When we’re trying to find the truth, we’re actually actually looking for the middle between two orthogonal aspects. This search had been rational if (and only if) there had been something between these two aspects, but since there isn’t, it isn’t. Instead, this place is actually void. It is just the turning point between the two aspects.
There is, of course, something we look at in these two aspects (ie, a reality), but this thing is outside of the vector space of the aspects, actually orthogonal to it, and is thus not located (ie, can’t be found) between the two aspects.
This is just another way of concluding that words can’t catch reality. There is, and will forever remain, an insurmountable aisle between our talk and what we talk about. (Which, by the way, instead opens for seemingly magical breakthroughs for engineering art. We will, for example, see teleportation, quantum computers and symphonic composing by computers. Much is possible, but unfortunately not finding the truth.)
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.