On the fundamental and everlasting split in humanity (especially obvious in biological systematics)

As soon as someone of us humans conceptualize reality (for example into ducks and geese), there is another of us humans that questions this conceptualization, asking what the concepts (ie, a duck and a goose) really is. It is just as if the pure reasoning about reality ignites a counterreasoning questioning what it is that the reasoning discusses.

This is the fundamental and everlasting split within humanity - classifying and questioning classification.This split is perhaps most obvious in biological systematics by ripping it apart into a fundamental and everlasting split between those that simply classify and those that search for classes.

This split can never be healed, because the two approaches are orthogonal, and there is no intermediate (neutral) truth between them to be found. There is actually nothing between them at all. Instead, they are all we have. The only possibility for an intermediate solution is a compromise between them in the form of an orthogonal system of classification like the Linnean systematics.

Our choice is thus between eternal split or compromise (in the form of an orthogonal system of classification). The option of an unambiguous truth, like Higg's boson or the true tree of life, is simply not given. These solutions can only be almost correct, that is, totally wrong. The problem is actually extremely simple, but the reasonings about it can be extremely complex. The problem is that we search for a solution that is not to be found. Its place is simply void. .       

Do you believe in Higg's boson?

Recently, some physicists claimed to having found a fundamental particle they call Higg's boson. This particle appears to be more of a wishthinking than a reality to me, sending out the question to all of us: do we believe in Higg's boson? I, myself, do not believe in this monstrosity for a second, but do you?

Do you believe in Higg's boson? I am grateful for all reactions on this post. How many of us believe in Higg's boson?

On the belief of cladistics

Those biological systematists called cladists believe, actually claim, that there is a single true classification of biological organisms to be found, although Bertrand Russell demonstrated about a century ago that classification leads to paradox. This imagined "single true classification" is thus actually a paradox, independently of what cladists claim, and thus nothing that can be found. A paradox is a contradiction and thus not something that can be found.

Cladists' claim has, however, created confusion in biological systematics. Biological systematists are no longer sure of what they're doing. Take for example a cod, is it surely a cod or in specific question? What does biological systematics assume and know, respectively?

The belief of cladistics has thus really messed things up in biological systematics. This mess is thus due to an exchange of understanding with belief, probably due to to a lack of understanding. Where the understanding ends takes the belief at.  

Cladists need education in linear algebra

When we discuss reality, we partition it into entities and states of these entities. The fundamental question in physics is what states are. There are only two possibilities: 1. a set (as in set theory) or 2. a vector space.

Classical physics assumes that they are a set, which, however, Bertrand Russell about a hundred years ago showed leads to paradox, called Russell's paradox. Quantum physics, however, later clarified that states actually are a vector space, called the Hilbert space, of complex numbers. This finding influences our comprehension of reality profoundly by interpreting it as a matter of probabilities for states rather than as states themselves. Entities thus have probabilities to have states rather than states per se.

This fact ambiguates the German Nazi entomologist Willi Hennig's methodology to reconstruct relationships by meaning that it leads to paradox. It simply assumes that reality can be pinpointed in terms of states of entities, when fact is the other way around, that is, that reality can't be pinpointed in terms of states of entities. It thus assumes that an erroneous comprehension of reality is correct, and thus that a correct comprehension of reality is erroneous.

Vector spaces are dealt with by linear algebra. Biological systematists (especially cladists) thus need education in linear algebra.

Cladistics is not just ignorant, but also vain

Cladistics partitions states (of species) into "characters" and "character states". The question on this partition is what the difference is between "character" states and "character state" states? The fact that there isn't any difference between them is actually the reason why cladistics ends in Russell's paradox. The state of all states by cladistics presumedly possessed by the ultimate ancestor is namely the paradox itself, since it is the "character state" and the "character" of which it is the "character state" at the same time . This state is thus both identical to itself and different from itself at the same time.

The problem with cladistics is that it discusses combinations of states as if they are entities INSTEAD of entities (ie, strict typology). Such approach does, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated, end in paradox. Evolution is not a dichotomous splitting of types, but of random change directed by natural selection. It can be described with a dichotomously branching graph, but there are several just as true such descriptions per definition. A search for a single true such description, ie, cladistics, is thus not only ignorant, but also vain.

The sense of cladistics shines by its absence

Cladists are actually fossils from before we (humans) developed quantum mechanics (during the 21st century). They simply refuse to acknowledge the problems with classical physics, but instead "deny" quantum mechanics, and do thereby end up in the problems with classical physics (specifically Russell's paradox in the form of a "tree of life"). They obviously think that reality is just an issue of denying and acknowledging, although Bertrand Russell demonstrated already 1901 that this methodology leads to paradox. It is just as if cladists think they can defeat paradox by believing in it. The sense of the approach shines by its absence.