Monthly Archives: October 2017

Today’s conclusion of the fact that reality can’t be understood

Every “thing” that exists (including the universe) is fundamentally composed of two orthogonal aspects.

The “true nature” of every thing does thus reside in the middle between these two aspects.

The middle between two orthogonal aspects is, however, either ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory, depending on whether you look at it or are in the midst of it.

It means that it is impossible to understand what things are composed of, except that they are composed of two orthogonal aspects.

Advertisements

Another way to conclude that words can’t catch reality

When we’re trying to find the truth, we’re actually actually looking for the middle between two orthogonal aspects. This search had been rational if (and only if) there had been something between these two aspects, but since there isn’t, it isn’t. Instead, this place is actually void. It is just the turning point between the two aspects.

There is, of course, something we look at in these two aspects (ie, a reality), but this thing is outside of the vector space of the aspects, actually orthogonal to it, and is thus not located (ie, can’t be found) between the two aspects.

This is just another way of concluding that words can’t catch reality. There is, and will forever remain, an insurmountable aisle between our talk and what we talk about. (Which, by the way, instead opens for seemingly magical breakthroughs for engineering art. We will, for example, see teleportation, quantum computers and symphonic composing by computers. Much is possible, but unfortunately not finding the truth.)

On the impossibility to explain reality

We try to explain reality. The problem with such an explanation is not, however, the explanation itself, but the classification that our words in the explanation impose.

The problem is that a classification can just be either ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory, meaning that there is no single explanation of reality to be found.

It means that it is impossible to explain reality.

On taking the step from Linnean systematics to cladistics

The difference between the Linnean systematics and cladistics is just whether one assumes that kinds are not real (Linnean systematics) or real (cladistics). The question whether living beings have originated by evolution or not is thus irrelevant for the choice between them.

The problem that gives rise to this choice is that we simply can’t decide whether kinds are real or not, and that whereas assuming that they aren’t real leads to ambiguity, assuming that they are real instead leads to paradoxical contradiction.

Taking the step from Linnean systematics to cladistics does thus mean taking the step from consistency to inconsistency.  It does not mean accepting the theory of evolution, but just accepting inconsistency. On the contrary, accepting the theory of evolution must, in a rational approach, mean accepting an orthogonal classification, like the Linnean systematics. The difference between Linnean systematics and cladistics does not reside in accepting the theory of evolution or not, but in accepting inconsistency (cladistics) or not (Linnean systematics).

The fact that cladistics is inconsistent (actually paradoxically contradictory) means that it can’t find a consistent solution.

On the fundamental problem using words

When we consider reality using words, we find that there is a fundamental difference between pattern and process. This fundamental difference can we never heal, because it is fundamental. The only options we have is to either treat it as an ambiguity (as falsificationists like empirical science does) or treat it as a paradox (like verificationists like particle physicists do). The problem for verificationists is that paradoxes do not exist.