The problem with a tree of life
The problem with a tree of life is whether it is one or several. It can’t be both at the same time, since “one” can’t be “several”.
This apparently artificial problem may sound absurd to a realist (like a cladist), but how can we possibly describe a “thing” that is both one and several at the same time unambiguously? If we indeed could, then all things of this kind would be the same thing, which they obviously aren’t (I’m not the same thing as Steve Farris).
The idea of a tree of life is thus fundamentally inconsistent (ie, contradictory) by assuming that all things of a kind are the same thing. The idea collides inconsistently into the notion that several things are a single thing.
This collision is called Russell’s paradox. What it means is that an assumed tree of life can’t be unambiguously described. This fact does not, however, in itself, mean that there isn’t a true tree of life, but just that even if there is, it can’t be described unambiguously. It does not decide whether there is a tree of life or not.
However, the fact that time is relative to space means that there isn’t any true tree of life, because it denies the middle between ”single” and “several” that the belief in a single true tree of life rests on. This fact thus composes the final death blow to the idea of a true tree of life by turning it into a hallucination. Even if biodiversity has a common origin, there is not a single true tree of life to be found, because there isn’t any middle between space and time..
Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/
2012-11-24 04:41:13
Source: http://menvall.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/the-problem-with-a-tree-of-life/
Source:
