On the belief in Higg’s boson (and in the true tree of life)

If there indeed is a kind of fundamental particle (like Higg’s boson), then there are indeed kinds (ie, Higg’s boson), and, since kinds are orthogonal to objects (like particles, eg, Higg’s bosons), it would mean that there aren’t any objects (ie, particles, eg, Higg’s bosons). It would thus falsify itself.

In more general terms, classification leads to paradox (Betrand Russell, 1901), called Russell’s paradox.

Higg’s particle-ists have just turned matters up-side-down (like cladists) in an aim to be “constructive”, instead of simply admitting that reality is ambiguous between what we comprehend and how we comprehend it. Fact is that how we comprehend it can never be turned into what it is, no matter how “natural” it may appear to us, because it contradicts the difference between them, as well as “difference” in a generic sense.

We (humans) have a tendency to focus on similarities in the form of infinite classes (which set theorists call proper classes) and finite classes (ie, categories or sets), battling with and conflating the difference between them, when it is more fruitful to consider differences. There are, as Aristotle concluded, two kinds of differences: 1. in a specific kind (ie, varieties of a theme), and 2. between specific kinds (ie, differences between different themes), which can’t be conflated. Focusing on differences instead of similarities does thus prevent Higg’s particle-ists’ (and cladists’) from turning of matters up-side-down. The two kinds of differences simply can’t be turned up-side-down.

Higg’s particle-ists (like cladists) are actually trying to tilt science back into the belief it left with the scientific method.  Higg’s particle-ists (like cladists) do not test hypotheses, but try to prove beliefs. They are not scientists, but believers. They have got science up-side-down. The similarity between Higg’s boson, the true tree of life and witches is that they are all figments of the imagination. Facts reside in quantum mechanics.

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