On the problem to solve in order to understand reality

The problem to solve in seeking an understanding of reality is not about reasoning in itself, but about finding a solution of the fact that the classification by language that underlies reasoning is either paradoxically contradictory or ambiguous depending on whether one assumes that classes are real or not.

Understanding reality is thus not about reasoning at all, but about finding a third way out of the dichotomy between paradoxical contradiction and ambiguity. The problem to solve is to find a position for classes between real and not real.

On the insurmountable problem for understanding

Understanding requires at least two assumptions, and delivers at least one conclusion (ie, the understanding).

The problem with this method is that the assumptions include classification (inherent in words) and thus that the fundamental assumption is whether classes are real (ie, can be found) or just our inventions (ie, mental abstractions). This assumption is thus hidden within the assumptions of the method (ie, within “understanding).

The problem with this hidden assumption is that neither of the two alternative options (ie, that classes are real or that classes are our inventions) leads to a singularity, but that the first leads to paradoxical contradiction and the latter leads to ambiguity. This problem means that “understanding” can’t reach unambiguity, or, in other words, that it can’t reach a single truth.

This fact (ie, that understanding can’t reach a single truth) means that the method will circulate around this empty middle forever. In this circulation, the inconsistent notion of a single truth will form the hub (or the God) for the religion that is called “rational thinking”. This fact is not a problem for mathematics, but it is an insurmountable problem for understanding.

On the insurmountable problem for rationality to reach a consistent understanding of reality

The problem for rationality is to decide whether classes are real (ie, can be found) or our inventions, to reach a consistent rational understanding of reality. This problem is, however, just a warm-up for the next problem: that the former entrance ends in paradoxical contradiction, whereas the latter ends in ambiguity.

The insurmountable problem to reach a consistent understanding of reality is thus that reality in rational understanding is either paradoxically contradictory or ambiguous, or both. It dwells in the incomprehensible black hole between paradoxical contradiction and ambiguity. The truth is thus that we can’t reach a consistent understanding of reality. (So, don’t believe in a “Higgs particle” or a “tree of life”, both of these are faiths rather than rationality).

On the rational hubris

Philosophers have put forward the idea that rationality can free itself from reality and create a rational world separated from reality. The problem with this idea is that rationality is fundamentally paradoxically contradictory. If rationality had been consistent, then it could have created such a world, but since it isn’t, it can’t. Instead, rationality can only create consistent models of how reality works, not of what reality is. Rationality will thus always be second to reality.

This fact is why rationality can’t compete with belief. Both of them are fundamentally paradoxically contradictory.

On the inherent contradiction of reality

The problem with reality is that it rationally is both pattern and process (ie, things and change) at the same time, when pattern and process rationally are orthogonal and thus can’t share “the same time”. A thing rationally simply can’t both be something and change at the same time. It rationally must fundamentally either be something or change.

So, if reality rationally is impossible, then reality is rationally incomprehensible. We simply can’t understand reality. However, the empirical fact that reality changes means that we can understand HOW it changes, but thus not WHAT it is. We actually have no empirical evidence for the assumption that it is. For all we can know, reality does indeed change, but may not be.

The problem with reality for rational understanding

The problem with reality for rational understanding is that it is hidden between being either “either or” an orthogonal contradiction (like “particle” and “wave”) or the opposite “both and” this contradiction, since it can’t be neither “either” nor “both and” at the same time.

According to rational understanding, reality thus instead simply can’t be. This understanding at first appears totally stupid, but at a second thought, it is actually consistent with the empirical fact that reality is ever-changing (by being what one would expect rationally from something that is although it can’t be). The understanding thus paints a picture of a reality that exists only in terms of change.

Such picture (model) of reality is not problematical for science in itself (see modern mathematics and quantum mechanics), but it is problematical for the marketing of rationality (ie, science) in competition with all kinds of beliefs to a public whereof a majority lack ability to understand the picture (model). The picture (model), and together with it, rational thinking, thus runs the risk of being discarded in democratic elections.

The problem with reality for rational understanding is thus that rational people may discard both rationality and the results of it democratically by being inable to understand it. Rationality is simply voted to the sink.

We can’t understand what the world is, but we can understand how it works

We have no possibility to understand what the world is, because such understanding has only two entrances, whereof one ends in paradoxical contradiction and the other in ambiguity, and thereby in that the world is an interface between the two entrances to it, and interfaces “is” not. The understanding is thus that the world “is” not.

However, we have possibility to understand how the world works, because the world works according to probability. Never can it be shown empirically to deviate from this “natural law”.