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..

There simply are no "true tree of life" or Higgs particles"

When we discuss reality, we have only two fundamentally different approaches to reality to choose between:

1. to accept that reality is infinitely changing (ie, nominalism - the basis of knowledge), or

2. to change infinitely (ie, class-realism - the basis of belief).

Option 1 means that we can reach consistency in reasoning (as with ZFC), whereas option 2 means that we will be consistently inconsistent.

However, the possible consistency of option 1 is ambiguous, because there are always more than one solution of any particular problem, whereas the consistent inconsistency of option 2 is invisible for those that choose this option, because it resides between assumption and conclusion in logical reasoning. Together, these facts thus mean that if we want to discuss reality, we can only choose between being either ambiguous or contradictory.

These facts are problematic for "science" in a loose sense (ie, not distinguishing between knowledge and belief), because they mean that the dream of an unambiguous and non-contradictory description of reality is an impossibility.We simply can't find an unambiguous and non-contradictory description of reality.

It means that the assertions that there is a "true tree of life" by cladists and that there are "Higgs particles" by particle physicists are wrong. There simply are no such things. 

On the truth of cladistics and particle physics

Cladists and particle physicists both assert that a contradiction (ie, "a true tree of life" and "Higgs particle", respectively) is real. The only difference between them is that cladists have not yet asserted that they have found it, which particle physicists on the contrary have.

If they indeed can find their respective contradiction empirically, then logic is wrong, since logic rests on the distinction of true and false, and false then is true. However, if logic is wrong in this way, then it means that it is just wrong in assessing true as true and false as false, when it actually should assess true as false and false as true, which it can adjust by considering true as false and false as true.

It means that if we have an argument that p implies q, and we prove that this argument is true, then we simply conclude that it is false, and vice versa, thereby proving that "everything goes" as Kuhn expressed it. In a world of contradiction, every argument is true, and every assertion can be framed in an argument that supports it. The only thing that can't be true is that time is relative (with speed in space), which is a fact. This is the subjective aspect of reality ( ie, the aspect that denies meta-levels of problems).

If this aspect gains public support, as in bold racism, then we're heading into the 3rd World War. The only way to avoid this development is to understand that cladists' and particle physicists' assertions are impossible. Never will they find their respective pink elephants. Science does not assert the existence of particular sets, but rather denies the existence of them.   

Higgs particle is the greatest and meanest fraud in the history of science

The so-called "Higgs particle" is nothing but a conceptual confusion of "object" and process. This kind of particle is actually falsified by the fact that time is relative (with speed in space). The asserted empirical confirmation of this particle (which just was awarded the Nobel Prize) is thus totally impossible. I can thus safely assure you that particle physicists will either withdraw or simply forget this discovery asap.

No, this "discovery" is actually the greatest and meanest fraud in the history of science. It is simply cheating. The cheat is also actually fairly easy to understand. You just have to be a little bit skeptical about the discovery and ask particle physicists the question: is Higgs particle a particle or a process? (It can't be both at the same time, since particles are the constituents of process, not the process itself). Particle physicists will answer that it is both at the same time (which it thus can't be).

This is, as far as I know, the first time that the Nobel Prize has been awarded to an orthogonal confusion, traditionally called a paranoia. It is very similar to the rise of Nazism in Germany. Hail Higgs particle! (independently of whether it is a particle or a process).

The problem with the notion of a difference between clades and paraphyletic groups (ie, cladistics)

The notion of a difference between clades (aka holophyletic groups) and paraphyletic groups (an approach called "cladistics") is that in the context of continuity, clades include "all" from a particular moment in time till today, whereas paraphyletic groups only includes "some" from a particular moment in time till today.

The problem with this difference is, however, "all" and "some" of what? This problem is moreover insoluble, since every suggestion is inconsistent. The reason is that the concept "paraphyletic group" actually is orthogonal (ie, diametrically opposed) to the concept "clade", meaning that a single clade (thing) is two paraphyletic things. The members of clades and paraphyletic groups thus simply can't be of the same kind, ie, the distinction of them is inconsistent. Instead, it is actually a distinction of the general from the specific in a general sense and thereby in practice ending in the paradox we call Russell's paradox (but which cladists call "the tree of life"). It actually enters the paradox that the Linnean system avoids by its distinction of genera and species.

This problem means that the notion of a difference between clades (aka holophyletic groups) and paraphyletic groups (an approach called "cladistics") in practice lacks a consistent solution, but instead leads into an infinite recursion (ie, infinite loop), which is both a search for the tree of life and the tree of life at the same time (ie, the process is indistinguishable from its goal).

On the problem with our search for a truth about reality

The problem with our search for a truth about reality is that reality isn't constant, but changing. We can't find a single truth about reality because in the moment we find it, it is not true. Chasing a truth is like chasing the running point, because the truth is running. 

On cladists' search for an unambiguous classification of dichotomously branching processes

Cladists are searching for an unambiguous classification of dichotomously branching processes. The problem with this search is, however, that such classification is not to be found. The obstacle is that such classification has to conflate what it distinguishes, which is paradoxically contradictory.

Cladists' search is thus vain. Never will they find what they search. (Providing that they don't "solve" this problem like particle physicists, by claiming that they indeed have found it).

Logic is not a way to truth, but a way to find empirical tests of claimed truths

The fact that conceptualization only contains two abstractions: objects and classes, means that there are also only two principally different logical lines of reasoning: 1. assuming that objects are real, traditionally called objectivity and nominalism, and 2. assuming that classes are real, traditionally called subjectivity and class-realism.

Both of these ultimately end in one and the same paradox, ie, Russell's paradox, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated in 1901, but they comprehend the paradox differently. Objectivity comprehends it as a general paradox with many specific applications (as Bertrand Russell did), whereas subjectivity comprehends it as one (out of many possible) specific class of objects that moreover is real (like the "true tree of life" of cladistics and "Higgs particle" of particle physics). Objectivity thus comprehends it (ie, Russell's paradox) as one generic abstraction consisting of many specific abstractions, whereas subjectivity comprehends is as one (out of many) real paradoxes.

The reason for this difference is that objectivity as "basic research", ie, lacking a particular question, actually searches for the primordial object it actually assumes (as an axiom), which thus is a general paradox consisting of several specific paradoxes, whereas subjectivity as "basic research" actually searches for the primordial class it actually assumes, which thus are several possible specific paradoxes.

The practical difference between them is thus that objectivity comprehends paradoxes as abstract, whereas subjectivity comprehends them as real  So, which is right? Are paradoxes abstract or real? Well, since paradoxes actually in a general sense is a conflation of object with class (which Bertrand Russell demonstrated), the question is actually whether a distinction or a conflation of object with class (ie, objectivity or subjectivity) is right. The answer is thus obvious: if a conflation of them is right, then a distinction of them is wrong, but without a distinction of them, there is nothing to conflate. A conflation of them is thus wrong independently of whether it is right or wrong.

All this is actually just a play with words. The problem, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated, is that logic can only answer questions. As a "basic research" it just rotates around its fundamental ortogonality between object and class, with a "natural" end point in Russell's paradox. Logic does not contain any "truths" in itself, but does just lead to the answer that is logically given by its assumptions (ie, premises), which thus is an abstract paradox. Never will we thus find "The Truth" by logical reasoning. The only practical use of logic is to find empirical tests of statements, which indeed can be either true or false in relation to competing statements. Running around in the treadmill of logic is actually just a play with words (although it may be awarded with the Nobel Prize as witnessed by the claimed empirical verification of the paradox "Higgs particle"), which thus consistently is exchanged with totally different claims. It simply lacks non-contradictory claims.

Logic is definitely not a way to find truths, but just a way to find empirical tests of claimed truths. In itself, it is fundamentally paradoxically contradictory and totally lacking possibilities to distinguish truths from lies by lacking possibilities to distingush true premises from false premises. It can actually arrive to contradictory conclusions, as in the case of Linnean systematics versus cladistics, because these two approaches rest on ortogonal premises, ie, objectivity and subjectivity, respectively-.

On the fundamental problem for science

When humanity began conceptualizing reality, ie, dividing it into things and kinds of things, it immediately split us between those of us that started the conceptualiztion from things, called nominalists, and those that started it from kinds, called "class-realists". These two approaches are actually orthogonal, ie, diametrically opposed, in that the assumptions of one are the deductions of the other. A class-realist thus can't understand how a nominalist can "know" that a certain thing is of a certain kind, whereas a nominalist considers this allocation to be more or less arbitrary in an aim to find general statements that can be said about this kind of things. Class-realists thus ask questions about what things "really are", whereas nominalists ask questions about what things do, ie, about processes that things participate in. The discipline of finding logical answers to questions, ie, "science" in its widest sense, has since then largely been a matter of a battle between these two ortogonal approaches.

The fundamental problems for these two approaches is that the former (ie, nominalism) is ambiguous in relation to the reality it discusses, and that every particular process thus can be described in several just as true ways, whereas the latter (ie, class-realism) ultimately leads to paradox (see Russell's paradox). None of them can thus produce the single truth humanity asks for.

These two orthogonal approaches can only be combined consistently in one way: in Plato's "Theory of Forms", although this combination gives rise to the questions what and where the world of Forms is. This combination is none-the-less the only consistent fusion of these two orthogonal approaches.

These facts leave "science" (in its widest sense) without any possibility to find the single truth humanity asks for. Class-realism has recently suggested that paradoxes (like the True tree of life" of cladistics and "Higgs particle" of particle physics) IS the answer (even claiming that "as a layman I would now say - I think we have Higgs particle"), although paradoxes are contradictions, not things. like their "layman's" "Higgs particle". If reality indeed could be explained by laymen, then why pay scientists like the particle physicists at Cern to explain it? This explanation is furthermore not new, there are many "monads" in the history of science.     
  

Cladistics and Higgs particle-ism are simply just annoying conceptual conflations of "object" and "class"

Things like "the true tree of life" of cladistics and "the Higgs particle" of particle physics are logical end paradoxes of conflation of "object" with "class", ie, actually assuming that classes are real instead of objects, as in the cases of the class "species" of cladistics and all classes of "elementary particles" of particle physics, which also Bertrand Russell demonstrated in 1901 with his "Russell's paradox". The simple reason for this fate of such conflations is that classification is orthogonal and therefore leads to paradox in logical reasoning if we conflate the direction of the orthogonality of classification.

Exactly how it leads to paradox is, however, more difficult to explain, because it only concerns conceptualization and logic themselves, not the reality they refer to, that is, the relation between the concepts "objects" (or "particles") and "classes" together with the relation between "premises" and "deductions" of logic, and thus is confusing.

The fundamental problem is that whereas few of us would ever conflate "premises" with "deduction", many of us have a tendency to conflate "objects" with "class" (notice that the former in these two pairs is in plural whereas the latter is in singular), although the relation between the former of the pairs to the latter of the pairs is the same in both pairs: a deduction can't exist without presumed premises just as a class can't exist without presumed objects. This problem (ie, that many of us have a tendency to conflate "objects" with "class") thus means that those (many of us) start their logical reasoning from assumed classes instead of from assumed objects, meaning that they get the relation between the two pairs "objects and class" and "premises and deduction" as orthogonal, meaning that they actually conflate "plural" with "singular" by conflating "class" with ""premises" and "objects" with "deduction". This conflation leads to some kind of Russell's paradox because a single single object thereby is "a half" deduction. Such "a half" deduction (ie, Russell's paradox) are thus both "the true tree of life" of cladistics and "the Higgs particle" of particle physics. Typical for such figments of the imagination is that they are singular, ie, "THE true tree of life" and "THE Higgs particle", in difference from, for example, "species", "leptones" and "bosons". As "half deductions" they are paradoxically contradictory between pattern and process, as the Barber in Barbers paradox.

Belief in such paradoxes is either devastating or irrelevant. It is devastating if it induces a practical search for the paradox, because a paradox can't, of course, be found, and irrelevant if it claims to have found the paradox (like particle physics). It is simply just an annoying conceptual conflation in science.             

Is Peter Higgs greater than Einstein?

If there is a Higgs particle, as particle physics claim, then this particle is both an infinite class, a finite class and a particle at the same time. It is thus the universe itself. It is the largest and the smallest, and all natural laws at the same time. As such, it leaves no room for randomness. It is really the God for classification, ie, for class-realism. It is the explanation for everything and nothing at the same time. It is the end of conceptualization itself. Beyond it is nothing but our primary needs (like sex and food). We thus have to choose between hailing Higgs particle or realizing that it is a paradox.

The only advantage with awarding Higgs particle with the Nobel Prize is that it awarded Peter Higgs himself and not the particle physicists at Cern that claim to have verified it. If this monster indeed is real, then the theoretical discoverer of it ought to be awarded, not the practitioners that claim to have seen it. Peter Higgs is thus a genious, like Einstein. Hail him, not the engineers at Cern. How on earth could he find out that this particle is real?

So, it is time to hail Peter Higgs. Is he even greater than Einstein? Is he even the greatest human of all times? Or, is he simply wrong?    

Class-realism, as cladistics and particle physics, and Russell's paradox

Class-realism, as cladistics and particle physics, rests on the axiom that classes are real. This assumption did Bertrand Russell falsify in 1901 by demonstrating that it leads to paradox, ie, Russell's paradox, in logical reasoning.

Russell's paradox can be understood fairly simple as that a class consisting of two classes, for example class "A" consisting of class "B" and class "C", is BOTH neither class "B" nor class "C" AND both class "B" and class "C". Class "A" is thus BOTH neither nor AND both and class "B" and class "C". This relationship makes the question: "Which of "B" and "C" is "A"?" indeterminable - it is neither any of them nor both of them.

This paradox do the opposite to class-realism, nominalism - resting on the axiom that particles are real, not have to encounter, since a corresponding particle "A" consisting of the particles "B" and "C" can be allocated to another and orthogonal class to "B" and "C" (like the genera of Linnean systematics). Particles that are physically nested can be consistently allocated to different (and orthogonal) classes.

The fact that class-realism leads to paradox do class-realists themselves, however, not comprehend as a falsification of their axiom, but instead as that paradoxes are real, eg, cladistics' belief in "a single true tree of life" and particle physics' belief in "Higgs particle". This comprehension is, however, inconsistent with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and falsified by the fact that time is relative with speed in space. It is thus falsified empirically by the only empirical fact we have to test it. There thus simply can't be such "things". Instead, belief in them is in practice an infinite recursion, ie, endless orthogonal loop.

On the impossibility to find a consistent and unambiguous model of reality

The impossibility for us to find a consistent and unambiguous model of reality, such as the ideas of "a single true tree of life" (cladistics) and of "a single Grand Unifying Theory" (particle physics), is obviously not due to reality, but to our conceptualization itself (see Russell's paradox), although reality itself obviously has the same problem, since it can't stop. It means that a search for such ideas actually mimics reality instead of modeling it. Ironic, isn't it?