If there indeed is a true tree of life, as cladistics claims, then quantum physics is not only wrong, but moreover stupid. Why construct something as complicated as quantum physics if quanta can be described unambiguously without it?
The question is thus if cladistics or quantum physics is correct, that is, which of them that is wrong (and which thus also is stupid). I, myself, bet all I have on that quantum physics is correct. Which do you bet on?
fredag 28 juni 2013
onsdag 26 juni 2013
On cladistics
The problem for any theory on an evolutionary history of biodiversity is that it is impossible to define a kind of entity that "evolves". The reason is that such a kind of entity is the opposite to fundamental entities (like organisms), and that such a kind of entity is paradoxically contradictory by combining the two aspects "process" and "pattern" of fundamental entities, a fact also Bertrand Russell demonstrated with Russell's paradox. A kind of evolving entity is thus a paradox per definition.
Darwin bypassed this problem by simply using the kind of entity Linné created in the framework of his biological systematics, that is, "species". This kind of entity is, however, defined in terms of the genera in Linné's systematics, which Darwin excludes in his theory. Such "species" thus lose their definition in the framework of Darwin's theory, instead being turned into the paradox that a kind of evolving entity is per definition.
This problem led biological systematics after Darwin into a long discussion about "what a species is". This question is, however, obviously posed the wrong way around (ie, backwards), comprehending "species" as a kind of entiy that exists but which we have difficulties to define, when kinds of entities actually are something we distinguish by definitions. Kinds are not something we find, but something we distinguish. The problem was (and is) thus actually not "what a species is", but instead that it is impossible to define any kind of evolving entity.
In the midst of this discussion, the German Nazi entomologist Willi Henning took one further step in this inconsistency by bypassing this backward problem by discussing species as if they already were defined, instead shifting focus to "the tree of life" for these "species". This step really messed up the fundamental problem that it is impossible to define any kind of evolving entity. The step is consistent in that if there is a kind of entities like species, then there is also a tree of life (given the the theory of a common origin of biodiversity is correct), but inconsistent in that there can't be any kind of evolving entities (like "species"). Hennig simply moved things ahead by pretending that the fundamental problem that it is impossible to define any kind of evolving entity was solved.
Hennig's move unleashed a pent-up desire among biological systematists to find a strictly evolutionary classification, ie, a tree of life, although the fundamental impossibility to define any kind of evolving entity wasn't solved, a move that was called "cladistics". So, what did cladists encounter on the other side of sense, ie, in nonsense? The answer is: Russell's paradox. Cladists in fact assume (actually claim) that Russell's paradox can be found, instead of understand that it is a paradox. Their belief in "species" (actually in classes in general) has thus led them to its unavoidable end point, that is, to acknowledging Russell's paradox as a reality, Cladists thus in fact believe (actually claim) that paradoxes can be found.
The consistent conclusion is, of course, the other way around, that is, that it is impossible to find a non-contradictory (ie, unambiguous) tree of life, because such a thing is a paradox per definition. Cladistics has thus got everything totally and perfectly up-side-down.
Darwin bypassed this problem by simply using the kind of entity Linné created in the framework of his biological systematics, that is, "species". This kind of entity is, however, defined in terms of the genera in Linné's systematics, which Darwin excludes in his theory. Such "species" thus lose their definition in the framework of Darwin's theory, instead being turned into the paradox that a kind of evolving entity is per definition.
This problem led biological systematics after Darwin into a long discussion about "what a species is". This question is, however, obviously posed the wrong way around (ie, backwards), comprehending "species" as a kind of entiy that exists but which we have difficulties to define, when kinds of entities actually are something we distinguish by definitions. Kinds are not something we find, but something we distinguish. The problem was (and is) thus actually not "what a species is", but instead that it is impossible to define any kind of evolving entity.
In the midst of this discussion, the German Nazi entomologist Willi Henning took one further step in this inconsistency by bypassing this backward problem by discussing species as if they already were defined, instead shifting focus to "the tree of life" for these "species". This step really messed up the fundamental problem that it is impossible to define any kind of evolving entity. The step is consistent in that if there is a kind of entities like species, then there is also a tree of life (given the the theory of a common origin of biodiversity is correct), but inconsistent in that there can't be any kind of evolving entities (like "species"). Hennig simply moved things ahead by pretending that the fundamental problem that it is impossible to define any kind of evolving entity was solved.
Hennig's move unleashed a pent-up desire among biological systematists to find a strictly evolutionary classification, ie, a tree of life, although the fundamental impossibility to define any kind of evolving entity wasn't solved, a move that was called "cladistics". So, what did cladists encounter on the other side of sense, ie, in nonsense? The answer is: Russell's paradox. Cladists in fact assume (actually claim) that Russell's paradox can be found, instead of understand that it is a paradox. Their belief in "species" (actually in classes in general) has thus led them to its unavoidable end point, that is, to acknowledging Russell's paradox as a reality, Cladists thus in fact believe (actually claim) that paradoxes can be found.
The consistent conclusion is, of course, the other way around, that is, that it is impossible to find a non-contradictory (ie, unambiguous) tree of life, because such a thing is a paradox per definition. Cladistics has thus got everything totally and perfectly up-side-down.
måndag 24 juni 2013
Cladistics - the science of infinite recursion
An infinite recursion (also known as an infinite loop, endless loop or unproductive loop) is a sequence of operations which loops endlessly, either due to the loop having no terminating condition, having one that can never be met, or having one that causes the loop to start over.
One example of an infinite recursion is the notion that commonly is called "the tree of life". This infinite recursion is of the kind that have a terminating condition that can never be met. The problem with the notion is thus not whether it is true or not, but that it lacks a consistent solution. This statement points at two different issues to be addressed:
1. the question whether a statement about history can be true at all, and
2. why the notion lacks a consistent solution.
These two issues do, however, meet in that the answer to the former explains the latter. The fundamental problem is that a statement about history can't be true at all, since all statements about history requires an aspect, and that there is no aspect of aspects. This lack of an aspect of aspects does, in turn, explain why there isn't any consistent solution of the notion: there simply isn't any aspect of aspects. It means that we can search forever for an aspect of aspects, because the only thing we will find are different aspects which all are inconsistent.
The approach in biological systematics called "cladistics" has, however, turned this fact up-side-down by instead claiming that there indeed is an aspect of aspects that we can find, ie, the notion of a "the tree of life", which, thus, actually is an infinite recursion. This claim cannot, of course, change the fact that the notion is an infinite recursion, but only our understanding of that we can't find an infinite recursion into a belief that we can find an infinite recursion. It cannot change the fact that the notion is an infinite recursion, but only distort our heads into believing that we can find an infinite recursion.
In the course that this approach (cladistics) has gained more influence and power in biological systematics, it has excluded biological systematists that understand the issue from positions in the academy in favor for cladists, and has thereby kidnapped biological systematics. Today, cladists not only claim that an infinite recursion like the notion of a "tree of life" can be found, but also that biological systematics equals cladistics. It aims at eradicating everything except its inconsistent belief in biological systematics.
Cladistics has thus turned facts into fiction and fiction into facts, thereby giving the impression that an infinite recursion, ie, the notion of a "tree of life", can be found, when the truth is that a search for it is endless per definition. This has helped cladists to academic careers (see for example Steve Farris, Kåre Bremer and Per Sundberg), for which the judgement remains. It seems suspiciously like fraud. We at least ought to ask them if they indeed think that a "tree of life" can be found. If they answer yes, then they are definitely wrong, but to be be held responsible for their actions, we have to prove that they understand that they are wrong, which is more difficult. However, they ought at least be detached from their positions.
One example of an infinite recursion is the notion that commonly is called "the tree of life". This infinite recursion is of the kind that have a terminating condition that can never be met. The problem with the notion is thus not whether it is true or not, but that it lacks a consistent solution. This statement points at two different issues to be addressed:
1. the question whether a statement about history can be true at all, and
2. why the notion lacks a consistent solution.
These two issues do, however, meet in that the answer to the former explains the latter. The fundamental problem is that a statement about history can't be true at all, since all statements about history requires an aspect, and that there is no aspect of aspects. This lack of an aspect of aspects does, in turn, explain why there isn't any consistent solution of the notion: there simply isn't any aspect of aspects. It means that we can search forever for an aspect of aspects, because the only thing we will find are different aspects which all are inconsistent.
The approach in biological systematics called "cladistics" has, however, turned this fact up-side-down by instead claiming that there indeed is an aspect of aspects that we can find, ie, the notion of a "the tree of life", which, thus, actually is an infinite recursion. This claim cannot, of course, change the fact that the notion is an infinite recursion, but only our understanding of that we can't find an infinite recursion into a belief that we can find an infinite recursion. It cannot change the fact that the notion is an infinite recursion, but only distort our heads into believing that we can find an infinite recursion.
In the course that this approach (cladistics) has gained more influence and power in biological systematics, it has excluded biological systematists that understand the issue from positions in the academy in favor for cladists, and has thereby kidnapped biological systematics. Today, cladists not only claim that an infinite recursion like the notion of a "tree of life" can be found, but also that biological systematics equals cladistics. It aims at eradicating everything except its inconsistent belief in biological systematics.
Cladistics has thus turned facts into fiction and fiction into facts, thereby giving the impression that an infinite recursion, ie, the notion of a "tree of life", can be found, when the truth is that a search for it is endless per definition. This has helped cladists to academic careers (see for example Steve Farris, Kåre Bremer and Per Sundberg), for which the judgement remains. It seems suspiciously like fraud. We at least ought to ask them if they indeed think that a "tree of life" can be found. If they answer yes, then they are definitely wrong, but to be be held responsible for their actions, we have to prove that they understand that they are wrong, which is more difficult. However, they ought at least be detached from their positions.
fredag 14 juni 2013
When will biological systematists understand what they do?
Biological systematics is the battlefield between nominalism and realism, and never will the two meet, because Russell's paradox stands between them. It started with realism (ie, Parmenides), passed into nominalism via Aristotle and Linné, and then returned to realism via Hennig. The natural continuation is to pass another lap in the same circle, shorter this time, before it commences yet another lap in the same circle, all the time trying to reach the carrot in front of the donkey's nose, ie, the true classification, or the "true tree of life".
When will biological systematists understand that what they look for is Russell's paradox? When will they understand what they do?
When will biological systematists understand that what they look for is Russell's paradox? When will they understand what they do?
söndag 9 juni 2013
Conceptualization and the contrary, ie, cladistics
We (humans) conceptualize the reality we perceive using a tool composed of three components: objects (aka entities), infinite classes (aka imaginary types) and finite classes (aka categories). We perform conceptualization by distinguishing objects and allocating them to finite classes using infinite classes. In this process, infinite classes functions as a catalyst for allocation of objects into categories. The only requirement of conceptualization is that we keep objects, infinite classes and finite classes consistently apart, because if we don't, then we confuse conceptualization itself by conflating them.
However, there is an inconsistency internally in conceptualization in the concept of "the finite class of all finite classes" (ie, the category of all categories) residing in the definitional fact that finite classes (ie, categories) are not single objects, but several objects, whereas the notion of "the finite class of all finite classes" is a single object consisting of several finite classes and thus both (ie, paradoxically contradictory between) an object and a finite class, that is, a single object and several objects. This notion is thus empty per definition by being both an object and a class at the same time, that is, a paradox (ie, Russell's paradox).
The German Nazi entomologist Willi Hennig did, however, turn this fact up-side-down by comprehending the finite class of all finite classes as "the only natural group". The problem with this comprehension is thus that it is inconsistent (ie, paradoxically contradictory). He (and others) may thus comprehend this "group" as "the only natural group", but neither he nor others can ever pinpoint this "group" without contradiction, because it is paradoxically contradictory per definition. If it hadn't been, then it could also have had an ancestor.
Willi Hennig and his followers (ie, cladists) obviously think that finite classes are real instead of objects, which leads them to conflation of "finite class" with "infinite class", and thus to conflation of conceptualization itself. Instead of conceptualizing reality, they, obviously, search for "the true" conceptualized reality, which in practice is their own conceptualization of reality, whichever it is, but paradoxically contradictory per definition.
This spin around the internal inconsistency of conceptualization can only be halted by considering what we talk about (ie, objects, like humans, or classes, like human).
However, there is an inconsistency internally in conceptualization in the concept of "the finite class of all finite classes" (ie, the category of all categories) residing in the definitional fact that finite classes (ie, categories) are not single objects, but several objects, whereas the notion of "the finite class of all finite classes" is a single object consisting of several finite classes and thus both (ie, paradoxically contradictory between) an object and a finite class, that is, a single object and several objects. This notion is thus empty per definition by being both an object and a class at the same time, that is, a paradox (ie, Russell's paradox).
The German Nazi entomologist Willi Hennig did, however, turn this fact up-side-down by comprehending the finite class of all finite classes as "the only natural group". The problem with this comprehension is thus that it is inconsistent (ie, paradoxically contradictory). He (and others) may thus comprehend this "group" as "the only natural group", but neither he nor others can ever pinpoint this "group" without contradiction, because it is paradoxically contradictory per definition. If it hadn't been, then it could also have had an ancestor.
Willi Hennig and his followers (ie, cladists) obviously think that finite classes are real instead of objects, which leads them to conflation of "finite class" with "infinite class", and thus to conflation of conceptualization itself. Instead of conceptualizing reality, they, obviously, search for "the true" conceptualized reality, which in practice is their own conceptualization of reality, whichever it is, but paradoxically contradictory per definition.
This spin around the internal inconsistency of conceptualization can only be halted by considering what we talk about (ie, objects, like humans, or classes, like human).
lördag 8 juni 2013
Cladistics is a mass psychosis
Cladistics is a mass psychosis. There isn't any single true tree of life per definition, since it requires that what an entity is equals what an entity does, which excludes change. It would have been fantastic if cladistics would have been consistent, but unfortunately it is just consistently inconsistent, ie, paradoxically contradictory.
fredag 7 juni 2013
Can cladists back off from their claim with their honor intact?
Bertrand Russell demonstrated in 1901 that naive set theory leads to paradox.
This demonstration made Ernst Zermelo (1908) propose an axiomatization of set theory that avoids this paradox by replacing arbitrary set comprehension with weaker existence axioms, such as his axiom of separation (Aussonderung). Later modifications to this axiomatization proposed in the 1920s by Abraham Fraenkel, Thoralf Skolem, and by Zermelo himself resulted in the axiomatic set theory called ZFC. This theory was initially controversial, but became widely accepted once Zermelo's axiom of choice ceased to be controversial, and has since then remained the canonical axiomatic set theory down to the present day.
The German Nazi entomologist Willi Hennig did, however, ignore both Russell's demonstration, Zemelo et al's avoidance of this paradox and ZFC, when he in 1955 instead simply claimed that "only monophyletic groups [in effect Russell's paradox] appear to be natural groups". Hennig thus didn't consider the scientific discussion about Russell's paradox, which also confused biological systematists at the time since Darwin had presentated his theory "on the origin of species", but simply claimed that only this paradox appears to be natural groups. In spite of this Hennig's omission, his claim gave rise to the approach in biological systematics that today is called "cladistics", and which also today is searching for this paradox. This approach has thus totally missed the fact that naive set theory leads to paradox (as well as the scientific discussion about this fact).
The question now is thus: who in the world can explain to cladists that Hennig was ignorant about the discussion about monophyly (ie, Russell's paradox) when he made his claim that "only monophyletic groups [ie, Russell's paradox] appear to be natural groups". And, can cladists withdraw their claim at all (which is more of a belief than a claim)? Can cladists back off with their honor intact?
This demonstration made Ernst Zermelo (1908) propose an axiomatization of set theory that avoids this paradox by replacing arbitrary set comprehension with weaker existence axioms, such as his axiom of separation (Aussonderung). Later modifications to this axiomatization proposed in the 1920s by Abraham Fraenkel, Thoralf Skolem, and by Zermelo himself resulted in the axiomatic set theory called ZFC. This theory was initially controversial, but became widely accepted once Zermelo's axiom of choice ceased to be controversial, and has since then remained the canonical axiomatic set theory down to the present day.
The German Nazi entomologist Willi Hennig did, however, ignore both Russell's demonstration, Zemelo et al's avoidance of this paradox and ZFC, when he in 1955 instead simply claimed that "only monophyletic groups [in effect Russell's paradox] appear to be natural groups". Hennig thus didn't consider the scientific discussion about Russell's paradox, which also confused biological systematists at the time since Darwin had presentated his theory "on the origin of species", but simply claimed that only this paradox appears to be natural groups. In spite of this Hennig's omission, his claim gave rise to the approach in biological systematics that today is called "cladistics", and which also today is searching for this paradox. This approach has thus totally missed the fact that naive set theory leads to paradox (as well as the scientific discussion about this fact).
The question now is thus: who in the world can explain to cladists that Hennig was ignorant about the discussion about monophyly (ie, Russell's paradox) when he made his claim that "only monophyletic groups [ie, Russell's paradox] appear to be natural groups". And, can cladists withdraw their claim at all (which is more of a belief than a claim)? Can cladists back off with their honor intact?
torsdag 6 juni 2013
Closer than the Linnean system can classification not come to reality
Classification can only be either ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory. It is ambiguous if we use an orthogonal system like Linnean systematics, and paradoxically contradictory if not. The reason for this fact is that classification ultimately is paradoxically contradictory, which Bertrand Russell demonstrated with Russell's paradox in 1901. It means that classification can't reach unambiguity at all. It doesn't matter what we do, never will it reach unambiguity.
This fact has cladistics, ie, Willi Hennig, turned up-side-down into a notion that classification indeed can reach unambiguity in the form of a single true tree of life. This notion is thus wrong. It can't. Classification can't reach unambiguity.Instead, this notion is just an empty belief like the belief in Creation. The two are just as empty, although believing in different contradictions. Linné's system is actually the ambiguous belance between all such contradictory beliefs. Closer than it can classification not come to reality.
This fact has cladistics, ie, Willi Hennig, turned up-side-down into a notion that classification indeed can reach unambiguity in the form of a single true tree of life. This notion is thus wrong. It can't. Classification can't reach unambiguity.Instead, this notion is just an empty belief like the belief in Creation. The two are just as empty, although believing in different contradictions. Linné's system is actually the ambiguous belance between all such contradictory beliefs. Closer than it can classification not come to reality.
måndag 3 juni 2013
On two impossible scientific endeavours: Higg's particle-ism and cladism
There are two scientific endeavours that are vain per definition:
1. to find the smallest particle and
2. to find species,
which Bertrand Russell demonstrated about a hundred years ago.
These two endeavours do, however, share one property: being considered as self-evidently within reach by many physicists (Higg's particle-ists) and biologists (cladists), respectively.
The belief of these physicists and biologists is so strong that the former claim that they have found it with a certain probability and the latter simply turns matters up-side-down by considering it as found.
Don't accept their claims! Fact is that neither Higg's particle-ists nor cladists ever will find their respective dream, because it simply isn't to be found, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated. They need money and have to produce results, but their respective strives are actually vain. We can understand how reality functions, in several different ways, but not find out what it is. That's the fact of life we have to accept and live with.
1. to find the smallest particle and
2. to find species,
which Bertrand Russell demonstrated about a hundred years ago.
These two endeavours do, however, share one property: being considered as self-evidently within reach by many physicists (Higg's particle-ists) and biologists (cladists), respectively.
The belief of these physicists and biologists is so strong that the former claim that they have found it with a certain probability and the latter simply turns matters up-side-down by considering it as found.
Don't accept their claims! Fact is that neither Higg's particle-ists nor cladists ever will find their respective dream, because it simply isn't to be found, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated. They need money and have to produce results, but their respective strives are actually vain. We can understand how reality functions, in several different ways, but not find out what it is. That's the fact of life we have to accept and live with.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)