Philosophy Discussion Forums

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:08 am

Scott wrote:Instead, my point is that rightness and leftness themselves are relative to fictional constructs, such as an imaginary y-axis on a pool table.

I disagree that they're relative to fictional constructs. A real object's real position and orientation is meaningful when specified relative to other real objects, relative to a reference frame which is stationary with respect to real objects.

I could be misunderstanding, but this appears to be a potential false dichotomy represented by the following two different but compatible statements:

1. Rightness and leftness (i.e directional orientation) do not really physically exist because they refer not just to relationships between physical objects that actually exist.

2. Rightness and leftness are meaningful concepts.

For instance, I think the concept of a 0D point, or by extension a triangle (i.e. three separate 0D points connected by three non-intersecting 1D lines) is meaningful and useful.

Assuming one is not positing consciousness (presumably some kind of metaphysical subjectivity) or what could be called "conscious presence" as some kind of reference-frame-like thing...

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:08 am Think of [a reference frame] as simply a system of real objects and real clocks.

A reference frame is not a system of real objects and real clocks.

It is a fabricated conception made to model reality, so that math can be done, and thus physical predictions based on the model can be done.

It's more a like an old school group of military generals strategizing war and predicting what their enemy might do by using a 2D map with little movable action figures on top of it to play the 'if this, then that' game of imagination.

Scott wrote:Do you agree that it is meaningless to ask if Mars is on the right side or the left side of the universe; that is, without specifying or conceiving of some kind of fictional reference frame?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:08 am No, I don't agree with that because I don't agree with the part after "that is...".

Let me rephrase the question, do you think it is meaningful to ask if Mars is objectively on the right side or the left side of the universe?

If so, then I ask--objectively speaking---is Mars objectively on the left side or the right side of the universe?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:08 am Since the universe isn't an object, but is a collective term for the entire history of every thing (at least it is to me), it would make no sense to ask if Mars is on the left or right side of it.

I agree with this.

Granted, your following comments seem to suggest that you are preconceiving of some kind of 'time' and/or 'presence' existing. So I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning, but I agree with the above sentence.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:08 am It would be like asking "Is Mars permanently to the left of everything, including itself?". (I know Mars is red. But it's not that red). But it would be perfectly sensible to ask if real object A is to the left or right of real object B with respect to the real position and orientation of real object C. For example, this question makes sense to me:

If your argument for the real objective physical existence of leftness and rightness relies on presupposing real time, time-ness, and/or presence in time exist, then I am open to conceding that insofar as real time, objective time-ness, and real presence are presupposed as premises then the existence of rightness and leftness seems to also be a corollary of that.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:08 am "With respect to this real part of this real parking lot/carpark, is that real green Nissan to the left or right of that real blue Toyota?"

To me, that question seems totally unanswerable as asked. However, if you are also imagining yourself standing in "this real part of this real parking lot" looking out with your nose pointed in a specific direction (even though you didn't mention any of that in the question or clarify which direction your human nose would be pointing), then I can take bets about what kind of made-up reference frame you as a human would use in that scenario, if not simply due to common sense knowledge about the way humans (myself being no exception) like to treat themselves as the center of the universe with their two human eyeballs as being special, and a habit of referring to those eyeballs in certain ways. But if I imagine multiple humans standing in that parking lot, they would all answer your question differently, because most humans are equally prone to disregarding the Copernican Principle. But if we take the questions as asked, which allows one to assume there is no life or noticeable change in the parking lot, and the parking lot never changes but exists barren of life in an unchanging state, and thus there is little way for humanity's illogical anti-Copernican intuitions to mislead one into answering a question other than the one actually asked... then it is IMO unanswerable and meaningless as asked.

It is like asking if a ball that moved 2 inches on a pool table moved two inches to the right or two inches to the left. It's unanswerable because it's dependent on where one conceptually draws the dividing axises that form the made-up reference frame. According to one made-up model of the reality the answer will be "to the right" and in another it will be "to the left".

You can use real objects as references to conceptually draw the reference frame, much like you can use a "you are here" marker on a 2D map that represents a park someone might be standing in or a mall they be shopping in.

Thus, one could say, for example, "if we imagine a perfectly straight line (i.e. a y-axis) drawn from this specific corner pocket to that other specific corner-pocket pocket with that side of line being the right side (the positive direction on the x-axis) and that opposite side of the line being the left side (the negative direction on the x-axis), then did that ball move two inches to the right or to the left?" But the line of division is a actually fiction, and the choice to make one side right or left is arbitrary in terms of the actual fundamental physics of what actually physically exists.

The question with a specified made-up reference frame allows two different humans to use that shared made-up reference frame to talk about a real physical event, by creating an imaginary absolute background with defined leftness and rightness. But the leftness and rightness themselves are made-up aspects of that conceptualization process, of the imaginary background that could be equally imagined in infinite other ways. The leftness and rightness cannot be generated without first imagining a fictional plane of 0-width on one dimension (the dimension that will become x-axis-like or in other words of being the source of the made-up left-right orientation) acting as the dividing line/plane between the left side and the right side. Which side is left and which is right depends on (1) where one imagines the line/plane of division and (2) which side one labels as the positive/right side versus the negative/left side. It's important to note that the line/plane of division must be one dimension lower than that being dividing.

In classical physics, to say two balls are moving away from each other is a relative statement about the relationship between two physical things. Thus the concept of movement in that context refers to something that is relative but physically real. To ask which balls' X values are increasing (a.k.a. which balls are moving to the right) requires creating an imaginary absolute background with divisional lines (a.k.a. axises) to use to conceptually describe the relative physics that is occurring. That's only in classical physics, though. Actual physics is even less intuitive and requires giving up even more false intuitions and false common sense beliefs.

To conceptually divide a 1D line requires a 0D dividing point. To conceptually divide a 2D plane requires a 1D line. To conceptually divide a 3D object or 3D universe requires a 2D plane. To conceptually divide a 4D universe requires a 3D plane. To get a directional orientations requires even more: each division requires arbitrarily labeling a negative side (e.g. the left side) and a positive side (e.g. the right side) which are made-up qualities that don't actually exist in what's being described but are rather made-up tools of conceptual to assist in communication.

If you use X to represent how far to the right or left something is, then the dividing plane would be where X = 0. You don't have to call it X or use the English word "left" and "right", but nonetheless in one sense or another one needs to conceptually create leftness and rightness (a.k.a. negative-x-ness and positive-x-ness) by projecting onto the reality the idea that somewhere X = 0 (i.e. that somewhere in reality there is a dividing plane between the left side and the right side), and which of the two perpendicular directions is the positive/right direction. That kind of conceptual imagining (i.e. projection onto reality) is needed to get leftness and rightness. And it's a very useful conceptualization, much like refusing to use the concept of triangles would be very dis-useful.

Leftness and rightness are qualities of the conceptual model (i.e. the fictional reference frame), not actual physical reality.

RJG wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 6:51 am

Scott wrote:Are you asserting that objective leftness and rightness exist objectively…

Yes.

Then, objectively speaking, is Mars objectively on the right side of the universe or objectively the left side of the universe?

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

RJG wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 6:51 am EVERYTHING we know (not just "leftness-rightness") comes from our own conscious thoughts.

In this case, I have misunderstood your position. None of my numbered statements apply in that context. Instead, I simply point to the last three paragraphs of the OP, labeled "Important Clarification about Consciousness".

I agree that if one posits conscious presents, then relativistic emergent lefts (plural) and rights (plural) could be a corollary of that.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 7:54 am 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. [...] The possibility of describing a real phenomenon in a number of different ways doesn't make that phenomenon fictional.

[Emphasis added.]

Steve, I agree with you.

To illustrate, take your above statement and replace "reference frames" with "2D charts".

Then, look at the 2D chart in this post of yours. That made-up 2D chart is one of infinite 2D charts that could be made up to describe the real phenomenon represented by the chart.

However, making up a chart (i.e. us creating one of infinite possible charts to describe the real physical reality/phenomenon) then also results in there being relationships between the things on the chart which is itself made-up and thus in certain ways a conceptual fiction.

If you prefer the word "created" to "fictional", then you may be able to just swap out the word "created" anywhere the word "fictional" has been used by me to catch my general meaning.

What's true about a chart or reference frame, or true in relation to a chart or reference frame, isn't (necessarily) true about the phenomenon it indirectly describes. Leftness and rightness are qualities of the chart or reference frame, not the actual objective physical phenomenon.

RJG wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 8:53 am

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".

I don't think it's possible to do proper philosophy without understanding and using the abstract/concrete distinction.

Scott;

I don't know anything about physics, but am having specific problems with two areas of your thoughts below that I would like you to address and explain why my thinking is wrong.

Scott wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2021, 4:32 pm In this topic, I do not wish to discuss "conscious presence". In the context of this topic, I am not claiming that "conscious presence" (whatever that means) exists or doesn't exist. I'd quicker discuss the existence of Russell's Teapot or the proverbial tree that fell in an unobserved forest. In this topic, I do not intend to resolve or discuss the Observer Problem in physics, nor resolve The Hard Problem of Consciousness which is a problem that plagues both philosophy and physics.

Rather, my primary thesis is that all the above forms of presence, except for the ill-defined "conscious presence", do not really exist.

In other words, my thesis in this topic is that all forms of unconscious presence do not really exist.

In yet other words, without consciousness, the universe has no now or present in any of the above senses. For instance, it does not have a presence in time (i.e. a now in time); it does not have a presence in space (i.e. a here in space); and it does not have a spacetime presence (a here-and-now in timeless 4D spacetime).

If I am reading this right, especially what I underlined above, it seems that in your view, the universe can not exist without consciousness. My thoughts are that consciousness can not exist without the universe, which is an opposing view.

Science has done a great deal of studying on simple awareness and learned some things about it, like the video where a gorilla walks by in the background, but people don't see it because they are not expecting it. It seems that awareness (consciousness) requires focus. This means that we need someone/thing to focus and someone/thing to focus on -- two points. In order to have two points, we need to have time and space -- yes? If this is true, then there can be no awareness, consciousness, without time, space, and physical reality.

Scott wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2021, 4:32 pm [7] Leftness and rightness do not really exist.
Example: It would be meaningless to ask if Mars is on the left side of the universe or the right side of the universe. Those concepts only have meaning in fictional contexts relative to arbitrary mathematical metaphysical fictions. For instance, one needs to first conceive of a fictional geometric model with an arbitrary fictional origin point and an arbitrary fictional axis (e.g. a Y-axis) with which to relativistically distinguish things as left of that fictional axis or right of that fictional axis. Thus, the relativity of left and right isn't merely a matter of relations between real things (e.g. one pool ball versus another ball), which is a lesser form of relativity, but more deeply than that they are also relative to fictional mathematical constructs such as an imaginary conceived axis and orientation, conceptually projected or imagined in some way. Asking if something is left or right is like asking if Santa gained weight recently, or if he is generous with his gift-giving on Christmas; strictly speaking; it is incoherent and meaningless because such ideas are relative to fictions that vary.

[8] Up-ness and down-ness do not really exist.
Example: It would be meaningless and incoherent to ask if Pluto is above the center of the universe or below the center of the universe. This is because like the X-axis on a pool table, the so-called center line to which it is relative is a fiction. It's not just fictional because the physics happen to be relative, but rather the physics are so relative because it's a fiction. When we ask how far a pool ball is from the X-axis, we are relating it to something the doesn't exist. in this case the X-axis and by extension x-axis-ness.

[9] Vertical-ness and horzional-ness do not really exist.
Example: Between graphs of the same pool table, what is leftness on one graph can be upness on another graph. So it's not just left and right that are relative to each other, but the concept of left-right-ness and up-down-ness are relative with each other. One person could say the ball moved 2 centimeters to the left, but another person would say the same ball moved 2 centimeters up, and yet another graph would indicate it moved 2 centimeters diagonally equally on the X-axis and the Y-axis.

If you disagree with any of the above statements, please explicitly specify which one(s) and why

I can see why you would have problems with directional words that have no point of origin, or set place to measure from, but what about ones that are not linear like inside/outside?

One thing that seems to be fundamental in all reality, whether we are talking about the physical, the mental, life, societies, ecosystems, galaxies, or anything else, is that all of it works at balance.

Striving for balance is part of everything, so I see these directional words and concepts as just extensions of our understanding of this balance. Like math and numbers, they are just tools, so I don't see the problem here. What am I missing?

Gee

The “I am” exists and isn’t consciousness.

The “I am” is aware of the 2 consciousness states of “in the moment” and “not in the moment”.

The “I am” can change the consciousness states it experiences.

Nick_A wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2021, 9:40 pm Hi Scott

You've described many concepts that you say do not really exist. the one concept you've left out is yourself. Do you really exist and if you don't, what does that calls itself "I"?

I would suggest that Scott exists.How can he post an opinion one way other the other if he doesn’t exist?

Scott just has a view one way or the other.He has chosen one way …he could have chosen the other.

Guess again. As Rene Descartes pointed out “I THINK THEREFORE I (know) I AM” you on the other hand are just a product of my consciousness (imagination).

godblog wrote: ↑December 15th, 2022, 1:39 pm Guess again. As Rene Descartes pointed out “I THINK THEREFORE I (know) I AM” you on the other hand are just a product of my consciousness (imagination).

Well …..I AM,THEREFORE (I know) I think……so Descartes was wrong.

Only a robot would take the view that it thinks or processes data and therefore it’s exists.Sure a robot exists but it ain’t alive and never has been alive.Understanding consciousness is what separates us from our robotic nature and brings us to life.

Scott wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2021, 4:32 pm In this topic, I do not wish to discuss "conscious presence". In the context of this topic, I am not claiming that "conscious presence" (whatever that means) exists or doesn't exist. I'd quicker discuss the existence of Russell's Teapot or the proverbial tree that fell in an unobserved forest. In this topic, I do not intend to resolve or discuss the Observer Problem in physics, nor resolve The Hard Problem of Consciousness which is a problem that plagues both philosophy and physics.

Rather, my primary thesis is that all the above forms of presence, except for the ill-defined "conscious presence", do not really exist.

In other words, my thesis in this topic is that all forms of unconscious presence do not really exist.

In yet other words, without consciousness, the universe has no now or present in any of the above senses. For instance, it does not have a presence in time (i.e. a now in time); it does not have a presence in space (i.e. a here in space); and it does not have a spacetime presence (a here-and-now in timeless 4D spacetime).

Gee wrote: ↑June 7th, 2021, 11:25 pm If I am reading this right, especially what I underlined above, it seems that in your view, the universe can not exist without consciousness.

No, that is not what I mean in the Original Post (OP), as quoted above. I am not (necessarily) saying that the universe cannot exist without consciousness but rather I am saying that presence (i.e. here-and-nowness) does not and cannot exist without consciousness.

In other rougher words, I am asserting that one cannot answer the question, "What makes the now now?" or "What makes one point or point-like blob in spacetime the present (i.e. the here-and-now) versus all the other points in spacetime?", without appealing to consciousness and/or by extension to conscious presence.

A philosophical zombie who doesn't believe consciousness exists could still argue quite reasonably that the entire unchanging 4D block universe of timeless spaceless 4D spacetime exists.

Scott wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2021, 4:32 pm [7] Leftness and rightness do not really exist.
Example: It would be meaningless to ask if Mars is on the left side of the universe or the right side of the universe. Those concepts only have meaning in fictional contexts relative to arbitrary mathematical metaphysical fictions. For instance, one needs to first conceive of a fictional geometric model with an arbitrary fictional origin point and an arbitrary fictional axis (e.g. a Y-axis) with which to relativistically distinguish things as left of that fictional axis or right of that fictional axis. Thus, the relativity of left and right isn't merely a matter of relations between real things (e.g. one pool ball versus another ball), which is a lesser form of relativity, but more deeply than that they are also relative to fictional mathematical constructs such as an imaginary conceived axis and orientation, conceptually projected or imagined in some way. Asking if something is left or right is like asking if Santa gained weight recently, or if he is generous with his gift-giving on Christmas; strictly speaking; it is incoherent and meaningless because such ideas are relative to fictions that vary.

Gee wrote: ↑June 7th, 2021, 11:25 pm I can see why you would have problems with directional words that have no point of origin, or set place to measure from, but what about ones that are not linear like inside/outside?

One thing that seems to be fundamental in all reality, whether we are talking about the physical, the mental, life, societies, ecosystems, galaxies, or anything else, is that all of it works at balance.

Striving for balance is part of everything, so I see these directional words and concepts as just extensions of our understanding of this balance. Like math and numbers, they are just tools, so I don't see the problem here. What am I missing?

Gee

If #7 is the first of the numbered statements with which you disagree, then I politely request that we discuss that matter in these other two forum topics which are specifically focused on that issue:

Objective Leftness and Rightness Do Not Exist

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

Well if you don’t have control of consciousness then you are controlled by it.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑January 18th, 2023, 11:27 am Well if you don’t have control of consciousness then you are controlled by it.

That’s what’s wrong with it.

I am not sure what you mean. It help me to understand intended meaning better if you avoid using pronouns (e.g. "it"), in addition to elaborating a bit more.

However, in this particular case, it seems like you might want to start a whole new topic because you seem to talking about consciousness (i.e. conscious presence), and in the OP, I clearly stated that this topic is not about that. This is topic is about whether or not there is any kind of unconscious presence or real time independent of consciousness. I wrote in the OP as follows:

Scott wrote: ↑April 23rd, 2021, 4:32 pmIn this topic, I do not wish to discuss "conscious presence". In the context of this topic, I am not claiming that "conscious presence" (whatever that means) exists or doesn't exist. [...]] In this topic, I do not intend to resolve or discuss the Observer Problem in physics, nor resolve The Hard Problem of Consciousness [...]

Rather, my primary thesis is that all the above forms of presence, except for the ill-defined "conscious presence", do not really exist.

In other words, my thesis in this topic is that all forms of unconscious presence do not really exist.

In yet other words, without consciousness, the universe has no now or present in any of the above senses. For instance, [the universe as a whole] does not have a presence in time (i.e. a now in time); it does not have a presence in space (i.e. a here in space); and it does not have a spacetime presence (a here-and-now in timeless 4D spacetime).

If we assume or conclude consciousnesses exist, or in other words assume or conclude conscious presences exist (and by extension conscious presents) exist), then indeed from each of those conscious presents presumably emerges a unique self-relativistic time, timeline, nowness on that timeline, space, hereness in that space. In that case, we don't get a present, a now or, a time singular, but rather times, and nows, and presents plural.

This topic isn't about such conscious presences and conscious presents, and the subjective relative emergent times (plural) that would emerge from them. This topic is about unconscious presence, and more specifically about my conclusion in the OP which is that unconscious presence does not exist, and that thus in that way time and timeness are as emergent and unreal as left and leftness.

There is no objective present. There is no objective now. There is no objective here. There is no objective here-and-now.

I don't really understand. Can you please say it in a different way?