The fundamental problem for science is that although it is consistent, can’t find a truth, because there is no truth to be found. This problem means that ordinary people (ie, those that do not understand) are confronted with a choice between inconsistent dream (ie, populism) and consistent failure (ie, science). And, since they do not understand, and thus much less can spot inconsistency, why should they choose consistent failure in front of inconsistent dream?
The fascinating property of reality is that it has two aspects of the real thing, but no thing. It is as a book with a cover but nothing in between. Or, as a story with a beginning and an end, but no middle.
This setting triggers a never-ending dance around the illusionary golden calf, which can only be satisfied by religion, because science can’t find an illusion.
The most interesting property of reality is that one aspect of it (eg, “the front side” or “process”) IS the other aspect of it (then “the back side” or “pattern”) by meaning that there is no real difference between them, but that this aspectual difference emerges in the moment we look at it. It is just as if reality forms in terms of this difference in the moment we look at it. However, the fact that we can predict processes pretty well using math and “natural laws” means that it is not reality that forms, but just our comprehension of it. Reality itself avoids our comprehension.
This property can be interpreted as that reality fundamentally IS “process” (eg, the ancient Greek Heracleitus) or pattern (eg, the ancient Greek Parmenides), but the fact that the difference between them emerges in the moment we look at reality means that reality also fundamentally is both (at the same time). The fact that time is relative to speed in space does indeed mean that the former interpretation (ie, that reality fundamentally IS “process”) agrees with facts, whereas the latter (ie, that it is “pattern”) isn’t, but it isn’t consistent to assume that consistency in an inconsistent comprehension of reality equals consistency in this reality.
This property of reality does thus mean that we can’t reveal what reality IS with the tools we have. We can model how it behaves using math, but we can’t understand what it IS.
Accepting “Higgs particle” solves the problem with the standard model, but at the same time creates a contradiction between it and both black materia and quantum mechanics. If we indeed have found it, then black materia is an illusion and the facts of quantum physics is wrong.
So, science has to decide whether Higgs particle or quantum mechanics is true. Both can’t possibly be true at the same time.
Reality is like a coin – having two sides, one front and one back side. The difference is that reality has nothing in between. Instead, the front side is the front side of the back side and vice versa. A middle is simply lacking.
This fact means that conflict and change are natural laws. Nothing can be agreed upon nor stay the same over time. Instead, diversification and transience rule. The notion that evolution is “a fight for survival” is thus totally wrong. On the opposite, evolution is conflict, transience and resulting diversification (like thesis, antithesis and theses (synthesis occurs only if it is the only possibility in transience)).
Now, if reality is finite, then transience have to be circular, since the number of possible transiences also is finite (ie, transience can’t find new routes infinitely). It means that reality is consistently described as a circularity (rather than as a story with a beginning, a middle and an end). It, in turn, means that reality is more plausibly assumed to not having a beginning than having a beginning. This fact does thus mean that the statement that a big bang created reality is inconsistent (ie, logically contradictory). The logically consistent conclusion is instead that reality hasn’t been created at all.
The problem with “the truth” is that it isn’t a matter of white and black, but of gray scale.
The only things that can be true are statements about about reality, and they are true if they agree with reality. The problem with this fact is that statements agree with reality more or less, because it means that statements can’t agree with reality unambiguously, since “unambiguous” is orthogonal to “more or less”.
The problem with “the truth” is thereby that it can’t reach perfection. It can only be “more or less”, but will ultimately arrive to at least two contradictory (orthogonal) statements that are just as true.
The problem with “the truth” is thus that it is relative, like whitish or greenish. Our problem is to handle this problem.
Many of us today understand that reality has two aspects: the time and the frequency aspect (or wave/particle, etc). These two aspects of reality are like head and tail, but what not many of us understand is that there is nothing between these head and tail. Instead, the thing between these head and tail (ie, reality) is the pure flip between them.
This fact means that we have to accept that reality is ambiguous, because it thus in the time aspect is ambiguous and in the frequency aspect multifaceted. We thus have to accept that we can’t nail reality, because there isn’t anything behind its two aspects.
The fundamental question is thus when we will accept (yield to) the fact that we can’t reach an unambiguous description of reality (like the ideas of a”standard model” and “tree of life”). When will we see through such hallucinations?