Science isn’t existential, as cladists and particle physics claim, but just a practice

Cladists claim that everything is possible (ie, that there is “a single true tree of life”). Particle physicists claim to have solved the issue whether everything is possible by finding empirical evidence for that everything is possible (ie, by finding “Higgs particle”).

The problem with these claims is that if they are correct, then quantum mechanics is not correct (as are neither Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle nor the fact that time is relative with speed in space). Matters simply can’t be both unambiguous and ambiguous at the same time, because then opposites are equalities.

In my last post, I explained that cladistics and particle physics are wrong, because there is at least one thing that is impossible: to both eat a cake and keep it at the same time. Or, in a more generic sense: to do and not do at the same time. We can’t observe without observing, or measure without measuring, both of which influence what we observe or measure - observation indirectly (by the process that makes reality observable), and measurement directly (by inducing a process that makes reality observable). What we observe or measure is, using the words of Plato in his Theory of Forms, merely shadows on the wall of what’s really going on. Everything is thus not possible, contrary to what cladistics and particle physics claim. Science has a limit in what it can do, and this limit means that it can’t find “a true tree of life” or “Higgs particle”.

This fact means that reality is what some of us (eg, cladists and particle physicists) may comprehend as illimitable (or unrestricted or boundless), ie, that universe ultimately multiplies. This comprehension is, however, wrong in assuming that there is one universe, when fact is that it is we that partition reality into one universe. Reality itself is nothing or everything; it is we that singularize reality into “one universe”, and then claim that facts mean that this universe must be “many universes”. If we don’t understand what we do, then we will find ourselves caught in a contradiction between what we assume and what we conclude, because we can’t both do and not do at the same time (ie, eat a cake and keep it at the same time). Also a conclusion is a doing (ie, a black box with arguments in and a return out). Universe itself is thus neither limited or illimitable, but just is. Our problem is to understand that we can’t nail reality because we’re part of reality.

Instead, we (scientists) have to downplay the limitations of science. We have to acknowledge that science isn’t existential (ie, can’t find a single truth), but is rather a craft to manipulate reality. Science isn’t a competitor to belief (ie, religion), but just a practical way to handle reality. We (scientists) are not Gods, but just carpenters. Cladists and particle physicists have thus outgrown their bed.