Would Flat-Land Four-Eyed Freddy Notice a Difference?

[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?

...

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".

I agree. And of course the same goes for temporal orientation.

Since we agree on this topic about Flat-Land Freddy and directional orientation, I invite you to this other topic of mine about temporal orientation.

[Count Lucanor]

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.

Well, I will have to disagree. In the OP you mentioned "the two below images". Indeed, below the text there are two images. That is an indisputable objective fact that could be translated to mathematical coordinates using our 3D world as frame of reference (I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone that the flat plane is part of the 3D world, the X and Y coordinates are included in the 3-coordinate system, in other words: the flat plane is not a 2D world on its own, it is only a 2 dimensional figure in a 3D world). One can then come up with a very reasonable hypothesis: that one image can be obtained from the inversion of the other, but that's a different issue from there being only one image. Those are for me the initial conditions of the problem, in which we are assuming the two images, with their geometrical objects, objectively exist. And then you can add the question of how Flat-Land Freddy would see the two images and their geometrical objects, which is what I thought we were discussing.

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.

I understand that, and that's exactly how I'm looking at the problem.

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

But we are talking about changes of perspective, not about the existence of the objects (the plane and the geometrical figures), which seem to be part of the initial conditions of the problem, at least as it seems to be suggested in the OP. We are comparing the perspectives or frames of reference for the same object.

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.
The other is Flat-Land Freddy's view from his 2D-coordinates frame of reference.

There are two perspectives and one object (the plane with its geometrical figures). One perspective is the one I have from my 3D-coordinates frame of reference. In this perspective, I can see planes, I can see objects defined only by two dimensions, such as flat images. And surely, with my knowledge of these two dimensions, I can imagine, for the same object, what the perspective would be for a hypothetical inhabitant of a hypothetical 2D world, where the third coordinate is missing. If you ever saw Carl Sagan explaining the 4th dimension, you know what I mean.

[Lesteraction]

Only 1 and 2 can I agree with. From a human-centered perspective, left and right, up and down, are social conventions of spatial connections that apply to all humans. Although what is to the left or right of me at any given time from a given location in space may differ from what is to the left or right of you at that same time from a different point in space, our left and right are the same. It uses the same orientation template.