Reality as Self-Contained

Q: If I have interpreted you correctly, you maintain that the universe created itself. How did this come about? What existed before the Universe and when did the Universe create itself or come into being? - Celia Joslyn

A: You're asking three distinct but related questions about cosmology: how, when and as what did the universe self-create?

The universe can be described as a cybernetic system in which freedom and constraint are counterbalanced. The constraints function as structure; thus, the laws of physics are constraints which define the structure of spacetime, whereas freedom is that which is bound or logically quantified by the constraints in question. Now, since there is no real time scale external to reality, there is no extrinsic point in time at which the moment of creation can be located, and this invalidates phrases like "before reality existed" and "when reality created itself". So rather than asking "when" the universe came to be, or what existed "before" the universe was born, we must instead ask "what would remain if the structural constraints defining the real universe were regressively suspended?" First, time would gradually disappear, eliminating the "when" question entirely. And once time disappears completely, what remains is the answer to the "what" question: a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint. In other words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply.

Now let's attend to your "how" question. Within a realm of unbound potential like the one from which the universe emerges, everything is possible, and this implies that "everything exists" in the sense of possibility. Some possibilities are self-inconsistent and therefore ontological dead ends; they extinguish themselves in the very attempt to emerge into actuality. But other possibilities are self-consistent and potentially self-configuring by internally defined evolutionary processes. That is, they predicate their own emergence according to their own internal logics, providing their own means and answering their own "hows". These possibilities, which are completely self-contained not only with respect to how, what, and when, but why, have a common structure called SCSPL (Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language). An SCSPL answers its own "why?" question with something called teleology; where SCSPL is "God" to whatever exists within it, teleology amounts to the "Will of God".

http://www.ctmu.org/

Reality is internal.


SCSPL and Triality

13

The CTMU amounts to the mathematics of a new mathematical object, namely SCSPL; it conflates total self-containment with triality to achieve self-consistency and coherence. Accordingly, the CTMU derives its logical implications from this construct. Triality resides at the most basic level of human understanding. Further, the common component of triality is telesis, i.e. an unintelligible one-aspect substance facilitating the formulation of trialities, which is infocognitive potential. Indeed, every branch of mathematics conduces to a collection of spatial and temporal relationships linking their abstract concepts; in category theory, limits form syntactic coverings for colimits; in mathematical analysis, differentiation forms a syntactic covering for integration. In addition, the natural numbers is a zero-dimensional, linear language, whereas its extensions, the integers/rational and real numbers and complex numbers, conduce to one-dimensional and two-dimensional languages respectively.

Of course, it is possible to increase their complexity to whatever extent is required via their logical descriptions. Furthermore, a Hasse diagram comprises temporal and spatial aspects which results in a triality; its unisect(s � for a poset which combines posets) is the combination of its base expressions. Also, there are three types of inclusion: spatial, temporal, and spatiotemporal. In syndiffeonesis, the aspects temporally contain the medium which spatially contains its aspects, both are spatiotemporally oriented. Spatiotemporal containment relationships facilitate the mutual consistency of their object-level syntaxes. In conspansive spacetime, causes spatially contain their effects, which conduces to classical causality by way of SCSPL grammar.

Moreover, Einstein�s formulation of general relativity describes a dual self-inclusion relation between spacetime and its contents; spatiotemporal curvature determines the location of matter in the universe which describes curvature. Informational laws, however, are not sufficient to determine the next stages of its corresponding language. They require telic augmentation via L_S. When a human brain achieves a state of sufficient complexity, it can access levels of SCSPL syntax residing within L_S, which is when it becomes a formulation of supertautology. Accordingly, SCSPL is compactly expressed as a triality between the output and self-simulative aspects of reality, i.e. conspansive duality.

http://ctmublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/scspl-and-triality/


Basic CTMU Concepts

27

The foundation of the CTMU constitutes a basic restructuring of our perceptions and conceptions of reality through the concept of dual self-relations; it comprises the HCS, which can be regarded as a self-consistent formulation of a dual self-containment relation wherein every quantum protocomputer identifiable with it facilitates its self-containment.

http://ctmublog.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/basic-ctmu-concepts/

Dual self-relations. Reality is dual. Reality is real.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why do you repeat this Langan jibberish? Why don't you study other thinkers too?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But I do! The difference between Langan and those other thinkers such as Aristotle, Heidegger, Russell, Kant, Hume and others is that he ties all of Philosophy and science together into a supertautological TOE.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The duality of reality means that space-time contains the objects it is being contained by, this is known as dual self-inclusion. Reality allows for the existence of minds required to perceive and to become realized by it via duality.

 

why is it gibberish ?

 

Translate this for me then:

"Triality resides at the most basic level of human understanding. Further, the common component of triality is telesis, i.e. an unintelligible one-aspect substance facilitating the formulation of trialities, which is infocognitive potential. Indeed, every branch of mathematics conduces to a collection of spatial and temporal relationships linking their abstract concepts; in category theory, limits form syntactic coverings for colimits; in mathematical analysis, differentiation forms a syntactic covering for integration. In addition, the natural numbers is a zero-dimensional, linear language, whereas its extensions, the integers/rational and real numbers and complex numbers, conduce to one-dimensional and two-dimensional languages respectively."

 

that doesn't answer the question at all.
it just implies you do not understand what is stated.
so then you turn around and say it's gibberish?

when i was in college,
my english instructor once said,
" if you do not know a word or it's meaning, look it up"

 

It's called gibberish. Do you know the definition of gibberish?

Gibberish:

a. Highly technical or esoteric language.

b. Unnecessarily pretentious or vague language.

 

ahh, so you attempt a diverting post.
i see.
it was massively obvious what definition of " jibberish " you were implying.
what a joke that is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

nonsense: spoken or written language perceived as unintelligible or devoid of sense

 

The definition of gibberish is exactly as I used it. Overly technical and esoteric jargon. Are you denying that is what it means?

 

So go ahead and tell me what that paragraph means since you are claiming it isn't gibberish. I'll wait while you look up all the words. lol!

 

quit diverting and answer the question.
agian,
why is it gibberish ?

 

I see. So you can't make heads or tails of what he said, but somehow you know it isn't gibberish? How do you divine such a thing, given the definition of gibberish I already gave?

Gibberish:

a. Highly technical or esoteric language.

b. Unnecessarily pretentious or vague language.

 

comical,this is becoming pathetic.
so now you have resorted to making up your own flawed thought of my question.
unbelievably hilarious.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

,
so once again,
quit diverting and answer the question.

why is it gibberish ?

 

For the same reason that you would describe a dog as a dog. I.e. precisely because of the definition of the term he used: i.e. he finds it overly technical and esoteric jargon - hence he considers it jibberish.
One man's jibberish may be another man's Shakespeare, but one should accept that one considers it jibberish if that is what they claim it to be to them.

If you do not find it jibberish, have the decency to explain it to MagicalRealist in a language and jargon that is not overly technical or esoteric, and that he can understand.

Afterall, if someone speaks fluent Mandarin to me, I will find it jibberish, even though it may be the most simplest of statements to those who can understand the language being used.

So, far from him attempting a diverting post, he has merely cried out for clarity - which you seem to refuse to deliver and instead accuse of diversion.
If I speak to you in a language you do not understand, should I accuse you of diversion if you claim you find my language to be jibberish, or would you place the burden on me to communicate meaningfully to you?

Ball is in your court.
And I for one would like to understand what Langan et al actually mean in their theories, but I have yet to read anything that makes it sensible to anyone other than one who has already bought into the language that Langan uses.
I.e. I find it a self-contained and tautological theory that is as useful as "I am what I am".

 

Since you're obviously trolling, I'll only say this one more time:

Gibberish:

a. Highly technical or esoteric language.

b. Unnecessarily pretentious or vague language.

THAT describes his language EXACTLY. Are you denying it doesn't? Then prove it. Tell me what it actually means. Oh wait. You can't do that can you? I rest my case.

 

how is he qualified to say it is gibberish ?

 

sorry, it doubled posted.
anyways,
how is he qualified to say it is gibberish ?

so basically you are saying to " dumb it down " for him ?,
i thought he was intelligent.

first,
this is apples to oranges comparison.
and second,
no i would not call it gibberish,
it's a language i do not know,
so i would say,
" i do not understand "
it's that simple.

ahh i see, you seem to think this is an arguing game.

so again,
when i was in college,
my english instructor once said,
" if you do not know a word or it's meaning, look it up"

 

i wasn't the one who claimed gibberish, only because of lack of comprehension.
so, who was the one actually trolling ?
you are obvious to me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Still waiting for you show me it isn't gibberish.