The problem for rationality is to decide whether classes are real (ie, can be found) or our inventions, to reach a consistent rational understanding of reality. This problem is, however, just a warm-up for the next problem: that the former entrance ends in paradoxical contradiction, whereas the latter ends in ambiguity.
The insurmountable problem to reach a consistent understanding of reality is thus that reality in rational understanding is either paradoxically contradictory or ambiguous, or both. It dwells in the incomprehensible black hole between paradoxical contradiction and ambiguity. The truth is thus that we can’t reach a consistent understanding of reality. (So, don’t believe in a “Higgs particle” or a “tree of life”, both of these are faiths rather than rationality).
When we humans discuss reality, we first have to face the problem of deciding whether kinds are real or not, ie, deciding whether kinds are something we find or invent.
The problem with this fundamental choice is that the former alternative (ie, that kinds are real) rationally ends in paradoxical contradiction, and that the latter alternative (ie, that kinds are our invention) rationally ends in ambiguity. because it means that independently of what we choose and how we reason, the best we can hope for is ambiguity.
In the light of this fact, it is surprising that a sect called “particle physics” trying to prove a “standard model” claims to be scientific. This aim is obviously not scientific, but instead just as vain as trying to prove the existence of God. How can this sect have entered the realm of science? If it is science, then there is no difference between science and belief.
The problem we continuously encounter searching “the truth” (ie, the cladistic “true tree of life” and the particle physic “Higgs particle”) is that we end up flipping between the different aspects of reality – pattern and process. We can comprehend reality in both aspects, but are naturally stuck in the process aspect.
The problem is that “the truth” is logically placed between these two aspects, because reality consists of both aspects, when there is nothing to be found between them.
Cladistics has solved this problem by simply believing that there is something between these two aspects (ie, a “true tree of life”) and particle physics has solved it by claiming that it think it has found a something between them (ie, “the Higgs particle”), when fact is that there is nothing between them. “Believing” and “thinking” cannot change this fact, because if it could, then “believing” and “thinking” would equal “knowing”, which would contradict the distinction of them. We can thus safely state that both cladistics and particle physics are wrong. There simply are no such things. There simply isn’t anything between the two aspects, because they are just two sides of one thing, that is, reality.
The limitation for science is that is can only model reality, not explain it. The difference is that there are lots of different, but logically compatible, models of reality, in more or less inclusive contexts, that are equally true.
The limitation for science is thus that it can’t reach a single explanation of reality that excludes all other explanations. For example, Newtonian mechanics is logically compatible with both Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics, because all three rest on the basic assumption that classes are not real, whereas both particle physics (in the dress of Higgs particleism) and cladism are logically incompatible with all three, because they, on the contrary, rest on the basic assumption that classes are real. And, the empirical fact that time is relative to speed in space falsifies the basic assumption that classes are real and thus also both particle physics (in the dress of Higgs particleism) and cladism.
The basic assumption that classes are real gives the impression that it is possible to explain reality, but this assumption is thus falsified by the empirical fact that time is relative to speed in space. This fact thus tells us the limitation for science.
In spite of this, there will still emerge new Higgs particleists and cladists again and again forever, because opinions emerge independently of knowledge. Knowledge (science), like democracy, is something we have to fight for forever. But, a fight for knowledge (science) does thus also include a fight against what can be called “scientific extremism” (like particle physics (in the dress of Higgs particleism), cladism and racism). This fight is about denying that classes are real.
Talk splits reality into two aspects – the representation and the representative.
If we do not keep these aspects consistently apart, we enter a paradoxical contradiction, ie, contradict ourselves.
If we keep these aspects consistently apart, we understand that we enter a paradoxical contradiction if we don’t.
We can thus understand that we can’t understand, which Bertrand Russell also obviously did and explained in 1901.
So, how come that Bertrand Russell’s discovery is still not recognized in science? How can someone be awarded the Nobel Prize today for a finding of something called “the Higgs particle”, when this (kind of) thing actually is the paradoxical contradiction we enter when we do not keep the two aspects apart. Is it a suicidal attempt to save science by turning it into a religion? If so, then the rest of us scientists have to come up with a new name for traditional (ie, hypotetico-deductive) science to distance ourselves from this populist simplification of science. Otherwise, Donald Trump may well be called a scientist one day.
The world can’t be understood, because the world is larger than understanding, ie, includes understanding.
If the world could have been understood, then there had to have been a “Higgs particle”, but now that it can’t, “Higgs particle” is nothing but a paradoxical contradiction. This fact is evidenced by that its claimed existence is just as irrelevant as the claimed existence of any God is. It is just as impossible to test empirically as it is practically insignificant. It is nothing but an escape hole for particle physics.
Furthermore, if the world had consisted of particles, as particle physicists assume as an axiom, then the world would have been paradoxically contradictory, because the number of particles would have been countable, and the world would thereby have been a case for discrete mathematics, which ends in paradoxical contradiction (see Russell’s paradox).
Fact is thus that the world can’t be understood, but can just be modeled. We thus can’t understand being, but can just model change.
If particle physicists are right about that there is a “Higgs particle”, then the problem that there reality has two aspects is solved by uniting them. There simply isn’t any difference between them (ie, particle and wave). Although they contradict each other, they are actually the same thing. Reality is simply a paradox.
If particle physicists have actually found this “Higgs particle”, then they have thus actually proved that reality is incomprehensible (by being a paradox). They have thus not found anything, but rather demonstrated empirically that we can’t find anything by this finding.
If this fact can’t falsify particle physics, then everything is true.