• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

One for the Metaphysicians - Kant's 'Left Hand/Right hand Paradox!'

Alephnul

Alephnul

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
244
Location
EU
Some of you may be familiar with Kant's paradox, posited in a time when Newton and Leibniz were arguiing over whether space was a function of matter (ie - no matter = no space), or whether it held some indipendent reality to it.
The thought experimet paradox goes somthing like this.

'If a human hand, was the first thing to exist in th universe, is it a left hand, or a right hand'?

Like all pardoxes, the simplicity of it's wording hides high level of complexity. So think hard..

Bon appetite:

AN
 
It was just a hand. When the other hand came into being, a system of differentiating between the two hands was developed, by people.

We as people put labels on things to make the world easier to perceive.

A hand is really a collection of atoms, undergoing whatever process it is that makes an object that we people label as a hand. So if all that existed in the world was a "hand", it might not even be a hand.

Also, we define a hand by what it looks like and what function it serves. If the hand was all that existed, there would be nothing for it to "handle" and thus, it wouldn't be a hand.
 
B9 said:
Both. :)
Click to expand...
Possibly, but what does that mean, in 3 dimensional space it must be one or the other, that's the very nature of 3d space, it is filled with 'incongrous counterparts', a hand is just one emaple of many 3 d versions. Some exist with 2 dimensioanl symetry (p : q) is one example.

Why both (left and right) and not 'neither left, nor right'?
AN
 
Alephnul said:
Possibly, but what does that mean, in 3 dimensional space it must be one or the other, that's the very nature of 3d space, it is filled with 'incongrous counterparts', a hand is just one emaple of many 3 d versions. Some exist with 2 dimensioanl symetry (p : q) is one example.

Why both (left and right) and not 'neither left, nor right'?
AN
Click to expand...

There is no right without left & vice versa - ergot ;) it must be both at the same time.:)

Neither would indicate that there was no hand in existence :|

I could be wrong on this - but I'm not =D
 
It is neither right nor left, as there is nothing else that exists in the universe to classify it as right or left. The hand can not be a hand either because for it to be a human hand there has to be a human in this universe to be able to classify the hand as human. Does the object exist if there is no one to observe it?
 
The nature of matter, as I see it, is that of a standing wave, a harmonic, and that we are made of these recurring patterns and thus can perceive other patterns as matter. This implies there is an all-encompassing natural law defining what qualities of the flux are harmonic and what aren't but does not imply a singular variety of that law leading to the possibility of multiple universes operating in the same location but invisible to each other. Space could then be those other universes and thus be independent.

If a ToE was the first thing to exist in the universe, is it a big ToE or a little ToE? =D
 
We're gettng somewhere

It is neither right nor left, as there is nothing else that exists in the universe to classify it as right or left. The hand can not be a hand either because for it to be a human hand there has to be a human in this universe to be able to classify the hand as human
Click to expand...

Doesn’t have to be a human hand at all, let’s say it’s a manequin’s hand

If a ToE was the first thing to exist in the universe, is it a big ToE or a little ToE?
Click to expand...

Not the same questions, a big and small toe are quantatively different, what I'm hinting at is that a hand or any object, that has an incongrous counterpart are quantatively the same, but qualatitevly different.


There is no right without left & vice versa - ergot it must be both at the same time.

Neither would indicate that there was no hand in existence

I could be wrong on this - but I'm not
Click to expand...

Self-defeating logic: having two qualities which are mutualluy exclusive is logically impossible to the same extent that lacking a neccessary quality renders something logically non-existent ergo (via your reasoning) neither (left, nor right) is impossible because to exist is to have a neccessary quality, whilst both (left and right) is possible though it has mutually exclusive qualities (like a square-circle)!

Think of howa p and q are similar

(This is still an unresolved paradox)
 
Last edited:
One cannot exist alone, but only in relation to something else.
It depends on the perspective of the experiencer.
 
Not the same questions, a big and small toe are quantatively different, what I'm hinting at is that a hand or any object, that has an incongrous counterpart are quantatively the same, but qualatitevly different.
Click to expand...

ToE = Theory of Everything...
 
In the world of duality they seem different but in fact they are the same- it is a matter of perspective and perception. Everything has always existed in the one eternal moment.
 
But its just a word game.....right and left aren't real as such; just a way of delineating the function of our limbs really. An abviously, a right hand when inverted in a mirror is also a left hand. So both and neither :)

Its a simialr question 'What happens to your fist when you open your hand?"....english langauage can't express anything except by describing what it isn't- in a sense, without a complimentary hand, left and right don't or can't matter. Whats to the left of me; I am to the right of it.
 
FreedomOfTheMind said:
One cannot exist alone, but only in relation to something else.
It depends on the perspective of the experiencer.
Click to expand...
So if there is an 'experiencer' to have/be 'perspective', the hand, of whatever flavor, cannot be the sole occupant of that universe at that moment.
Ipso facto!
*__-

The 'right/left' question is nonsensical obfuscation, as a 'hand', or anything else for that matter, cannot 'exist' without a 'perceiver/perspective', without which nothing can exist.
 
Alephnul said:
'If a human hand, was the first thing to exist in th universe, is it a left hand, or a right hand'?

Like all pardoxes, the simplicity of it's wording hides high level of complexity. So think hard..
Click to expand...
Quite honestly? I find this sentence rather badly-written and silly.

Kant has never been one for simplicity. He should have not tried playing eastern all of a sudden and stuck to writing endlelessly boring drivel to hide from his fear of death.

Sorry, but that is honestly what I think, even after giving the apparent "paradox" some thought. Perhaps it lost somthing in translation? Or taken out of a context that I bet is more than 5 pages long?
 
Jamshyd said:
Perhaps it lost somthing in translation? Or taken out of a context that I bet is more than 5 pages long?
Click to expand...

I also think this might be a possiblity.

It just doesn't seem paradoxical enough. I mean, I'm pretty sure that it's already been answered in the first response to the thread. ;)
 
B9 is right - it is both. 50% left and 50% right.

Being a single object in a 3-dimensional space, there is no directional system because there is nothing to relate direction to.

You can recreate the situation in a computer. The creator would be the programmer. The hand would be created and assigned equal chance of being left or right.

In the hypothetical situation posed by the TC the hand would be 50% left and 50% right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top