The problem to solve in seeking an understanding of reality is not about reasoning in itself, but about finding a solution of the fact that the classification by language that underlies reasoning is either paradoxically contradictory or ambiguous depending on whether one assumes that classes are real or not.
Understanding reality is thus not about reasoning at all, but about finding a third way out of the dichotomy between paradoxical contradiction and ambiguity. The problem to solve is to find a position for classes between real and not real.
The problem with reality is that it rationally is both pattern and process (ie, things and change) at the same time, when pattern and process rationally are orthogonal and thus can’t share “the same time”. A thing rationally simply can’t both be something and change at the same time. It rationally must fundamentally either be something or change.
So, if reality rationally is impossible, then reality is rationally incomprehensible. We simply can’t understand reality. However, the empirical fact that reality changes means that we can understand HOW it changes, but thus not WHAT it is. We actually have no empirical evidence for the assumption that it is. For all we can know, reality does indeed change, but may not be.
Talk is without end, like reality.
Many people throughout history have understood that language is a barrier to understanding reality. The problem with reality is that it is the same kind of thing.
Quantum mechanics suggests that nothing is ever in a particular place, but instead that everything has a probability distribution in every moment. Change is thus fundamentally not a matter of things changing place, but of things changing probable place. It means, for example, that a single thing can pass physical barriers via several openings at the same time.
Reality is a trinity, and thus can’t be consistently expressed in all three extensions using a two-dimensional system (like speech). Instead, an expression of reality in such system has to be either ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory. Any claim that this conclusion is wrong is simply wrong. We can deny much, but not the impossibility to be totally right.
If we could be totally right, then change would be an illusion, which is contradicted by the fact that time is relative to speed in space. An illusion can’t be measured, because if it can, then it is not an illusion.
Fact is thus that reality is not an illusion, and that it can’t be consistently expressed in all three extensions using a two-dimensional system (like speech). Fact is thus that it is impossible to be totally right.
Biological systematics actually illustrates the impossibility of reaching a single consistent explanation of the world by illustrating the impossibility of reaching a single consistent classification, because without a single consistent classification there’s of course no way of reaching a single consistent consistent explanation. The mission fails already at it’s onset by lacking the tools for success. It’s like trying to build a car without materials for it. Like a dream that is unable to materialize. An abstract utopia.
Science is thus just another religion if one believes in it, but a smart way to handle the world if one uses it as a tool. Its problem is to keep the distance from religions and at the same time compete with religions. It is practice against theory, or pragmatism against idealism. But, in all its humility (as practice in relation to theory), it is actually the only hope we have to avoid apocalypse.