Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Atla »

Sculptor1 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 6:59 am
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.
Yes, a POV requires a POINT. Points have place. Noplace can not have a point.
A view from nowhere is pointless.
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.
True philosophy points to the Moon
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Steve3007 »

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.
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.
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.
Agreed.
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.
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 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.
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.

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 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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
Positing observers with noses and single-directional-facing eyes into the 2D world will not change 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.
Like the concept of Santa Claus, leftness and rightness objectively exist in the universe as concepts in the minds of humans.
Yes, and unlike Santa Claus those concepts also map to objectively existing properties of multi-faceted objects.
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?
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.
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.
We're going to have to agree to disagree.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Steve3007 »

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.
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"?
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.
Not to me. And not according to the guy who started the topic. He explicitly says that he doesn't conflate those two words.
I don't know why you force your non-relevant and singular meaning for the word, but this will usually lead to semantic misunderstandings.
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 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.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7094
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Sculptor1 »

Atla wrote: May 5th, 2021, 10:46 am
Sculptor1 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 6:59 am
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.
Yes, a POV requires a POINT. Points have place. Noplace can not have a point.
A view from nowhere is pointless.
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.
Science is not pointless, it is objective. Objectivity requires a full understanding of perspective.
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.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7094
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Sculptor1 »

Perfect symmetry is only theoretical and cannot be found in nature.
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.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Atla »

Steve3007 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 12:59 pm
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.
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"?
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.
Not to me. And not according to the guy who started the topic. He explicitly says that he doesn't conflate those two words.
I don't know why you force your non-relevant and singular meaning for the word, but this will usually lead to semantic misunderstandings.
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 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.
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.

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.
True philosophy points to the Moon
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Atla »

Sculptor1 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 1:19 pm
Atla wrote: May 5th, 2021, 10:46 am
Sculptor1 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 6:59 am
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.
Yes, a POV requires a POINT. Points have place. Noplace can not have a point.
A view from nowhere is pointless.
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.
Science is not pointless, it is objective. Objectivity requires a full understanding of perspective.
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.
If you were somewhat familiar with science, you would know that this is all well understood, contained within science's "view from nowhere".
True philosophy points to the Moon
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Steve3007 »

Atla wrote:You also seem to be deliberately using a non-relevant meaning for "absolute"...
What is the non-relevant meaning of "absolute" that you believe me to be using?
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Atla »

Steve3007 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 1:33 pm
Atla wrote:You also seem to be deliberately using a non-relevant meaning for "absolute"...
What is the non-relevant meaning of "absolute" that you believe me to be using?
I guess nothing in particular, the goal is to just avoid a relevant one.
True philosophy points to the Moon
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Steve3007 »

Atla wrote:I guess nothing in particular, the goal is to just avoid a relevant one.
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
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Atla »

Steve3007 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 1:45 pm
Atla wrote:I guess nothing in particular, the goal is to just avoid a relevant one.
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?
And these sidetracking questions are just more attempts to NOT address the actual topic, but force your own singular interpretation onto it.
True philosophy points to the Moon
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Steve3007 »

Atla wrote:And these sidetracking questions are just more attempts to NOT address the actual topic, but force your own singular interpretation onto it.
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
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Atla »

Steve3007 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 1:53 pm
Atla wrote:And these sidetracking questions are just more attempts to NOT address the actual topic, but force your own singular interpretation onto it.
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?
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?
True philosophy points to the Moon
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Steve3007 »

Atla wrote:I said that you seem to have no particular meaning for absolute here, the only goal is to not address the topic.
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?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Objective leftness and rightness do not exist.

Post by Steve3007 »

My way of addressing the topic is to respond to the points made in the originator's OP and, if he replies to that, respond to the points he makes in that reply. I've tried to do that in a recent post. I'll wait to see if he replies to that.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021