Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:

By Menvall
Contributor profile | More stories

Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Explaining the problem with the idea of a True Tree of Life

Monday, November 26, 2012 0:10

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

The idea of a true tree of life is fascinating, not because it is a possibility, but because it is an impossibility. The fundamental problem with this idea is that it confuses infinite class with finite class and thereby also class with object, thus reversing what conceptualization achieves. It is simply conceptualization backwards.

The fascinating property with this idea is thus not a mystery, but merely a property of conceptualization itself. This property is just comprehended as a mystery IF one misunderstands conceptualization as resting on the axiom that classes are real, because this misunderstanding leads into this impossible idea. That is, IF one believes in classification itself, THEN the idea of a true tree of life is the mystery one ultimately arrives to.

The impossibility of this idea itself is thus not difficult to understand, providing that one can understand conceptualization correctly: classes can’t have a single true origin, ie, a true tree of life, simply because classes aren’t real. This impossibility does thus not concern whether there is a single true history of not, but whether this history can be described unambiguously in terms of classes or not. The same problem actually applies to present, ie, that neither present can be described unambiguously in terms of classes. The only difference between present and history is that IF one assumes that present can be described unambiguously in terms of classes, THEN one can CONCLUDE that also history can be described unambiguously in terms of classes (and thus there has to be a true tree of life), and assumptions are unrestricted in logic. In logic, it is free to ASSUME that present can be described unambiguously in terms of classes and thus to CONCLUDE that also history can be described unambiguously in terms of classes, although present ACTUALLY CAN’T be described unambiguously in terms of classes, and thus that neither history can be described unambiguously in terms of classes. Logic does not exclude erroneous axiomatic assumptions.

Instead, the problem with the axiomatic assumption that classes are real is that it leads into Russell’s paradox. This paradox is simply what one ends up in if one erroneously assumes as an axiom that classes are real, thus confusing infinite class with finite class and thereby also class with object, thus simply reversing what conceptualization achieves. This paradox, called “the true tree of life” and the class clade, is simply the meeting place between objectivity and subjectivity, ie, what we arrive to IF we assume that we can be right. This meeting place is not a reality, but just THE interface between objectivity and subjectivity. It is what would have been true if reality hadn’t been true. It is dream instead of reality. (And, IF it would have been true, THEN reality would have been paradoxical).

The idea of a True Tree of Life is thus actually paradoxical. It is what we arrive to IF we erroneously assume as an axiom that classes are real. As such, it is a dead end.