Is the idea of the Tree of Life and Higgs boson (ie, a single truth) rational?

The problem with the idea ”a single unambiguous Truth”, like the cladistic “Tree of Life” or physicists’ “Higgs boson”, as well as a consistent bridge between logic and mathematics, is that it does not primarily depend on reality, but on our conceptualization of reality. The problem with the idea is primarily about what we can say about reality, not reality itself, although the state of affairs of reality is responsible for the conceptual problem, that is, that the problem is insoluble, as also Ludwig Wittgenstein (among others) has concluded.

The problem is that the fundamental fact that conceptualization is orthogonal means that conceptualization does not allow us to be both consistent and unambiguous at the same time, but that consistency requires ambiguity. This fundamental fact thus leaves us with only two options: to be (1) inconsistent (ie. contradictory), like cladistics, or (2) ambiguous, like with an orthogonal system as the Linnean classification. The option to be both consistent and unambiguous simply does not exist. This fundamental fact thus discards the possibility to find cladistics’ “Tree of Life” and physicists’ “Higgs boson” theoretically. The possibility is furthermore falsified practically (ie, empirically) by the fact that time is relative to space. The idea “a single unambiguous Truth”, like the cladistic “Tree of Life” or physicists’ “Hobbs particle”, as well as a consistent bridge between logic and mathematics, is thus denied both theoretically and practically.

This impossibility to be both consistent and unambiguous at the same time can be generalized over conceptualization and reality by the statement that “perfection is impossible”. The problem with this statement for empirical science appears to be that it, as a hypothesis, not appears empirically testable. I do, however, claim that it is empirically testable by that its only alternative hypothesis, that is, the opposite hypothesis that “perfection is possible” (ie, that it is possible to be both consistent and unambiguous at the same time) requires equalization of time and space, which is falsified by the fact that time is relative to space. I thus claim that the statement that “perfection is impossible” is supported by the fact that its opposite alternative is falsified by the fact that time is relative to space (in addition to that it is theoretically impossible). There is thus no opening for perfection to be possible, ie, for a single truth to be possible.

The idea “a single unamiguous Truth”, like the cladistic “Tree of Life” or physicists “Higgs boson”, as well as a consistent bridge between logic and mathematics, is thus a true hallucination by all means. This fact can’t be found by a search for the idea, like practical cladistics, because the fact means that the number of possible solutions are infinite, and that all of them. ie, each of them, are contradictory. The fact is thus simply invisible in a search for the idea. Instead, such search for the idea is an eternal merry-go-round within the dualistic world of orthogonal concepts, wherein matters are consistently changed from thesis to anti-thesis to syn-thesis, which forms a new thesis that is changed to anti-thesis to syn-thesis, which forms a new thesis…and so on. There simply is no consistent end point for the search, which the search thus can’t find out.

The idea “a single unambiguous truth” is thus both theoretically and practically impossible. So, where does this fact leave science? The answer is, as a simple modeling of reality for practical purposes. Science is not “the route to truth”, but the more humble occupation of predicting process. Truth itself is nothing but an illusion, like the carrot in front of the donkey’s eyes. As the idea of perfection, it is impossible by all means.

I welcome comments on this, my, conclusion.

Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/

Read more at Menvall’s Blog: change on different levels