A short presentation of myself is that my name is Mats Envall and that my main interests are conceptualization and multidimensional statistics.

I have a technical education as an electronic engineer and a PhD in biological systematics, and also university education in geology, oceanography and environmental protection.

I’m presently working as a biological analyst with, among other things, satellite image analyses using artificial neural networks (i.e., artificial intelligence). My aim is to increase effectiveness in environmental management using modern technology.

My hobby is to disclose that cladism is inconsistent (that is, self-contradictory) and empirically wrong. My arguments in this matter rests on my publication in Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 94:217-220.

I will expand this page as soon as I get the time to.

/Mats Envall


5 responses to “About

  1. Mats,

    I really don´t know how I came to your blog, but it is amazing. I`m very pleased with what I can read in here.

    As theologian I have translated many ancient texts and tought philosophy at an art college. I´m pretty familira with Russel´s Paradoxon and have recently come to look deeper into math models of reality, especially in cosmology. And I see something growing within me wanting to do a similar thing like you do – I find deep reason to critizise any modeling of reality.

    My approach comes from language. I doubt any identity of language (and modeling is a sophisticated system of language) and reality since I also see something I didn´t see when I was a young guy: many assumptions for creating a theory or model are simply beyond any reality. There is no 2dimensional set in our reality, nor any need explaining something in our world in terms of differential geometry, to say some examples. I have seen a few simple craftsmen in my life finding intuitively solutions engineers needed to use computers and heavy math (which, btw, I really love). And the Higgs propaganda is nothing else than reintroducing the old imagination of an ether field, isn´t it? But the old ones had no need for math models and mental tricks pulling the ether phenomenon down to a “language problem” in order to declare intuitive guessing a mistake. But look where exact terms (which is language) have brought us: exact terms feed so called “objectivity”, objectivitiy means catching something in something “I have for sure”, something I think I have for sure is asking fot utilitarism, utilitarism is the religion of making all that is happening a “thing” and “object” I can exploit, and at the end all is considered a number and set of data. Is it that what I´m really are? Is it a search for a formula or an algorithm exolaining beauty, pain, lust, love, any search for meaning? Is utilitarism coming from models adapted to reality (or is it the opposite?) the holy grail of humanity? No, it ain´t, but a deep reason of sadness we see all around…

    But let me finish here, Mats, and take my greetings from Germany!

    • I’m glad you appreciate what I write. I just have to add that I’m not criticizing modeling the world in itself, but rather belief in models of the world. It is not models that create the world, but the world that create our models. The world worked before we began modeling it and will continue to do after we’ve stopped modeling it.

      Models of the world have a practical role to play, but as beliefs they are just as contradictory as all other beliefs are. Neither science can explain the world, but can just predict future with more or less success (never perfect). The aisle that separates science from a final explanation of the world is the same as that which keeps the world going – the impossibility of perfection. Higg’s particle-ism is thus just another belief, which thus just got awarded by members of that belief. This award doesn’t, however, save the belief from being contradictory; it actually doesn’t matter how many people that share it, it will still be contradictory and thus, as such, propagate by splitting. We can thus predict that there will soon be two fundamentally different Higg’s particle-isms, one emphasizing the “particle’s” field properties and another emphasizing its particle properties (properties which thus can’t be consistently combined). What Higg’s particle-ists actually have done, is that they have turned model into the reality it models, thereby detaching it from the reality it before tried to model. They have liberated the model from the burden of reality.

  2. Hello Mats, very happy to find your writings. Another sort of argument (with the same sort of goal) has been on my mind also. Thank you for your time, intellect and diligence in this arena. Might take a while, but I’m going to read every word. Cheers!

    • Thank you! But, don’t take on the task of reading all words. By now they form 1,783 posts, and are thus a lot of words.

      All posts do, however, like Zen Koans, explore a single principle (ultimately aiming to increase my own understanding of it). It means that as soon as you get the principle, you can make up your own posts of the same kind. This principle is the principle that reality is made of, namely orthogonality, and good training examples are linear algebra, the color cube and the relation between CAD and GIS. The principle is consistently circular, and the closure of it requires understanding of the difference between countable and uncountable infinity. I can recommend the course “Introduction to higher mathematics” on youtube.

      Good luck!

  3. Hi. I nominated you for a Versatile Blogger Award. Here’s the link: https://postliminy.wordpress.com.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s