? It appears that just the position of A is needed, but B needs to be a more complex mathematical construct: its position, its "forward" direction in one dimension, and its "upward" dimension in a second dimension may all be needed to calculate A's leftness/rightness in a third dimension.

This leftness/rightness could be viewed as a quality of B rather than a quality of A, and it is just a question of A's location in B's left/right "field". Leftness/rightness could be expressed numerically as a distance or angle relative to directions in B's other 2 dimensions, and "left" and "right" can be functions of this (eg, if left-right is less than zero then "is left" ...).

Leftness/rightness may be more complex than distance but it may be possible to express this mathematically in ways that aren't controversial.

How real/objective are mathematical constructs?

The next step of calculating leftness/rightness relative to real physical objects is likely to be a lot more complex as different classes of objects may may require different calculations for forwards and upwards before leftness/rightness can be calculated. For example, calculations for humans may be based around the positioning of their eyes. Calculations for cars may be based around the positioning of their headlights. The left bank of a river is relative to up or down stream, but "true" left may be defined as relative to down stream and this may be useful. Other classes of objects may require quite different calculations that are considered to be useful.

Then there may be classes of objects for which no useful method for calculating front/back (and therefore left/right) can be found. What is the front side of a tree? The method could specify a contrived "objective" way to calculate the front side of trees or it could say that trees don't objectively have left or right sides. What might be practically more useful?

If people can declare that A is objectively left relative to B then either: they will be able to describe the method they used to "objectively" calculate this, or they don't know what they are talking about?

It is up to those who believe that something is objective (eg: good/bad; left/right) to provide a method that can demonstrate this. If such a method isn't provided, this doesn't mean that it isn't objective, just that this hasn't been demonstrated yet. It may not be easy to demonstrate. If any controversy arises then the objectivity of this may be questionable, the method has room for improvement, or some people need more time to see the light?

I don't understand how you're not easily answering your own question here, given what you accept an "objective determination" to be. That it can be more "complex" to "objectively determine" leftness/rightness wouldn't suggest that it's not an objective relation.

Again, as I've said I don't know how many times in the thread now, but no one seems to either acknowledge or bother attempting to disagree with/forward objections to, there are some scenarios wherein an objective left/right wouldn't make sense. But there are a lot of scenarios wherein it rather doesn't make sense to say that there is no objective left/right. So it just depends on what scenario we're talking about.

This goes for all relations, really, even those such as distance (for example, if we accept space as something that can itself have shape, dimensionality, etc., then for scenarios where space is folded in particular ways, or where it's compressed into a singularity, etc., the distance relation won't make sense, but in other scanarios, the distance relation does make sense).

[RJG]

A 2D object/world could not exist without the two dimensions. Without the X (left-right) and the Y (up-down) dimensions, there could be no 2D objects or worlds.

P1. Without the 3 dimensions (X,Y,Z), 3D objects could not exist.
P2. 3D objects objectively exist.
C1. Therefore, the dimension X objectively exists.
P3. The dimension X = leftness-rightness.
C2. Therefore, Leftness-Rightness objectively exists.

[The Beast]

There is the speaker Scott and there are the four chairs of professors sitting among the Graduates. From his POV there is a right and left which is understood or disagreed with. Some could say barely right. Others not able to tell will go with Scott’s fame and objective reputation. In this case/wonderful event/exercise/test of objectivity Scott said there they are for all to see: to your right or to your left. Now, He positions himself in the wing: Here they are what was is no more. Now what is your right is not. So, I must conclude that Scott is right. There is no objectivity in this test of objectivity. In addition, he might be saying that the professors sitting in the chairs don’t know what they talking about.