Why not admit that rationality can’t provide a single true description of reality?

A description of reality is like a map of reality. The difference is that whereas a map reduces three dimensions into two, a description reduces four dimensions into three. This dimension reduction means that not all dimensions of reality can be portrayed correctly.

In specific, a thing (particle) has two aspects – particle and wave – whereof neither can be real. A thing is thus neither a particle nor a wave. A black hole, on the other hand, is the orthogonal opposite to a thing, meaning that it is both a particle and a wave, that is, a paradox, which is real if particles are real.

Black holes thus pose the fundamental challenge for rationalism. They do indeed exist in the light of our representation system of them, but they are rationally incomprehensible. The two orthogonal aspects can’t be consistently fused, although black holes are empirical realities. At this point, we ought to admit that rationality can’t describe reality unambiguously, but since researchers are economically dependent on the search for such a description, most of them refuse to arrive to this conclusion. On the contrary, they avoid it like the plague.

Instead, rationalists (now first and foremost Stephen Hawking) try to explain black holes rationally, although an existing paradox can’t be explained rationally. Why not instead admit that science is just a practical endeavor manipulating reality? Why not admit that it can’t provide a rational description of reality?

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