The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory Christopher Michael Langan Contents Introduction On Theories, Models and False Dichotomies Determinacy, Indeterminacy and the Third Option The Future of Reality Theory According to John Wheeler Some Additional Principles Some Background Introduction to SCSPL SCSPL as the Self-Excited Circuit The CTMU and Intelligent Design Abstract: Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping). Where information is the abstract currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality. This extension is associated with a limiting formulation of model theory identifying mental and physical reality, resulting in a reflexively self-generating, self-modeling theory of reality identical to its universe on the syntactic level. By the nature of its derivation, this theory, the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic. Uniting the theory of reality with an advanced form of computational language theory, the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and self-execution (reflexive read-write functionality). SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism consisting of infocognition, self-transducing information residing in self-recognizing SCSPL elements called syntactic operators. The CTMU identifies itself with the structure of these operators and thus with the distributive syntax of its self-modeling SCSPL universe, including the reflexive grammar by which the universe refines itself from unbound telesis or UBT, a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. Under the guidance of a limiting (intrinsic) form of anthropic principle called the Telic Principle, SCSPL evolves by telic recursion, jointly configuring syntax and state while maximizing a generalized self-selection parameter and adjusting on the fly to freely-changing internal conditions. SCSPL relates space, time and object by means of conspansive duality and conspansion, an SCSPL-grammatical process featuring an alternation between dual phases of existence associated with design and actualization and related to the familiar wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics. By distributing the design phase of reality over the actualization phase, conspansive spacetime also provides a distributed mechanism for Intelligent Design, adjoining to the restrictive principle of natural selection a basic means of generating information and complexity. Addressing physical evolution on not only the biological but cosmic level, the CTMU addresses the most evident deficiencies and paradoxes associated with conventional discrete and continuum models of reality, including temporal directionality and accelerating cosmic expansion, while preserving virtually all of the major benefits of current scientific and mathematical paradigms. 2002 Christopher Michael Langan <clangan@ctmu.net> View the most recent version of this paper at: www.ctmu.net Reality is self-distributed. Reality is all over. Reality is reflexive self-processing.
Once again you post the same stuff, over and over again, without ever really contributing anything of your own. It is not (or at least should not be) the done thing in this forum to merely post a link, or just copy someone else's words, as the sole content of your post. Do you actually have anything to offer of your own? Anything to support Langan's claims? Or is this just another of the many, many, threads that you have raised in an effort to spread his philosophical view, but without ever actually doing anything other than repeat what he says?
I post it because you still fall short of understanding. You also claim that I have not provided anything in the way of support. Please read the bottom.
You think three statements, without any explanation as to how you get from his claims to yours, to be satisfactory? You think people who "fall short of understanding" will somehow suddenly grasp the idea by you repeating the same thing over and over again without any actual explanation? The issues people have with Langan's work have been noted to you on most threads you post based on his work (which is almost all, if not actually all, the threads you raise)... so merely repeating his same claims, with what might as well be a few non sequiturs by way of "explanation", is going to win you no favours, and is simply tiresome.
You therefore admit you make claims (simplifying statements) with no support and no explanation... Which is tantamount to preaching. Please desist.
You can call it what you like, but it isn't summarizing anything thoughtfully, it is just saying the same unexplained nonsense in fewer words. Many have told you this before, but you do not help yourself by seemingly refusing to acknowledge their advice. Try explaining not just what you think but why you think what you do... otherwise you are just making claims. Explain, for example, how Langan's words make sense to you and lead you to the conclusion you think it does - i.e. simplify his words so that others can follow what he means. The fact that you can't, or at least won't, does not help your cause. If all you continue to do is post unsubstantiated claims, whether direct quotes from Langan or in fewer words, that is preaching.
Alright. I will expand on it. Reality, which include conscious beings, is processing itself (reflexive self-processing). As conscious beings are no less than reality itself. Intellect is a syntactic operation based on observation. This means that intelligent beings require syntactic operators to express intelligence and make judgments about the world they see. Conspansion means that while the universe appears to expand from our perspective (think rubber sheet universe), its contents will appear to contract from the outside. Reality being self-contained, is within itself. Intrinsic to itself. These are my interpretations of Langan's CTMU.
What do you mean by "processing" in this regard? How does reality "process itself" as opposed to just move from one moment to another according to the underlying rules? This is a phrase, not a sentence. Also it does not follow from what you have stated in your previous statement: "Reality, which include conscious beings". If X includes Y, Y is by logical inference lesser than X - i.e. X contains that which Y does not. Care to clarify your position here, and please try do so in complete sentences. And what does this have to do with the price of eggs? Again - so what? And where is the evidence for this claim? And you close on a tautology: "Reality is real". But again - so what? To what end? What is he saying that has any use whatsoever, and where is the evidence in support of his position in favour of any other possible position? I.e. you're still merely making claims. There is no support for any of your/his claims, and your interpretation, if your purpose was to provide clarification of Langan's words, requires work as it remains unclear.
Reality is an SCSPL. The CTMU existing as an absolute truth in Chris Langan's mind, is true in all worlds.
While it may be true in his mind in all worlds the sad fact is that it's actually not true in reality in any. Especially this one.
As Immanuel Kant wrote the human intellect, even in an unphilosophical state, is in possession of certain cognitions a priori.
yeah, kinda like this word I 've thought I discovered in 3rd grade "'realativity. can't have much perfect on so called cognac for toooo long Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why do you post here on Sciforums, Spellbound? Are you really interested in philosophical questions? If so, what questions are they? Can you describe the philosophical issues that interest you, in your own words, in language that other people can understand, without resorting to strange and incomprehensible jargon? Can you do it in actual paragraphs that make sense, that show us what your initial assumptions are and connect your thoughts together to support whatever conclusions you draw from those assumptions? Right. Or are you here to preach the absolute and ultimate Truth, revealed to you in the writings of your Prophet? Truth that you reveal in turn to us in short little oracular pronouncements that sound totally cosmic somehow, while whatever meaning they might have always remains frustratingly opaque? You're a strange one, Spellbound. Doing the same incomprehensible thing over and over again, for year after year, using a whole succession of log-in personas... and never making a whole lot of sense, at least to me. What do you want from us? What kind of response are you looking for?
So are you suggesting that Langan just... knows... all of this 'CTMU' stuff? There isn't any reason or justification for his believing it's true, it's just something that a supposedly super-human mind directly intuits in its own workings? Where does that leave mere mortals like ourselves? Must the rest of humanity accept by faith alone that Langan's ideas are indeed "absolute truth"?
The CTMU has been an interest of mine since 2007. And my understanding of it became increasingly pronounced as I drew upon and paraphrased sections to sciforums over the past two years. But it has only become ever more pronounced just recently. It has changed my life and every time I make a revelation or discovery on the CTMU I become filled with such joy that I can't help but smile, even in public while walking down the street. It is such a fulfilling experience to understand the inner workings of reality. The CTMU is a relationship between the intellect and reality. It identifies physical as well as mental reality. My purpose is to make it far less confusing by attempting to help others to see what I see. The CTMU will bring forth the dawning of a new age for science as well as philosophy. It is not to say that we are products of a deterministic universe governed by blind nature, but that we are products of both a generalized intelligence as well as blind nature. It will help one find one's place in the universe for to be a self is to be special. And we are all special. It will also aid in achieving one's necessary goals by resulting in a healthy mind and thus a healthy behavior.
Yes. However, Langan states that one need not be a genius to understand his CTMU as he makes and effort to make it comprehensible to the average person. However, due to the depth and complexity of his language, confusion as opposed to clarity may result. My goal is to do away with confusion amongst the average reader altogether. That is the reason I post here.
We have two sides of the brain. The left side of the brain is more differential, while the right side of the brain is more spatial. Depending on which side of the brain you use to describe reality, will impact the models that appear. The left brain will use a differential approach leading to highly detailed yet disconnected their based on specialties. For example, how do the quarks of physics impact the DNA of biology? These two models don't connect, even though DNA is made of atoms, which are made of quarks. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Is this reality or the nature of left brain reality? Is random due to left brain reality, since theory can't always connect, so things will get fuzzy at the interfaces? The right side of the brain process spatially or in 3-D. Theory from this side of the brain, theoretically, requires that all things need to connect in 3-D. Such 3-D theory for reality, would need a new set of simpler premises since extended spatial connections would get too complex with the existing theories; quarks and DNA. The left brain is analogous to a microscope in that it can see tiny details. The right brain is more analogous to a telescope in that it can the bigger picture. Reality is both detail and large scale context. However, the right brain is far less conscious so reality perception falls short of 3-D in favor of a disjointed reality with random gaps. Instinct is connected to the right brain and is blind only in the sense it is part of the 3-D reality, and therefore lacks the subjective liberty of the disjointed approach of the left brain; fuzzy gaps and imagination. For example, say there was a huge grandfather clock with internal mechanical parts. We don't know this when we are shrunk down to tiny size and placed inside clock. We lack the largest context when we begin. Instead we notice the tiny details inside this strange place. From this POV we need to infer where we are sing only 2-D (cause and effect) based on each detail we try to connect, based on where we begin. If we could go outside and see the entire clock in 3-D, would these theories be the same?
Langan deliberately obfuscates his language. He uses tons of unnecessary, ambiguous, and poorly defined terms and when you attempt to decipher it the arguments are unproven and not even properly formed. For example, take this phrase from his work: "If, that which necessarily exists is nothing but discrete, non-compositional existential entities, then such discrete non-compositional existential entities are greater in existence than an existing absolute compositional existential entity, but this statement is obviously absurd, since an existing absolutely compositional existential entity must contain all existing non-compositional existential entities, by definition;" This essentially breaks down into meaning 'the whole is greater than the part'. It's nonsense.
