Category Archives: Conceptualization

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.

The fundamental problem for us to understand and explain reality

The fundamental problem for us to understand and explain reality is that classification, and thereby also language, is fundamentally 3-dimensional. The problem with this fact is that all possible explanations include a dimensional reduction of at least one (ie, from the 4-dimensional reality). The problem with this is that we thereby either can’t portray the fourth dimension consistently (ie, that the explanation is ambiguous), in three dimensions, or that we confuse two dimensions (ie, that the explanation is paradoxically contradictory), in two dimensions.  This problem thus opens for the fundamental split of humanity between what is called “nominalism” (the former) and “realism” (the latter).

This problem may be a problem only for speak, but may also be a problem for reality itself. Which is difficult to say. But, if it is a problem for reality itself, then so-called “black holes” is reality’s solution of it.

On reality, and our description and understanding of it

Reality is 4-dimensional: the three spatial dimensions and the time dimension.

These four dimensions can’t be consistently reduced to a 3- or 2-dimensional description. A reduction to 3 dimensions is ambiguous (orthogonal), and a reduction to 2 dimensions (ie, a flattening out of the 3-dimensional description) is paradoxically contradictory (see Russell’s paradox).

A 4-dimensional description of reality is reality itself, whereas a consistent understanding of it is quantum mechanics.

A 4-dimensional description of reality (ie, a “true” description) is thus reality itself. The description is a finger pointing at reality.

On our understanding of reality

We have two possibilities to understand reality rationally: by assuming that classes are real or by assuming that classes are our invention. Of these, the former ends in paradoxical contradiction and the latter ends in ambiguity.

We can thus understand reality only as either a paradox or as an ambiguity, whereof the former is inconsistent and the latter is consistent. The problem with this fact is that the latter (ie, a consistent understanding) is that this understanding opens for more than one “true” (ie, consistent) understanding of reality. Exactly how many “true” (ie, consistent) understandings of reality there are is, however, impossible to say.

The eternal fight inside humanity does thus concern whether there is a single true understanding of reality or not, which there obviously isn’t, and then which second alternative we shall prefer: inconsistency or consistency, neither of which can deliver a single true understanding of reality.

On the problem with classes

The problem with classes is to decide whether they are real (ie, can be found) or abstractions (ie, are invented by us in our minds), because this decision is fundamental to our entrance to logic (ie, what we assume, and thereby also what we conclude). Without one of these decisions, we can’t enter logic. Among us (humans) about one third has decided the former, about one third has decided the latter and about one third hasn’t (can’t) decide.

For example, consider the classes “glasses” and “vases”, and the question “What is the difference between them”? Now, the question is whether this question concerns FINDING the difference between them, or FINDING OUT what we mean the difference is? Is there a way to find out whether a particular thing is a glass or a vase, or does the question refer to where we draw the line between them, ie, is there a line between them or do we draw this line?

These two possibilities are mutually exclusive, ie, contradictory, meaning that logical reasoning originating from one of them is totally inconsistent with logical reasoning originating from the other. It means that one third of us (humans) think that one third of us is totally stupid, and vice versa, whereas the remaining third isn’t consistent. This fundamental problem thus splits us (rational humans) up into two camps that simply can’t communicate. Rationality thus comes with a splitting seed, like also (other) beliefs do.

So, is there a way to decide which of these two entrances to logic is correct, or true. Well, the answer can be found in the logical end of them, since the assumption that classes are real ends in paradox (Russell’s paradox), whereas the assumption that they are our inventions ends in ambiguity, because it means that only the latter isn’t contradictory. It means that only this alternative can be correct (or true), because only it does not contradict itself. This does not mean that it is correct (or true), but just that only it out of the alternatives we have can be correct (or true). The possibility that nothing can be correct (or true) remains, but this possibility is actually included in this alternative.

The conclusion of this logical reasoning is thus that only the assumption that classes aren’t real can consistently embrace the possibility that nothing can be correct (or true). (In practice, this may mean that there are two correct conclusions. Just not one, but several.)