Philosophy Discussion Forums

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 7:06 am

Atla wrote:Where do you find such a stationary reference frame, when we can't put the universe into a "container" of absolute space and time, for measurement (because there's no absolute space and time)?

I said "a reference frame which is stationary with respect to real objects". An object which is stationary with respect to another object is sometimes said to be "stationary WRT the reference frame of that object" or "stationary in the reference frame of that object" or similar.

For some reason you seem to think I'm referring to some kind of "absolute stationary" concept.

But then there are as many reference frames as there are objects. Actually there are infinitely many reference frames for each object, because we can arbitrarily choose the orientation of the reference frame. So rightness and leftness are relative fictional constructs, based on the reference frame we choose.

Atla wrote:So rightness and leftness are relative fictional constructs, based on the reference frame we choose.

"Based on a reference frame that we choose" does not make them "fictional". For then what would make them "non-fictional"? ...a reference frame that you choose?

Whether there is one reference frame or many reference frames, it is still true that "rightness and leftness" exists dependent on the particular reference frame.


**********

Scott wrote:..are you asserting that some kind of subjectivity (i.e. consciousness) actually exists which is the source of alleged leftness and rightness?

Sorry Scott, but these kinds of questions come across to me as just more disingenuous "game playing". EVERYTHING we know (not just "leftness-rightness") comes from our own conscious thoughts.

RJG wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 7:38 am

Atla wrote:So rightness and leftness are relative fictional constructs, based on the reference frame we choose.

"Based on a reference frame that we choose" does not make them "fictional". For then what would make them "non-fictional"? ...a reference frame that you choose?

Whether there is one reference frame or many reference frames, it is still true that "rightness and leftness" exists dependent on the particular reference frame.

I don't know what you mean. Reference frames are also fictional in that sense.

Atla wrote:But then there are as many reference frames as there are objects. Actually there are infinitely many reference frames for each object, because we can arbitrarily choose the orientation of the reference frame.

We create reference frames as a way of describing the real positions and orientations of real objects. We can create as many as we like. That doesn't make the positions and orientations of real objects fictional. The possibility of describing a real phenomenon in a number of different ways doesn't make that phenomenon fictional. The fact that the concepts we use to describe the real world are abstract doesn't make anything fictional. "Fictional" (to me at least) means a reference/referent that refers to/is something that is not real. So "Santa Claus" is an example of such a reference. Santa Claus is the referent. There are many ways to refer to that example of a fictional referent. Reference frames are abstract concepts, bits of mathematics/geometry, used to refer to the real relative positions and orientations of real things. I think you're confusing "fictional" with "abstract".

So rightness and leftness are relative fictional constructs, based on the reference frame we choose.

I disagree.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 7:54 am

Atla wrote:But then there are as many reference frames as there are objects. Actually there are infinitely many reference frames for each object, because we can arbitrarily choose the orientation of the reference frame.

We create reference frames as a way of describing the real positions and orientations of real objects. We can create as many as we like. That doesn't make the positions and orientations of real objects fictional. The possibility of describing a real phenomenon in a number of different ways doesn't make that phenomenon fictional. The fact that the concepts we use to describe the real world are abstract doesn't make anything fictional. "Fictional" (to me at least) means a reference/referent that refers to/is something that is not real. So "Santa Claus" is an example of such a reference. Santa Claus is the referent. There are many ways to refer to that example of a fictional referent. Reference frames are abstract concepts, bits of mathematics/geometry, used to refer to the real relative positions and orientations of real things. I think you're confusing "fictional" with "abstract".

So rightness and leftness are relative fictional constructs, based on the reference frame we choose.

I disagree.

That's not what this is about. We have real objects A and B with real positions, okay.

I define a random reference frame from the point of view of A, and in this reference frame, B is to the right.
I take a 180 degree turn, and define another reference frame from the point of view of A, and now B is to the left.

So while we have real objects with real positions, leftness and rightness can be chosen arbitrarily. Comparatively, leftness and rightness are fictional constructs.

RJG wrote:"Based on a reference frame that we choose" does not make them "fictional". For then what would make them "non-fictional"? ...a reference frame that you choose?

Whether there is one reference frame or many reference frames, it is still true that "rightness and leftness" exists dependent on the particular reference frame.

I agree. Proposing that everything which can be described differently depending on viewpoint be labelled "fictional" makes everything fictional. That's not a useful way to use that word in my view. The phenomenon of Santa Claus can be described using the references (for example) "Santa Claus" or "Father Christmas", depending on the viewpoint. The phenomenon of the position of my car in the parking lot can be described as (for example) "left of the blue Toyota" or "right of the blue Toyota" depending on viewpoint. Concluding from this that both are fictional is not a word usage that I find useful. I prefer to label Santa Claus as fictional and the position of my car as real.

Atla wrote:I don't know what you mean. Reference frames are also fictional in that sense.

If some-things exist, then reference frames are not "fictional".
If no-things exist, then this conversation does not exist (which means that you do not disagree with me).

Does anything exist in this reality? Does anything 'else' exist in this reality? Is there a difference (spatial, directional, velocity, time, etc etc) between these "things"? If so, then your view of this difference is your "reference frame".

RJG wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 8:12 am

Atla wrote:I don't know what you mean. Reference frames are also fictional in that sense.

If some-things exist, then reference frames are not "fictional".
If no-things exist, then this conversation does not exist (which means that you do not disagree with me).

Does anything exist in this reality? Does anything 'else' exist in this reality? Is there a difference (spatial, directional, velocity, time, etc etc) between these "things"? If so, then your view of this difference is your "reference frame".

Total nonsense. Things exist, and we make arbitrary/fictional reference frames about them.

Atla wrote:Things exist, and we make arbitrary/fictional reference frames about them.

In my experience here, a large proportion of the disagreements are pseudo-disagreements (disagreements which lack substance) about semantics. People simply use words in different ways. So I don't think it's good enough to say something like "arbitrary/fictional" as if those two words mean essentially the same thing. Likewise, for example, I think we're asking for trouble (for needless arguments) if we confuse "fictional" with "abstract".

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 8:19 am

Atla wrote:Things exist, and we make arbitrary/fictional reference frames about them.

In my experience here, a large proportion of the disagreements are pseudo-disagreements (disagreements which lack substance) about semantics. People simply use words in different ways. So I don't think it's good enough to say something like "arbitrary/fictional" as if those two words mean essentially the same thing. Likewise, for example, I think we're asking for trouble (for needless arguments) if we confuse "fictional" with "abstract".

I thought it was fairly obvious what "fictional" was supposed to mean in the context of the OP.

Atla wrote:Things exist, and we make arbitrary/fictional reference frames about them.

But it is still a real "reference frame" irrespective of its accuracy, ...right?

In other words, you only label this reference frame as "arbitrary/fictional" because you falsely believe that there is, or there should be, an absolute/universal reference frame by which to measure everything in this universe. But since an absolute/universal reference point is impossible in an infinite universe, then that itself is what is "fictional", and not the reference frame from given objects within this universe.

RJG wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 8:29 am

Atla wrote:Things exist, and we make arbitrary/fictional reference frames about them.

But it is still a real "reference frame" irrespective of its accuracy, ...right?

In other words, you only label this reference frame as "arbitrary/fictional" because you falsely believe that there is, or there should be, an absolute/universal reference frame by which to measure everything in this universe. But since an absolute/universal reference point is impossible in an infinite universe, then that itself is what is "fictional", and not the reference frame from given objects within this universe.

No, no and no. This isn't even about an absolute reference frame, or an infinite universe.

No reference frame is "real". A reference frame is an arbitrary map about the territory, not the territory itself. As I recall, you can't differentiate between the abstract and the concrete, yes?

Atla wrote:No reference frame is "real". A reference frame is an arbitrary map about the territory, not the territory itself. As I recall, you can't differentiate between the abstract and the concrete, yes?

Well technically, everything we know is "abstract"; just mental concepts. Everything we know comes from our own conscious experiences. So then the only "concrete" thing we can be absolutely certain of is our own conscious experiences (of abstract concepts).

But then taking that stance is "solipsism". Is that what you are implying here? If so, then I can't disagree with you.

Atla wrote:A reference frame is an arbitrary map about the territory, not the territory itself.

But if territories are 'real' then so are its properties and dimensions and therefore the reference frames ("maps") that define it. If territories are not real then there can be no maps (or reference frames) of the territory. But if territories are real, then real maps (reference frames) can exist of that territory. And if so, this does not make these 'real' maps "arbitrary".

RJG wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 7:38 am

Atla wrote:So rightness and leftness are relative fictional constructs, based on the reference frame we choose.

"Based on a reference frame that we choose" does not make them "fictional". For then what would make them "non-fictional"? ...a reference frame that you choose?

Whether there is one reference frame or many reference frames, it is still true that "rightness and leftness" exists dependent on the particular reference frame.


**********

Scott wrote:..are you asserting that some kind of subjectivity (i.e. consciousness) actually exists which is the source of alleged leftness and rightness?

Sorry Scott, but these kinds of questions come across to me as just more disingenuous "game playing". EVERYTHING we know (not just "leftness-rightness") comes from our own conscious thoughts.

All of these words - left, right, up, down, here, now, I, you - are indexicals, terms for the which the meaning is always context-dependent. This is really its own sub-topic in philosophy - I think this article sums it all up pretty well: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/

Thomyum2 wrote:All of these words - left, right, up, down, here, now, I, you - are indexicals, terms for the which the meaning is always context-dependent. This is really its own sub-topic in philosophy - I think this article sums it all up pretty well: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/

Yes, and it's a subset of the topic of semantics and meaning, not of ontology. The trouble is, people sometimes confuse semantics/meanings/words with the things that those words refer to, (confusing the reference with the referent), just as they sometimes confuse the properties of a model (the model as a physical existent) with the properties that the model models. Hence, in the former case, we get people claiming that those references are fiction simply because they're context dependent. In the latter case we get people claiming that the universe doesn't contain change just because a model of that universe doesn't change; equivalent to claiming that a car doesn't move because a graph of the car's worldline doesn't move.

In my view, the answer to the question of whether a reference is fiction or not is a function of the thing that it references, not a function of the reference itself. If it was a function of the reference itself then everything would be fiction because obviously references aren't real things.