Conceptualization (classification) is a tool that can only be ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory. It is ambiguous in relation to the classified if it rests on the axiom that objects are real (ie, objectivity), and it is internally paradoxically contradictory if it rests on the axiom that concepts (classes) are real (ie, subjectivity).
It means that we can't say something that isn't ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory, ie, unambiguous, at all. The question whether there is a single truth to be found or not does thus have the answer no, simply because it is impossible using the only tool we have.
The reason for this answer is, however, not the tool itself, but that unambiguity is an impossibility (ie, a void) in a changing world. There's nothing wrong with conceptualization (classification) itself; it just can't create the single truth we want. It is still a very useful tool if we use it consistently, that is, resting on the axiom that objects, not classes, are real. Using it resting on the axiom that concepts (classes) are real, like cladistics, is actually a misuse of it. Science is, as also cladistics indeed claim, a practice to optimize the fit between our models of reality and reality itself, but we have to remember that optimization always is second to reality itself, on the contrary to what cladistics claim. There is no reason to assume that reality itself is optimized. Instead, optimization must always be a matter of optimizing the fit between our models and the facts of reality, as traditional science does, not optimizing the models themselves, as cladistics does.
We must, however, abandon our paradoxically contradictory idea that there is a single truth, like The Tree of Life, to be found, and instead acknowledge the fact that there isn't. Understanding is superior to belief in painting reality, because it does in any case close up on the most accurate painting of reality. Painting reality is moreover not only a matter of black and white, but of Plato's three-folded division in his geometrical (or mathematical) atomism, wherein perfection is ultimately reduced to geometry (ie, to the world of ideas), which we today know is paradoxically contradictory (ie, Russell's paradox). However, this world is thus not a perfect reality of forms, as Plato claimed and cladists claim, since it is paradoxically contradictory, but instead a paradoxically contradictory mind construction which ultimately depends on the real, but changing, objects.
Conceptualization (classification) is thus a tool that can help us understand reality, but it can't produce a single truth. The belief that it can, ie, cladism, is indeed visionary, but wrong. It does thus not lead to a single truth, but only to a conceptual mess. If we want to keep thoughts clear, we have to abandon vision and accept facts, for example that conceptualization (classification) is a tool that can only be ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory. It is perhaps sad, but a fact.
fredag 31 augusti 2012
onsdag 29 augusti 2012
Cladistics is both contradictory and falsified by facts
The ancient Greeks quarreled about two orthogonal approaches to discussing reality, Heracleitus' and Parmanides' approaches, until Plato solved the contradictions both between and within them with his geometrical (or mathematical) atomism. This approach provided the foundation for the theories of modern physics, Linnean systematics and Object-Oriented Programming.
Recently, about 50 years ago, the German entomologist Willi Hennig challenged Plato's geometrical atomism by simply conflating Plato's "world of ides" with his "forms", claiming that they are equal. Hennig's claim transferred the approach in biological systematics from Plato's geometrical atomism back into Parmenides' approach, thereby denying the existence of change.
Now, if Hennig indeed is right, and if Plato's "world of ides" thus equals his "forms", then infinity equals finity and time is not relative to space. Then contradictions are thus real and facts are fiction. This kind of being right can actually not be falsified by anything, but is, instead, hard-core belief. It will search the treasure at the foot of the rainbow forever, independently of its goallessness.
Recently, about 50 years ago, the German entomologist Willi Hennig challenged Plato's geometrical atomism by simply conflating Plato's "world of ides" with his "forms", claiming that they are equal. Hennig's claim transferred the approach in biological systematics from Plato's geometrical atomism back into Parmenides' approach, thereby denying the existence of change.
Now, if Hennig indeed is right, and if Plato's "world of ides" thus equals his "forms", then infinity equals finity and time is not relative to space. Then contradictions are thus real and facts are fiction. This kind of being right can actually not be falsified by anything, but is, instead, hard-core belief. It will search the treasure at the foot of the rainbow forever, independently of its goallessness.
måndag 27 augusti 2012
Cladistics is the search for your own classification
The approach in biological systematics called "cladistics" is the search for your own classification, and since classification is paradoxically contradictory (see Russell's paradox), it is infinite (ie, an infinite recursion) per definition. Every specific solution contains paradoxical contradictions (ie, single entities that possess mutually exclusive properties) per definition.
Don't let cladists fool you into this eternal merry-go-round.
Don't let cladists fool you into this eternal merry-go-round.
söndag 26 augusti 2012
On the war between nominalism (ie, Linnean systematists) and realism (ie, cladists) in biological systematics
Biological systematics is a battlefield for the eternal war between the two fundamental orthogonal approaches in conceptualization: (1) "objectivity" (ie, "nominalism") and (2) "subjectivity" (ie, "realism"), that is, between assuming as an axiom (1) that objects and (2) subjects (ie, classes) are real, respectively. The difference between them resides in that the former (1) understands that an unambiguous classification is an imposibility (by Russell's paradox), whereas the latter (2) not understands that an unambiguous classification is an impossibility (by not understanding Russell's paradox). Understanding of why an unambiguous classification is an impossibility is, however, extremely complicated, but at the most fundamental level, the reason is that reality is in a constant process of change and thus is impossible to nail.
In this war in biological systematics between objectivity and subjectivity, the approach called "cladistics" is an elevator (or bridge) from objectivity to subjectivity. It functions by first conflating object (ie, organisms) with class (ie, biological species), and then by treating groups of such classes as real entities (ie, objects), called "clades", although classes can't be objects, since they are orthogonal to them, and that classes thus can't be real entities (ie, objects). It thus creates an impression that classes indeed can be objects although they actually can't. By this, it not just conflates the concept object with the concept class, but moreover turns these concepts up-side-down, thereby creating a mess of all other concepts.
Cladistics is, however, not a new approach, but actually the same old realism that the ancient Greek Parmenides formulated about 2,500 years ago, although dressed in new clothes. The problems cladistics encounters are thus the same as Parmenides' approach encountered, which have been thoroughly discussed in the history of philosophy. However, the worst blow to this approach was delivered quite recently by Einstein's discovery (actually objective conclusion) that time is relative to space (which later was empirically verified), since realism claims that change is an impossibility (and thus an illusion), because an impossibility (illusion) can't contain factual differences (like the difference in the pace of time at different paces of time). An illusion can't contain factual differences. This discovery (actually objective conclusion) did thus actually falsify Parmenides realism and with it cladistics, thus before cladistics was born. Cladistics was thus falsified before it was born.
Cladistics is thus actually only a desperate attempt by realists to escape the fact that an unambiguous classification is an impossibility (ie, Russell's paradox). Before it emerged, some objective biological systematists had proposed that biological systematics should try to agree about a certain systematization of biological organisms (based on the Linnean systematics), but pre-cladists reacted aggressively against this proposal claiming that there indeed is a single true classification to be found (based on Willi Hennig's conflation of object with class). These pre-cladists thus simply refused to acknowledge the fact that an unambiguous classification is an impossibility. They moreover won supporters (ie, cladists) so that this fact (ie, that an unambiguous classification is an impossibility) is still not acknowledged in biological systematics.
If biological systematics could reach a consensus to acknowledge this fact, then it could make a difference in future for humanity. It actually could contribute to the development of thinking. But its refusal to acknowledge this fact instead turns itself into a mess, actually the worst possible mess. Which way it will go in the future is determined by its participants. Clear thinking participants lead it towards clearly formulated conclusions, while confused participants lead it towards confused conclusions, and confused conclusions are those conclusions that contradict facts.
In this war in biological systematics between objectivity and subjectivity, the approach called "cladistics" is an elevator (or bridge) from objectivity to subjectivity. It functions by first conflating object (ie, organisms) with class (ie, biological species), and then by treating groups of such classes as real entities (ie, objects), called "clades", although classes can't be objects, since they are orthogonal to them, and that classes thus can't be real entities (ie, objects). It thus creates an impression that classes indeed can be objects although they actually can't. By this, it not just conflates the concept object with the concept class, but moreover turns these concepts up-side-down, thereby creating a mess of all other concepts.
Cladistics is, however, not a new approach, but actually the same old realism that the ancient Greek Parmenides formulated about 2,500 years ago, although dressed in new clothes. The problems cladistics encounters are thus the same as Parmenides' approach encountered, which have been thoroughly discussed in the history of philosophy. However, the worst blow to this approach was delivered quite recently by Einstein's discovery (actually objective conclusion) that time is relative to space (which later was empirically verified), since realism claims that change is an impossibility (and thus an illusion), because an impossibility (illusion) can't contain factual differences (like the difference in the pace of time at different paces of time). An illusion can't contain factual differences. This discovery (actually objective conclusion) did thus actually falsify Parmenides realism and with it cladistics, thus before cladistics was born. Cladistics was thus falsified before it was born.
Cladistics is thus actually only a desperate attempt by realists to escape the fact that an unambiguous classification is an impossibility (ie, Russell's paradox). Before it emerged, some objective biological systematists had proposed that biological systematics should try to agree about a certain systematization of biological organisms (based on the Linnean systematics), but pre-cladists reacted aggressively against this proposal claiming that there indeed is a single true classification to be found (based on Willi Hennig's conflation of object with class). These pre-cladists thus simply refused to acknowledge the fact that an unambiguous classification is an impossibility. They moreover won supporters (ie, cladists) so that this fact (ie, that an unambiguous classification is an impossibility) is still not acknowledged in biological systematics.
If biological systematics could reach a consensus to acknowledge this fact, then it could make a difference in future for humanity. It actually could contribute to the development of thinking. But its refusal to acknowledge this fact instead turns itself into a mess, actually the worst possible mess. Which way it will go in the future is determined by its participants. Clear thinking participants lead it towards clearly formulated conclusions, while confused participants lead it towards confused conclusions, and confused conclusions are those conclusions that contradict facts.
tisdag 21 augusti 2012
Cladistics is a fraud
Cladistics is a fraud. It does not have a consistent solution per definition. It is an infinite recursion per definition.
måndag 20 augusti 2012
Can cladistics be more discarded than proven paradoxically contradictory and empirically wrong?
The German entomologist Willi Hennig conflated entities (ie, entity) with classes (ie, class) and did thereby enter consistent inconsistency. The conflation also conflates infinite classes (ie, class) with finite classes (ie, category), and thereby also entities (ie, entity) with finite classes (ie, category), and thus also singularities (ie, single) with groups (ie, group), It thus conflates everything that possibly can be conflated, leaving us with the paradoxical class (category?, entity?) that originally erroneously was called "monophyletic group", but which today is called clade.
This conflation led biological systematics into an irrational and insensible chase for "the True Clade", called "the True Tree of Life", which actually is a paradox called Russell's paradox. The conflation made some biological systematists (notably Steve Farris and Gareth Nelson) believe that this paradox actually can be found, instead of understanding that it is a paradox (although the paradox had been revealed logically about 50 years before Hennig's conceptual conflation).
Unfortunately, this conflation still holds the ideas of biological systematists in a firm grip. The notion of clades, which was abandonded by the introduction of the consistent Linnean systematics, does once again rule, as it did before the introduction of Linnean systematics. The paradoxically contradictory idea of a fusion of time and space is obviously difficult to get rid of, although it has been shown to be paradoxically contradictory by Bertrand Russell and also contradicts (ie, is falsified by) the fairly recently discovered fact that time is relative to space. This toughness of this insensible and irrational idea makes one wonder what it takes to discard it. Can it be more than proven paradoxically contradictory and empirically wrong?
This conflation led biological systematics into an irrational and insensible chase for "the True Clade", called "the True Tree of Life", which actually is a paradox called Russell's paradox. The conflation made some biological systematists (notably Steve Farris and Gareth Nelson) believe that this paradox actually can be found, instead of understanding that it is a paradox (although the paradox had been revealed logically about 50 years before Hennig's conceptual conflation).
Unfortunately, this conflation still holds the ideas of biological systematists in a firm grip. The notion of clades, which was abandonded by the introduction of the consistent Linnean systematics, does once again rule, as it did before the introduction of Linnean systematics. The paradoxically contradictory idea of a fusion of time and space is obviously difficult to get rid of, although it has been shown to be paradoxically contradictory by Bertrand Russell and also contradicts (ie, is falsified by) the fairly recently discovered fact that time is relative to space. This toughness of this insensible and irrational idea makes one wonder what it takes to discard it. Can it be more than proven paradoxically contradictory and empirically wrong?
lördag 18 augusti 2012
On classification and the cladistic idea of a "true tree of life"
1,a Classification of objects (ie, entities, like you, me, a cell and a mitochondrion) is ambiguous, because every object can be assigned to at least two classes of objects.
1.b Classification of classes of objects (like classes of biological organisms, eg, humans, cells and mitochondria) is contradictory, because every object of a class is contradictory between at least two classes of objects.
2,a Classification of classes of classes of objects (like Linnean genera) is ambiguous, because every class of class of objects can be assigned to at least two classes of classes of objects.
2.b Classification of classes of classes of classes of objects (like the different Linnean genera) is contradictory, because every class of class of class of objects is contradictory between at least two classes of classes of objects.
3a Classification of classes of classes of classes of classes of objects (like Linnean families) is ambiguous, because every class of class of class of objects can be assigned to at least two classes of classes of objects.
3.b Classification of classes of classes of classes of classes of objects (like the different Linnean genera) is contradictory, because every class of class of class of class of objects is contradictory between at least two classes of classes of classes of objects.
And so on ...
In this scheme, we can see that there are two principally different components of classification: objects and classes. We can also see that each of these components occurs at every second level of a classification into more inclusive classes (ie, objects in 1.a, 2.a and 3.a, and classes in 1.b, 2.b and 3.b), and that objects consistently are ambiguous between their classes, whereas classes consistently are contradictory between their classes, and that the classes of objects are the same as the classes of the classes (ie, 1.a and 1.b, 2.a and 2.b and 3.a and 3.b). This fact is just a consequence of the two facts that every object can be assigned to at least two classes, and that every class is contradictory between at least two classes, whereof "can be assigned to" ultimately equals "is contradictory between", because the relation between object and class is orthogonal. The relation between object and class is simply both ambiguous and contradictory at the same time.
The scheme thus paints the practical picture of the orthogonality of classification. This orthogonality means that classification itself neither can be "true" nor can contain the "truth", because it is fundamentally orthogonally circular. Its output totally depends on its input. There is a saying that "shit in", "shit out", but in this case it is rather "anything in", "the same thing out", but always contradictory. Every particular solution simply points at another solution. Consistency (ie, not pointing to another solution) can only be found using an orthogonal system of classification (like the Linnean systematics), consistently keeping objects and classes apart.
The question whether this means that there isn't a single true tree of life (to be found) has the answer that it depends on whether this hypothetical tree is orthogonally consistent or not. If it isn't, then there isn't, whereas if it is, then there is. If the classes that every object "can be assigned to" actually equals the classes that every object "is contradictory between", then there is indeed a true tree of life, but if thy don't, then there is not a true tree of life. The existence of a true tree of life does thus depend on the actual history of life: if the history of all included classes are congruent, then there is a true tree of life, but if they aren't, then there isn't. The probability that there isn't is, however, vastly larger than the probability that there is. A true tree of life actually requires a multiple of two entities, which have a totally symmetrical origin, and wherein all properties also are totally consistently distributed. The probability of such a tree is almost zero.
The probability that there is a single true tree of life is thus almost zero. Moreover, if there indeed should be one, then our fundamental partitioning of reality into objects and classes, and thus the foundation for this tree, should be wrong. If cladistics should be right, then all of us, including the cladists, thus should be wrong.
Cladistics is thus a huge problem for science. How do we get rid of it? How can we explain that it is impossible, ie, a vain serch to define the indefinable, as Darwin called it?
1.b Classification of classes of objects (like classes of biological organisms, eg, humans, cells and mitochondria) is contradictory, because every object of a class is contradictory between at least two classes of objects.
2,a Classification of classes of classes of objects (like Linnean genera) is ambiguous, because every class of class of objects can be assigned to at least two classes of classes of objects.
2.b Classification of classes of classes of classes of objects (like the different Linnean genera) is contradictory, because every class of class of class of objects is contradictory between at least two classes of classes of objects.
3a Classification of classes of classes of classes of classes of objects (like Linnean families) is ambiguous, because every class of class of class of objects can be assigned to at least two classes of classes of objects.
3.b Classification of classes of classes of classes of classes of objects (like the different Linnean genera) is contradictory, because every class of class of class of class of objects is contradictory between at least two classes of classes of classes of objects.
And so on ...
In this scheme, we can see that there are two principally different components of classification: objects and classes. We can also see that each of these components occurs at every second level of a classification into more inclusive classes (ie, objects in 1.a, 2.a and 3.a, and classes in 1.b, 2.b and 3.b), and that objects consistently are ambiguous between their classes, whereas classes consistently are contradictory between their classes, and that the classes of objects are the same as the classes of the classes (ie, 1.a and 1.b, 2.a and 2.b and 3.a and 3.b). This fact is just a consequence of the two facts that every object can be assigned to at least two classes, and that every class is contradictory between at least two classes, whereof "can be assigned to" ultimately equals "is contradictory between", because the relation between object and class is orthogonal. The relation between object and class is simply both ambiguous and contradictory at the same time.
The scheme thus paints the practical picture of the orthogonality of classification. This orthogonality means that classification itself neither can be "true" nor can contain the "truth", because it is fundamentally orthogonally circular. Its output totally depends on its input. There is a saying that "shit in", "shit out", but in this case it is rather "anything in", "the same thing out", but always contradictory. Every particular solution simply points at another solution. Consistency (ie, not pointing to another solution) can only be found using an orthogonal system of classification (like the Linnean systematics), consistently keeping objects and classes apart.
The question whether this means that there isn't a single true tree of life (to be found) has the answer that it depends on whether this hypothetical tree is orthogonally consistent or not. If it isn't, then there isn't, whereas if it is, then there is. If the classes that every object "can be assigned to" actually equals the classes that every object "is contradictory between", then there is indeed a true tree of life, but if thy don't, then there is not a true tree of life. The existence of a true tree of life does thus depend on the actual history of life: if the history of all included classes are congruent, then there is a true tree of life, but if they aren't, then there isn't. The probability that there isn't is, however, vastly larger than the probability that there is. A true tree of life actually requires a multiple of two entities, which have a totally symmetrical origin, and wherein all properties also are totally consistently distributed. The probability of such a tree is almost zero.
The probability that there is a single true tree of life is thus almost zero. Moreover, if there indeed should be one, then our fundamental partitioning of reality into objects and classes, and thus the foundation for this tree, should be wrong. If cladistics should be right, then all of us, including the cladists, thus should be wrong.
Cladistics is thus a huge problem for science. How do we get rid of it? How can we explain that it is impossible, ie, a vain serch to define the indefinable, as Darwin called it?
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)