I don't think points have chiral properties. Only some geometric shapes have chiral properties, and these are close to some of the things we consider to be real.

"Space" is an odd duck, conceptually. But I'm not sure handedness is the right avenue given that there are even mathematical descriptions of chirality -- the mathematical description would satisfy Kant, I think? Though https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23274573/

Ahhh x-posted your link.

Anywhere off the plane. — Banno

Some points will make the glove right-handed. Some will make it left-handed? Correct?

The Wiki article is not so good. Try this:

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

A coordinate system is not an observer.

A coordinate system is not an observer. — Banno

Are you saying space has a built in coordinate system?

No.

It's something we pick.

How do you tell your left from your right?

I'd say it's convention. I was taught which was what.

I'm not sure that has ontological import though.

I'd say it's convention. I was taught which was what.

I'm not sure that has ontological import though. — Moliere

What does have ontological import?

The coordinate system gives an orientation. Neither of these require an "observer".

The coordinate system gives an orientation. Neither of these require an "observer". — Banno

I don't think Liebniz or Kant meant there has to be someone standing there gawking in order for directions to exist. It's just that directionality does not exist in the wild.

Fair question, though that's sort of the thing I puzzle through still. I don't have a direct answer. I might even bother to write that one down if I had a direct answer.

"Left" and "Right" seem very 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.

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

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.

It's just that directionality does not exist in the wild. — frank

What could that mean? That birds do not fly north for winter?

Frankly, whatever your conclusion is remains obscure.

You seem to be playing with the difference between "absolute" and "relative", and to have realised that "relative" requires that some frame be assumed. But then you jump to the conclusion that the frame requires an observer. That's the bit that is hard to follow.

And as argued above, concluding that minds are special as a result of some argument seems to be superfluous.

And so you've joined the ranks of those to whom it's obvious that space doesn't have a left and right. We give it directionality.

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

I don't think that left and right follow from myself having a body with ears, though I know we have a sense of our own orientation from our somatic responses.

My "left" could be your "right", depending upon what my culture taught me as I grew up. It's not so much individual-body, but the social-body which these distinctions depend upon to my mind. (consider the case of feral children -- what "left" or "right" did they have? And doesn't chirality -- left and right handed objects -- still exist in their world without being able to utter it?)

It's not so much individual-body, but the social-body — Moliere

Or maybe it's empathy. You put yourself in other people's shoes, but the basis is innate.

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.

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

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.

And so you've joined the ranks of those to whom it's obvious that space doesn't have a left and right. — 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.

"...space doesn't have a left and right" is a nonsense, since left and right require a relation in space.

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

:grin: If there are no people in a world, and it has directionality, that directionality is come from you.

You want to claim that the relation must be to an observer. — Banno

No, the relation is to a chosen reference. That requires an entity capable of choosing. Otherwise you just have points everywhere, some giving rise to a right handed glove, some to a left handed glove.

If there are no people in a world, and it has directionality, that directionality is come from you. — frank

Does it?

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? What would make me believe that the actual world has properties attached to space because I'm the one that's in the world?

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

A possible world is an abstract object. It's stipulated.

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

I don't know. :grin:

A possible world is an abstract object. It's stipulated. — frank

So is the question more about "How do I make an inference from possibilities to actualities"?

So is the question more about "How do I make an inference from possibilities to actualities"? — Moliere

There are a few kinds of possibility

1. Logical possibility, which is closely kin to metaphysical possibility. You're informed about this by your innate ability to recognize contradictions.

2. Physical possibility, which we learn about in physics class.

We learn about space by hypothesizing in both domains, but thought experiments are in the first category.

Mkay. I'm wrapping back around to this in my thoughts:

Since you don't know how to answer:

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?

Mostly wanting to stay on point with the question about space having properties.

What made you believe that the actual world has properties attached to space because you're the one that's in it? — Moliere

I don't think I uniquely endow space with directionality. I think directions come from the fact that each person has a POV from a body that's easily divided into quadrants. My own journey to realizing this comes from time spent trying to explain to myself what "up" means. But I wouldn't recommend my own trail. If you have a trail, I hope you'll share it. Otherwise you can enjoy what Kant, Leibniz and Witt said. Witt's thoughts are in TLP 6.3111.

No, the relation is to a chosen reference. — frank

Ok. No, it isn't, but Ok.

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

No, that would be stupid. The point I've been making through the thread is the separation of representation vs 'things in themselves'. We need something 'in itself' to represent. The question is really about whether 'left' and 'right' as representations are things in themselves, or simply representations of direction through conscious origin. As I noted earlier, there not being a 'left' and 'right' in itself doesn't mean that there isn't the existence of two hands in particular points in space.