On cladistics’ “denial” of quantum mechanics

The problem with cladistics is that it rests on classical physics, which quantum mechanics has shown to be wrong. The problem with classical physics emerged already in the beginning of the 20th century, eg, Russell’s paradox for naive set theory, Schrödinger’s cat, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Einstein’s theories, Niels Bohr’s atom model, which quantum mechanics solved. Since then, quantum mechanics has guided the development of technology as well as the correct logic, crowned by the Nobel Price 2012 for “demonstrating the direct observation of individual quantum particles without destroying them” by Serge Haroche and David J. Wineland. As the Nobelprize.org concludes, this demonstration means that “for single particles of light or matter the laws of classical physics cease to apply and quantum physics takes over”. Quantum physics (mechanics) has thus simply shown classical physics to be wrong, although being logical based on its premises.

Cladistics developed in parallell with quantum mechanics, but in the opposite direction by simply “denying” its extended understanding of reality by instead “claiming” (or only acknowledging) that it is the other way around, that is, that classical physics is correct (or “natural”, as cladists put it), in spite of its problems (and thus that it leads to Russell’s paradox). By this, cladistics shows that it is possible to deny anything, also facts, and has thereby ended up in Russell’s paradox (ie, “the tree of life”). The question now is how cladists (like Steve Farris, Gareth Nelson, Kevin de Quieroz, Jim Carpenter, Diana Lipscomb, Per Sundberg, Kåre Bremer and Mikael Härlin shall climb up from that hole. What they don’t understand is quantum mechanics, which they instead have “denied”. They thus appear stuck in Russell’s paradox.

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