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.

[Stefos]

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.

Hi Eckhart Aurelius Hughes,

You haven't qualified the inner characteristics of this 2d being.

Could you kindly let us know the abilities it has?

Thanks,
Stefos