# On the inherent orthogonal contradiction of conceptualization

As I’ve explained in my earlier posts, the problem with rationality is that it logically forces its supporters into two orthogonal (ie, diametrically opposed) positions: realism and nominalism, due to that conceptualization is orthogonal and has an ambiguous relation to the reality we use it to discuss. This split does thus consist of the unsurmountable barrier between the two possible orthogonal interpretations of the fact that particles are ambiguous by displaying properties of both particles and waves as meaning that particles are both particles and waves (ie, realism) or neither particles nor waves (ie, nominalism).

Rationality is thus fundamentally split between whether an ambiguity shall be interpreted as a “both and” (ie, realism) or a “neither nor” (ie, nominalism). The difference between them is that realism is ultimately inconsistent, actually paradoxically contradictory as Russell’s paradox demonstrates, by conflating the ambiguous states, whereas nominalism is ultimately consistent by not conflating the ambiguous states. This difference means that realists tend to believe in a single ultimate solution, but which it can’t find per definition because it actually is a paradox, whereas nominalism understands that such a single ultimate solution is a paradox (ie, Russell’s paradox). Both of them thus ultimately arrive to Russell’s paradox, differing only in that realism interprets it as an evasive ultimate “Truth”, whereas nominalism interprets it as a paradox (ie, Russell’s paradox). This paradox is thus simply the relation between “both and” and “neither nor” in conceptualization. It means that the split between the two orthogonal positions in rationality does actually not concern the reality we discuss, but instead how we shall discuss it, ie, using realism or nominalism.

In this issue, Einstein’s theoretical discovery that time must be relative to speed in space, and the empirical verification that it actually is, did in fact empirically falsify realism (for those that hadn’t understood that realism is contradictory before this falsification). This did actually decide the issue by supporting that we must discuss reality using nominalism. However, in spite of this decision, realists like cladists today dominate biological systematics (thereby actually promoting a thus inconsistent race biology), and realists like particle physicists were recently awarded the Nobel Price for an empirical finding of a kind of particle that actually is the paradox that realists believe in. If this kind of particle indeed can be found, then time is not relative to speed in space, which it already has been shown to be.

So, what does all of this tell us? Well, it tells us that it requires an extremely intelligent mind to stir things up to incomprehensibility. Luckily, we don’t have to neither stir things up nor understand an incomprehensible stirring of them up, but can instead sit down, take a glass of wine and contemplate the consequences of the inherent orthogonal contradiction of conceptualization.