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?).

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.

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. 

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 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).

What is reality and what is dream? - on cladistics and Higgs' particle-ism

Reality is fundamentally ambiguous between what we traditionally call "pattern" and "process", which also protrudes in the dual wave and particle properties of photons (among other facts).

Today, however, this fact is challenged by class-realists in the form of cladists and Higgs' particle-ists, which claim that they can bridge this fundamental ambiguity using totally abstract constructions like their ideas of "a true tree of life" and "Higgs' particle", respectively.

Such ideas can't, however, change this fact, because if they could, then the fact wouldn't have been in the first place (ie, the change would invalidate itself). Such ideas are thus nice as dreams and may be very desired, but are, sorry to say, impossible as realities. A fact is a fact and an idea is an idea. Reality is reality and dream is dream.

These class-realists are thus merely trying to solve this fundamental problem by turning it in-side-out, which doesn't accomplish anything else than that we go from rationality to irrationality.

More wrong than cladistics is impossible to be

The old idea of ​​a single "true tree of life", today providing the foundation for Cladistics, confronts the two fundamentally different approaches in our conceptualization of reality: realism (ie, assuming that classes are real) and nominalism (ie, assuming that objects are real). The fundamental problem for our conceptualization of reality is namely that not both classes and objects can be real at the same time, since they can't fuse. This problem can be analogized with that not both reality and a map of reality can be real at the same time, since they can't fuse. Confronted with this fundamental choice between classes (ie, map) and objects (ie reality), realism (ie, cladistics) thus claims (asserts) that there indeed is a single "true tree of life" (ie, claims that there indeed is a single "true" map of reality), whereas nominalism denies the existence of such a single "true tree of life" (ie, comprehends reality as reality).

So, which of them do you think is right: realism claiming that map is reality or nominalism comprehending reality as reality?  The answer appears obvious (at least to me). realism's claim that map is reality is obviously wrong when it is confronted with the fact that reality is reality. 

It was realists that set up this confrontation with nominalism by their claim that there indeed is a single "true tree of life", which they thus obviously lose (ie, there isn't any "true tree of life". Their claim thus appears like a pink elephant that they claim can fly. The problem with this claim is that there are no pink elephants, and even if there had been, they wouldn't have been able to fly. The claim is thus totally wrong, more wrong than that is actually impossible to be.

The problem for biological systematics is thus how it shall explain to cladists that they are wrong. Whether cladists understand that they're wrong or not does not, however, matter, since they are wrong anyway.A failure to explain to cladists that they're wrong is thus a failure for biological systematics. It leaves biological systematics as a dream that there are pink elephants that can fly.
.   

     .    

On the idea of a "true tree of life, and the problem with Cladistics for biological systeatics

The reason why there isn't any "true tree of life" is that classification is ultimately paradoxically contradictory, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated with Russell's paradox already in 1901.

This fact means that the question of a "true tree of life" is not a question about reality, ie, which the "true tree of life" is, but about modeling reality, ie, whether we can describe the history of organisms in terms of a consistent "true tree of life" or not, and the answer is thus "not".

The problem with Cladistics is thus that it misunderstands the question of a "true tree of life" fundamentally as a question about reality, when it actually is about modeling reality consistently, and that it thereby can't understand the answer that there isn't any "true tree of life", because it misunderstands this answer as an existential claim (assertion), when it actually is just a conclusion on our possibilities to model reality consistently. The answer merely concludes that there isn't any "true tree of life" because this model is paradoxically contradictory, since a paradoxical contradiction is not one, but many . (Cladists don't comprehend the notion of "trees of life" as a model of reality, but as a single reality, ie, The True Tree of Life).

This cladistic inability to understand the context means that Cladistics searches for something that can't be found, This search is, of course, their own business, but one question is why Swedish tax payers shall sponsor this vain search on Swedish universities? Why shall they sponsor a search for a pink elefant when their money can be used for many more sensible purposes? Another question is whether this inability to understand shall be allowed to be taught in Swedish universities at all? There may be students that do understand the context, and what will the "teachers" do with them? In such a case, the student actually ought to teach the teacher, but since cladists are not susceptible to anticladistic arguments, such intelligent students will thus be excluded from the universities. There are thus major problems with having cladists on universities. But, who can clear them out?

The question of a possible "true tree of life" and the answer to it

The reason why there isn't any unambiguous classification to be found, such as the idea of "a true tree of life" that cladistics rests on, is that classification is ultimately paradoxically contradictory, which we can understand from the fact that classification is orthogonal and which Bertrand Russell also demonstrated with his "Barber's paradox".

It means that the question of a possible "true tree of life" is not about reality (ie, an existential question), ie, whether there is a "true tree of life or not", but about methodology (ie, a practical question), ie, whether we can describe the history of biodiversity in the form of a consistent "true tree" or not, and the answer is thus "not". This is actually the reason why Linné invented his consistent orthogonal system of classification.

There are thus some of us that understand the question of a possible "true tree of life" and also know the answer to it, the nut for us to crack is the how we shall convey this understanding and knowledge to the rest of us, especially when they on the contrary claim (assert) that there indeed is a "true tree of life", so that they can halt their vain and confusing search for it.

But, then again, maybe they actually understand the question and also know the answer, but don't see it as problem for their approach, but rather an advantage...? Its absence of a consistent solution does at east ensure the perpetual employment...

On the fundamental problem for Biological systematics

We (humans) invented concepts, and then started conceptualizing reality. The fundamental problem for this endeavor is that concepts (classification) is inherently orthogonal (see Russell's paradox), because it thereby lacks an unambiguous solution.This fact eventually led Biological systematics to Linné's consistent conceptualization of the biological diversity.

The German Nazi entomologist (ie, insect researcher) Willi Hennig did, however, take this endeavor one step further by starting to conceptualize conceptualization (later called Cladistics), as if conceptualization itself is the reality it conceptualizes instead of the reality. The problem with this step is simply that conceptualization isn't the reality it conceptualizes, but is instead in practice a paradox (see Russell's paradox). This step thus leads into barking up the wrong tree (or "jumping into crazy barrel", as we say in Sweden), or "screwing up matters", entering the back side of conceptualization where everything are up-side-down and contradictory.

Hennig did none the less get followers (called "cladists"), which took his step one step further by cutting off a return to the right "tree" (or "barrel") by boldly claiming (asserting) that this "tree" ("barrel") indeed IS the right "tree" ("barrel") and denying the right "tree" ("barrel"). It left the only way back to the right "tree" ("barrel") via a conceptualization of a conceptualization of a conceptualization of reality, which will take some time to find since it is a quite complicated track to follow. (Or by simply forgetting Cladistics).

The course of events above is actually just one more turn in Biological systematics' consistent tilting between the right "tree" (barrel"), also called "nominalism", and the wrong "tree" ("barrel"), also called "realism", due to its impossible fundamental aim to "find the true classification", which thus is a paradox. The discipline simply can't come to rest even concerning its fundamental approach, because there are always some biological systematists that don't understand this fundamental fact (ie, that the notion "a true classification" actually is a paradox). Instead, the discipline appears to remain a battle field for nominalism contra realism forever... (A "true classification" will it none the less never find).

If cladists aren't stupid, then who is?

Cladists have turned conceptualization up-side-down.

It raises the question: if cladists aren't stupid, then who is?

Is race biology rational?

Biological systematics offers two diametrically opposed (ie, orthogonal) classifications: Linnean systematics and Cladistics (ie, the PhyloCode), whereof Linnean systematics is relative and the PhyloCode is absolute. It means that Linnean systematics combines typology (is, classification) of things with historical relationship between things (ie, ethnicity) using a compromise between these two attributes of things (under the assumption that the two attributes are diametrically opposed), whereas Cladistics on the contrary assumes as an axiom (actually claims) that these two attributes are not orthogonal, but instead consistent (and therefore don't have to be combined using a compromise). Linnean systematics thus assumes that typology is orthogonal to ethnicity, whereas Cladistics on the contrary assumes as an axiom (actually claims) that typology and ethnicity are consistent. It means that Cladistics is essential for race biology. Only iff typology is consistent with ethnicity (as Cladistics assumes, actually claims) is race biology rational.

So, is typology orthogonal to or consistent with ethnicity?

Cladistics claims that the answer to this question is not a matter of facts, but of premises. This claim means that typology can be both orthogonal to and consistent with ethnicity depending on which premises one chooses, ie, that the answer only depends on which answer one prefers. If this claim is true, then "orthogonal to" and "consistent with" are not opposites, but equalities, since the difference between them is not real. If so, then there isn't any difference between Linnean systematics and Cladistics at all, but instead they are just two different aspects on the same thing, ie, the true tree of life, whereof Linnean systematics merely is a redundant complication.

The problem for the Cladistic claim is that it is contradicted both theoretically and practically. Theoretically by Bertrand Russell's demonstration already a hundred years ago (1901) that classification is ultimately paradoxically contradictory, by meaning that the cladistic equalization of typology and etnicity ends in paradox, and practically by the fact that time is relative (ie, orthogonal) to space, by meaning that the Cladistic equalization of type and ethnicity is actually just a conflation of type and ethnicity. Type and ethnicity are factually not equal, but orthogonal.

The answer to the question above is thus that typology is orthogonal to ethnicity. Fortunately, it means that race biology is irrational. When we understand this fact, there is thus no return to the old race biology that Willi Hennig transferred from the Nazi approach to today's Cladistics. Then we can discard both it and Cladistics as resting on the old erroneous idea that ethnicity (ie, races, species, genera, and so on) necessarily also is typologically distinct, instead returning to the old and fundamental question in biological systematics: what is a species? Isn't this shift interesting, Gareth (Nelson)?

The problem with race biology is that also many of those that don't like it still believe in races. They would be better off if they could understand that belief in races itself is irrational..  

Is cladistics sensible?

Cladistics (Willi Hennig and his followers) claims that there is a single true description of history, which it calls the true tree of life.

But, how can there possibly be a single true description of history, when there isn't a single true description of present?

Can Claditics' claim create a single true description of present?

Are facts created by claims?

Is cladistics sensible?



   

On the route into the consistently inconsistent reasoning that is called "cladistics"

Those biological systematists that are called cladists believe that there is a single true description of the origin of biodiversity, which they call "the true tree of life". Whether they also believe that there is a single true description of any other historical event, a single true painting of any part of reality, or a single true description of our the present reality is unknown, but the reason for this their obviously erroneous belief is known - that they believe that "species" are real.

Cladistics actually started with a discussion trying to find an answer to the question: what is a species? The answer to this question was sought after by trying to find a definition that encompasses everything they put into the concept "species". When this discussion had reached tens of different definitions, some of the biological systematists (ie, the cladists) simply changed focus from this question into the question: which is the true tree of life? The fact that this question requires an answer to the former question was dealt with by trying to define "species" post-hoc circularly in terms of the notion of a "true tree of life". This circularity led cladists into the erroneous belief in a "true tree of life" by simply shifting focus from one question to another without them even being aware of that it did. Once in the belief, they simply didn't know how to get out of it, because they didn't know how they got into it. They were simply stuck in the belief by lacking the understanding that could have kept them outside of it.

The original question was thus: what is a species? Now, this question is inconsistent by asking for what we actually decide. A species is simply what we say a species is. If we, for example, say that humans is a species, and define what we mean by "human", then humans is a species. It isn't more complicated than that. The (cladistic) idea that the question "what is a species?" has an answer rests on the assumption that species are real, ie, existing entities, like objects (eg, organisms), an assumption that, however, is inconsistent, since not both objects and species can be real at the same time by being orthogonal. If objects are real, then species are abstract, and vice versa. In conceptualization, there has to be a difference between "real" and "abstract" (ie, the represented and representation), and one of them has to be on the opposite side to the other to avoid self-contradiction. In a fundamental sense, it doesn't really matter whether we call objects or species real, but in a consistency sense, species can't, of course, be real if objects (eg, organisms) are abstract. Species can't consist of abstract entities, but abstract species can consist of real objects. This means that objects (eg, organisms) has to be real, and species has to be abstract to avoid inconsistency.

There is, however, a further problem with the concept species. Whereas an object is single both in reality and in abstraction, a species is a infinite in abstraction (ie, a type, or abstraction) and finite in reality (ie, a category). It means that assuming that species are real (and thus can be defined) conflates infinity with finity, which can't be practically accomplished, since infinity and finity are orthogonal. This imposibility composes a practical barrier to all attempts to define the concept species. No matter how "natural" we think that species are, we still will thus never succeed to define them. Instead, they are actually impossible to define.

We can thus describe the origin of biodiversity in terms of "the origin of species", but this description can never reach unambiguity, since species can't be unambiguous. Changing focus from the definition of species into "the true tree of life" does not change this fact, but just discards it. This discarding does thus not , however, change this fact, but just leads into the consistently inconsistent reasoning that cladistics is. 

How long will cladistics' belief in a single "true tree of live" survive within biological systematics?

The problem with cladistics is that it conflates states of things with change between states of things.

This conflation gives rise to the question: "why do we distinguish states of things and change if we then conflate them?", and, "which of all possible conflations of them equals them?".

Every possible conflation is namely also paradoxically contradictory (see Russell's paradox), so, how can we possibly ever agree on a particular conflation of them, when we can't even agree on the fact that it is a conflation of  states of things with change between states of things?

Now, if we can't possibly ever agree on a particular conflation of them, then we have to ask ourselves what we are doing and why. Our efforts will never result in any stable state, but will just give rise to new inconsistencies forever. This chase started from an axiomatic belief in a single "true tree of life", so when will we abandon this belief? After ten years, after one hundred years, after one thousand years, or never?

So, how long will cladistics' belief in a single "true tree of live" survive within biological systematics? (It will never die as an idea, but the question is how long it will survive in biological systematics). 

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. .       

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.

Is cladistics or quantum physics correct?

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?