/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11981862

43KiB, 1280x720, nervous.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

CTMU

Anonymous Thu 06 Aug 22:04:38 2020 No.11981862 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11981919 >>11981958 >>11981961 >>11981962 >>11985262

Give me the layman's version of CTMU.

English is my native language and deciphering Langan's philosophical jargon is hard for me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Aug 2020 22:05:28 No.11981864 Report

Quoted By:

>English is my native language

Meant to say NOT my native language. Duh.
But yeah CTMU seems to be a language as well. The heart of CTMU is that everything is a language.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Aug 2020 22:06:57 No.11981868 Report

Quoted By:

DUDE BRAHMAN LMAO

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Aug 2020 22:26:37 No.11981919 Report

Quoted By: >>11981936

>>11981862

The central ideas of the CTMU as I understand it is the following:

that reality is self-inclusive, that it contains all that which is real

that this self-inclusivity implies that reality is self-configuring, self-processing. It is both creating itself and making sense of itself

that reality can be formalized as a very general mathematical language - a self-configuring, self-processing language (SCSPL) - which everything perceivable or conceivable is encoded in

that this language has a fundamental cognitive-perceptual syntax, rules for what can be expressed, that amounts to a kind of logic

an alternative conception to essentially the same idea above, or another aspect of the same conception, is the idea that reality is a self-simulation. It is the processor, the display-frame and the content

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Aug 2020 22:31:48 No.11981936 Report

Quoted By:

>>11981919

the CTMU is meant to be the most fundamental theory of reality that can incorporate all of the sciences,and theology, in a common overaching framework, a true theory of everything

the CTMU is formulated as a unique kind of tautology, a supertautology, and thus amounts to absolute truth (in theory). This is just a pompous way of saying that there is no way to criticise the logic of the CTMU without undermining one's own position (which I agree with)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Aug 2020 22:38:11 No.11981958 Report

Quoted By: >>11981966 >>11982005

>>11981862
CTMU is proof that IQ = meaningless

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Aug 2020 22:39:29 No.11981961 Report

Quoted By: >>11982106 >>11982161

>>11981862

he has published a paper on how the CTMU can decide between which interpretations of quantum mechanics are correct and those who fall short. He call's this endeavour Quantum Metamechanics

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Aug 2020 22:39:46 No.11981962 Report

Quoted By:

>>11981862
roughly speaking a condensed equivalent statement would be
aaaugh fuck nigger dick AAAA poo poo pee pee bleaaaaargh ugh guh ugh ugh ugh uuuuuuugh penis

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Aug 2020 22:41:05 No.11981966 Report

Quoted By:

>>11981958

no, not at all. People often blow him off either because he talks about God or because he's theory is too abstract for them to see the immediate value or because they don't understand him, but it's all very logical, and does in fact accomplish what he claims it does

El Arcón

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO TIMESAND__7626256r7f537rft8o145y (...).gif, 764KiB, 220x220

El Arcón Thu 06 Aug 2020 22:52:54 No.11982005 Report

Quoted By:

>>11981958
Probably more like Langan is the CIA meme of a fake high IQ test.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Aug 2020 23:23:47 No.11982106 Report

Quoted By: >>11982153

>>11981961
So? Wich one. I'm guessing Bohm's.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Aug 2020 23:37:02 No.11982153 Report

Quoted By:

>>11982106

Bohmian mechanics (early Bohm) does not fare so well I'm afraid. The Implicate Order (late Bohm) does better - "qualifies as a limited success by QMM standards"

you can find the paper here: https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/788/1422

the in-depth examination of each interpretation is at the bottom

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Aug 2020 23:40:29 No.11982161 Report

Quoted By: >>11983872

>>11981961
ok but what if it's just a dice roll

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Aug 2020 15:40:11 No.11983872 Report

Quoted By: >>11983942

>>11982161

a dice roll is simply an open system. It is, ignoring quantum indeterminacy, a complex open system which we are uanble to predict perfectly the outcome of or mentally simulate backwards.This metaphor exposes the problem of true randomness. Randomness is an appearance of what is essentially either a lack of information, a lack of computational power to simulate backwards from that information, or T-asymmetry. In the CTMU, reality is self-contained, so whatever impulse generates an event, for instance a quantum choice, has to be internal to reality. Reality is a closed system, while a die is an open system. In all cases, all causes can ultimately be traced back to the most fundamental level of reality, and thus amounts to a kind of choice - reality itself choses everything. A choice means that reality is chosing based on some critaria, a kind of generalized utility function

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Aug 2020 16:04:42 No.11983935 Report

Quoted By: >>11983954 >>11984008

Apparently you need an IQ of 250 to realize that by categorical definition humans can't grasp the deepest nature of reality.
It would be equivalent of ants explaining quantum mechanics. Spoiler: they can't and never will.

I'm a physics student but I close the door at some point. There's a point where you get so 'meta' that you (hopefully) realize you're running in circles, trying to define by human terms something that cannot be defined by human terms.
Your paper on turbometa quantum mechanics becomes a flood of meaningless jargon and semantics that only makes sense within itself - and is only read by other philosophers of science, not actual scientists let alone the general public.
This kind of thinking gives some soothing to high level ontologists without actually giving humanity any new insight. If your theory isn't math, can't predict the future, can't explain the past, and can't be used in concrete experiments - what is it really? Poetry? This is why I enrolled in physics as opposed to philosophy, despite being better at the latter.

Langan contradicts himself when he tries to unravel "the mind of God" while saying we're merely fragments of it.
But, I still haven't fully read the CTMU paper. I'll get back to you if it actually saves my soul.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Aug 2020 16:13:34 No.11983942 Report

Quoted By:

>>11983872

And since there is no clear dividing line between the quantum and the classical levels of physical reality, the whole universe is in a superposition of states. Very simply, each new moment is chosen on the basis of the last one and from the criteria of the generalized utility function

This I guess is where self-simulation theory comes into play. Langans self-simulation theory says that there is a processing stage and a desplay stage, that the display content acts as input and output of the processing stage. The processing that occurs between each frame is invisible too us - we experience no delay between each frame in the simulation

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Aug 2020 16:18:36 No.11983954 Report

Quoted By: >>11983994

>>11983935

Langan has published multiple papers and a slew of articles

some of the important ones:

The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
Cheating The Millennium
The Metaformal System
The Reality Self-Simulation Principle
Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics
Meta-Religion as the Human Singularity
Introduction to Quantum Metamechanics

(not in any particular order)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Aug 2020 16:29:24 No.11983994 Report

Quoted By: >>11984082

>>11983954

Does any of that actually make sense, or is it just poetry for those whose processing power is too high for their own good?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Aug 2020 16:33:54 No.11984008 Report

Quoted By: >>11984036 >>11984789

>>11983935

> If your theory isn't math, can't predict the future, can't explain the past, and can't be used in concrete experiments - what is it really? Poetry?

It is meant to be a kind of ontological and epistemological theory of absolute truth, of absolute reality. You could say that it is poetic in a way, but that should not in any way detract from its seriousness

> There's a point where you get so 'meta' that you (hopefully) realize you're running in circles, trying to define by human terms something that cannot be defined by human terms.

Sure, the CTMU sure gets to the human minds conceptual bedrock so to speak, a point at which you cannot go deeper, and where the theory has to get self-explanatory, which is exactly what the theory does. It is explicitly self-explanatory.

The apparent circularity of a self-contained universe, a self-simulation, a self-configuring, self-processing language is not lost on me either. But the alternative is simply to only deal with "open" theories, theories which require additional external explanation. But such an open theory cannot be a true theory of everything, which is what the CTMU tries (and suceeds) to be

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Aug 2020 16:41:45 No.11984036 Report

Quoted By:

>>11984008

at it's most fundamental level, reality is "circular", causality is "circular". It simply has to be that way. The alternative is very simply just impossible. And we can know about this circularity without using circular arguments

reality is everything that exists, everything it is real. Thus, for reality to be externally caused, defined, it would have to be caused by, defined by something not real, which is contradictory

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Aug 2020 17:00:31 No.11984082 Report

Quoted By: >>11984088 >>11984789

>>11983994

Yes, it does make quite a bit of sense. And it is also somewhat poetic. And I think it could clear up some confusion about reality scientists might have. Now, Langans work is difficult to read and can be quite confusing, I get that. By watching interviews, his quora posts, his facebook posts, reading his other articles, posts on discussion boards etc will make things easier, but his body of work might need quite a bit of elaborative work to become more accessible to a broader audience. The interface with physics is really only, as far as I understand, in QM and cosmology. It is meant to preserve science intact, to be compatible with science, perhaps just reign it in a bit, and to provide a basis for what he calls logical theology, so the two can coexist under a unified framework

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Aug 2020 17:02:10 No.11984088 Report

Quoted By:

>>11984082

>only QM and cosmology

and philosophy of mind, and perhaps artificial intelligence

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Aug 2020 20:38:30 No.11984789 Report

Quoted By:

>>11984008
>>11984082

Maybe I'm just low IQ but I understand nothing of Langan's work. It's just a bunch of words lined up to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Aug 2020 20:57:25 No.11984866 Report

Quoted By:

"You gotta stop reading this shit it's not good for you anon"

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Aug 2020 23:14:40 No.11985255 Report

Quoted By:

I wouldn't worry about it. Langan's a schizo on par with Tooker.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Aug 2020 23:16:37 No.11985262 Report

Quoted By:

>>11981862
"I think, therefore I am."

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches