A New Approach to an Old Problem

The mirror reversal puzzle is not so much a matter of the science of light rays, optics, and the Physics behind mirror reflection, but is far more a PEOPLE thing.

I’d say it can best be solved by a science of human activities, a science that deals with how people interact with complicated or subtle things. The structure of “reversedness‭” ‬in a human being’s mental imagery is far more subtle than the reversal of a photon’s trajectory.

When people want to compare any two nearly identical objects for some subtle difference there are two common strategies they can use. These two strategies are often useful, but they are also oddly contradictory.

***

In one strategy, the two objects are lined up to face in the same direction before they are compared. For instance, if two nearly identical pens are to be compared, no one I know of would ever hold one pen horizontally, the other vertically, and then proceed to compare them. People commonly want hold them facing in the same direction for such a task.

When a person uses this strategy in the mirror situation they like to imagine themselves rotating about a vertical axis for a comparison with their image. This rotation brings them to face the same direction as their earlier image was pointing. This also requires them to mentally freeze their image as it was when they faced the mirror. When ALL this is done, the Left/Right reversal is obvious.

It can get a little complicated, but many people seem to have the mental circuitry to perform all this in a near subconscious flash of imagery. Verbalizing it is far more difficult and hardly anyone can hold on to the images long enough to do that.

***

The second common human strategy for dealing with complicated situations, is to freeze EVERYTHING, avoid disturbing the scene, and look at the situation “as is” in order to perform an analysis of the subtle differences between two objects. This is the classic Sherlock Holmes approach to a crime scene.

In the mirror setup, performing this “as is” strategy means NOT rotating anything at all before doing the comparison between image and object, and the Left/Right reversal fails to show up. Instead, a Front/Back reversal is apparent in this “as is” comparison.

***

Of the two strategies, the second is FAR simpler. The first is almost too complicated to be done mentally, and it’s often impossible to document in any way. Yet, it can happen in a flash of mental imagery, only to fade as soon as words are brought in to capture it.

Often a person, deep in the throws of the mirror riddle, will drift from one strategy to the other subconsciously. This is often described as “magical” by those who delight in that sort of thing, while others will literally complain of the headache it causes them.

When each strategy is carefully thought through, ONE AT A TIME, clarity results.

***

It’s unlikely, but it might possibly occur to a gymnast to apply the first strategy by rotating about an horizontal axis, instead of the vertical, in order to face the same direction.

This means performing a hand stand to face in the same direction as the earlier frozen image, and then Up and Down would be seen to be reversed. But who is prone to do this difficult action or even to imagine it? And not only is it difficult, but it risks injury and even seven years of bad luck if the mirror is broken?

So, it’s not the mirror so much that does any reversing of perceived images, as it is people who do that by their selection of comparison strategies.

The three strategies mentioned “reverse” all three dimensions: Left/Right, Front/Back, and Up/Down. Mirrors reverse the direction of light rays, but people decide how they are going to compare image to object. It’s in this decision that the perceived reversal occurs.

***

I’ve been examining, collecting and analyzing answers to this riddle for many years. It’s been puzzling people for centuries. Even Nobel physicist Richard Feynman has tried his hand at it, and less than successfully, in my opinion. Recently I set up a website to discuss this subject at length.

Please visit me at: http://mirror-reversal.proboards.com

Thanks,

MikeO

At first I thought it was because human eyes were laid out horizontally. But then when you close one eye, it does not change the way mirrors reflect.

However, let’s say we look at a mirror while lying down sideways on a bed. If your right ear is facing the ceiling, in the mirror, it will look like your right ear is facing the bed. Isn’t that up/down reversal?

So, the mirror doesn’t choose left/right or up/down. It is our perspective that decides that.

Eddy Chang.

Answer= [i] vectors math

Answer [ii]: Mirrors do NOT reverse anything! It is the mind of man that perceives that the mirror is reversing things because s/he is looking at the mirror from ONE perspective; which is diffferent to the perspective from the mirror’s position!

A final answer:

Metaphysically [the nature of reality as it "is"] the mirror is not reversing anything as explained above;

Epistemological [how does a human get to "know" anything to be right/wrong, true/false, fact?]: the human must use their mind using logic and reason to determine facts!

The “facts” can be gleaned by understanding:
[a] perspective of the observer in contrast to the mirror
[b] vector math
——————————————–

David Freeman is incorrect though.

Whereas Goedel was correct, that within a system, one can not prove its axioms/premises; it does not however stand to reason that “therefore” reality/everything is “in the mind”.

The correct way to express reality is “object-as-perceived” [Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, the only complete and correct philosophy]

So this is incorrect: “reality is OUT there” [irrespective of the mind, subjectivism]
This is also incorrect: “reality is IN HERE” [all in the mind, intrincist]

If “reality” was merely “out there” then we can never know it, no one can, and all our assumptions would be mere assumptions, and not “the truth”, so 1+1 will not neccessarily equal 2.

If “reality” was merely “in here” then “anything goes”: any mad man like Hitler/Bin-Laden would be rational for the word “rational” would imply that whatever one thinks subjectively can or may be correct.

However as reality is “object-as-perceived” by you and THEN must be identified by you using the method of reason and logic, one can grasp “reality”, otherwise known as “facts”, distinguished from mere “opinion”.

1+1=2 , only 2 and nothing but 2. We can prove that.
———————–
Whereas Goedel said that one can not prove axioms/premises within a system; it doesn’t mean de facto that axioms therefore can not be validated, that reality can not be validated. This is a crucial distinction.

Firstly “reality” exists, otherwise better expressed as “existence exists”.

How do you “know” that existence exists? Because you validate it by your senses [even if you were blind, mute and dumb - which alas some people are by birth; still the person realizes that there 'is' existence; that they are not 'some dream'].

To summarize:

i. Existence exsts as opposed to “no existence” and

ii. The purpose of your mind is to grasp existence [as a human to survive firstly and pursue happiness through growth secondly]

iii. The above two axiomatic concept imply Aristotle’s law of identity: that something is either right or wrong, true or false , with no in-betweens. That loigc is the way to identify the truth, and the truth is absolute, immutable.

Some more notes:

a. Humans are not omniscient and the purpose of our minds, is to grasp existence, to grasp “facts, the truth” and the way to do that is to use reason and logic, to integrate and differentiate concepts, to find the truth wherever possible. Summary: the lack of omniscience does not prevent us from grasping the facts of reality with the passage of time; by building upon concepts. Newton, for example grasped and labeled “gravity”

b. Einstein grasped errors in Newtons reasoning , using Newtonian physics as his referential base to extend the concept and label it “relativity”.

In summary: humans extend concepts by the process of integrating and differentiating other existing concepts of reality. Then one can “test” these ideas such as scientists conducting experiments.

Thanks!