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.
torsdag 19 december 2013
fredag 13 december 2013
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.
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.
tisdag 10 december 2013
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).
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).
torsdag 5 december 2013
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).
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).
lördag 30 november 2013
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.
fredag 29 november 2013
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).
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).
onsdag 13 november 2013
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-.
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-.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)