Our search for The Truth can be described with the following analogy. Say that The Truth is a river and our search is a walk in the neighborhood of this river. We can then walk along this river and pass it on bridges, but we can’t get into the river, because there simply is no walkway into the river.

However, the tantalizing thought is what we would face IF we could walk into the river. The answer to this question is interesting, but not, however, particularly exciting. It is that it depends on with which preconceptions (ie, axioms) we walk into it. If we assume that the river is real, then we enter an indefinite search for it, whereas if we assume that the walkways are real, then we reach the conclusion that the river isn’t real, but just a paradox (ie, Russell’s paradox). In practice, however, this choice is presented to us as a choice between whether classes or objects are real, since we actually walk and do not observe the situation, where classes correspond to the river and objects correspond to walkways.

The question of what is real and what is not real does thus matter only insofar that it decides the end of our reasoning, Our fundamental problem is actually that we distinguish real and not real, because we simply can’t fuse them if we distinguish them, and our only choice is just to fuse them or distinguish them.

Our problem is thus that if we distinguish real and not real, then we reach the conclusion that not real is not real, whereas if we fuse (ie, confuse, or conflate) real and not real, then we enter an indefinite search for this paradoxical fusion (as cladistics and particle physics have).

Our problem is thus that we can’t find The Truth, because it is fundamentally an inconsistent idea.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*