Category Archives: Particle physics

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.


On the insurmountable problem for rationality to reach a consistent understanding of reality

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).

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.

On the impossibility to reach a single unambiguous description of the world (like the “standard model” of particle physics)

It is impossible to reach a single unambiguous description of the world (eg, the “standard model” of particle physics), because our partitioning of it in words offers only two alternative entrances to logical reasoning: assuming that kinds are real or assuming that kinds aren’t real, whereof the first ends in paradoxical contradiction (see Russell’s paradox) and the second ends in ambiguity (ie, the back side of paradoxical contradiction). These two ends are actually one and the same thing, or rather interface between them.

It does thus not matter how much or how long we reason, we simply can’t end up in anything but paradoxical contradiction or ambiguity. The world simply isn’t understandable rationally.

This is actually what made the ancient Greek rational culture collapse. There was, and is, simply no rational truth about the world to be found. It means that existential science (like particle physics and cladistics) is Sisyfos work


Particle physics erases the difference between science and belief

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.

On the problem with particle physics

Particle physicists are like criminal investigators trying to prove their belief of how a murder case have happened by seeking support for their belief of how it has happened. They have forgotten the fundamental fact that we can’t prove that anything is true, but just that something is false. They are thereby fundamentally unscientific, and instead religious.

Particle physicists thus can neither understand that their goal is fundamentally paradoxically contradictory and thereby can’t be found. They can, of course, claim that they have found it, like they did with “Higgs particle”, since no non-particle physicist can dispute it, but the problem will always be that an acknowledgement of their belief will also be a contradiction of their belief. Belief simply can’t be confirmed, independently of whether it is in God or in “the standard model” of particle physics.

Fact is that science can’t replace religion, because it is the opposite to religion. Science can only tell what’s wrong among the testable propositions. Science can thus never produce a “standard model”, independently of what particle physicists believe.

The problem with reality (and The Truth)

The problem with reality, as well as with The Truth, is that it is a paradox in our conceptualization of it, since our conceptualization of reality discusses reality, and paradoxes can’t be real. The problem with reality is thus that it can’t be real in our conceptualization of it.

This fact may be just a consequence of our conceptualization, but the fact that time is relative to speed in space instead supports the conclusion that reality actually contradicts itself paradoxically (ie, if it is one, then it is another, whereas if it is another, then it is one). There simply isn’t any middle between one and another in reality.

This conclusion may appear sad to those that seek The Truth (like The Tree of Life for cladistics and The Standard Model for particle physics), but it does provide an explanation for how something can exist in nothing. Something can arise in nothing as a paradox.

This explanation of reality also appears to fit the origin of other things in reality, like life. In this perspective, The Truth IS the origin of both reality and many things in reality, like conceptualization. The Truth is then not something we can find, but instead the environments for everything we consider.  It surrounds everything we consider.