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.
Visar inlägg med etikett Class-realism. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett Class-realism. Visa alla inlägg
söndag 10 november 2013
torsdag 31 oktober 2013
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.
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.
onsdag 23 oktober 2013
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.
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.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)