Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Terrapin Station]

The reference point is the box, or if you would like 0D reference point, simply use the center of the box.

Okay, but the box/the center is different for each picture. For example, in the first case the box has a relative landscape orientation, in the second a relative portrait orientation.

In the first, the red "car" is above the center, in the second, the red "car" is below the center, etc.

I am not sure who you are quoting when you write the words "context-free" in quotes, but nonetheless assuming that person means "objectively", then I totally agree with your above statement.

Not a quote. It's the "so-called" quotation marks. And no, the idea isn't a subjective/objective ditinction. It's a context-free/context-dependent distinction. In general context-freeness/context-dependence can be either subjective or objective. In this case we're talking about something objective.

[Terrapin Station]

In this case, please print just one copy, and then you can examine it without touching or distorting the printed image.

I think will find that objective rightness and leftness do not exist, but if not let me know what you do find.

If I print one copy of one image, how could I compare? Against what?

You have not addressed any of the other arguments.

Right and left are cultural conventions which point at spatial relations from the point of view of a common observer. Those relations are objectively determined for all the common observers. If you split an apple in two and locate two people in opposite sides and perpendicular to the the cutting line, the same half of the apple will be at the left of the other half for one person, and at the right of the other half for the other person. It is however an objective property because it deals with the spatial relation between the object and the common observer. The same half of the apple will be at the left or right of the other for observers in the same side. It is the same half of the apple, though. In the case above, we are dealing with the spatial relations between elements of images in a flat plane and only one possible position of the observer, which allows us to objectively determine that the two images are different. Your argument simply implies taking those images out of the original context and placing them in a new context where the spatial relations between their elements can be modified to match one to the other.

Just fyi, it doesn't literally have to be an observer, or "common." It's simply a matter of the spatiotemporal location/situatedness/orientation in question. The properties in question (in this case the left/right relation, or we could use an above/below relation, etc.) will always be a matter of what they are from a particular spatiotemporal location/situatedness/orientation or other.

Food some reason, Scott is imagining that things can be how they are location/situatedness/orientation-free. But that idea is incoherent, and probably relies simply on a conceptual abstraction that forgoes bothering to think about location/situatedness/orientation. (Which also suggests how block time theory might seem to make sense to him--it's again a matter of a conceptual abstraction where we're simply not bothering to add something that's ontologically inescapable.)

[Terrapin Station]

What you could say is that the left/right relation isn't "absolute" or it's not "context-free" as I noted--it's relative and context-dependent (to spatiotemporal situatedness). But the absolute/relative and the context-free/context-dependent distinctions aren't the same thing as the objective/subjective distinction.

[Atla]

I don't get what people object to.

1. Do the Earth and the Pole Star exist? Yes, they exist regardless of the reference frame we choose.
2. Is the Pole Star above or below the Earth? It can be up, down, or any other direction from the Earth, depends on the reference frame we choose.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't get what people object to.

1. Do the Earth and the Pole Star exist? Yes, they exist regardless of the reference frame we choose.
2. Is the Pole Star above or below the Earth? It can be up, down, or any other direction from the Earth, depends on the reference frame we choose.

Right, and (1) and (2) are objectively the case, contra a claim that at least (2) is not objectively the case.

[Atla]

I don't get what people object to.

1. Do the Earth and the Pole Star exist? Yes, they exist regardless of the reference frame we choose.
2. Is the Pole Star above or below the Earth? It can be up, down, or any other direction from the Earth, depends on the reference frame we choose.

Right, and (1) and (2) are objectively the case, contra a claim that at least (2) is not objectively the case.

It's objectively the case that in the sense that planets and stars exist, up and down direction don't exist.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't get what people object to.

1. Do the Earth and the Pole Star exist? Yes, they exist regardless of the reference frame we choose.
2. Is the Pole Star above or below the Earth? It can be up, down, or any other direction from the Earth, depends on the reference frame we choose.

Right, and (1) and (2) are objectively the case, contra a claim that at least (2) is not objectively the case.

It's objectively the case that in the sense that planets and stars exist, up and down direction don't exist.

Oy vey. Objectively, an up/down, above/below etc. relation does exist.

In what way do you believe that your (2) above requires minds?

[Atla]

I don't get what people object to.

1. Do the Earth and the Pole Star exist? Yes, they exist regardless of the reference frame we choose.
2. Is the Pole Star above or below the Earth? It can be up, down, or any other direction from the Earth, depends on the reference frame we choose.

Right, and (1) and (2) are objectively the case, contra a claim that at least (2) is not objectively the case.

It's objectively the case that in the sense that planets and stars exist, up and down direction don't exist.

Oy vey. Objectively, an up/down, above/below etc. relation does exist.

In what way do you believe that your (2) above requires minds?

Okay, which way in the universe is objectively "up"?

[Terrapin Station]

Right, and (1) and (2) are objectively the case, contra a claim that at least (2) is not objectively the case.

It's objectively the case that in the sense that planets and stars exist, up and down direction don't exist.

Oy vey. Objectively, an up/down, above/below etc. relation does exist.

In what way do you believe that your (2) above requires minds?

Okay, which way in the universe is objectively "up"?

It's relative to the spatiotemporal reference point in question for the phenomena in question. So can you specify that?

[Atla]

It's objectively the case that in the sense that planets and stars exist, up and down direction don't exist.

Oy vey. Objectively, an up/down, above/below etc. relation does exist.

In what way do you believe that your (2) above requires minds?

Okay, which way in the universe is objectively "up"?

It's relative to the spatiotemporal reference point in question for the phenomena in question. So can you specify that?

And is it also relative to the reference point whether or not the Earth and the Pole Star exist?

[Terrapin Station]

"Whether or not the Earth and pole star exist" isn't at all what a spatiotemporal reference point is. A spatiotemporal reference point is a location in spacetime.

But aside from that, sure, there are no relations between nonexistents.

[Atla]

"Whether or not the Earth and pole star exist" isn't at all what a spatiotemporal reference point is. A spatiotemporal reference point is a location in spacetime.

But aside from that, sure, there are no relations between nonexistents.

A location in spacetime is a location in spacetime. A reference point maps the rest of spacetime viewed from that location, and so it also has to have an orientation.

[Terrapin Station]

"Whether or not the Earth and pole star exist" isn't at all what a spatiotemporal reference point is. A spatiotemporal reference point is a location in spacetime.

But aside from that, sure, there are no relations between nonexistents.

A location in spacetime is a location in spacetime. A reference point maps the rest of spacetime viewed from that location, and so it also has to have an orientation.

I'm defining the terms I'm using. Synonymous terms, as I'm defining them are spatiotemporal situatedness or spatiotemporal orientation.

What does quibbling about how you'd like me to define terms I'm using have to do with whether the relations in question are subjective or objective? (By the way, I thought that subjective/objective wasn't even a distinction you accepted.)

[Atla]

"Whether or not the Earth and pole star exist" isn't at all what a spatiotemporal reference point is. A spatiotemporal reference point is a location in spacetime.

But aside from that, sure, there are no relations between nonexistents.

A location in spacetime is a location in spacetime. A reference point maps the rest of spacetime viewed from that location, and so it also has to have an orientation.

I'm defining the terms I'm using. Synonymous terms, as I'm defining them are spatiotemporal situatedness or spatiotemporal orientation.

What does quibbling about how you'd like me to define terms I'm using have to do with whether the relations in question are subjective or objective? (By the way, I thought that subjective/objective wasn't even a distinction you accepted.)

Okay word salad and nonsensical accusations from you as usual. I'm not interested in this.

[Terrapin Station]

"Whether or not the Earth and pole star exist" isn't at all what a spatiotemporal reference point is. A spatiotemporal reference point is a location in spacetime.

But aside from that, sure, there are no relations between nonexistents.

A location in spacetime is a location in spacetime. A reference point maps the rest of spacetime viewed from that location, and so it also has to have an orientation.

I'm defining the terms I'm using. Synonymous terms, as I'm defining them are spatiotemporal situatedness or spatiotemporal orientation.

What does quibbling about how you'd like me to define terms I'm using have to do with whether the relations in question are subjective or objective? (By the way, I thought that subjective/objective wasn't even a distinction you accepted.)

Okay word salad and nonsensical accusations from you as usual. I'm not interested in this.

If you can't understand what I'm saying (it seems like "word salad" to you), we'd need to clarify it for you/figure out how to put it in words that you would understand for the same content. I'm willing to do that work, but it can't be done if you're not interested in participating. <shrug>