I don't believe that you're understanding me. Let's try it this way:

We're talking about the shape of the stick from what reference point? — Terrapin Station

No, it's you who aren't understanding me. I've asked this question numerous times and you've ignored it.

From no reference point. What is the shape of the stick when no one is using any senses to observe it?

From no reference point. — Harry Hindu

As I explained a couple times, "from no reference point" is impossible.

As I explained a couple times, "from no reference point" is impossible. — Terrapin Station

So then the stick doesn't exist outside of a reference point? You aren't arguing for direct realism at all. You are arguing for solipsism.

Reference points have no necessary connection to minds, persons, etc.

Imagine that no people exist whatsoever. Everything that exists still has (at least some) unique properties at each unique reference point, and it's impossible to escape reference points.

Any "the stick is such and such" fact is from some reference point. Again, this has nothing (necessarily) to do with minds or people or anything like that. So it has nothing to do with solipsism.

None of this makes any sense.
This creates an infinite regress of reference points. Do reference points need other reference points for any reference point to exist?

What you are saying is that for anything to exist, there must first be a reference point. But what is a reference point without a perspective, or without a mind?

What about a view from everywhere (God's-eye view)?

None of this makes any sense. — Harry Hindu

Hence you not understanding my comments--which is what I said in the first place, but which you denied.

This creates an infinite regress of reference points. Do reference points need other reference points for any reference point to exist? — Harry Hindu

I'm not saying anything about temporal or logical priority.

What you are saying is that for anything to exist, there must first be a reference point. But what is a reference point without a perspective, or without a mind? — Harry Hindu

Reference points are non-null sets of spatio-temporal locations.

What about a view from everywhere (God's-eye view)? — Harry Hindu

The set of all spatio-temporal locations is a reference point, and not a privileged one. It's just one set of many. We can only talk about properties from the context of a particular set rather than subsets (of the given set) when the properties of the object or phenomena in question are consistent among those spatio-temporal locations. You can still call a larger set a reference point, but an object or phenomenon can have conflicting properties per subsets of a larger set. It's not that some of those properties are incorrect; it's just that they're relative to particular subsets of spatio-temporal locations.

Hence you not understanding my comments--which is what I said in the first place, but which you denied. — Terrapin Station

Me not understanding isn't the same as someone writing gibberish. Non one can understand gibberish, except for maybe a lunatic.

Reference points are non-null sets of spatio-temporal locations — Terrapin Station

What does this even mean? Care to clarify? It seems to me that you are describing reference points as something that doesn't need other reference points to exist. Is a reference point material, mental, or something else? Obviously our own reference points can interact, so reference points are something tangible.

Me not understanding isn't the same as someone writing gibberish. Non one can understand gibberish, except for maybe a lunatic. — Harry Hindu

Actually both of those would be situations where you're not understanding something. It's just that you're hinting at the idea that if something is understandable, then you'd understand it. It's always amusing when someone is that arrogant, although I don't find it as amusing that that is such a common attitude on message boards.

It seems to me that you are describing reference points as something that doesn't need other reference points to exist. — Harry Hindu

You'd need at least two for location to make sense.

Is a reference point material, mental, or something else? — Harry Hindu

Mental is material first off, so there's no difference there. Spatio-temporal locations are properties of and/or supervene on material and structures and dynamic relations of material.

What is the shape of the stick when no one is using any senses to observe it? — Harry Hindu

The stick is straight. Looking at a stick does not change its shape.

Actually both of those would be situations where you're not understanding something. It's just that you're hinting at the idea that if something is understandable, then you'd understand it. — Terrapin Station

Isn't that what "understandable" means? Duh.

You'd need at least two for location to make sense. — Terrapin Station

Okay then reference points exist apart from each other. What is the medium in which reference points exist? What is it that ties two reference points together for location to make sense?

The set of all spatio-temporal locations is a reference point, and not a privileged one. It's just one set of many. We can only talk about properties from the context of a particular set rather than subsets (of the given set) when the properties of the object or phenomena in question are consistent among those spatio-temporal locations. You can still call a larger set a reference point, but an object or phenomenon can have conflicting properties per subsets of a larger set. It's not that some of those properties are incorrect; it's just that they're relative to particular subsets of spatio-temporal locations. — Terrapin Station

The god's eye view must be a privileged one for it is the one that maintains the properties of reality for other smaller reference points to access. This is no different from the idealist view that God is necessary as the eternal observer to maintain the properties of reality that the smaller reference points access. For if there is no eternal reference point from everywhere, then how is it that your post maintains it's properties until someone else reads it? Your post isn't being read non-stop 24-7, that is unless you want to amuse me with your arrogance that your posts are constantly being read.

The stick is straight. Looking at a stick does not change its shape. — tom

Thank you, tom. I've been trying to make this clear to Terrapin, but he seems to be bent on tip-toeing around the answer by writing nonsense.

Isn't that what "understandable" means? Duh. — Harry Hindu

Reading comprehension assistance: "if something is understandable (to anyone), then you'd (personally) understand it.

Since you needed that reading comprehension assistance, clearly something being understandable to some people doesn't imply that you'd understand it.

Okay then reference points exist apart from each other. — Harry Hindu

Well, there's not just one, yeah. The fact that I've used the term in plural denotes that.

What is the medium in which reference points exist? — Harry Hindu

No medium.

Media are material, structures of material and dynamic relations of materials and structures. But that's all reference points.

What is it that ties two reference points together for location to make sense? — Harry Hindu

People thinking about them being "tied together."

The god's eye view must be a privileged one — Harry Hindu

That's false though. There are no privileged reference points. What would privilege them? Nothing objectively.

it is the one that maintains the properties of reality for other smaller reference points to access. — Harry Hindu

Here you're suddenly talking about it as if it's your theory, which is weird. I don't know where you're getting the ideas from that you're forwarding there, but they're certainly not my ideas. "Smaller reference points" (as well as "larger" ones) don't "access" anything. And none of them are not reality. At least not on my theory. If you're instead forwarding your own theory, then okay. That's your theory and I disagree with it.

This is no different from the idealist view that God is necessary as the eternal observer to maintain the properties of reality that the smaller reference points access. — Harry Hindu

Okay, if that's your theory, but it has nothing to do with my theory.

how is it that your post maintains it's properties until someone else reads it? — Harry Hindu

If you want me to think that it's worth talking about this to you--which is something that I don't really believe at this point--you need to make some effort to read and try to understand my views. I explained way back there, and I explained more than once, that there at at least some different properties of all things from each unique reference point, each unique spatio-temporal location. So it follows from that that I'd not be arguing that a post has identical properties through time, from various spatial locations.

Haha re my comment about your arrogance getting to you, by the way.

Today I was fishing and as usual was catching nothing, so I started poking sticks in rock pools (this illusion fascinates me haha), and I noticed how you can see this illusion, as an illusion, really clearly.

Get your head on the rocks about 50 cm away from the edge of the rock pool, as close to horizontal with the surface of the rock pool. Basically lie down on the rocks next to the pool with your head sideways resting on the rocks. Get a stick, and poke it into the rock pool in and out of the rock pool while watching it refract.

Sounds fairly stupid, but from this angle it's really clear that the what you see as the lower half of the stick is actually an image on the surface of the rock pool. The water is not see through, and as the lower half of the stick goes into the water, it disappears below the surface. What happens is an image is displayed on the surface of the rock pool of the light travelling from the stick below the surface (light which is refracted) up to the surface. And this image is what you see.

It looks like the water magically melts and bends the stick. But in reality the stick stays straight and disappears below the surface and you see an amalgamation of the top half of the stick out of water, and an image of a (refracted) stick on a surface of water.

From the angle you're viewing the rock pool surface from (while having your head close to the rocks), the image loses a lot of it's depth, so that it becomes a lot clearer that what you are seeing is an image on the surface, and from this angle the degree of refraction is a lot greater than if your standing above the rock pool looking downwards and poking the stick in. The greater the amount of refraction, the more skeptical you become that what you are still seeing is the actual stick.

I think perhaps that what I'm outlining in this thread is just one of those things which you can't just debate someone into believing, they have to figure it out and learn for themselves. That clear things are see-through is such a fundamental belief we hold that it takes something pretty significant happening before you shed that belief.

Personally what happened is I became pretty obsessed with glass and mirrors for like two months, especially mirrors in the beginning. I just couldn't understand how the mirror could teleport my gaze behind myself, so that I could look forward at the mirror, and yet see something behind myself. Eventually I figured out a mirror just displays incoming light as an image on it's surface, but glass refraction still confused me. I remember, I would sit in my car and wind the window down halfway. And I'd look at the side mirror so half was seen through the air and half was seen through the glass. I'd move my head side to side and watch the glass bend the mirror, and wind the window up and down and notice the position of the side mirror shifts as you roll up the window. It kind of 'jumps' back and forward. Anyway, eventually I finally had the revelation while the window was halfway down that the side mirror seen through the air continues behind the window. I can't see it because the window displays an image on it's surface of the light coming from behind it, and I can't see past this image at the rest of the side mirror behind it. You have to roll the window down to actually see the rest of the side mirror. Absolutely blew my mind.

But now, I feel like I drive blind. I just sit in the drivers seat looking at an image on the windscreen, and I can't see past it. I wish it wasn't illegal to smash my windscreen out so I could actually see the road!

Sounds psychotic, I know :D But this is actually how glass works. Looks like it's just one of those things where you have to figure it out for yourself. Have your own 'eureka' moment.

(disguised bump)

Looks like it's just one of those things where you have to figure it out for yourself. Have your own 'eureka' moment. — dukkha

The true believer speaks.

;)

Just wait until your legal guardians let you plug in electronic devices. You'll be staring at the cords, the outlet etc. for years.