If if had not been

If there had been “a true tree of life” and “a Higgs particle”, then both mathematics and logic would have been wrong, actually the true wrong. Luckily there isn’t any “true tree of life” nor any “Higgs particle”, but instead they are the true wrong.

The fundamental problem for us to understand the world

The fundamental problem for us to understand the world is that our approach is inconsistent. Kinds are namely fundamentally inconsistent (as Bertrand Russell demonstrated with his paradox). It does thus not matter what the world is, we can’t understand it anyway.

Particle physicists and cladists “think” (ie, believe) they can understand the world, because they can’t understand that they can’t understand it, and belief obviously trumps understanding in the world.

Do particle physicists and cladists understand the context?

When one works with GIT (geographical information technology), one realizes that each object has two aspects – properties and a position. The problem with this fact is, however, that if all objects in the world have these two aspects, then the number of objects in the world is finite (given that the world is finite), since no object can occupy the same position as another object, because it means that facts contradict our partitioning of the world itself, since objects are infinitely divisible in our partitioning of the world.

These two facts mean that our problem is not finding “The Truth”, but rather avoiding the fact that there isn’t any (which the latest advances in mathematics also do). The question is if particle physicists and cladists understand this context.

Is the world partitioned?

We (humanity) had to partition the world to be able to talk about it. This does not, however, mean that the world is partitioned. On, the contrary, the world is not partitioned. It means that we are fundamentally wrong.

In spite of this, our partitioning of the world is practically useful, as shown by Newton mechanics, Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations, Einstein’s relativity theory and quantum mechanics. But, it means that we can’t find a single true description of what the world is, because the world is not partitioned.

On the future for the talking ape

Rationality seeks “The Truth”. But, unfortunately, what we find is not necessarily what we seek. In the case of “The Truth”, this finding is effectively blocked by an inconsistent duality – an ambiguity and a paradoxical contradiction (the two aspects of the so-called Russell’s paradox). This goal is thus effectively empty, actually an illusion consisting of a paradoxical interface.

What we instead will encounter is a diversification of rationality until it merges with belief, that is, a confusion of rationality with irrationality. The search for “The Truth” will thus lead into a big melting pot of opinions from which anything can emerge. This is the turning point after first belief (ie, irrationality) has reigned for several hundred years and then rationality has reigned for several hundred years. It marks the end for rationality and a new beginning for belief (ie, irrationality) in the eternal cycle between rationality and irrationality for the talking ape (ie, humanity).

The fundamental question for the future of the talking ape is if we can ever can escape this eternal cycle by stop seeking “The Truth”, instead reaching a pleasure in just living and being able to manipulate and predict our world. Can we (talking apes) abandon the obviously inconsistent idea of a single and all-encompassing Truth (ie, the God for rationality)? Socrates did, and I have also done.

On the inevitable route towards chaos

When we (humanity) started to discuss reality, one of our first moves was to put addresses to locations. At the same time, one of our first confusions was to confuse “address” with “location”. We simply couldn’t keep the representation apart from the representative.

The reason for this confusion is that keeping them consistently apart instead leads into a problem of keeping the prepositions “in” and “on” consistently apart. Keeping them consistently apart means that “in” and “on” are contradictory (ie, “in” a location but “on” an address), whereas confusing them instead means that “in” and “on” are ambiguous. The confusion thus turned a contradiction into an ambiguity.

At this point, we had created the fundamental split among us (humanity) that will ultimately lead to our self-destruction. There is no way to bridge the gap between those that confuse “address” with “location” and those that don’t. Instead, this gap inevitably leads into a multicultural battle between a spectrum of beliefs wherein the principles that my friend’s enemy is my enemy and that my enemy’s friend is my enemy create a chaos.

This route was thus set already when we started to discuss reality.

What can we do with talk?

So, what can we do with talk? Well, we can describe the world (in several equally true ways) and then use these descriptions to manipulate the world and make predictions about it. We cannot, however, fuse all possible true descriptions into a single description, because all of them are true and they are different.

Fundamentally, this difference is the difference between talk and what we talk about.