Reality is Reduced to Axioms

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Spellbound, Aug 26, 2014.

  1. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    I've pretty much given up.

    I can't begin to understand most of the things that Spellbound posts, cut-and-pasted from 'CTMU' websites.

    Whatever Langan (and his devotee Spellbound) insist that Langan's discovered, it hasn't proven of any use to me in my own thinking.

    I'm inclined to just ignore it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Langan is basically espousing the idea of a pre-existent reality which he calls unbound telesis from which everything emerges. With respect to the origin or ultimate nature of perceptual reality, explanation is a reductive/inductive process that regressively unbinds constraints in order to lay bare those of highest priority and generality. This process eventually leads to the most basic intelligible descriptor that can be formulated, beyond which lies only the unintelligible. This marks the transition from information and syntax to a convergent reductive generalization, telesis. ... Thus, languages are ultimately self-processing; Reality is explained by this inductive/reductive process to reveal an explanation of the highest priority and generality, beyond which only the unintelligible lies. Telesis is this generalization of information and syntax.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Which in English means...?

    As far as I can understand it, he basically claims that reality comes from something, and that reality contains that which can describe reality, but formulates it in a way that provides nothing remotely of predictive power, no science, nothing actually of value other than to those who want a "scientific" or "mathematical" justification for belief in a deity.

    Until he can explain his so-called theory in language that people can actually understand, it will continue to be dismissed for the word salad and tautological nonsense that it appears to be.

    And merely repeating the theory, Spellbound, in that same language, and continually failing to provide any clarity whatsoever, just confirms people's suspicion that you yourself have actually nothing to offer, and not only that but that you are actually hindering the mainstream from taking Langan seriously by acting as a puppet with no actual thought of your own.

    So in trying to promote him, as you clearly want to do, your style is such that it actually pushes people further away.
    Maybe if you desist from merely quoting his works, or that of his followers, people might find a path to his works that doesn't lend such an intrinsic openness to ridicule.
     
  8. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Copernican took perfect circles as axiomatic, thus, heliocentrism positioned the Sun (which was also taken as axiomatic to be (1) motionless and (2) at the center of the Universe) and that the Earth and the other planets rotated around it in circular paths modified by epicycles and at uniform speeds.

    That's the problem with axioms, many times they are wrong. And once you concede to them being true, then everything you deduce from those axiomatic ideas are, valid, but do not represent reality.
    Doesn't Hume make this clear in the Problem of Induction?

    Up until the early 1900s Euclidean geometry was taken as axiomatic. Here they (his axioms) are (minus the 5th which he didn't use):
    1. A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.
    2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.
    3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.
    4. All right angles are congruent.

    Within Euclidean geometry you can deduce any number of valid arguments. However, get this, there are no straight lines in 'reality'. In 'reality', space is curved. Particularly near gravity wells, like Earth.
     
  9. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    My thoughts are aligned with what Langan is saying and I cannot make them any simpler. I understand about 80% of what Langan wrote so my explanations are lacking somewhat. I do my best to answer questions and explain his theory in the best manner that I can. I apologize if you do not find it satisfactory. Have you read all of my posts in this thread? I do not quote Langan when I cannot understand his wording. It is not true that I have nothing to offer. I actually have quite a bit to offer regarding the CTMU. Some of it I cannot explain in my own words though.
     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Language can be a barrier when it comes to explaining some aspects of reality. For example, some people have a hard time explaining their feelings because words alone may not be enough to transfer this inner reality 100% to another. If I like steak and someone else hates steak, then the reality of steak, at the level of taste, has more than one axiom each with different words.

    The reason is connected to the two sides of the brain. The left brain, which is differential, processes the words of language by organizing these in logical fashion. The right brain is more spatial and integral requiring a different form of language where word organization may not exist. The thesis of Langan sounds esoteric, because he is trying to express the 3-D reality of a right brain intuition, with the words of the left brain. It is like trying to express feelings but not quite creating a meeting of the minds with words. The words can't give one the z-axis unless you stack them; esoteric.

    As a visualization, picture the spatial memories of the right brain as being loosely analogous to a 3-D ball. We can approximate this ball with a large number of circular planes, at many angles, each with a common center. These planes are analogous to how the left brain organizes the same data. A right brain 3-D memory ball could be oriental features, which allow one to pick out billions of people in a crowd that share the same ethnic commonalities. The left brain will differentiate this into separate planes and see differences in each of the billions of people.

    Joe can love steak and Joan will hate steak. Both of these left brain planes, being expressed with language, use the common center called steak and reduce the reality of the 3-D ball, to one plane, each. This one plane is their conscious reality, but not the 3-D reality of the steak. The conviction each will feel for their POV, as being correct, is due to both using the same common 3-D center and how this center, by being part of the 3-D ball, can activates the 3-D ball unconsciously in the right brain; we feel this is right and may even fight for it. If might is right, than the 3-D ball will be reduced to one 2-D plane or else you will be assaulted; left brain reduction.

    Since modern man, via language and logic, is placed more in the left brained, one plane is often considered enough; consensus plane. The debate within these forums of various topics, allows each to generate their own plane. Since the right brain is more unconscious, the 3-D is being externalized over many people, each with one plane, in an attempt to create 3-D in a fluffy way, that language can handle.

    The way i generate a lot of ideas is to start in the right brain, with a 3-D ball, and then generate left brain planes; language. I change my POV and my direction a lot, because to express 3-D I need to move from plane to plane and not just pick one. This is not how the left brain does it, so it may seem a little odd. But there is a right brain logic for it.
     
  11. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    That's nice. That looks like the ancient Greek idea of the 'arche', the primordial being from which everything else evolved. Thales imagined that everything originally emerged from water, which lacks form of its own. Anaximander thought of the arche as the 'apeiron', the unbounded. Plotinus imagined that everything emerges from the ineffable 'One'. Calling the universe's imagined source 'telesis' doesn't really add anything, except the gratuitious hint of purposiveness. (I'm sure that idea was present in many of the Neoplatonists too.)

    Once again, another annoyingly opaque cut-and-paste.

    It appears to simply be saying that people seek the most general principles that seem to them to be exemplified in whatever it is they hope to explain.

    So this "convergent reductive generalization, telesis", the imagined ultimate principle, the source of everything that exists, lies beyond the boundary of the intelligible? Then why so much talk about it? The idea that the Source of Being lies beyond human cognition sounds closer to religious mysticism than to philosophy. It certainly isn't original with Langan. Plotinus' 'One' was supposed to be uneffable too, as is Hindu Advaita's 'Brahman'. It's basic to the apophatic traditions of Christian mystical theology as well.

    What?? The use of the word 'thus' suggests that this idea supposedly follows from what went before, but I can't see how it does. (I can't even see how the idea makes sense.)

    How does our human attempt to explain things in terms of general priniciples transform into the idea that the universe itself (or its Source or something) is "telesis" (presumably implying purposiveness) and the "generalization of information and syntax"? It's a tremendous leap from the idea of using human languages to model some of the principles that seemingly are exemplified in events, to the metaphysical conclusion that those events and principles are themselves a divine language.

    'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God', John 1:1. It really looks to me like all of Langan's 'self-processing language' and 'unbounded telesis' theorizing might just be kind of an extended riff on that particular Bible verse.
     
  12. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Yazata,

    I have provided you with a more basic and simple explanation from the CTMU Wiki entries in the following with a touch of words from myself to avoid skewing the explanation as my intellect is not as powerful as Langan's.

    Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language

    Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL is the meta-mathematical structure to which the universe is isomorphic. SCSPL is the language of the universe, a language so expressive that the universe creates itself and evolves through using it. The universe is in every way, everywhere, identical to SCSPL.

    Normally, languages are considered to be in the minds of people and they work on the basis of moving symbols around mentally, where said symbols represent things in the "outside world". By attempting to represent things in the "outside world" with language, one gets closer and closer in accuracy of description to the things one attempts to describe the more expressive/powerful the language is. What would happen if a language was so expressive that it contained every piece of information on the thing it wishes to describe, to the highest resolution possible? You would have the SCSPL "coding" of that object in the universe, which is identical to the object itself. Thought about in another way, if one asks themselves "what does the SCSPL coding of a tennis ball look like?";- the answer is the tennis ball itself!


    http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Self-Configuring_Self-Processing_Language

    Reality is an SCSPL.

    Telesis

    In the CTMU, telesis is the universal substance from which reality is refined. Telesis is the raw material of cosmogony, the ultimate ancestral medium from which the universe originates.

    http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Telesis

    Reality is refined by telesis.
     
  13. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
    The virtual denizens of Computer Game never had access to the elemental data stored on disk or solid-state storage, though; as well as the coded software instructions for organizing such into the appearance of a static or moving object. When they originally conceived a collection of monitor pixels as superficially constituting what they labeled a "tennis ball". The appearance name could be used for the underlying "intelligible form" that contributes to making the former possible empirically; but the distinction between the two must not be lost to the point that "tennis ball" as concrete object and "tennis ball" as abstract description / information become literally conflated. Where then all the inhabitants lose curiosity and become everyday / dull, limited-in-theoretical-progress, naive realists. [Since, in this scenario, there truly is something more than just their version of a "sensible world".]
     
  14. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Reality is distinguished from language? Even if our thoughts and the information our minds contain are not? Or are they as well?
     
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Yet you post nothing that clarifies. At best you merely repost the same or merely quote another explanation. There is precious little if anything from you that actually explains, and the majority is just unsubstantiated claims, or restatements of assertions that the CTMU makes.
    And yes, I have read everything you have posted in this thread. You seem to think that to explain what Langan means it is sufficient to post some explanation he gives, and when that is deemed insufficient, you merely post something else he has written.
    So how does posting something he has written help someone who does not understand him??
    Your method and style in this matter just baffle me. And as stated - I think you are actually hindering rather than helping those who might genuinely want to understand.
     
  16. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Thank you for your reply. I will take my "unsubstantiated claims" into account. However, I will have you know that I am still trying and hoping to understand the CTMU more which is why I bring it into discussion.
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    The real question here - given that consistently show that you don't understand the CTMU [sup]1[/sup] - is: why do you think it's worth discussion, let alone pushing as anything genuine?

    1 To the extent that, despite having been informed more than once that it's predicated on an a priori unsupported assumption you still persist in claiming that it has validity.
     
  18. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    I want to understand it because I want to know what Langan's TOE has to say about God. Whether or not God is real and if so what are its implications to science. If God is not real then we need not be discussing It. I am coming from a spiritual background.
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Another example of you completely and utterly ignoring the facts. (And being inconsistent: you claimed earlier that you were "hoping to understand the CTMU more" - you haven't shown ANY understanding of it thus far).
    As has been repeatedly shown, anything that Langan's "theory" says about "god" is a result of assuming from the start that "god" exists. It is therefore a circular (and unsupported) argument.

    Neither Langan nor his nonsense can definitively tell anyone that.

    No implications whatsoever.
    Langan can't make his case (see above) and he isn't doing science.
    He isn't even doing philosophy.

    You have been informed, numerous times, that Langan cannot "prove" god with this concoction of bullshit word salad. Ergo whether "god" is real or not isn't discernible from Langan's work.

    No, you're coming from a (greatly) uninformed one [sup]1[/sup].
    You have decided that Langan is correct (as evidenced by the numerous times you have pushed the CTMU here AND on other forums), and have zero solid reason, other than credulous gullibility, for doing so.

    1 If you truly are suggesting that you're approaching this from a "spiritual background [whatever the f*ck that means] then why did you bother posting this thread in Philosophy [sup]2[/sup]?
    2 Philosophy being something you have consistently shown yourself to be incapable of doing.
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    But you don't tend to discuss: you state Langan's position as fact, and when asked to explain what it means you just post more of his words as fact, leaving no one any the wiser.

    Imagine someone doesn't speak French. Your style here is to post excerpts from someone's theory written in French, which you may understand if you speak French. But when someone says they don't speak French and thus don't understand what something means, you post the explanation (and generally not yours but the theory author's) which is also in French, as if that is going to help them understand.

    As for wanting to prove God's existence, Langan's theory provides no discernible predictive power whatsoever (at least that I am aware of) and (as has been pointed out) since he starts with the assumption of God, his "theory" in that regard is no better than: Assume God exists. Therefore god exists. QED. albeit with a bit of filler that seems to work only to obscure the circularity of the argument.
     
  21. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Sarkus and Dwyddyr,

    What of the compelling arguments Langan makes for his CTMU and the fact that he continues to work on it up to this day? That it constitutes absolute truth. That it solves a number of paradoxes including Newcomb's Demon example? That it is real. That it separates itself from other metaphysical theories by being the only one that is correct? ( Say that there are two true but different theories of metaphysics M and M’, one or each of which contains information inferentially excluded by the other. Call all such info "d". Since M, M’ are both true, and the distinction between two truths is it*self a truth, d is true. Since metaphysics is comprehensive over reality by definition, it can exclude no real truth. But at least one of the pair M, M’ excludes at least a part of d. So at least one of the pair is not a theory of metaphysics, and the assumption that two such theories exist is self-contradictory. This implies that there is at most one true theory of metaphysics. http://megasociety.org/noesis/76/05.htm)
     
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    His arguments are only "compelling" to people dumb enough to fall for it.
    It's circular, unsupported and consists largely of word salad and assumptions.

    So what if he works on it?
    Small children spend much time making pies, it doesn't mean they're edible.

    But it doesn't constitute truth at all, let alone "absolute".

    You mean Newcomb's Paradox?
    Again, so what. So do other (less obviously made-up-sh*t) "theories".

    As has been shown, this is incorrect.

    This too is false.
    You simply asserting that the CTMU is "true", "real" and "correct" is contrary to the facts.

    Oh look, you're back to quoting Langan again.
    Isn't it surprising that he claims he's got it right?
    (Not really).
     
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Say, for the sake of augment, god was a human creation; product of the imagination. The next question is, what was the purpose for this seeing it lasted so long in human history, and was not made obsolete very fast? One answer is god was like a tool, that provided a form of leverage for the mind. It helped to motivate art, construction, rituals, war, with war needing better and better tech.

    The gods of old could fly and alter the earth and sea with their power. The gods did this thousands of years before human were able to finally mimic this behavior using technology. The gods helped humans to anticipate the future and they contained the seeds of higher human potential. The god connected humans to parts of the brain that would be used in the future; higher human potential.

    For example, if you believe in a perfect God, and try to emulate him/her by striving for perfection, this would require way more will power than normal. Being imperfect does not need willpower. This perfect God does not allow one to rest on their laurels of instinct, impulse and sloth, but keeps one's mind in the future of what they can be; perfect. If you look at any of the god heads of the major religions, each prophesied about the future and impacted the future.

    In my experience, religion and gods, provide command line that can reach deep parts of the psyche and brain firmware. The core regions of the brain; thalamus is the most wired part of the brain. All speciality areas of the brain, from the cerebral to the brain stem all integrate there. This area is too data dense to be conscious. The ego is a terminal process that is more limited. God was the bridge.

    Even one believe in a literal God, the core of the brain would be the only part that is wried enough to bridge the gap unless that god is man made; celebrity, so the ego is all you need.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page