Cladism can’t find a consistent solution on any problem, because it is inconsistent

Cladism rests on the idea that we can model the origin of life as a single tree of life. Unfortunately, this model is inconsistent, meaning that it in practice can’t find any kind of things for the model. The problem is that no kind of thing can have a single origin, because it would conflate the concept “kind” of thing with the concept “thing” of a kind.  This idea (ie, that kind of thing can equal thing of a kind) is actually a conflation of conceptualization (ie, conceptualization backwards). Unfortunately, we thus can’t reverse conceptualization, because it is inconsistent. We can conceptualize, but we can’t deconceptualize. The route back to preconceptualization is closed.

The problem with cladism is thus that it conflates concepts. This problem is difficult to understand, meaning that many people lack ability to understand it, and thus that many people strive to achieve the goal although it is impossible to reach (thus called cladists). How we shall solve this problem (ie, inability to understand complicated relations) do I not know. I do know, however, that this inability to understand also is the fundament for racism. So, if you can solve it, then I know that you can immunize humanity against racism.

The fundamental problem with cladism, as well as racism in a broader sense, is that it conflates thing with kind, which is inconsistent. Cladism is actually a descendant of nazism.

On a single understanding of the world

If there had been a single understanding of the world, then the world hadn’t been locked in eternal change, but had sooner or later reached that understanding. However, now that there isn’t, it neither don’t nor won’t.

The only other possibility is that the world instead is locked in a single understanding, and that change actually only occurs in our heads. But, if so, then time would not have been empirically relative to speed in space, ie, to the extent that clocks draw with increasing speed in space. We can’t fake empirical evidence.

So, there obviously isn’t a single understanding of the world, and thus neither any “Higgs particle” nor any “tree of life”. Instead, particle physicists and cladists appear to have misunderstood matters totally, actually up-side-down or inside-out (depending on whether we describe it in 2 or 3 dimensions).

Together with the facts that there isn’t any exit from conceptualization and that we can’t stop change, this fact means that our comprehension of the world (in for example politics) will circulate between its extremes forever. The only thing we can influence is what we practically do in every state, ie, the practical consequences of it. The circle is inevitable, but we can reduce the damage from it (and thus the need of truth commissions).

 

On Gods (as “Higgs particle” and “the tree of life”)

If the world is rationally understandable, then there must be a “Higgs particle” and a “true tree of life”. Unfortunately, there isn’t any “Higgs particle” or “true tree of life”, because they are contradictory.

Contradictory things, like Gods, may be believed in although they are contradictory, but not in a rational context, because they are irrational. The world thus obviously isn’t understandable.

On the search for the truth with words

When we search for the truth with words, we have to assume something in order to be able to deduce something logically. The problem with this fact is that it leaves the idea of “a truth” between the assumption(s) and the deduction.

Instead, this fact means that logic is a merry-go-round with two entrances: one assuming something and deducing something, and the other assuming what the former deduced and deducing what it assumed – the two thus circling around the idea of “a truth”. This is obvious in discrete metalogic, that is, logic of the first order, or logic with numbers, where “single” is ambiguous (or contradictory, depending on aspect) between none and all.

In summary: logic is useful (together with math) to handle life in a practical sense, but it (ie, science) can never rise above this level. It can just produce models of the world that are better or worse, never reach a truth. Such reach is just as impossible as that probability would reach 1.

So, don’t believe particle phycisists, they have not found “Higgs particle”, and understand that cladists’ search for “the true tree of life” is just as vain as particle physicists’ search for “Higgs particle” is. Such things (ie, “Higgs particle” and “the tree of life”) are actually running points of rationality, that is, manifestations of the impossible illusion that rationality is searching, ie, manifestations of the rational God. And, this (“rational”) God is just as irrational as all other Gods are.

On the pivotal point

Biological systematics is very interesting in that it searches for an all encompassing classification (as also particle physics do), ie, including ALL classes of ONE class (for biological systematics “living beings” and for particle physics “particles”). The interesting aspect in endeavors like these is whether the search is sensible or not, since we humans do not agree on whether classes are real or not (ie, whether there is a consistent all encompassing classification to be found or not) in the first place. In this aspect, biological systematics is particularly interesting by having developed two classifications differing only in assuming that classes are real or not (ie, that there is a consistent all encompassing classification to be found or not): cladistics and Linnean systematics, respectively. Cladistics thus assumes that there is an all encompassing classification to be found, whereas Linnean classification assumes that there isn’t (Linnean classification handling its assumption by instead using an orthogonal system of classification).

By this, biological systematics can lead us to an answer of the ancient question of whether classes are real or not. In this light (ie, in the light of the two orthogonal classifications “cladistics” and “Linnean classification”), the assumption that classes are real (ie, cladistics) can only be proved by showing that the assumption that they aren’t real (ie, Linnean classification) is inconsistent. One of them has to be inconsistent, since they are contradictory, and the burden of proof thus lies on the cladistic side, ie, proving that the assumption that classes aren’t real is inconsistent, because an orthogonal system (like the Linnean system of classification) is consistent per definition. An orthogonal system can’t meet contradictions per definition. Proving that an orthogonal system is consistent is thus insensible, because it is consistent per definition.

So, the two orthogonal classifications “cladistics” and “Linnean classification” in biological classification can thus lead us to the conclusion that the assumption that classes are real (eg, cladistics and particle physics) is inconsistent, whereas the assumption that they aren’t real (eg, Linnean systematics) is consistent. It means that classifications resting on the assumption that classes are real (like cladistics and particle physics) ends in paradox (ie, double contradiction). Biological systematics calls this paradox “the tree of life” and particle physics calls it “the Higgs particle”, none of which thus can be real.

Can we understand what reality is?

We can model reality, but we can’t understand what it is. The problem is that “what it is” has two aspects depending on whether we assume that classes aren’t real or that they are real, traditionally called nominalism and realism, respectively.

Nominalism (ie, assuming that classes aren’t real) leads to the conclusion that reality is ambiguous, whereas realism (ie, assuming that classes are real) leads to a pointer. The former can be interpreted simply as that everything has at least two aspects, but how can the latter be interpreted?

Well, digging deeper in this matter, we can understand that a pointer also has two aspects: the pointer itself and what it points at. So, how can this fact be interpreted? A hint to the solution is that these aspects are the same aspects as an error has: it is an error and it points at a possible solution. This comparison leads us to the interpretation of the pointer as an error, or, now climbing up from the hole, that realism leads to error. It means that we can interpret realism (ie, assuming that classes are real) as leading to error. (Examples of this error are, by the way, what cladists call “the tree of life” and what particle physics calls “Higgs particle”, none of which thus can be found.)

In summary,  we can’t understand what reality is, because none of the alternative ways to such understanding that are given can lead to understanding, sorry to say. We thus have to conclude that we, unfortunately, simply can’t understand what reality is. (Instead, I would like to cite the Buddhist saying: give up, give up, give up.)

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.

Cladistics – the vain search to define the indefinable

The biological discipline called “cladistics” is not hypotetico-deductive but inductive (ie, a faith rather than a science and therefore more correctly called “cladism). It means that it is  inconsistent, actually paradoxically self-contradictory (see Russell’s paradox). The fundamental component that makes it inductive is assuming that kinds are real, ie, can be found.

This fact means that the discipline in practice is “a vain search to define the indefinable”, as Charles Darwin expressed it. It’s end point is actually a paradox.

On classification and belief

Classification, and thereby also language, is ultimately inconsistent, actually paradoxically contradictory, which Bertrand Russell also demonstrated with his paradox.

We can, however, make classification consistent by arranging it orthogonally, as we do with measuring systems, like time and length. It means that we first define a standard unit, like second and meter, and then group such units in some kind of orthogonal units of them, like minutes and centimeters.

This is exactly what Carl von Linné did with the biological diversity. He first defined the standard units as “species” and then grouped them into the orthogonal units “genus”, “family”, “order”, and so on.

At this point, it is important to keep in mind that the standard units in such a system do not exist in an existential sense (ie, can’t be found), but are just a starting points.

However, if we turn classification into belief by believing that the starting points DO exist, like Charles Darwin did with “species”, then we just return to the ultimately inconsistent classification, like the Nazi biologist Willi Hennig did with his approach that today is called “cladistics”, which thus has no consistent solution (per definition).

In a finite world, like ours, we can only turn matters orthogonally up-side-down. We have no possibility to find an ultimate truth, but can just choose between being contradictory (believing) or ambiguous (being skeptical). There simply isn’t any end in the world (and thus neither any beginning). The world isn’t a story.

 

Our options using talk

Our options using talk is just to either rotate in circles or understand that we can just rotate in circles.  The former is a Sisyfos work (like cladistics and particle physics), whereas the latter is science.

In a finite world, like ours, we can’t find a truth that is black or white, but only one on the gray-scale between true and false, that is, one that is more true than another, because the search can’t start with a fact, but only with an assumption, and the conclusion from an assumption is also an assumption. Truth simply isn’t in practice a matter of black and white, ie, a fact, but of gray-scale, ie, an assumption.

“Truth” thus can’t bridge the gap between assumption and fact because they are orthogonal. We can compare it with asking questions and answering them, then truth is the arguments we use to answer questions, and questions, answers and truth simply aren’t of the same kind, but orthogonal.

The notion of “a single truth” is thereby impossible, because if it had existed, then the orthogonality between assumption and fact (and particle and wave) would not have existed. It is thus instead self-contradictory.