Reality is Self-Modelling

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Spellbound, Aug 20, 2014.

  1. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    This thread is for discussion of the validity of Chris Langan's CTMU in which he claims that reality models itself in theorizations and thoughts. I'd like to know how a self-modelling reality implies the existence of God and if it is logical to propose such a thing. The following is an excerpt from an interview with this man;

    Christopher Langan is the developer of a theory, constructed in a logical manner that excludes any contradictions (i.e. in a tautological fashion), that is claimed to have the descriptive power to deal with not only all physical phenomena, but also everything that makes up the set of the subjective, mental aspects of the universe (perception, cognition, theorization etc.)...

    scientific theorization (through which the universe generates models of its own structure and laws).


    [video=youtube;9tAdufM9cGw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tAdufM9cGw[/video]
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    He can claim whatever he likes.
    Unfortunately - for him - he hasn't been able to show it.


    This would false, since the CTMU takes, as an a priori assumption, "god exists" as a start point.
    I.e. the entire argument is predicated on a tautology.
    This has been pointed out to you (with direct quotes from his own work), in more than one of your numerous sock-puppet incarnations, on more than one forum.
    But you still don't seem to understand it.

    Yup. Claims again.
    Langan is a nutcase.
    His "theory" has no validity.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2014
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    1,623
    Reality is constructed in a top-down manner in the CTMU. Yes.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    In other words, as usual, you don't have an actual response and you think that mere repetition of an unsupported - and already falsified - claim lends weight to your position.

    In answer to your question in the OP - "I'd like to know how a self-modelling reality implies the existence of God" it's easy.
    The shorter version runs thusly:
    God exists.
    Therefore god exists.

    Well it's a sort of logic.
    But it's neither useful, conclusive nor particularly rational.

    Were Glaucon still around this thread would be where it should be: in the Cesspool.
     
  8. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    That's a rather quick dismissal of something you know little about. Have you studied and read the CTMU in any way, shape or form? It does not take God as given. It constructs reality using three ingredients: closure, comprehensiveness and consistency. Including absolute truth. To come up with a contradictorily exclusive TOE.

    Another quick dismissal on your part. You appear overly-confident of your assumptions about the CTMU.
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Yes.
    What you appear to have missed (or conveniently ignored) is my previous statement.
    I'll quote it for you:
    Now, if I append the words "by me", do you think that might make you readjust your position here?
    You - under various guises and on more than one forum - have pushed this nonsense.
    I went through it - pointing out the errors and the tautologies, AND the things that you hadn't read in or about the CTMU [sup]1[/sup] - at length on a different forum.
    So your claim that I'm dismissing something that I "know little about" and that I'm "making assumptions" is false.

    BTW "It does not take God as given".
    Really?
    Not according to Langan himself (and, for the record, this is at least the second time I have given you this link and quote): since Biblical accounts of the genesis of our world and species are true but metaphorical, our task is to correctly decipher the metaphor in light of scientific evidence also given to us by God. Hence, the CTMU.
    Note the progression here: Biblical accounts are true. Given to us by "god". Hence (i.e. follows from the previous) the CTMU.
    The CTMU is predicated on his belief in "god" and that the Bible is correct.

    1 Including the evidence that the CTMU is based on his belief in "god".
     
  10. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    In actuality I responded to it with "Yes".

    Position on what? The logical validity and veracity of the CTMU? Or my having ignored your arguments in previous forums?

    I have not pushed anything. I simply intend to foster a genuine discussion of the CTMU which discusses the fact that it does not appear to have any contradictory holes in it. Therefore, it is you who should adjust your position as you previously suggested to me.

    If you read the CTMU you would know that Langan explains why a God is necessary for the configuration of reality itself. And that quote you gave says very little about how the CTMU defines God and the existence of such a being. It only talks about his position on the Bible and its comparison to the God of the CTMU, which he says is but a metaphorical account, where the CTMU sheds light on this once obfuscated entity.
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Do YOU know anything about it?
     
  12. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Yes, quite a lot actually. How about yourself?
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    So you know that it's a tautology yet you still thought it was okay to claim "excludes any contradictions (i.e. in a tautological fashion)".
    How does that work?


    Your position on the accusations against me.

    Since those holes have already been shown - numerous times - and you are incapable of doing anything other than either quote the CTMU itself or simply make claims, then you're not in a position to "discuss" it.
    You ARE pushing it - and have been doing so for some time. The "pushing" is evident in the fact that ALL you have ever managed to do is, as said, either quote it directly, make claims ABOUT it (i.e. not support them with any sort of explanation) or ignore errors that have been pointed out.
    The indicator (apart from the above-mentioned plus your posting history on the topic of course) lies in the fact that TWICE (at least a year apart - which is an indicator that you're also incapable of learning) I have had to provide a linked quote showing that you don't know what you're talking about with regard to the CTMU.
    How can you discuss something when you constantly display ignorance of the subject?

    If he takes "god" as an a priori unsupported assumption then his entire argument is predicated on something not shown to be the case.
    If he hadn't STARTED with the assumption of "god" then there would be no need whatsoever to show that "god" is necessary.
    If he had managed - at all - to be intellectually honest then he should have started without that assumption (and, indeed, as few assumptions as possible - and only those that he could reliably support) and see IF "god" resulted from the process.
    As it is, his entire argument is as I stated earlier: "god", therefore "god".

    You really are in need of help, aren't you?
    It doesn't need to do any of those. The quote shows that the CTMU derives FROM a belief in "god".

    And again... it clearly shows that he is operating from an a priori belief and the the CTMU itself is intended (or at least an attempt to) support that belief.
    Oh, and you are being, at the very least, either disingenuous or evasive in saying "he says is but a metaphorical account" when, in his own words he believes the Bible is true. Metaphor or not he regards it as factual.
     
  14. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No, I can't make any sense of it.
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Then you've read it correctly.
     
  16. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    That is not my claim. That is the claim I read in the above link.


    I refuse to reconsider my position based on your limited knowledge of the subject required to refute it, as no one else, even those much more equipped than yourself has been able to.


    In the past I have not reached a conclusion on the CTMU because it was not discussed to a satisfactory extent IMO. This prompted me to read more on the subject and generate thoughts on it from others.

    I believe I am in the position now to remedy that difficulty of mine. In the past I did not engage in a thorough enough manner to gain insight on it. That is what I'm hoping to do with this thread.


    Langan's CTMU claims to mirror reality in a top-down procedure. Rebuilding it. I believe that he provides evidence for divinity in a real-theoretic extension of logic. I do not believe he starts with it a priori. A question I'd like someone to answer is; is God impossible and if not, does the CTMU successfully prove Its existence?

    If that were the case I do not believe the CTMU would have gained such a laudable reception.

    ...factual, but not in a self-evident way.
     
  17. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    A simple question you may be able to arrive at is; what is the point of a self-modeling reality? What end does it serve?
     
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    This an utterly indefensible excuse from someone who claims to have read and understood the CTMU.

    In other words you're going to completely ignore the fact that I have demonstrated, more than once, than I know what it says better than you do.

    No conclusion?
    And yet you make claims such as "It ... come up with a contradictorily exclusive TOE",

    Ah, so what you're saying is that you want a discussion about something you haven't completely studied, are prepared to make - or accept - unsupported claims about and haven't really got the first clue on.
    Got it.

    You have been shown that your belief on this is incorrect. In his own words.
    You cannot "provide evidence for" a deity if one of your initial assumptions is that that deity exists.

    Define "god" then then question is addressable if not answerable.

    The CTMU neither "proves" nor evidences a deity.

    If you'd bothered checking you should have seen that the CTMU hasn't gained a laudable reception, except among cranks.
    It's generally ignored - when not being outright ridiculed - by serious scientists and philosophers.

    That it is factual is - one more time - an unsupported a priori assumption.
    In other words Langan is working from belief, not logic.
     
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036

    What end it serves, in my opinion, could be to create a model of the universe that reconciles science with the author's views on the existence of God.

    I don't see how reality can also be a model, which is a representation of reality - a symbol.
     

Share This Page