Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If objective directional orientation (forward, right, left, etc.) objectively exist in an observer-independent way, then would inverting Flat Land cause Four-Eyed Freddy to notice a difference?

From our external transcendental perspective in our 3D/4D world, the difference between the two below images is merely that they have been inverted horizontally. But that means that all the internal relationships in the 2D world have been preserved.

If Flat Land Four-Eyed Freddy can't notice a difference, does that mean that there is no objective difference, meaning reductio ad absurdum we have proven that objective observer-independent directional orientation does not exist in relativistic physics?


In any case, if you disagree with any of the below statements, please specify which ones are the ones with which you disagree and which ones are the ones with which you agree:

1. Directional orientation (e.g. fowardness, leftness, rightness) is relative.

2. Directional orientation (e.g. fowardness, leftness, rightness) is not absolute.

3. Directional orientation (e.g. fowardness, leftness, rightness) is not observer-independent.

4. Two observers can disagree about directional orientation (e.g. fowardness, leftness, rightness) and neither is more correct than the other.

5. Directional orientation (e.g. fowardness, leftness, rightness) is not objective.

6. Even if we specify the 4-sided box as the reference place, it is impossible to objectively say whether the blue car is on the right or left.

7. Even if we specify the center of the 4-sided box as the reference point, it is impossible to objectively say whether the blue car is on the right or the left.

8. It is impossible to specify which car is on the right or left without creating (i.e. making up) a reference frame.

9. If we put into the image certain kinds of asymmetrical creatures, namely a human, we could infer the reference frame that creature/human would tend to use. For instance, we could infer based on our knowledge of humans that a human would tend to treat itself as the stationary center of the universe and treat its eyes and nose as pointing forward, thereby making up a directional orientation (i.e. reference frame) relative to itself based on its own asymmetries and its own labels for its own body-parts (e.g. what it calls one eye versus the other or one hand versus the other). Thus, if different humans were looking in different directions, they would tend to each disagree about which way was forward because they each tend to make up a reference frame based on the premise of themselves being the center of the universe with their eyes looking forward.

[Count Lucanor]

I can only agree with 1 and 2. Left and right, up and down, are social conventions of spatial relations from a human-centered perspective that apply to all humans. What is at my left or right at s given point in space might be different than what is at your left or right at the same time from your point in space, but our left and right is exactly the same. The orientation template is the same.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

1. Directional orientation (e.g. fowardness, leftness, rightness) is relative.

2. Directional orientation (e.g. fowardness, leftness, rightness) is not absolute.

3. Directional orientation (e.g. fowardness, leftness, rightness) is not observer-independent.

[Emphasis Added.]

I can only agree with 1 and 2. Left and right, up and down, are social conventions of spatial relations from a human-centered perspective that apply to all humans. What is at my left or right at s given point in space might be different than what is at your left or right at the same time from your point in space, but our left and right is exactly the same. The orientation template is the same.

Hi, Count Lucanor,

It seems the first of the numbered assertions which which you disagree is #3. You mention that even though my left and your left may be different "our left" is exactly the same.

Then may I ask if Mars is on our left or our right?

Since you would say that our left is the same even though my left is different from your left, would you likewise say that our taste in ice cream is the same even if my taste and your taste in ice cream is not the same? Even if my favorite flavor of ice cream and your favorite flavor of ice cream are different, would you say that our favorite flavor is the same? If leftness and rightness are observer-independent, then is ice cream tastiness observer-independent?

Also, regarding the 2D world reflected in the image(s) in the OP, would flat-land four-eyed Freddy notice a difference?

If our entire observable universe exists on a 3D-screen or 4D-screen on a TV-like device being watched by 5-dimensional alien, and the alien was to rotate his TV 90 degrees, or invert the image, or press rewind, would we notice a difference?

[Count Lucanor]

Hi, Count Lucanor,

It seems the first of the numbered assertions which which you disagree is #3. You mention that even though my left and your left may be different "our left" is exactly the same.

Then may I ask if Mars is on our left or our right?

It will depend at which moment in time (since Mars and the Earth are constantly moving in relation to each other) and point in space we're looking to Mars. If we were looking at it from the some point of view at the same time, there would be absolutely no doubt whether it is to our left or to our right, because our orientation template is the same. This template is based on the point of view of any human in an upright position dividing the space in front of our eyes with a virtual vertical line through the middle. The portion of the space where our heart is located in relation to that line is our left hand, the portion of the space where our pancreas is located in relation to that line, is our right hand (of course we don't need to rely on our heart and pancreas to create the convention, that's just an example). That's our universal convention for handedness, which as we can see, is not based on a personal subjective opinion or a capricious desire, but on a fixed, reproducible, repeatable, consistent frame of reference: the human body, a symmetrical natural system that promotes the division of space in two fields, one at each side. As each person moves in space, is also "moving" this template, so things appearing at the left of one person or of an object observed by this person, might appear at the right of the other person or object, but that only shows the relative position of the objects from the observers and from other objects. The orientation system itself is unique.

Since you would say that our left is the same even though my left is different from your left,

I hope the explanation above cleared out any possible misunderstanding about what this means.

would you likewise say that our taste in ice cream is the same even if my taste and your taste in ice cream is not the same?

If you describe to me the taste template that forms our taste convention for ice cream, in the same way I just described our handedness template, I could consider that possibility.

Even if my favorite flavor of ice cream and your favorite flavor of ice cream are different, would you say that our favorite flavor is the same? If leftness and rightness are observer-independent, then is ice cream tastiness observer-independent?

As far as I remember, taste is based on sensations experienced by the subjects, without any possible way of transmitting that sensation to another subject. It is truly subjective, unlike handedness, which depends on a experience that is common to all humans: the configuration of their bodies.

Also, regarding the 2D world reflected in the image(s) in the OP, would flat-land four-eyed Freddy notice a difference?

Actually, that "2D world" description turns out to be quite misguiding. By definition, a "world" includes the inhabitants, that is, the observers in that world. The image in the OP is not, by any means, a "2d world". It is a flat plane seen from a point of view in the 3d world. In order for the system to be a 2d world, the inhabitants would be flat themselves, and they would not have a point along a 3D axis from which to see the shapes in the 2-dimensional flat plane, they would only see dots and lines. The 2-dimensional shapes in the OP are then still part of a 3d space system where our handedness template can be applied to produce objective descriptions of their relations.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Also, regarding the 2D world reflected in the image(s) in the OP, would flat-land four-eyed Freddy notice a difference?

By definition, a "world" includes the inhabitants, that is, the observers in that world. The image in the OP[...] is a flat plane seen from a point of view in the 3d world. In order for the system to be a 2d world, the inhabitants would be flat themselves, and they would not have a point along a 3D axis from which to see the shapes in the 2-dimensional flat plane, they would only see dots and lines.

You present the above as if it is a point of disagreement between you and I, but actually I agree with all of the quoted sentences above.

I assume then we would also agree that not only would Flat-Land Freddy not notice a difference between the would-be two different 2D worlds symbolized by the two pictures, but that actually the two inverted pictures actually represent identical 2D worlds. In other words, there wouldn't even be a different for Flat-Land Freddy to notice, so he couldn't notice a difference.

[Surabhi Rani]

All the above statements are correct. The multidimensional nature of the expression of a simple truth of our transcendent existence.

[Count Lucanor]

Also, regarding the 2D world reflected in the image(s) in the OP, would flat-land four-eyed Freddy notice a difference?

By definition, a "world" includes the inhabitants, that is, the observers in that world. The image in the OP[...] is a flat plane seen from a point of view in the 3d world. In order for the system to be a 2d world, the inhabitants would be flat themselves, and they would not have a point along a 3D axis from which to see the shapes in the 2-dimensional flat plane, they would only see dots and lines.

You present the above as if it is a point of disagreement between you and I, but actually I agree with all of the quoted sentences above.

I assume then we would also agree that not only would Flat-Land Freddy not notice a difference between the would-be two different 2D worlds symbolized by the two pictures, but that actually the two inverted pictures actually represent identical 2D worlds. In other words, there wouldn't even be a different for Flat-Land Freddy to notice, so he couldn't notice a difference.

Well yes, Flat-Land Freddy wouldn't be able to notice the pictures themselves, although I'm not sure if the patterns created in the two-dimensional field of view would be noticeable and make any difference.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Also, regarding the 2D world reflected in the image(s) in the OP, would flat-land four-eyed Freddy notice a difference?

By definition, a "world" includes the inhabitants, that is, the observers in that world. The image in the OP[...] is a flat plane seen from a point of view in the 3d world. In order for the system to be a 2d world, the inhabitants would be flat themselves, and they would not have a point along a 3D axis from which to see the shapes in the 2-dimensional flat plane, they would only see dots and lines.

You present the above as if it is a point of disagreement between you and I, but actually I agree with all of the quoted sentences above.

I assume then we would also agree that not only would Flat-Land Freddy not notice a difference between the would-be two different 2D worlds symbolized by the two pictures, but that actually the two inverted pictures actually represent identical 2D worlds. In other words, there wouldn't even be a different for Flat-Land Freddy to notice, so he couldn't notice a difference.

Well yes, Flat-Land Freddy wouldn't be able to notice the pictures themselves, although I'm not sure if the patterns created in the two-dimensional field of view would be noticeable and make any difference.

I'm sorry; I don't understand what you mean what you write "the patterns created in the two-dimensional field of view would be noticeable and make any difference". Can you explain that a bit more to me?

In any case, I believe we agree that the two inverted pictures actually represent identical 2D worlds, meaning there is no different notice. Thus, they wouldn't and couldn't notice a difference because there is no difference to notice.

[Count Lucanor]

I'm sorry; I don't understand what you mean what you write "the patterns created in the two-dimensional field of view would be noticeable and make any difference". Can you explain that a bit more to me?

In any case, I believe we agree that the two inverted pictures actually represent identical 2D worlds, meaning there is no different notice. Thus, they wouldn't and couldn't notice a difference because there is no difference to notice.

What I mean is that you wouldn't see a plane, but a line. However, this line might show different patterns (such as dots, lines and empty spaces between them) created by the flat geometry of the pictures, and since you would be able to rotate your field of view, the patterns in this line would also change. So, it is still possible to see a difference, even though you cannot see the pictures from above.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

What I mean is that you wouldn't see a plane, but a line. However, this line might show different patterns (such as dots, lines and empty spaces between them) created by the flat geometry of the pictures, and since you would be able to rotate your field of view, the patterns in this line would also change.

Agreed.

So, it is still possible to see a difference, even though you cannot see the pictures from above.

It is not possible to see a difference, because there is no difference to see.

[Count Lucanor]

So, it is still possible to see a difference, even though you cannot see the pictures from above.

It is not possible to see a difference, because there is no difference to see.

I'm not sure about that. I mean, from the point of view of Flat-Land Freddy, what we would see is a cross section of the planes. It looks like the cross section of one picture will be different from the cross section of the other, since points of the geometry of the figures still will be represented on the X and Y axis. They will not be seen from above, but will be seen from the side.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

So, it is still possible to see a difference, even though you cannot see the pictures from above.

It is not possible to see a difference, because there is no difference to see.

I'm not sure about that. I mean, from the point of view of Flat-Land Freddy, what we would see is a cross section of the planes. It looks like the cross section of one picture will be different from the cross section of the other

There is not really two pictures, per se. If you can, please simply print out a copy of the image on one piece of transparent paper, and then flip it over to see it from the inverted perspective, noting that nothing within the world depicted by the image has changed. The only change was your perspective, which doesn't exist in the 2d world depicted by the image.

Better yet, if you can, lay out the printed piece of paper on a glass table and look at it from above and below to see the two different external perspectives without even needed to touch or move the paper.

[Count Lucanor]

So, it is still possible to see a difference, even though you cannot see the pictures from above.

It is not possible to see a difference, because there is no difference to see.

I'm not sure about that. I mean, from the point of view of Flat-Land Freddy, what we would see is a cross section of the planes. It looks like the cross section of one picture will be different from the cross section of the other

There is not really two pictures, per se. If you can, please simply print out a copy of the image on one piece of transparent paper, and then flip it over to see it from the inverted perspective, noting that nothing within the world depicted by the image has changed. The only change was your perspective, which doesn't exist in the 2d world depicted by the image.

Better yet, if you can, lay out the printed piece of paper on a glass table and look at it from above and below to see the two different external perspectives without even needed to touch or move the paper.

But you're talking here about what I CAN SEE from my point of view in a 3D world. The issue was what would Flat-Land Freddy see in a 2D world. In both cases, the viewer can adopt different perspectives to compare the two images. It is likely that in every case, differences will be noticed.

[Pattern-chaser]

If objective directional orientation (forward, right, left, etc.) objectively exist in an observer-independent way, then would inverting Flat Land cause Four-Eyed Freddy to notice a difference?

...

3. Directional orientation (e.g. fowardness, leftness, rightness) is not observer-independent.

If directional orientation is not "observer-dependent", it would seem to have no use or purpose. Out there in the spacetime universe, there is no need for, and no such thing as, "directional orientation". Directional orientation is something close to an adjectival phrase, used to describe how an observer observes. It describes a perspective, a literal one: a point of view; a point, and a direction, from which observation occurs.

The universe has no need for directional orientation. Only you (we) seem to have that need, and so you (we) invent "directional orientation".

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If you can, please simply print out a copy of the image on one piece of transparent paper, [...]

if you can, lay out the printed piece of paper on a glass table and look at it from above and below to see the two different external perspectives without even needing to touch or move the paper.

But you're talking here about what I CAN SEE from my point of view in a 3D world. The issue was what would Flat-Land Freddy see in a 2D world. In both cases, the viewer can adopt different perspectives to compare the two images. It is likely that in every case, differences will be noticed.

[Emphasis added.]

There is only one image.

I am talking about both your perspective in your world (the one we typically call the real one which is spatially 3D) and Flat-Land Freddy's Perspective in his world, which is an unreal hypothetical world (ex hypothesi), that is spatially 2D.

Your perspective of his 2D world changes when you look at it from different angles.

But there is no difference for Flat-Land Freddy to notice in his 2D world, in part because you don't exist in his world.

When you (or I) change things about yourself (or myself) such as the optical illusions we may be experiencing, it has no affect on Flat-Land Freddy's world because neither us nor our optional illusions or such exist in his world.

The seeming difference between the would-be two is like an optical illusion. There is no difference; and thus there isn't two but just one.