Cladists and particle physicists have no possibility to understand that they are wrong

Classification is fundamentally ambiguous by dividing every single class into several classes.

It means first that there are fundamentally two different kinds of classification: plain and orthogonal: plain simply dividing every class into two classes (eg, “cladification” as in cladistics), and orthogonal dividing classes into categories (eg, Linnean systematics), and secondly that plain ultimately leads to paradoxical contradiction (ie, Russell’s paradox), whereas orthogonal lacks an ultimate end point, because the only two end points there are in a fundamentally ambiguous system is paradox (ie, conflation of the ambiguity) and none (ie, ambiguity). There is no other end point that consistent logical reasoning can lead us to.

This fact thus means that we can’t reach a single unambiguous truth about reality, like the hypothetical cladistic “tree of life” and particle physics’ “standard model”, independently of the state of affairs, because we can’t classify reality unambiguously.

This fact is actually the opposite to what realists, like cladists and particle physicists, believe, since they believe that we do not classify, but instead find classes. In their belief, they’re thus predestined to end up in paradox, which cladists call “the tree of life” and particle physicists call “Higgs particle”. These kinds of things are simply what realists, like cladists and particle physicists, arrive to when they reason logically, and which they thus have to believe actually exists. They have no possibility to understand that such things actually are mind ghosts resulting from an erroneous belief, because they don’t understand that they believe.


4 responses to “Cladists and particle physicists have no possibility to understand that they are wrong

  1. This is so remarkably similar and analogous to my argument concerning Correlationist reality and faith. I’ll have to read your last few posts more closely.

    • My point is actually “remarkably similar” to many other points that many different people have made throughout history, because it is about a general principle which we (actually Bertrand Russell) described in 1901 and which we call “Russell’s paradox”. This paradox actually says what I say in a nutshell.

      The reason I continue explaining this discovery over and over again in different disguises is that so many people obviously still don’t understand it. A group of people (calling themselves “particle physicists”) even recently were awarded the Nobel Prize for claiming that they have found Russell’s paradox empirically, just as if paradoxes can be real?! (Can we hold a paradox in our hands?)

      The problem to explain this discovery is not only that it is difficult to understand in itself, ie, an orthogonal relationship, but also that it is manifested in both conceptualization and reality: in conceptualization as the consequences I try to explain, and in reality as the consequence that future IS Russell’s paradox. At a more fundamental level than I discuss, the paradox thus means that reality hasn’t originated at all (thus neither by a “big bang”), just as it can neither reach a stable state nor “deriginate” (ie, die). Instead, reality is consistently described by circularity rather than by beginnings and ends (ie, stories). This kind of description, however, agrees more with Oriental thinking rather than with our Western, meaning that we run the risk of denying our Western thinking with it. This fact does probably explain why many of us Westerners shun it like the plague, even awarding a totally hilarious empirical finding of the paradoxical end of our Western thinking with the Nobel Prize. It is just as if we (Westerners) fight to save the appearance of our Western thinking by all means, even by those that are obviously totally stupid. The question is no longer about understanding reality, but about maintaining the Western supremacy over the Oriental.

      So, although I haven’t read your writings, I can sense what you mean with “correlationist reality” and “faith”, but the battle is not only between them, because there is also a third player on the side of “correlationist reality”, namely circular “correlationist reality” (ie, my aspect). But I thus also understand that there are more aspects than mine inside of my aspect by understanding the principle of Russell’s paradox. I understand that there are always other things inside of everything according to this principle. I understand that reality is safely embedded in a paradox. I also understand that this fact means that we are confined to making models of how reality works, wherein there are always at least two models that are just as accurate.

      • I was typing a reply earlier but then it disappeared, so I don’t know if it posted or what, but in any case I’ll just do another one.

        Yes, the paradox. It has long been obvious to me, but as a layman of sorts, I have only to address the various discourses that I come upon, as they are presents to me through various avenues. So I appreciate you enlightening me to Russel’s mathematical contribution; I didn’t know there was the Russels paradox, but I was aware of Cantor, through Alian Badiou’s book, and came upon this idea of the set that includes all sets but itself, as Badiou uses Cantor to speak about the void.

        Likewise, aside from mathematical descriptions, discourse itself appears to argue itself to contradiction.

        It s seems we have different connotations of ‘real’, but nevertheless, As to your ‘circular correlationalism’; I see this circularity as indicating a ‘hard correlational limit’, in which such faith operates. Because, I see a more significant issue: That people who have no clue of the paradox live their lives regardless of the paradox; that even those who know of it likewise live and deal with life regardless.

        It seems that the paradox often is supposed to reveal something to people, but what? While I agree most with what you offer, I question whether such reductions actually say anything of some truth of reality as a whole manifestation of reality. Because, you may have noticed that most people are incapable of understanding such a paradox beyond a kind of interesting thing, if that. Most people could not care less. It seems to me that if such a paradox actually revealed something that is more true or more real than the reality that people live upon, then they would hear of it and be interested. But very few people even care. In fact, many ‘educated’ people can and will offer their own versions of what is more real and true, as will ‘less educated’ people. Also, as I tend to agree that East appears to have accepted the paradox more than the West, but it seems even in the east we have a whole slew of population where it doesn’t matter there either.

        Yet even aside from the paradox, often communication itself cannot even take place. I find nearly everywhere I go that people most often will not and cannot accept various suggestions or input about things. They plain cannot hear what I say, and they plain will not hear it.

        What do you think or how do you explain the persistence of the proposed ignorance ? Say a Christian; how is it possible that either they do not see the truth, or you do not? Or if someone attempts to explain as you are about the veracity of physics as describing actual real things as opposed to a mere model for our understanding and specific application to problems. These types of dichotomies appear to me to indicate something more significant is occurring.

        How do you explain this? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point.

      • A lot of issues you put on the table at the same time.

        First, yes “people who have no clue of the paradox live their lives regardless of the paradox; that even those who know of it likewise live and deal with life regardless” (as you say), but this doesn’t mean that the paradox does not influence their lives. On the contrary, the paradox influences everybody’s life by attracting to the voids it creates, and create new voids as we fill the old ones. It thus acts by what we call “natural laws”. These “laws” are thus not actually “laws”, but rather like tendencies within probability limits. Which roles we (as individuals and groups) play in this change is up to us to decide (as individuals and groups), but the overall change is also controlled by this paradox via the “natural laws” (that is, within the probability limits). For this reason, future is actually mathematically predictable (within certain probability limits). Although “people who have no clue of the paradox live their lives regardless of the paradox; that even those who know of it likewise live and deal with life regardless” (as you say), it doesn’t mean that they are liberated from the paradox, but on the contrary makes their lives especially easy to predict. The fact that you don’t understand what controls you doesn’t mean that it doesn’t control you, but on the opposite that it controls you stronger.

        The question “what the paradox reveals to people” is that mastering it mathematically has the power of gaining understanding (mathematical) of many phenomena in this world, including the circle between war and peace, and music, thus opening possibilities to avoid and manipulate the parts of change we want to avoid. But, the question concerning this question is rather what the paradox reveals to the “people” you discuss (ie, which “have no clue of the paradox” and “live their lives regardless of the paradox”), and in this aspect the answer is that it doesn’t reveal anything useful for their lives. They are just checkers in change. The importance of this paradox is above their heads.

        Finally, I have to emphasize that what I try to explain here (and many before me have tried to explain elsewhere) do I not claim to be “the truth”, but just to be the only model of our world that is both internally consistent and consistent with facts (like the fact that time is relative to speed in space). It is simply what one arrives to if one consistently avoids contradiction. It doesn’t say anything about what the world is, except an orthogonal relation, but how we can understand it mathematically and manipulate it. It actually says that the world is incomprehensible, except mathematically.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s