A coordinate system is not an observer.Chiral objects and figures like hands exist, by definition of chirality, in two distinguishable forms that are mirror images of each other. But, being isometric, the two forms cannot be distinguished if we take only the metric into account. For the distinction of chiral objects we need more than just a metric, we need to introduce an orientation of the space in order to define reflections and mirror images, i.e. we need coordinates. — https://match.pmf.kg.ac.rs/electronic_versions/Match61/n1/match61n1_5-10.pdf
Left" and "Right" seem vary obviously conventional, just like "up" and "down" -- anything relative to a speaker. It's more like a name for a direction from yourself -- like an angle, but less precise -- than an ontological category. — Moliere
What could that mean? That birds do not fly north for winter?It's just that directionality does not exist in the wild. — frank
Yes. It has to do with the fact that you're peering out of a body with ears that produce a sense of up and down. Left and right follow from that. Space doesn't come with a left and right. — frank
It's not so much individual-body, but the social-body — Moliere
And doesn't chirality -- left and right handed objects -- still exist in their world without being able to utter it?) — Moliere
Imagine a possible world in which there are no people. Are there directions there? Only from the point of view of someone outside that world who can establish a reference. — frank
That an object is left-handed or right-handed is relational. You want to claim that the relation must be to an observer. I've pointed out that this is not so.And so you've joined the ranks of those to whom it's obvious that space doesn't have a left and right. — frank
When I imagine a possible world without people with directions then there are directions in that imagined possible world, and when I imagine a possible world without people without directions then there are not directions in that imagined possible world. — Moliere
If there are no people in a world, and it has directionality, that directionality is come from you. — frank
We're talking about a possible world here, not a world. We're imagining possibilities with some pretty abstract concepts.
How could I differentiate an actual world? — Moliere
What would make me believe that the actual world has properties attached to space because I'm the one that's in the world? — Moliere
So is the question more about "How do I make an inference from possibilities to actualities"? — Moliere
What would make me believe that the actual world has properties attached to space because I'm the one that's in the world? — Moliere
What made you believe that the actual world has properties attached to space because you're the one that's in it? — Moliere
But only a conscious being can construct a point of origin or use.
— Philosophim
This looks to be a play on "use". Only conscious beings construct. But that tells us nothing about space.
If the conclusion here is supposed to be that space cannot exist without conscious beings, and hence that some form of antirealism must be true, then it is very unconvincing. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.