The (cladistic) idea of “a true tree of life” in an object oriented programming (OOP) perspective

The problem with the idea ”a true tree of life” (which the approach Cladistics rests on) can be expressed in infinitely many ways, because if the concept problem is defined as “an obstacle for reaching an unambiguous solution”, then this idea IS actually a problem, since it can’t reach unambiguity, but instead IS either ambiguous or contradictory per definition.

The reason is that it (or rather such a thing) actually is the interface between nominalism and realism, ie, the abstract object wherein these two fundamentally contrary approaches meet. It is the object that conflates the concepts class and object itself. As such, it is thus either ambiguous or contradictory per definition, because these concepts are orthogonal. This fact can be expressed in a more concrete sense as: “we can’t, of course, conflate the concepts class and object unambiguously at the same time as we distinguish them”, since they can only be either conflated or distinct at any single time. Instead, we have to make up our minds on whether they are (we consider them to be) distinct or not. The idea that they can be both at the same time, ie, “the true tree of life”, (or rather this thing) is thus the interface (ie, the object) which both distinguishes and conflates class and object. (The idea is thus not impossible in itself, but just can’t be unambiguous within its context). This fact can be understood in a contextual framework of object oriented programming (OOP). Objects like ideas, ie, abstract objects, are not necessarily unambiguous, but objects that are real are (unambiguous per definition). Objects do thus cross the boundary between the concrete and abstraction, because they are merely instances of classes. The problem with the object “a true tree of life” is thus not whether it is real or not, because objects are both real and abstract, but rather that it  can’t reach unambiguity, meaning that it IS a problem per definition: an object of the class Problem. (It is indeed an abstract object, but this fact is irrelevant. The problem with it is that it is an instance of the class Problem).

Some of you may ask: what’s the meaning with the reasoning above? The answer in a generic sense is that a search for consistent reasoning searches for generic theories that are not self-contradictory, which I consider the above reasoning about the idea “a true tree of life” not to be. The answer in a specific sense is that the answer in a generic sense guides our practical efforts, ie, tells us what it is meaningful to do. The meaning with the reasoning above is thus to demonstrate that it is not meaningful to search for the idea “a true tree of life”, because it is an object that can’t reach unambiguity. Or, put simpler, that it is a search for what we do (which thus is whatever we do). We find whatever we search for, but always self-contradictory).

Evolutionary taxonomy also searches for the history of life, but in a sensu lato that a description of it must be acknowledged to be ambiguous. There simply isn’t any single “true tree of life”, but instead several “true trees of life” per definition. The goal “a true tree of life” is thus simply either ambiguous or self-contradictory per definition, whereof Evolutionary taxonomy prefers ambiguous and Cladistics prefers self-contradictory. This goal is thus not, as Cladistics claims, unambguous, but either ambiguous or self-contradictory. Cladistics thus simply has not found the correct generic reasoning. It thus has to start from the beginning again.

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