An important consideration in search for the truth(s)

If we want to search the truth using words, we first have to understand that words generalize things in the form of classes.

We can then understand that we first have to decide whether classes are real (i.e. must be  found) or abstractions (i.e, are invented by us). Already this fact, however, tells us that we can’t find a single truth, since the former ultimately ends in paradoxical contradiction (see Russell’s paradox) and the latter in ambiguity (see Heracleitos), and thus that truths must come in the form of ambiguous pairs (like particle-wave), and must be searched for under the assumption that classes are abstractions (i.e. the hypothetico-deductive method).

This consideration means that we can search for truths rationally, and that we will then be better prepared to recognize them when we meet them.

On reality

We can only be consistent or inconsistent.

If we’re consistent, then we arrive to the ultimate conclusion that reality is ambiguous.

If we’re inconsistent, then we arrive to the ultimate conclusion that reality is paradoxically contradictory.

If, however, reality is paradoxically contradictory, then everything is true.

But, since contradictions can’t be real, reality has to be ambiguous.

On classification and belief

Classification, and thereby also language, is ultimately inconsistent, actually paradoxically contradictory, which Bertrand Russell also demonstrated with his paradox.

We can, however, make classification consistent by arranging it orthogonally, as we do with measuring systems, like time and length. It means that we first define a standard unit, like second and meter, and then group such units in some kind of orthogonal units of them, like minutes and centimeters.

This is exactly what Carl von Linné did with the biological diversity. He first defined the standard units as “species” and then grouped them into the orthogonal units “genus”, “family”, “order”, and so on.

At this point, it is important to keep in mind that the standard units in such a system do not exist in an existential sense (ie, can’t be found), but are just a starting points.

However, if we turn classification into belief by believing that the starting points DO exist, like Charles Darwin did with “species”, then we just return to the ultimately inconsistent classification, like the Nazi biologist Willi Hennig did with his approach that today is called “cladistics”, which thus has no consistent solution (per definition).

In a finite world, like ours, we can only turn matters orthogonally up-side-down. We have no possibility to find an ultimate truth, but can just choose between being contradictory (believing) or ambiguous (being skeptical). There simply isn’t any end in the world (and thus neither any beginning). The world isn’t a story.

 

Our options using talk

Our options using talk is just to either rotate in circles or understand that we can just rotate in circles.  The former is a Sisyfos work (like cladistics and particle physics), whereas the latter is science.

In a finite world, like ours, we can’t find a truth that is black or white, but only one on the gray-scale between true and false, that is, one that is more true than another, because the search can’t start with a fact, but only with an assumption, and the conclusion from an assumption is also an assumption. Truth simply isn’t in practice a matter of black and white, ie, a fact, but of gray-scale, ie, an assumption.

“Truth” thus can’t bridge the gap between assumption and fact because they are orthogonal. We can compare it with asking questions and answering them, then truth is the arguments we use to answer questions, and questions, answers and truth simply aren’t of the same kind, but orthogonal.

The notion of “a single truth” is thereby impossible, because if it had existed, then the orthogonality between assumption and fact (and particle and wave) would not have existed. It is thus instead self-contradictory.

On the impossibility to reach a single unambiguous description of the world (like the “standard model” of particle physics)

It is impossible to reach a single unambiguous description of the world (eg, the “standard model” of particle physics), because our partitioning of it in words offers only two alternative entrances to logical reasoning: assuming that kinds are real or assuming that kinds aren’t real, whereof the first ends in paradoxical contradiction (see Russell’s paradox) and the second ends in ambiguity (ie, the back side of paradoxical contradiction). These two ends are actually one and the same thing, or rather interface between them.

It does thus not matter how much or how long we reason, we simply can’t end up in anything but paradoxical contradiction or ambiguity. The world simply isn’t understandable rationally.

This is actually what made the ancient Greek rational culture collapse. There was, and is, simply no rational truth about the world to be found. It means that existential science (like particle physics and cladistics) is Sisyfos work

 

The problem for rationality

The problem for rationality is conceptualization itself.

If we are rational, then we believe that the biological diversity has originated from one common ancestor, that is, one kind. This belief is, however, not consistent, but ends in paradoxical contradiction (as Bertrand Russell demonstrated with his paradox).

Instead, we have to assume that the biological diversity originated from two common ancestors (call them A and B) , whereof the descendants of A are different from B and from each other, to be consistent. These descendants are thus different in both genus and species.

Rationality is thus fundamentally inconsistent. It can produce models of reality, but it can’t explain reality. The problem for rationality is thus that it can’t explain reality.

On the endless route of biological systematics

The only difference between cladistics and Linnean systematics is that the former assumes that kinds are real, whereas the latter assumes that they aren’t.

It means that the former ends in paradoxical contradiction, whereas the latter ends in ambiguity.

This fact means that biological systematics will never come to an end, because it can’t find unambiguity and it can’t accept ambiguity. Instead, it will search the impossible solution forever.