Is this guy a midwit? I just finished reading his CTMU and while it is certainly among the best texts on metaphysics I've see so far, it is still poorly written. Some of the ideas are interesting and intuitively appealing. However, large parts of the text look like a massive larp, and the grandiosity with which he claims his ideas to be "supertautological" remains unjustified. Some aspects are quite questionable, if not even outright wrong or self-contradictory. Though understanding the text requires a good background in math and physics, it becomes cringeworthy when he actually attempts to do math. In general it seems unworthy of someone with an IQ of 195.
Have you read CTMU? What's your opinion?
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
He is a person doing very shrewd media maneuvering to take advantage of the feeling people have that "I'm smart, I just didn't apply it". His intellectual work is not interesting at all, but he could do serious intellectual work if he applied himself for many years to it, like most other people. That's not what he does. He wants to be a motivational speaker.
His IQ test performance is a gimmick, like Marylin Vos-Savant, or all other high-IQ scorers, he just learned to do the stupid puzzles well.
I find the CTMU interesting because it roughly lines up with my own admittedly very vague position concerning the nature of existence which I came to independently rather recently, and also funnily enough it also lines up with murdoch murdoch as of the last episode, even though I don't think MM knows about the CTMU. I don't have the proper background to fully understand the math, would you be willing to summarize the parts you think are suspect and why?
I think this is probably true to an extent, but the stuff he says is still intelligent afaik not to mention redpilled.
Hi Chris.
>Hi Chris.
thanks, but not him. my iq surpasses his mere 195 by a lot
And yet you've provided no arguments against him.
>I find the CTMU interesting because it roughly lines up with my own admittedly very vague position concerning the nature of existence which I came to independently rather recently, and also funnily enough it also lines up with murdoch murdoch as of the last episode, even though I don't think MM knows about the CTMU. I don't have the proper background to fully understand the math, would you be willing to summarize the parts you think are suspect and why?
The truth is you probably just didn't get it. Whenever someone is not sufficiently well-read ina certain area, they will be unable to discern meaning and so will project whatever interpretation they already have in that specific area onto the writer. This is classic among Langan fans especially, just look at his youtube comments.
Reality is a language because it obeys certain laws (i.e. logical laws), and thus is a language by definition.
>I would like to see his proof or at least his formal breakdown on how it is a language.
He has provided many on many occasions. I could probably link five of them if I took ten minutes to search.
>I like most of the other principles, but syndiffeonisis is a weird one.
There is nothing weird about it, it's a blatant tautology. Two different things always share a predicate (i.e. of being different from another).
Didn't read the rest of what you said, sorry.
Pure math is not sufficiently descriptive to capture reality due to it's formal nature.
>Reality is a language because it obeys certain laws (i.e. logical laws), and thus is a language by definition.
Language is constructed as "maps of territories". You make a circular argument by effectively equivocating between the map (language) and reality (the territory) by calling reality itself a map. Elephants all the way down. Cute joke.
>Necessitated by explanatory closure.
For the normies that's epistemic closure. As in "for everyone who knows what they're talking about". Reality is not in the class of things that "do epistemology" without a truly ludicrously tortured string of asinine sophistry. Not necessitated at all.
>Infocognitive monism follows from the fact that the mind constrains the objects it encounters by virtue of intelligibility, giving each by necessity one distributed structure.
You just wrote nonsense. Quote the horse himself.
>"Because cognition and generic information transduction are identical up to isomorphism – after all, cognition is just the specific form of information processing that occurs in a mind – information processing can be described as “generalized cognition”, and the coincidence of information and processor can be referred to as infocognition. Reality thus consists of a single “substance”, infocognition, with two aspects corresponding to transduction and being transduced. Describing reality as infocognition thus amounts to (infocognitive) dual aspect monism. Where infocognition equals the distributed generalized self-perception and self-cognition of reality, infocognitive monism implies a stratified form of “panpsychism” in which at least three levels of self-cognition can be distinguished with respect to scope, power and coherence: global, agentive and subordinate.
There ya go, he admitted his monism as information and observer (QM observer is any interacting thing) system hence dual aspect. Lots of redefining words on Langan's part but still more sensible than your reply.
To continue as a final thought, much of what Langan writes I would describe the same as I ended with there. Plays on words, ideas, redefinitions of words, to write in an obtuse way obvious things mysticism-attracted people would be drawn to like a magnet. People who like bullshit.
The key thing to track are equivocations. How many times, and how often, do these people equivocate terms to then reify (make the imaginary real)? It's reification fallacy all the way up. But hey don't let me stop the "180 IQ guy". Maybe don't throw dick like that when you risk someone in that range actually showing up.
Not the guy you're replying to, but
>Language is constructed as "maps of territories". You make a circular argument by effectively equivocating between the map (language) and reality (the territory) by calling reality itself a map
I believe you are talking about a different thing. When Langan says that mind equals reality, what he means (I think) is that anything that exists as part of reality ("the territory") must necessarily be representable in some way by the mind ("the map"), otherwise it could not possibly influence perceived reality. Even things that cannot be directly observed may be inferred via their effects on the observable world. He's not saying that the territory is "a" map, he's saying that in principle, anything in the territory can be mapped, and thus one could conceive of a perfect map which is completely isomorphic to the territory (even though this map is not accessible to us).
What exactly is unsound about saying "reality is everything that exists, therefore anything that exists is part of reality, therefore dualism is dumb"? It's a fairly trivial statement but it's not wrong.
>Language is constructed as "maps of territories". You make a circular argument by effectively equivocating between the map (language) and reality (the territory) by calling reality itself a map.
Equivocated reality with territory. Reality need not be territory, ergo false.
>For the normies that's epistemic closure.
Wrong, into aristotle's four causes, or Langan's extended version in the explanatory debts in modern science.
>You just wrote nonsense. Quote the horse himself.
Nonsense? The paragraph you sent is a lengthier explanation of what I wrote. An unintelligible part of information would be uncognizable, hence there is an isomorphism. Between perciever and percieved. This is just embarrassing.
>Equivocated reality with territory. Reality need not be territory, ergo false.
Whatever reality "is" it is the territory of the maps we make. As you put it, "ergo false". You didn't address the circularity of the argument you just pretended it said something else. Same with the rest of your replies.
For someone with a "180 IQ" you're really bad at this. Then again, so is Langan.
>two different things share a predicate
That is not the same predicate.
A: not B
B: not A
or rather, positively:
A: A
B: B
They share at least one common predicate space which to compare them, but usually at least two in that their differences are referenced from the syntactic operator comparing them.
If we take your definition of language, then reality is still not a language because of instantiation. If the starting point had laws, where did the laws come from? The resolution is going to be the laws are more like preferences, I suppose that would be preferences of GOD in CTMU. It might appear like a language to us, but it wouldn't be so at the fundamental level.
This is besides the point: there is excess complexity in CTMU if a syntactic operator is just passing tokens to itself as what would seem to be the case with maximally extended, universal syndiffeonisis. No need to invoke the reality principle for one.
>but he could do serious intellectual work if he applied himself for many years to it
Does he have any awesome work?
>like most other people
10 people?
Now that you mention it, Bach and Mozart made songs to be appreciated only by religious people, real fans and scholars can grasp a lot but they made their music with that intent
>like most people
No, everyone in Mensa and women who what to be the greatest science lady doctor of all time who don't have autism.
>Mensa
means "stupid woman" in Spanish. kek
Isn't that a fun little coincidence haha.
😀
What about sidis?
>serious intellectual work if he applied himself for many years to it, like most other people
Found the brainlet
>In general it seems unworthy of someone with an IQ of 195.
Legitimately passing judgment on someone with a 195 IQ requires an IQ higher than 195. If your IQ is under 195 (which it is by a lot) - and you were unable to catch the full meaning on your first reading, that is because what you read was written by someone with a substantially higher IQ than yourself. I'm not trying to be insulting, at least you know how to read, its just a basic fact of intelligence that a lower IQ is unable to fully understand a higher IQ unless the higher IQ makes an effort to dull their intelligence, negating it's value. Its so probable that your IQ is under 195 that it can be taken as a given fact on the .999 = 1 principle
this is the exact kind of obedience to authority that will lead you to never innovate in any field ever in any meaningful way. you might -after years of dedicated study- find some vapid and inconsequential piece of information in your field that makes a minor contribution and (at the very best) a footnote in someone else's biography. its not too late though, just realise that the same mechanism in your brain that makes you look towards langan for answers is the one that made you look to your elementary school teahcers, authority. neither are deserving of immediate assumption of truth. learn to value ideas based on their merit rather than the people that say them.
also IQ was invented by israelites and means next to nothing
t. certified moron
>Legitimately passing judgment on someone with a 195 IQ requires an IQ higher than 195. If your IQ is under 195 (which it is by a lot) - and you were unable to catch the full meaning on your first reading, that is because what you read was written by someone with a substantially higher IQ than yourself.
>"You can criticize smart man only if you are smarter than him"
Then how do IQ tests work? They are made by midwits (IQ <145), but they're supposed to measure IQ of geniuses.
This guy took an untamed, unsupervised test made by some other guy with no qualifications
I could also say I have 195iq and it’s be equally true
>its just a basic fact of intelligence that a lower IQ is unable to fully understand a higher IQ
I was going to reply to this, but then I read
>0.999… = 1 principle
That’s an equality, not an approximation, brainlet.
>you were unable to catch the full meaning on your first reading, that is because what you read was written by someone with a substantially higher IQ than yourself.
This is the same fallacy that makes midwits think that Marxists are intelligent.
One standard of a good writer is understanding ones audience and writing something they can understand. Please explain how writing a book that requires an IQ of 195 to understand demonstrates the writer’s intelligence.
Given his relative obscurity, the work appearing to be yet another misguided outsider theory of everything and such high requirements on potential readers, he would be lucky if anyone at all read and understood it.
Then what was the point of writing it? It wasn’t written for his own amusement because he’s made attempts to disseminate it.
There is no evidence that he has an IQ of 195.
Even if we were you accept your autistic IQ determinism, knowledge > IQ.
>knowledge > IQ
what does this mean to you exactly?
Put a guy with a 200 IQ in a room with no experience in fixing high pressure pipe systems and put a 105 IQ guy who has been doing it for 20 years, I will pick the 105 IQ guy. As would you unless you're a moron.
Also, you could change my "high pressure pipe system" example to anything.
Brick layer, carpenter, medic, whatever. Experience and knowledge > pure IQ.
>No one can apply or understand Einstein's work despite the numerous analogies and metaphors that you can use to explain relativity to a 4th grader
I know your intelligence is at least 7 standard deviations from his purported IQ, but please don't flaunt that here.
If I write abstractly I often backtrack after the matter by explaining perceived contradictions and counter arugemnts I would have thought about as well as parallel points of view.
....its probably awful to read and almost always gets a wat?
I would suggest trying to frame your statements in a way that does not imply contradictions, then. Follow the principle "Do not waste my(the reader's) time."
It's cute when morons try to do math
>Legitimately passing judgment on someone with a 195 IQ requires an IQ higher than 195
Does not that mean that any IQ tests is flawed since they are created by people that do not have 200+ IQ? How can I be sure my IQ is 195 if the tests and the people who checked it do not have an IQ higher than 195?
this is a low IQ post hence my brothas and i shan't replieify to this post
t. too low IQ to even argue against that
Modern IQ tests are designed by AI, the machine applies increasing levels of linear regression, higher IQ is a higher ability to apply linear regression
>Modern IQ tests are designed by AI
Source?
Hi Chris
I don't like his assertion that reality is a language. I would like to see his proof or at least his formal breakdown on how it is a language.
I like most of the other principles, but syndiffeonisis is a weird one.I think it is doing the heavy lifting and I would want to know what CTMU looks like without it. On the surface, it is a very rational and appealing idea but does it really extend so far?
So take an apple and the term for an apple. The word has no qualities, no likeness of any kind to an apple. You could argue about the word existing as a spelling and thus having color or breadth, but I see it as a reference to the apple term divorced as much as it is from an apple as it is from the word itself. Syndiffeonisis breathes the whole CTMU into existence by asserting there is some sameness between this term and the apple - and necessarily, the word. The sameness is obviously the internal machination within the mind considering it, but how does that align with the negotiator between minds.
You and I can't recognize a single thing outside the terms of our awareness. We shoot tokens at each other which allow our own devices to configure and find congruence or whatever. So, we get this sameness between minds as a response to language, but language also picks up baggage of totally inescapable context. Whatever it is that language seems to be doing, it is actually you doing it. And here we see my irk with reality as a language. It may as well not even exist beyond the tokens. Solipsism, annoying and infantile, just keeps re-emerging.
I thought I told you to patch this game. I lose immersion when I remember I am all alone.
>I don't like his assertion that reality is a language. I would like to see his proof or at least his formal breakdown on how it is a language
Never read CTMU but reality is math (math is universally and perfectly applicable in all areas of reality) and math is a language.
>math (math is universally and perfectly applicable in all areas of reality
Lel not even close
What can't be described by mathematics?
Please graduate high school first before posting on this board.
Dude weed lmao shut the frick up moron
I think he means language in a more abstract sense, not related necessarily to human language.
Then in what meaningful sense is it still language? (asking in earnest)
My IQ is only 170 but here is what I find sus about CTMU.
>generalized utility
What is it and why do we need it? By definition telic recursion is supposed to take place in a pre-nomological context, free to impose its own constraints upon itself. A predefined utility function putting a constraint on telic recursion a priori seems to be a contradiction. At most, telic recursion as the free process of (a part of) the universe giving itself structure could optionally restrict itselft to a self-chosen special utility function. If Chris assumes a general utility function, he better explain where it came from (it can't be from telic recursion then) and what its explanatory value is at all.
>supertautologies
Chris never clearly defines this. Since his theory is supposed to be more fundamental than man-made axiomatic systems and he specifically made up this neologism he obviously means something "deeper" than just tautological statements in a logical sense. Is it just a rebranding of Kantian a priori knowledge? Regardless, he lacks justification of why his claims should be regarded as supertautological. Some (for example the 3 Ms) can be accepted on the basis of intuition, others however (e.g. extended superposition, structure of SCSPL) are certainly too nontrivial to be accepted without further justification.
>infocognitive monism
Chris claims an isomorphism between the material and the cognitive. This is his solution to Cartesian dualism. Though he never provides this isomorphism. While an iso between the physical world and a part of the mental world through the possibility of observation seems trivial, a proof of the mental world not being strictly larger than representations of the physical world is necessary.
>extended superposition principle
This seems to be nothing more than a draft of an idea. I'd love to see if formalized mathematically. Would be interesting to check its compatibility with actual quantum mechanics.
I'm too midwit to engage your main points, but thank you for posting this. It's fun to see people who've actually read and attempted to understand Langan talking about his material. I would like to say that I find attacks on his writing style weak. It's obvious that the dude is a showoff and wants people to think he's a prophet, and hence he intentionally uses technical jargon where a more intuitive description would suffice. I don't think that necessarily has anything to do with what he has to say, though.
When talking about more mundane topics in interviews and such, I find his command of language to be pretty top-notch, which I suppose can be used for god or evil. But the CTMU is his life's work, and therefore I don't think he tries to be obfuscatory about the topics in the CTMU, but rather the subject matter is just very much lysed.
Now, grandiose about the significance of it all? Maybe. The all too prominent undertone around it of "muh you're not high IQ enough to understand it" is unironically true but only insofar as you'd just get bored spending too much time thinking about it until you realize it's irrelevant.
>When talking about more mundane topics in interviews and such, I find his command of language to be pretty top-notch
Yes, I agree. The same goes for the various "Langanpill" images floating around. I don't think it's so much that he's intentionally trying to obfuscate things, just that when talking about metaphysical concepts he has a tendency to give only the minimal amount of information necessary for (his own) understanding, and to skip over points that he feels should be obviously inferable (because maybe they are, to him). The information he gives you tends to be very "low level", in a computer programming sense - it's kind of like someone shows you a bunch of assembly and expects you to work out what a program does. The necessary information is there, but it'd be a lot faster if he'd just show you the source code.
NTA, but I think inferring meaning behind the CTMU like that is far too kind. I genuinely have never seen him write, nor heard him speak, about simple epistemology. He's like a man with all capability and zero rigor. Never having truly been challenged means his understanding of how to "sift the bullshit" seems, to me, atrophied beyond belief. Hence his 9/11 truther facebook post... screed?
The man isn't using facebook as a recruiting strategy where he stuffs weighted messages for cryptanalysis in his posts. Even if he were, why bother? Free software kind of ruins the fun in that game and has for eons now.
I bring that up because "think horses not zebras", or occam's razor, applies here. It makes far more sense, and is a simpler explanation, that the man just never had to sit down and really think about his own bullshit. Nobody could ever challenge him during his life so what could've ever made him stop and even find a book on epistemology, or logic, to prevent crazy beliefs?
Given my own "genius tier" status you get a kind of self-selection bias with connections over time, and I can tell you this is a very common thing. You can have other "geniuses" with PhD's talking to you about the most insane shit you've ever heard, and they think they're too good somehow for basic principles of reasoning. If your mind is just too fast for too many people, you can get way too lazy and crazy as a result. Because nobody can argue with you meaningfully.
>I genuinely have never seen him write, nor heard him speak, about simple epistemology.
>his understanding of how to "sift the bullshit" seems, to me, atrophied beyond belief
What do you mean exactly? You want him to qualify why his reasoning is sound? I think the way he tries to build up his theories from intuitively obvious tautological statements works, does it not?
>The truth is you probably just didn't get it. Whenever someone is not sufficiently well-read ina certain area, they will be unable to discern meaning and so will project whatever interpretation they already have in that specific area onto the writer.
This is definitely something that happens, however the parts of Langan's writing that do "click" with me, I agree with very much (in particular, the three Cs/Ms, the idea that the formation of something like physics/reality can be modeled as a subtractive process of applying constraint to a default state of unbounded potential, and his general characterization of the universe as a mind striving to know itself). That I agree with these simpler points makes me want to think that the parts where I don't fully grasp the implications of whatever he's trying to say also have meaning. But who knows, maybe it's like the other Anon says and he's just grifting by targeting people in the 130-140 IQ range with reasonable sounding groundwork followed by a step off the deep end into a sea of Abstract Bullshite That You Will Never Comprehend.
>I think the way he tries to build up his theories from intuitively obvious tautological statements works, does it not?
Well, think about that for a minute. Where else do you see it? If you want to sell me that the emperor has no clothes? Sure. If you care about whether it represents soundness in logic, um, well no it doesn't at all. Unless you are a wholehearted presuppositionalist simply defining things into reality does not make it so. REAL basic no brainer there that I find rather intuitive, personally.
>(in particular, the three Cs/Ms, the idea that the formation of something like physics/reality can be modeled as a subtractive process of applying constraint to a default state of unbounded potential, and his general characterization of the universe as a mind striving to know itself)
Consider this for example. This is old hat in quantum mechanics, and I am starting to get a suspicion of where he got his source material to rewrite for guru-chasers. This directly mirrors indeterminate states of the wave function phi and interaction coherence from that "unbounded potential". It's all just using different words to repackage old news in a way that doesn't make sense to do.
Though without knowledge of all the right source material, plus his own writing, yeah ain't nobody going to realize what he ripped off there or how.
>If you want to sell me that the emperor has no clothes? Sure
>New clothes
I fricked it time to commit sudoku. Not sure how that happened. Emperor's NEW clothes.
>Someone who knows what Langan is saying
woah
Jesus Christ. What the frick species am I if this is human?
Its just jargon frick around and find out
You're one of the few people claiming 140+ IQ online, that I can actually believe. Because this is rare, I want to raise an unrelated question.
What's your stance on raising intelligence? Everything points to it being almost impossible afaik. What advice, if any, would you give to a 130IQ? At 130, I often feel alienated from normies, but not bright enough to make any real intellectual contributions. As though I'm capped at just becoming good in C++ or some shit, or conning normies for $ like a scam artist. I'm painting this with a very woe-is-me lick here, but generally I'm much more positive. Thanks
>What's your stance on raising intelligence?
Not that anon but I'm in a similar category. Also bored as frick. Not important you can take my answer as you will: The likely first step will be a "GATTACA" like situation as we're already doing embreyo selection with correlated traits to reduce risks for mental illnesses.
Near as I've seen from everything else, though, it's a rather bleak picture where nothing really works but the preservative standards. Be born to good parents, eat right and exercise a lot, and you're stuck with what you get. Everything else is a scam. Granted that does not mean I haven't missed something, or lots of things, but that is my overall sense of the literature so far. A whole lot of failures among claimed success from bad study designs.
I'll tell you what probably everyone else in the "above 145" range will tell you: It isn't a fricking gift and if people did have their NZT-like pill they'd quickly realize how alienating and boring the whole world is. Unless you are incredibly lucky, ability inspires hatred from others, and you have to be real careful navigating everyone's bullshit to succeed. I spend a lot more of my time pretending to be relatable to someone struggling on something obvious to me than I do being "clever", and being clever is rarely rewarding.
Imagine being more capable than your parents are by an unimaginable degree at age 5 or 10. If you are lucky, they appreciate this but understand there is a lack of experience to account for. If you are not, you get abusive parents who respond to it like you're demon possessed (if you're rural or old enough). It really does rely on a lot of luck to align those stars, frankly.
>pretending to be relatable to someone struggling on something obvious to me
God damn I hate having to do this so fricking much.
I mean, yeah, but what can you do? I think it bothers me less over time. Granted that's because I enjoy solitude and don't deal with or tolerate people anymore. Works for me.
So CTMU is basically just wank?
IQ 180+. Prepare to get raped:
>Generalized utility function: What is it and why do we need it?
Necessitated by explanatory closure. Reality gives itself it's own reason to be. The generalized utility function is a measure of the fulfillment of this end that reality provides itself to self-actualize. Without a generalized utility function, reality would have no means to measure it's own self-actualization.
>supertautologies: Chris never clearly defines this.
Yes, he does. See his essay on absolute knowledge. The 3 Ms are tautologies in the style of "all bachelors are unmarried", and the sturcture of SCSPL follows from the 3 Ms. Extended Superposition Principle follows from explanatory closure.
>Infocognitive monism: Chris claims an isomorphism between the material and the cognitive. This is his solution to Cartesian dualism. Though he never provides this isomorphism.
Infocognitive monism follows from the fact that the mind constrains the objects it encounters by virtue of intelligibility, giving each by necessity one distributed structure.
>Necessitated by explanatory closure. Reality gives itself it's own reason to be.
Why? Sounds like something a stoner would make up but just like a stoner you don't actually give a reason for it to be true other than that it sounds neat.
>Without a generalized utility function, reality would have no means to measure it's own self-actualization.
I don't see the problem with that.
>I don't see a problem with that
You don't, but there is. The point is that there wouldn't exist reality without a parameter of generalized utility.
That for reality to exist it must have a way to measure its own self-actualization is just an assumption, what proof or reasoning is there to support it?
>supertautologies not well defined
Chris basically (however passively) refers to the CTMU as the supertautology. As it is supertautological, he explains that it must provide its own mediums and justifications for it to be true and have any ontological value, which is essentially what the CTMU does, and by extention what it demonstrates itself to be, a supertautology, I.e, a tautology with ontological force.
>his writing style
1. I really enjoy neologisms - as long as they are meaningful and either self-explanatory or well defined. Introducting them ad hoc however, without any explanation at all, is a big red flag. Not even the internet can tell me what "trans-Markovian" is supposed to mean.
2. Chris constantly tries to brag subtly about his knowledge of basic undergrad math. "The boundary of the boundary" for example is in fact irrelevant to his entire text. He hides behind citing Wheeler, but the intention of showing off "look guys, I have undergrad topology knowledge" is obvious. Same with his short excursion on duality in graph theory. It's nonessential to the rest of the essay.
>formalization of SCSPL
Given that this is supposed to be the quintessential core of his work, his mathematical model of SCSPL mimicking formal languages from theoretical CS is presented not in a well-rounded manner but rather ad hoc. One would expect that he introduces it systematically and then demonstrates its implications /applications / usefulness / explanatory value. But none of this is done. We are left with a (perhaps even incomplete) mathematical formalism for which we have no use case. Again this reads like a typical IQfy pseud who just recently learned a new model in his CS class and now wants to apply it to philosophical problems.
>constantly tries to brag subtly about his knowledge of basic undergrad math
You mean the most useful maths when navigating the natural world?
Lang isn’t trying to “navigate the natural world”, in the naturalist sense, he is trying to deal with metaphysical/epistemological concepts(and failing, going by anon’s posts) while the math stuff is simple pointless filler that is only there to wow morons.
Eh frickit I'm bored so I went to check. Honestly, looking at his current facebook group (can't link due to being flagged as spam thanks IQfy), it may be equally likely, beyond my "he just never did the basics" idea, that it's effortless to profit from nutter theologian types by writing a bunch of nonsense.
So that's kind of another thing. I find that morally reprehensible to manipulate people like that. Though let's be honest, I could. A lot of people could. People as stupid as Kent Hovind can do it enough to get by. So is Langan really suffering a blindspot, or is he leveraging the oldest way to get free money by making himself a priest?
...I'm honestly not sure which makes more sense now. Possibly both. Entirely possible to be a literal galaxy brain and reason they'll follow the mystic "wise men" anyway. So why not write a bunch of crap for free money? I can totally see how he'd reason in favor of doing it.
You can just space out facebook or replace the . with dot, or just post a screencap(edited, so you don’t dox yourself).
Meh didn't want to run risk of a rogue janny gettin uppity. It's just "groups/ctmurealitytheory" for his FB group on CTMU. Anyone can find it on a search engine no issue. It's on wikipedia too.
The man monetized something of it. He has a substack, had a patreon, is publishing stuff apparently. He has his nonprofit and some other things.
Really, if you think about it, it's a lot easier to have a reliable income doing something like this than it is working thanklessly in academia or private sector. Given his age, and keep in mind he was just bar bouncing and such, it makes sense to me. I'd find it morally reprehensible but that'd be a 200 volume argument with someone as fluent as Langan.
It's just a "big if true" idea that struck me. Putting myself in his shoes, writing a bunch of crap like the CTMU but not really doing "real work" for it, attracting a certain audience that pays you for writing effortless big words... what's not to like if you have no moral scruples about it?
>Lang isn’t trying to “navigate the natural world”
Actually he does though. Of course he claims to explain more than just the physical world. He claims his theory also covers the cognitive. But unfortunately this remains a side note, as throughout the text he almost exclusively talks about physics (GR, QM, the scientific method in general, computation, teleological evolution).
He has zero testable physical predictions. His theory explains nothing about nature.
so just like the string theorists and all the rest of the cosmologists
Is there any theory of metaphysics for which this isn't the case?
He's a genius. And he's pretty cool if you ask me.
When I first read his 2002 paper, it wasn't gibberish to me. It all made perfect sense, even as I was adjusting to his superior writing style. I could not understand why other people were so misunderstanding and hostile.
The CTMU is the crowning achievement of western intellectual history. We should all be grateful to Langan!
If you look at his QMM(quantum metamechanics) paper which is a kind of an extension of CTMU, he uses minimal mathematical formalism restricting it to basic calc, lin alg and Fourier analysis.
Instead, he thinks he can bypass it by a linguistic formalism with a generative model which somehow forms the known world lines, more specifically the null lines, and at the same time covers the measurement states in quantum observations. This trialic analogy with embedded supertautology looks like a superficial attempt to bind general relativity, quantum measurements, and pseudovectors derived from particle physics.
Too focused on embeddedness formalism that he completely ignores the renormalization problem which is actually the hardest problem in trying to tie in quantum measurements and experimental particle measurements.
It's just mathematical platonism + anthropic principle with a bit of eternal return thrown in for the mysticism. What a hack.
Nah hes pretty solid look up
https://pdfslide.net/documents/c-m-langan-introduction-to-the-ctmu.html?page=1&fbclid=IwAR3Ux7wdoyimdgUCyXAmiwEH2_PYGUU2vZU7v7bphCd5hXg59DX9Yx84e4s
Without an advanced math/physics background is it a hopeless endeavor to even try reading the CTMU?
Good English background that’s for sure
Man’s just throwing in as many big words and long sentences as possible because he think it makes him seem smarter
There’s no actual science or math in it, maybe some elementary philosophy
Ability does not entail outcome. It is rather easy, comparatively, to achieve a high language fluency compared to actually working on problems in a formalized manner. For whatever combination of reasons, he does not appear to want to apply himself to rigorously testing any of his ideas. Even so far as using basic logic or prepositional symbols to analyze his chains of reasoning.
Resulting in what this anon mentions. He writes a lot of nonsense, but never seems to have applied himself to figuring out how to tell what is or isn't nonsense.
For a man who reads as much as he does, I cannot for the life of me fathom the colossal misfortune of never opening a book on epistemology in your life.
Thats how I feel about it too, I've read parts of it before, but it seems like mostly word salad, but I didn't and still haven't come to a conclusion on it with the possibility I'm to stupid to understand it anyway.
Well, I'm not. It's for that reason I know it's an incredibly sad case of missed opportunities, the worst "road not traveled" rendering someone's life a useless exercise by just failing to look at it the right way.
That isn't uncommon either. Plenty of people with a "genius tier" IQ can run off on nuttery like that. I've no idea why he never read something that could direct or hone his efforts into something more "sanity-checkable".
I haven't read lagan so I can't say to what extent he does this, but I know a bunch of intelligent people who use big words because they're highly specific and having an exact definition tied to a word is useful for communicating abstract or complex topics. Of course to brainlets this will always seem like an unnecessary flex.
>but I know a bunch of intelligent people who use big words because they're highly specific
in their minds
I thought he was cool when I was an insane philosophytard but now I realize he is insane, not even like the CTMU is insane, HE is insane, as in legitimately mentally ill, and the ctmu is in some ways a product of that. He is also totally bitter and literally believes that he is on the level of Jesus Christ as if he is an “oracle” or something and he HATES everyone who doesn’t immediately buy that he has “absolute truth.” His followers are cultists who worship him. Just go to his facebook group and read all the posts there. Philosophically, the CTMU is immature.
Speaking of QM, while checking some stuff to make these posts I did find something that I think I DO disagree with, although it might just be a mischaracterization of Langan's position:
https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/MAP
>Although to many people this principle might seem utterly trivial, Langan argues that in fact it is not... Another example is the recent advent in science of the popularization of Everett's "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum theory. Langan objects to the Many Worlds interpretation, arguing that if there were these infinitely many parallel quantum realities they would have to be connected to some one fundamental reality, or else there would be no connection between their existential laws, and thus it would be impossible to identify them or scientifically verify their existence.
>they would have to be connected to some one fundamental reality
I am a supporter of MWI and I think that it does exactly that - the fundamental reality is the one in which all of our perceived realities are superimposed. These "worlds" do interact with one another, by way of quantum interference and so on. I'm pretty much convinced of MWI by the arguments put forth on Less Wrong - it seems like the simplest explanation for quantum phenomena, that doesn't require giving human consciousness some magical ability to "collapse the wavefunction" or whatever. I don't see how this is incompatible with Langan's thinking - superposition is just another aspect of our reality that doesn't really change anything at the levels of abstraction he's talking about - but maybe I'm missing something.
> I'm pretty much convinced of MWI by the arguments put forth on Less Wrong - it seems like the simplest explanation for quantum phenomena
Holy shit dude frick off
Would you like to say what your problem with that line of thinking is or are you just going to b***h?
No point in arguing with a moronic pseud so yes I just going to b***h
Okay then.
Have you read the series of posts I'm talking about? It seems like good rationality to me, not "philosophy poisoned by popquant":
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hc9Eg6erp6hk9bWhn/the-quantum-physics-sequence
I don't feel like derailing the thread into a discussion of Many Worlds, so I'm not going to elaborate. Hearing people talk about Langan is more interesting.
Youre solving half assed academia term but using another academia fiction term, there is no underlying logic in your argument, not even any math. Just philosophy poisoned by popquant
>giving Langan this much consideration
What the hell happened to this place?
we're all just trying to find out what happens after we die
Yeah, yeah, I know how it is. Been there. Take it from me; You will never find out while alive.
As an alternative, I genuinely don't care. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with me, so why would I think I could find out let alone do anything about it? :p
I had to learn the hard way that ocd and metaphysical questions don't mix. That's why I'm immediately skeptical of Professor Meatbeef here.
Oof my friend. Be well. I think focusing on epistemology as pertains to these things, the simple fact they can never show or predict things in reality, would help that sort of anxiety a little. Or so people with similar problems in my life have told me. Not some cureall of course, nothing like that, just helps while in a panic attack. I'm sure you've got it handled though.
If you're able to admit that you should know this is all bullshit. It's all motivated reasoning.
>Taking langan seriously
>Unironically comparing IQs
>Taking IQ very seriously
>Admitting to browsing lesswrong for anything more than peoplewatching autists
The 2016 election and its consequences have been a disaster for IQfy
Lesswrong is a shithole. Surprisingly most people here are just mentioning it as a comparison point for life experience, and far from bragging most are rather glum about it.
You are the problem, bud. Hate to tell ya.
>The 2020 stolen elections and its consequences have been a disaster for the world.
FIFY
case in point
>case in point
yep
Only insane people and liars say Biden got more votes than Obama.
Anon, you are proving the man's point. Knock it off.
>dismissing IQ
Found the midwit
The only people I ever met outside of IQfy who cared about IQ were middle aged people/boomers working at a shitty dead end job who would bring it up whenever possible as a cope for why they never achieved anything of note. Now that I work with people who have actual accomplishments that speak for themselves and produce tangible results the only time I ever hear IQ brought up is to mock people who care about it.
jk obviously I'm just envious of your big number that makes you very special and better than other people :3
>intelligence means you must achieve something in industrial-technological society
Midwit slave mindset
You have clearly achieved nothing of worth, stupid pseud
So what?
It's the reason you make irrelevant wrong comments like
It's funny how you try to cope. Even though you believe I "achieved nothing", you are still seething about my IQ. You claim IQ wouldn't matter, but your endless envious seething proves that it does matter a lot to you.
Looks like you're having a mental breakdown over things which never happened. Unfortunate.
>backpedaling
You're mentally ill. I'm not
. The only thing I'm seething at is the existence of stupid people like you (stupidity is not related to IQ btw). I also don't "believe" that you've achieved nothing, I know it.
>still seething
Come on, kid.
Lay off the iq posting and get a life
Why? Give me one convincing reason. You can't because you're not smart enough.
You're right, I can't think of a valid reason for you to live. Better kys.
It's easy "not to care" about it as long as it's high enough for you to function and keep up with your peers in those intellectual work environments. You can be sure that below a certain IQ threshold this wouldn't be possible. While some of your colleagues were certainly mocked in the same way in high school by people with lower IQ, they were lucky enough not to be too far ahead on the (bell) curve either. That's not to say that not having achieved anything in middle age doesn't make you a loser regardless of IQ, but for someone who has earned bragging rights by testing beyond 150 or something, let it be a cope. You don't sit around at your job making fun of homeless people or Downies or others who are clearly "weaker". Socially acceptable mockery only punches up, and in choosing high IQ losers as your common target you affirm that you can see a value in this gift which you lack (for better or worse).
It's easy not to care about it when you have nothing to prove because your works speak for themselves, which there's a distinct lack of in everyone I have met IRL who boasts about their IQ or mensa membership or whatever.
>and in choosing high IQ losers as your common target
They volunteer this shit unprompted lmao
You have nothing to prove only after you have proven something and feedback from your environment confirms that to you. You can certainly not say that you or your colleagues don't have a need for social approval.
That's a belief and not a (dis)ability. You can choose to stop believing it tomorrow without changing anything about your personal qualities. What you mock in flat earthers is the stupidity that can presumably not change.
By the way Mensa membership (130+ or 1 in 50 people) doesn't earn you bragging rights. Of course losers without achievement OR high IQ also exist.
You need to go outside and talk to real people or something holy shit man
How long have you been in this thread that has been going since Monday? Me, after reading through most of the replies, a few hours.
About 10 minutes yesterday and another 5 today, how does it take you multiple hours to read a 200 reply IQfy thread?
Because it's a workday and I have other things to do.
You misinterpreted my post, I'm saying you totally lack self awareness, not telling you to make better use of your time
Nobody comes to IQfy to restrain themselves by being "self-aware". I didn't start any of the multiple reply chains ITT giving their opinions about IQ, I just chimed in to one of them. Of course it only becomes a problem to you after 200 replies because my opinion differs from yours.
>Socially acceptable mockery only punches up
By that logic, flat earthers should be some of the smartest people around. Not surprising that an IQ defender makes such moronic statements
christcuck schizos are a problem
He is a complete moron as is anyone who takes him seriously, like all the morons itt
He's more of a philosopher than a scientist.
Goes to show how moronic the field of philosophy is when people like him are accepted as philosophers
>people like him are accepted as philosophe
Dude, he's not. Just because some moron on IQfy calls him a philosopher does not make it so. Langen is to philosophy what electric universe is to physics.
It goes to show how moronic IQfy is that a random shitpost is accepted blindly as fact.
>Langen is to philosophy what electric universe is to physics.
That is the most apt comparison I've ever read. Yes, exactly. His acolytes just redefine shit on the fly endlessly in a forever moving target, too.
How is Chris wrong and what is he wrong about? Because I know morons like yourself have not read a word of his work.
If you knew the first thing about philosophy you would never ask one to disprove an unfalsifiable school of metaphysics.
Why is infinite tortoises wrong? I know morons like you have never checked for the tortoises.
Let me simplify it for your Black person brain. I don't need to "check for infinite tortoises" to invalidate the reality of the idea. I would however need to read someone's work in order to invalidate what they're saying, because any claim I would make about their work would be solely not based on any foundation. moronic false equivalency, I'd expect someone who knows the first thing about philosophy to make sensible equivalencies.
I missed the part where you disproved that the universe is on the back of a tortoise stacked infinitely on the backs of other tortoises.
>there's no demonstration of an infinite chain of tortoises on the backs of each other
>there's a demonstration of the universe being a comprehensive, closed, and consistent manifold which is self composes, and the demonstration is in the CTMU
See the incongruency here? You need to devalidate the proof the CTMU has provided in order to discredit the theory, but you don't need to devalidate the proof of an infinite chain of tortoises built off the backs of each other, because there is none.
NTA, that's called a reductio ad absurdum. Instead of addressing it you just vomited more garbage. There's nothing to "Devalidate", it's just word salad roughly stolen from quantum mechanics and cosmology.
'In logic, reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or apagogical arguments, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.'
Haven't established any claims through the means of this form of argumentation. All I said was you don't have to devalidate an idea that doesn't have any backing to begin with, but the CTMU does have a backing.
>mUh iT's JuST wOrD SaLAD
You do realize you sound like every other moron that hasn't read the paper, right?
Also, you have to be a special level of moron to imply that proof by contradiction outputs 'garbage' instead of addressing truth claims.
The emperor has no clothes. You continue to duck, dodge, weave, belittle, without addressing with substance any of the criticism. While claiming to "explain" you obfuscate, even to the point quoting the original author is more clear than you are.
This is easily shown here
which you reply to by claiming you totally said the same thing. Uhhh no you didn't skipper.
You're either a troll or really that dumb, but I have absolutely no reason to engage you charitably nor seriously. Hence my total lack of any fricks about your childish goading.
>Uhhh no you didn't skipper.
He did say the same thing though. It seems like you're the one failing to understand Langan.
What Langan wrote in the quote is ripped from quantum mechanics by describing waveform collapse and quantum observers with different words.
At no point in what Langan wrote, relevant to "infocognitive monism" in what I quoted, was that incoherent nonsense about "intelligibility mind constrained objects granting a distributed structure". You would have to redefine what "intelligibility", "mind", "objects", and "distributed" mean. In a way contrary to common usage, to physics usage, and to philosophical usage. This is a street vendor shell game of semantics to hide stupidity.
This is not about Langan. This is about a jackass who makes the obscure utterly incoherent and deflects by referring to a source text most people can't read. Unfortunately for you dipshits I can read it, and I know you're full of shit.
What criticism have I not addressed with substance?
Your claim to have "said the same thing" as Langan is demonstrably false. For a start.
1) you misused and misplaced reductio ad absurdum not knowing what it implies
2) you claimed that there is nothing to devalidate, whilst there is content within the CTMU that is backed up by syllogistic logic and justifications. It's very transparent that YOU have nothing to devalidate, because your moronic ass can't read.
3)that's not a criticism, maybe you should improve your reading comprehension.
4) Are you schizophrenic? I think you're responding to the wrong person. I never made any claims about "saying the same thing" as langan, that was somebody else, whom I disagreed with.
>4) Are you schizophrenic? I think you're responding to the wrong person. I never made any claims about "saying the same thing" as langan, that was somebody else, whom I disagreed with.
My apologies, the stupidity of your statement here
made me think otherwise.
>Anon shows the absurdity of the claim by changing variables to tortoises
>You ignore that and claim "You need to devalidate the proof the CTMU" (The thing he did)
>1) you misused and misplaced reductio ad absurdum not knowing what it implies
>Haven't established any claims through the means of this form of argumentation. All I said was you don't have to devalidate an idea that doesn't have any backing to begin with, but the CTMU does have a backing.
"What is the principle of charity?" While it was not STRICTLY in a formal sense in reductio FORM, the substance is easily placed into that form. Other anon could have easily written, instead, "If that is true this other case can be equally true" presenting a contradiction. That is exactly what he implied. Your narrow reading to pretend the mention is invalid just shows how weak your case is.
>3)that's not a criticism, maybe you should improve your reading comprehension.
That is good advice. I suggest you try following it.
1)
>shows absurdity of the claim by inputting tortoises as the variable
He doesn't. In order to show the absurdity of the CTMU through that input you have to demonstrate how that input is congruent with the level of validity of the CTMU itself. Which it is not, and that's why it is not a good criticism or demonstration of 'absurdity'.
2)
>"You need to devalidate the proof the ctmu(which he did)"
Okay, so since you can't even formulate intelligible sentences, I'll go easy on you. When I ask somebody to devalidate the proof of the ctmu after they tried to form a correlation, more so a congruence between an infinite regression of tortoises and a metaphysical structure, it's for the purposes that that 'congruence' is not valid, because it's not interchangeable with the said 'variable' in question. That's why it's not a candidate for a devalidation of the CTMU.
He's basically using an unidentified, uncontained, and an undemonstrable infinite regression, as an interchangeable variable with something which is the complete opposite, hence by nature of its inconsistency, it isn't the devalidation of the proof of the CTMU you think it to be.
3) Please follow my advice, and while you do so, pick up an elementary shurley method book, you illiterate moron.
>He doesn't. In order to show the absurdity of the CTMU through that input you have to demonstrate how that input is congruent with the level of validity of the CTMU itself. Which it is not, and that's why it is not a good criticism or demonstration of 'absurdity'.
Yes, it is, within its own set of axioms. There are infinitely many valid axiomatic systems. There is nothing *invalid* about the tortoises, a priori. You're engaged in special pleading. Sufficed to say I do not merely accept your claim one need match some supposed standard of "validity" beyond the internal coherence of a system itself. The only way to compare axiomatic systems on that score is by testing reality.
>Okay, so since you can't even formulate intelligible sentences, I'll go easy on you.
You are confusing my rejection of your special pleading as failure to understand. Try again.
>3) Please follow my advice, and while you do so, pick up an elementary shurley method book, you illiterate moron.
Also great advice. I suggest you follow it.
>the irony, that's a lot of word salad coming from somebody that uses it as his main point of "criitique" against langa. Anyway, when trying to compare two systems that one says are like, one can't showcase a system which is directly non-analogous, because that's what we call a contradiction. Still following? Good. It's very obvious you don't know what an axiomatic system is, which is a system that has statements listed to be presuppositionally true. When we try to map axiomatic systems to reality, we look for cohesion, closure, and consistency, something which the tortoise system fails to encapsulate, while the ctmu doesn't.
>The only way to compare axiomatic systems on that score is by testing reality
Congrats buddy, you figured out what it's about. Proud of you. Now what is the relation of this to the interchangeability of the 'variable' and the validity of the axiomatic systems. In this case, we are making cases for what it means to have valid statements about the nature of reality. On that account, the tortoise system isn't valid because it doesn't have a medium of justification for why it maps to the nature of reality, whilst the CTMU does, and that's why the interchangeability is unjustified and invalidated.
>You are confusing my rejection of your special pleading as failure to understand. Try again
It's always a little frustrating when homosexuals like yourself learn a couple of fallacies on r/atheism and try to use it in every non-fitting case, but I've dealt with your moronation long enough so I suppose a bit more toleration couldn't be that overwhelming. What I am doing isn't confusing your rejection of my "special pleading", what I'm doing is pointing out that you write like a 10 year old.
Again, follow my advice, and don't think too hard buddy, you might hurt yourself.
>Adds more criteria to axiomatic systems to special plead further
If you think that addresses the point, congrats, you missed the point. The r/atheism here is coming from you, as you are relying on trying to push technicalities in wording or framing to escape good faith criticism. Again, "What is the principle of charity?"
I'm not going to play that game. Flail about insulting people much as you like. You've a lot of growing up to do.
>It's very obvious you don't know what an axiomatic system is, which is a system that has statements listed to be presuppositionally true.
By the way, to prove I preempted this and literally knew what you were going to say before you said it, see this post here
where I point out the following.
>Unless you are a wholehearted presuppositionalist simply defining things into reality does not make it so.
I not only know what you're on about, I know what you're on about better than you do. Your reaching into further axiomatic principles to salvage your axiomatic system from criticism constitutes more of the same. Same thing presup apologists do. The fact is, absent testing reality, you can write infinitely many paragraphs and it amounts to the same thing. Bubkis.
The "assumed truth" applies to the a priori reasoning, not the "in reality" reasoning, and your equivocating these does not salvage your bullshit.
Are you looking for a proof of against infinite regress or a demonstration that it is logically invalid? One obvious problem with an infinite regress is admitting that an infinite number of things have previously happened. You couldn't prove it by counting the events, so is it infinite or just some really large number?
I think the point is that this poster isn't making any claims towards a bedrock truth. Langen is, which means he needs to prove the infinities aren't there, and that his theory is foundational and unable to be kicked down the road into recursion, which of course its not because no theory is.
I'm just doing what Langen claims to have done, which should set off alarms for you. Whatever he has written, it has no claim towards an ultimate theory of truth; Its nothing to rest on. When someone has it "figured out," that's an indicator to run to the hills.
Never read it, but infinite tortoises predates discworld. Not everything is a movie, tv, literature reference.
>I'm doing whatever langan claims to have done
He hasn't and the comparison is unjustified.
I thought he claimed this was a ToE?
Langan doesn't claim to base his theory on an infinite regression, especially not one which is not demonstrated. You can tell the inconsistency between your claims and his.
Why are theories based on infinities lesser candidates than finite ones?
When did I say they were? All im saying is that there's an incongruency between the types of claims you guys are making, which is why the comparison which stemmed from you "doing what chris claims" is faulty.
I'm just defending philosophy and why I can't take him seriously. For all of the connections he may make, he has absolutely no way of proving that this is not occurring in the left testicle of the grand bull.
There's a difference between being humble and offering a theory of metaphysics and claiming to have a ToE.
I'm the other anon. Read through it. My only critique concerns how inaccessible your point might be to the casual reader. My understanding, and what I think would help bolster your point, is a point earlier made in the thread about soundness.
One can write axiomatically consistent nonsense all day, what really matters is whether it's actually sound (applies to reality). I could have missed you clearly connecting that point, but what I read only made it by implication. Other people may not understand this. If I missed a post I apologize.
Hell, I can even prove that. That scenario isn't intelligible nor modeled into reality in any capacity to meet any criteria of 'truth' or existence, therefore it's not all occurring in the left testicle of a bull. Unless, you can show me how it is of course. It's crazy to me how you think that these undefined parameters should be in any way or form have bearing on what we think of reality and what it is constrained to.
I still haven't encountered a single person besides some autist on this thread that has actually explained any single issue with his theory, let alone its conception. It's always muh "nO He CaNT bE CLaIMIng A ToE iTs iMposSibLE".
And we're back to why we're not doing philosophy, you think you can prove what you cannot.
>I still haven't encountered a single person besides some autist on this thread that has actually explained any single issue with his theory, let alone its conception. It's always muh "nO He CaNT bE CLaIMIng A ToE iTs iMposSibLE".
Made no novel future testable prediction. Has no approach to soundness therein. Therefore, it is about as relevant to anything as four elephants holding up the world on the back of a turtle. That's why. It does not matter how cute or fancy your axiomatic system is, what matters is whether you can make predictions about the future and apply induction to testing how accurate the model is.
If this becomes a discworld thread shit is going to get awfully silly awfully fast. Also HA
>Elephants all the way down
>reification fallacy all the way up
>infinite tortoises
You really like that reference huh.
That wasn't me you moron
>Just because some moron on IQfy calls him a philosopher does not make it so.
Someone labeling you a philosopher is literally the same thing as a PhD mate... sry. Any real philosopher will tell you that.
Your institution is invalid.
On IQfy calling someone a philosopher is an insult.
Math is philosophy
Math:
>rigorous
>embraces logic
>produces definite proofs
>objective
Philosophy:
>arbitrary, baseless opinions
>fails at logic or outright rejects logic
>never ultimately answered any question
>subjective
They are exact opposites.
nope
Chris has some really amazing metaphysics, he somehow misinterprets his own system into ethical implications that don't follow from it somehow lol. He's great though.
I’m in his Facebook group
It’s an echo chamber of metaphysical discussion that amounts to nothing
Bible
God
Some convoluted systems of processing that only schizos and autists would find interesting
I was muted for bringing up the concept of metaphysical mortality, like the state of an object and if it could be pieced together again Ala humpty dumpty
Join if, see him for what he is
Lose the mystique for someone who wields such an impressive mind with so little rigour or discipline
He’s poor and touts virtues of frugality in this age of destructive waste
Utter midwit
I don't think it's possible to determine if he's really up his own ass like that, or just wants an easy retirement like any other priest selling a religion. I'd like to talk to him, but I also know I'd never be able to tell which it is.
>There is nothing *invalid* about the tortoises, a priori. You're engaged in special pleading.
>The only way to compare axiomatic systems on that score is by testing reality.
Imagine arguing with such a moron on and on.
Oh, please, do go on. Explain how everyone's wrong about the principle of explosion, about the problem of underdetermination, and all the other major consensus points in modern epistemology. Enlighten me. I'm all ears.
This all reminds me eerily of when Lawrence Krauss would go around saying he solved creation due to vacuum fluctuations. I think every philosopher died a little bit inside. I don't think he does that anymore.
Oh, now we're comparing Langan to actual scientists? I see what you're trying to do, CTMUgay
No I'm tortoise guy.
I see, so why did the philosophers die on the inside (by a little bit)?
I put them on equal footing of being ontologically bankrupt. I said philosophers died a bit because they do every time some branch of sciences has said to tell us anything beyond connecting observations.
As far as their physics judo is concerned, frick if I know.
Hm. Well, let me explain my view of it and let me know if this helps any.
My view of it is that, as concerns ontology, we do not have a method to derive ontology without induction. The best epistemology we have, the one that works, is through science and induction. Therefore the only way one can be said to have any indication of an ontology is in the epistemic sense, and that nobody has an indication of an ontology in any other sense.
Of course the reason why any other sense is meaningless is the principle of explosion. If there's no means by which to preclude, exclude, infinitely many systems or possibilities, then you don't have closure and you don't have coherence. As the opposite is equally as plausible as the proposal.
So, in other words, you can just sweep all the a priori axiomatic ontological systems in to the garbage bin because you can write infinitely many of them and it doesn't matter. Meanwhile, via induction, the argument Krauss makes is on the best evidence and therefore best induction we have available. These are not on equal footing nor is it fair to declare Krauss made anyone die inside except the philosopher who ignores the problem of underdetermination.
Trying to use the jargon to shorten the posting here... let me know if I need to clarify more points please.
>The best epistemology we have
And the issue is both Langen and Krauss have presumed to "touch bottom," when all their indeed doing is working with whatever phenomonal bit of info they can find. They can perhaps tell us cleanly how each of these things relates to one another in a beautiful and comprehensive way, and they'll still be as close to bedrock as the tortoises and elephants.
>sweep all the a priori axiomatic ontological systems in to the garbage bin
That's the problem. You really cannot, ever. If I make the most elegant proof working with all I have access to, the phenomenal, then I've done nothing in the way of uncovering some ultimate level of reality. I haven't even answered "why?," because I can't. No one can. Not even God can explain why he's here.
>And the issue is both Langen and Krauss have presumed to "touch bottom," when all their indeed doing is working with whatever phenomonal bit of info they can find.
Well, that's the part I take issue with. Again, the best evidence we have is in favor of Krauss. Langan did not provide evidence on that order nor that quality. So while you could say "Well it wasn't an absolutely certain proof", I'd point of Krauss as a scientist in the first place is never engaging on that level and people demanding that occur are trying to play a shell game. Nothing happens on that level. We don't have access to proofs "in reality", we just have induction.
I think the sort of problem we're having here remains the same one Krauss had being understood by those people. I'm saying all the evidence of the bedrock is currently in favor of Krauss, and that is the most and ONLY meaningful statement one can make regarding what "is" from the standpoint of epistemology. Also, there is currently no other sensible standpoint.
That is, they're demonstrably not in the same category, qualitatively.
The bottom falls out with Krauss when we ask "why should the laws exist that allow vacuum and vacuum fluctuations?"
Now we're lost in the mire of recursion. What laws gave rise to those laws? And the prior laws? And we're back at tortoises.
It won't go away. Is one perhaps "closer" than the other? Useless to speculate.
I do see the point, but at the same time I think it's a point that defeats itself. Being unable to answer "everything" does not mean one has not provided a better answer to "some" or "most" of the things. Just sticking to the meta-argument here, as I don't want to bog us down (yet or preferably ever) in speculations on avoiding infinite recursion.
I would say that at some point we have to choose on a criteria of "most useful." Maybe Krauss has an edge there.
Anyway, I'll leave it with the finest work of epistemology I know. I learned at 14 that Op Ivy had it all figured out.
I think the criteria is established for us, in a way, because reality itself is the criteria and the method is "whatever best predicts that reality" (success of the model). While you can put it that way, it is more than merely most useful. It is necessarily the case that most demonstrable would be most useful for, well, determining "that wot is".
Of course this puts us in a bit of a bind because your map cannot match the territory without being the territory itself. That renders it useless as a map as well. That's a core thing to keep in mind, because it precludes anything BUT the most useful by defining "utility" to how useful the map is (model in this case). It must accurately capture reality for a given use case, as well, or it could not be said to be useful for doing so. All very simple definitions, I think.
So you can kind of see why I preclude, exclude, the alternatives. What is useful is necessarily what best models "what is", therefore what could best predict that "what is", and at the same time could never encompass the whole of "what is" as it would cease thereby to be a model capable of making predictions.
Whether or not you want to give up the ghost of ontological pursuits due to proofs by exclusion like that, well, up to you. But I think it is an elegant way to demonstrate attempting to do anything beyond that epistemology is necessarily doomed to failure. Sort of like saying "I am going to make a square circle".
I guess being meatbags its always going to be nice to have something "useful." I don't need to understand the underpinnings of my phone to utilize it. And if I can use induction to say "this will always/never happen to me and mine," then it soothes something deep down. Probably where this quest for foundation comes from.
At the same time it blinds us to just how little privilege we have.
My main beef with Langen is the assumption of concrete knowledge. He's dancing on a substrate like the rest of us and that substrate is unknowable. Its worse than unknowable, it isn't even knowable to know whether or not its unknowable.
Krauss in his field I must assume is somehow keeping it real, as to where Langen is dragging in things that would make physicists proper vomit (I assume).
>My main beef with Langen is the assumption of concrete knowledge. He's dancing on a substrate like the rest of us and that substrate is unknowable. Its worse than unknowable, it isn't even knowable to know whether or not its unknowable.
Well, on that score, allow me to propose the heretical idea that we can in fact demonstrate it is unknowable by definition. The one I explained previously about maps and territories. In fact, I'd say we can easily demonstrate that it is unknowable in that sense of "A map ceases to be a map if it becomes the territory".
Let's use a real example of this, and perhaps in future I will eat these words but I am only using currently known things as an abstract hypothetical. In quantum mechanics, the wave function (represented by phi) cannot be said to be known directly. It is in a word a hidden thing, because the only way to know anything about it is to interact with it. We can know everything about the consequences of an interaction but it cannot be said to have any properties at all in and of itself absent any interaction (in QM "a measurement" necessarily means "an interaction").
This is where the analogy of maps and territories comes in, and in the real world, because it is fundamentally impossible to model the universe to exactness of the universe as a result. That "fundamental bedrock" is the fact the base substance, energy, is inaccessible beyond the properties of its interactions. That is to say, "what it does". So we know of a thing that is unknowable, and plenty of physicists do think (Sabine included, I think, though don't blame her for my mistakes if any) it will remain this way. So my map-territory analogy is not merely a hypothetical, but a real thing about the fundamental nature of substances in the universe. We can know, therefore, that we cannot know it because to know requires an interaction that changes the thing we want to know.
>We can know, therefore, that we cannot know it because to know requires an interaction that changes the thing we want to know.
If you start breaking things down to Higgs-Boson and light particles rebounding into our eyes from the object we perceive, then I say it's turtles all the way down. I suppose we really are just a language of atoms to make up sentient life in an incredibly improbable manner guided from a single element in an explosion in a universe with the law of conservation of energy.
Oh, also, thanks for the conversation. I hope at least I've made it understood why I think Krauss is not on the same footing, and why philosophers misunderstand him entirely in that pursuit. Even if you still disagree with Krauss, I think his critics just got him dead wrong in a way critics of Langan aren't getting Langan wrong. As Langan is playing the philosopher game instead of the "map of reality" one scientists play. If that makes sense.
I mean, even so, kind of an unfair comparison? The point Krauss made about virtual particles and vacuum energy is, I think, perfectly apt if the universe does increase expansion rates to the point it'll cyclically "big rip" itself. Also testable, eventually, while nothing Langan wrote is. So I do think it is an unfair conflation between the two.
He was an abused child who never received a formal education. I guess this is what it looks like, like a monkey stuck inside the confines of its far too basic room all day. It tends to do some frickin crazy shit.
He is right about Black folk and leftists tho
koko the gorilla lol
So what's better than the CTMU?
Without presup navel gazing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing
Krauss is a moronoid and none of his work makes any semse
nothing because it's correct
The fact that this guy spends his time writing long posts on Facebook and then taking screen shots of them to repost on IQfy proves he’s not really intelligent at all
CTMU isn't testable.
Hence it's worthless.
The guy himself is a textbook narcissist and blames all his failures on everyone else. In reality, he's a c**t so far up his own ass that nobody wants to be around him.
Why doesn't this thread fricking die
why wont you leave for redit and never come back? same reason
why don't you fricking die
OP got btfo on IQfy fairly hard and believes IQfy easier pickings.
>Have you read CTMU? What's your opinion?
I pretty much like i because it connects to Spinoza, Leibniz and all kinds of aother philosophy topics very well
One of the problems smart people run into is sharing meaning. You may have one or two sentences attached to the meaning of a word, while they may have one or two thousand pages. So then you read a simple sentence that may seem a bit off, and think to yourself gee this guy isn't that smart. Which is fine... It's a language... for sure. God's problem is people can't spell, and are largely illiterate.
well, I bet I can beat this idiot in Chess and smash. That qualifies me as being better than him