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..

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.     
  

There is only one way to truth: to admit when you are wrong

There is only one way to truth: to admit when you're wrong. This is the scientific way.

On the dream of cladistics

An orthogonality is a diametrical opposition. It may be between classes, as that between 'hairy-hairless' and 'hair color', or between dimensions, as that between 'X' and 'Y'. The typical property of an orthogonality is that it lacks a common middle. There is, for example, no hair color that can be assigned to both a hairy and a hairless object. Orthogonalities emerge in the moment we conceptualize reality. Indeed, reality itself protrudes as an orthogonality between what we call 'pattern' and 'process'.

Orthogonalities are difficult to interpret in an existential sense, since both of the opposites have to "exist" as being interdependent, although not both of them thus can exist at the same time as being contradictory. An orthogonal relation do we sometimes express as that one "thing" is BOTH one and its opposite, as in that a photon is BOTH a particle and a wave. However, if this statement is correct, then it logically means that a wave also is BOTH a photon and a particle, which, obviously, isn't correct. The problem is that concepts have different extensions (ie, are of different inclusiveness among objects), and that this difference is impossible to express for certain relations. We can, for example, say that SOME waves (ie, photons) also are particles, since 'wave' is intermediate in extension between 'photon' and 'particle', but we can't incorporate this distinction in a statement about photons, since the extension of 'photon' is smaller than that of both 'wave' and 'particle'. The extension of the concept we explain must be intermediate between the concepts we use to explain it. Instead, the correct expression is that a photon is NEITHER a particle nor a wave, since it does not have any erroneous connotations, but leaving the photon unexplained.

The correct statement about reality is thus that it is neither pattern nor process, thus leaving reality unexplained. This statement excludes the existence of something like Higg's particle, although it would have explained reality if it indeed had been a particle, which it can't be because it would have meant that a particle is a wave. There is thus no Higg's particle, although Higg's particle-ists claim to almost having found it.Never will we cross the boundary between knowledge and belief.   

Cladistics is a "natural" confusion

Science acknowledges the fact is that there are two aspects of entities: pattern and process.

Cladistics distinguishes itself fundamentally from science by assumiing as an axiom that there is no difference between pattern and process.

Now, if cladistics indeed is correct, then it thus loses its foundation, since there is nothing to be no difference between, leaving cladistics with nothing but its contradiction.

Cladistics is thus fundamentally contradiction, that is, eternal division, or evolution itself.

Cladistics thus turns Darwin's discussion about evolution into evolution itself by denying the difference between pattern and process that conceptualization of reality rests on. This approach isn't "natural", as cladists assert, but possibly a "natural" confusion..

On the inconsistency of cladistics

Single entities have two aspects: pattern and process. Pattern is the momentary aspect, that is, in time, whereas process is the temporary aspect, that is, over time. It means that it takes (at least) two consecutive patterns to make up one process, and that they, "pattern"and "process", thus are orthogonal, ie, diametrically opposed, or excluding a mutual 1-1 correspondance.

So-called "natural groups" (ie, the class, or the infinite type), that is, groups of entities that form super-entities by combining the the two aspects "class" and "historical unity", are the opposite to entities. It means that such "things" ARE two aspects at the same time, that is, that they conflate the two aspects "pattern" and "process". Such "natiral groups" thus both combine and conflate the two aspects "pattern" and "process",

This fact triggers the question: what, then, is the difference between "combining" and "conflating"? The answer depends on how one combines. If one combines by conflating, then the difference is none, that is, that there isn't any difference between them.

This fact explains the impossibility of "natural groups". Such groups have to conflate the two aspects "pattern" and "process", although these are two aspects of entities. Such groups are thus possible only if entities are impossible, and vice versa. Such groups and entities thus exclude each other.

The meaning of this fact may be difficult to understand, but it is simply that one of them is contradictory given that the other is unambiguous. This fact, in turn, means that the class "clade" (giving rise to cladistics) is practically contradictory per definition, since not both entities and natural groups of entities can be unambiguous at the same time. This fact makes applied cladistics non-sensical. The class "clade" simply can't make up a non-contradictory, ie, unambiguous, category (ie, finite class) per definition, since not both entities and natural groups of entities can make up categories at the same time.

Cladistics is thus inconsistent (actually consistently inconsistent) in an applied sense by including two categories that exclude each other. It means that cladistics rests on Russell's paradox. The only difference between science and cladistics is thus that cladistics believes that Russell's paradox can be found. Otherwise, they are totally parallell. Unfortunately, for cladistics, science is right and cladistics wrong.