>>11217231>Well from what I've heard it claims to prove a god and the afterlife.it tackles philosophy and metaphysics, so the topics are appropriate
> I just found it too tedious to readno denying that. that's the main problem with it.
Langan reinvented some things and created his own framework and this is why it's difficult to process. doesn't mean it's worthless, it's just overly tiresome to read because you have to understand what Langan means by specific words.
> Which of his conclusions would you deem as valuable to the scientific community? Genuinely asking.honestly, I'm not a specialist in that matter. but it's quite easy to answer just by the subject of his thesis. it tackles metaphysics and philosophy of science so for scientific community it can provide the basis of science.
nowadays we have plenty of 'science people' who actually have no idea what they are doing except 'the math checks out'. it's important to ask questions like: how do we build models, what can we actually know from the experiments and can we even find the underlying laws of nature. those were not really issues in the past were everyone could build their own setup and run experiments, but now we are talking about such setups that you can't just look at things from every angle - you have one setup which you have to trust and the conclusions you make are the final conclusions. you have much, much less flexibility. and we see very often now that there are multiple problems with current models, with assumptions we make and we colliding results from different super-complex setups.
So you should treat CTMU as the basis of knowing, reasoning, science.
