I bet that cladistics and particle physics are wrong

If cladistics and particle physics are correct (ie, if there indeed is a true tree of life and a Higgs particle), then quantum mechanics is wrong, and vice versa. I bet that cladistics and particle physics are wrong. Is there anyone out there that are willing to bet against me in this issue? (Although particle physics recently got the Nobel Prize. But, then again, Barack Obama also got the Nobel Prize a year ago... A joke, isn't it?).

On the problem for cladistics

Cladists claim that only groups consisting of an ancestor and its descendants are "natural groups". However, if there is a finite number of members of such groups, then there must be an infinite number of such groups, and vice versa, because if the number of both is finite, then at least one such group is a paradox (ie, Russell's paradox).

Cladists thus have to pass the insurmountable barrier between finity and infinity, ie, resolve Russell's paradox, to realize their claim, ie, find the true tree of life. Does anyone dare to bet that they will succeed in a limited time frame?

No, cladistics is actually the worst error we can make, that is, to conflate object with class. It is not only stupid, but as stupid as we can possibly be. It is the opposite to sense, that is, nonsense. It actually marks the beginning of the end for science unless it is clearly dismissed by scientists.

The difference in biological systematics between cladistics and Linnean systematics

The difference in biological systematics between cladistics and Linnean systematics is that cladistics is naive set theory, whereas Linnean systematics is axiomatic set theory. It means that cladistics is contradictory (actually paradoxically contradictory as Bertrand Russell demonstrated in 1901), whereas Linnean systematics is consistent.

As cladists claim, naive set theory is indeed simpler than axiomatic set theory is, but also contradictory in difference to axiomatic set theory. It is as Einstein stated: we shall simplify matters as much as possible, but not too much, because then we create impossibilities. The impossibility cladistics creates is "a true tree of life".

Cladists are thus actually just naive (ie, ignorant) biological systematists.

Cladistics is pure old race biology

The approach in biological systematics called "cladistics" is nothing but pure old race biology in a new dress.

 

 

It is fundamentally the belief in kinds, ie, class-realism.

The explanation of why there isn't any single ultimate truth

The problem with finding a single ultimate truth does not reside in reasoning, but in classification. The problem is that there isn't any both internally consistent and externally unambiguous (ie, with regard to reality) classification. Instead, there are only internally inconsistent (ie, paradoxically contradictory) and externally ambiguous classifications (like cladistics and Linnean systematics, respectively).

It means that we can think forever without finding any single ultimate truth. There simply isn't any to find. There thus isn't any "single true tree of life" as cladists claim, nor any "Higgs particle" as particle physicists claim. Instead, the idea that there is such a single ultimate truth is a fundamental misunderstanding of conceptualization, called (class)-realism, ie, the belief that classes are real. This idea is actually the only conceptual construction that conceptualization excludes. Every attempt to formulate such a "truth" will thus be either paradoxically contradictory or contradicted by facts.

The idea of a single ultimate truth is thus like the carrot in front of the donkey's eyes - a practical illusion.

         

A message to those that search for The Truth (like cladists and Higgs particle-ists)

To those people that are engaged in fundamental (basic) research searching for The Truth, like cladists and Higgs particle-ists, I can inform them that such a thing is not to be found. The place where it ought to be is simply empty.

I don't know how they could arrive to the belief that there is such a thing, but I can inform them that it is in practice just a bite in their own tails, ie, what they say it is, but consistently contradictory.

If there indeed had been something in this place, then it would have been overpopulated.

On The Truth

If objects are real (like you and me), and if objects consist of objects (like how we consist of cells), then there is no smallest object, since every object consists of other objects, and there neither is a largest object, since every object is a part of a larger object.

If, on the other hand, kinds of objects are real (like humans), then there are no objects (like you and me), since the kind of all kinds consists of several objects (see Russell's paradox).

Neither objects nor kinds of objects are thus real, and both of them can't neither be real, since they contradict each other.

This fact may leave us in despair, but have faith - life continues independently of whether objects or kinds are real. Science is overrated. It can't deliever The Truth, but can just manipulate reality, just as rhetoric just can manipulate what we think about reality. None of them can deliever The Truth. Instead, "The Truth" is actually a paradox.

This is the reality we have to face. Do what you prefer with it.

Belief in a single truth is the problem for science

The fundamental problem with conceptualization of reality is that both reality and conceptualization of it are orthogonal, and that they (ie, reality and conceptualization of it) are mutually orthogonal, because it means that conceptuazation can only reach either ambiguity in relation to reality or paradoxical contradiction within itself - the former does it reach when it's internally consistent (eg, using ZFC), and latter does it reach when it's inconsistent (eg, using naive set theory). This problem does thus mean that it can't reach both consistency within conceptualization and unambiguity in relation to reality (at the same time).

Assertiing the contrary (ie, that it can reach both consistency within conceptualization and unambiguity in relation to reality) eg, cladistics, does thus actually lead to paradoxical contradiction.

Asserting that it has reached the contrary (eg, has found Higgs particles, is thus contradicted by facts (eg, the fact that time is relative with speed in space, and that there are anti-materia).

The idea of a single consistent AND unambiguous conceptualization of reality is what we intuitively call The Truth (unlike "truth" within conceptualization, ie, logical truth). Such a single "Truth" is thus not possible to reach due to the practical obstacles explained above, but fundamentally due to that conceptualization distinguishes itself from the reality it discusses. The idea of such a single "Truth" is thus not different from the old idea of a God - it is clearly irrational, but can't be wiped out from our minds.

It means that conceptualization of reality is fundamentally a quagmire from which many of us flee into a belief in something, may it be a God or "The Truth", because those of us can't stand the thought of being left on a quagmire. A true atheist, however, accepts the fact that he/she is left on a quagmire and do the best he/she can under the circumstances. It is the pure relativist approach - the only rational approach.

Belief in a single truth in science (which can be called science-ism), like cladistics and Higgs particle-ism, has the major disadvantage of including race biology (apart from being irrational). As a true atheist, I thus strongly argue against this extremism of science. Science is rational and practically useful, but belief in a single truth is irrational, actually paradoxically contradictory. This belief is thus actually both the driving force for, the "black hole" of and the main enemy to science..