Reality as Self-Contained

Yes, you are the troll.
And you're not the one with any sort of intelligent responses.

If you're unable to show how your question is relevant, it merely adds weight to your trolling behaviour.

Then please do provide an answer to your own question. It would be good to hear what level and in which field of education you think others here have.

Given that such a comment also covers any religion that deals with the "soul", or the realm of the "non-material", it is not exactly enlightening stuff from someone who professes the superior intellect.
And the link you provided discusses non-scientific matters, regardless of your claims to the contrary. They are unfalsifiable concepts, and thus unscientific.
But heck, you claiming to be working on such topics, unpublished though you are, is justification enough for me to know that what you speak is the undeniable truth, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

amusing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ok, i'll show you something.
it shows that i have the capability to understand over others due to the fact i was educated properly in the field of sciences,
unlike the want to be-s that are responding.(get it?)
it that simple.

and also, do you ever listen to your own nonsense?
i'm the one trolling?
did you not respond with a bunch of want to be intellect nonsense, and yet never addressed the actual topic
just like what you are trying to claim i did?
well i see my responses that pertain to the topic.
where's yours?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

pathetic.
you're making your self obvious here of who's the actual troll.
so please continue with your want to be intellect with out addressing the topic nonsense.

ahh yes, the typical ignoramus nonsense.
funny , you think this is religious stuff?
hm, and you think you understand something of science,comical.

what a joke you are,
why are even still allowed to post here.
you have no clue what science is, all you think you know is what ever link you click on.
unbelievable.

please continue to show what a fool you are.
this is far beyond for you, just stick to the history channel without running your mouth and you will be fine.

yes, it's called tier one
which you are clueless on. it's that simple.

what do i care what you think or believe. you're meaningless to me.
it's funny you would attempt this.
what a massive joke this is.

and also, what's funny is,
everyone who screams " troll "(which are the actual troll-ers),
i bet,
thinks it derives from a character under a bridge.
but the reality is,(which they are clueless on) it's
derived from the meaning of fishing trolling.
comical.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

for now on my responses will be this post, and this post only
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...lf-Contained&p=3197589&viewfull=1#post3197589

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please do show us something.

Im still waiting for you to provide an explanation for what you think is "simple to understand", such that MR et al can no longer consider it gibberish.
And to repeat, yes, you are the one trolling.

I certainly see your attempts to ridicule those who don't understand what you claim to be able.
I have seen nothing from you that provides any clarification, although you did throw out a phrase that applies to religion as much to anything else, and your link was equally unscientific.

I find it telling that you can not see, or at least wish to dismiss, the parallel with religious notions of non-materiality in what you quoted.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And still we wait for you to show that you understand Langan's work, as you claim. You did say that you would "show me something" but still we wait.

Calling it tier one does not make it meaningful. And forgive me if I don't take your word as the authority on your authority. Simply provide a link to what you do. Let us review it and reach our own conclusions. It shouldn't be that difficult for you to do, given how "simple to understand" you consider this topic to be.

Ironic that it is your posts that hold little meaning to anyone here, given that they are filled with nothing but ridicule and certainly no substance upon which you have set yourself as a self-proclaimed authority.

For someone who repeatedly claims it so simple to understand, you appear rather reluctant to provide any meaningful clarification, and instead just repeat your ridicule.
You, sir, are indeed a troll.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...lf-Contained&p=3197589&viewfull=1#post3197589
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...lf-Contained&p=3197666&viewfull=1#post3197666
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ds-shoes-!!!&p=3197685&viewfull=1#post3197685

 

Yes. Everything exists within that realm. But as he said, only as possibility. It exists as fact.

 

Krash,

Please try to refrain from ad hominems such as "ignoramus" and "joke". While I appreciate your participation in this thread, I think you should provide us with your thoughts on topics such as "self-creation", "infinite possibilities" and "actualization". I await your intellectual contribution. Thank you.

 

this one post should help with that,
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...lf-Contained&p=3197592&viewfull=1#post3197592

all in all, i'm done with this pathetic nonsense.
i'm getting yelled at by my superior for messing around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATDmVbHIQ7E&feature=share
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Exb0ulgvDg&feature=share

 

Here's something written by Russell Rierson that goes deep into CTMU reasoning:

http://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A472033/conversation/view/F58051/T132635/page/7

 

Reality is reality, therefore it is self-caused.

MR's above post and quote from Whitehead draws a parallel to Langan's CTMU. It's right.

 

The thing that Spellbound posted looks like a string of doubtful assertions. Just picking a few of them:

Time is a sequence of logical axioms.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Logic = Reality

Reality appears to conform to logic, pretty much, but how does that justify equating the two?

Logic is a language, therefore reality is a language

That's apparently the crux of Langan's whole system, perhaps because of John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

The ground state of reality is UBT (Unbound Telesis)

How does Langan know what the ground state of reality is? (Assuming there is such a thing.) People have been speculating about that since long before the time of the ancient Greeks. Why should we believe that Christopher Langan is the one who's finally found the answer?

Reality is perceptual, perceived by the mind, bound by logic. An isomorphism between the mind of the perceiver and the object being perceived.

Logic = Reality = Mind = God

The fact that humans perceive reality doesn't imply that reality is perceptual or that reality is mind. There seem to be idealist assumptions hidden in there. The introduction of the word 'God' seems to be gratuitous, albeit a necessary assumption given the pantheistic conclusions that Langan seemingly wants to draw.

If this stuff makes Langan and his acolytes happy, that's fine with me. (It's no worse than Kantianism, I guess.) I don't believe that his ideas are of much help in my own philosophical investigations though.

 

the key element here is consciousness.
it appears the ridicule-rs(actual trolls) are clueless on anything about consciousness,
but yet some how continue to ridicule.
consciousness is the " god "
they see this word,
and instantly their flawed auto pilot thinking is initiated.
it's amusing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATDmVbHIQ7E&feature=share


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Exb0ulgvDg&feature=share

 

Time moves "forward" in a logical reality.

If it were not logical, Langan's CTMU would not be able to distinguish"real" from "unreal", nor even "true" from "false". Not a single thing would make sense.

Reality is a language in that it represents space, time and object.

A prioi knowledge. He derives it not empirically, but logically.

Although Langan and Clifton use highly technical language, with headstrong effort, and a level of intellect, a person could arrive at the same conclusions.

If reality did not consist of a perceptual reality, we would be unable to perceive it.

 

Straight from the mouth of the horse...

Unbound Telesis (UBT) - a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. In CTMU cosmogony, "nothingness" is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. In a realm of unbound ontological potential, defining a constraint is not as simple as merely writing it down; because constraints act restrictively on content, constraint and content must be defined simultaneously in a unified syntax-state relationship.

http://megafoundation.org/Teleologic/main.htm

 

Krash,

Would consciousness be possible without God? Or, is reality possible without consciousness or consciousness without reality?

 

consciousness would be the " god ".

consciousness is the platform for reality.

the question is,
" WTF is consciousness

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

" and " what is its function " and it's " mechanics " and it's " mechanism ".
and how the F*** are experiencing such a thing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

also,
keep in mind,many levels of consciousness,

the problem is,
how to advance to higher levels of consciousness to be able to go from physical form to non physical form then back to physical form,
and still function as an organic machine(human or such)

 

Spellbound: You seem to tackle this intellectually; I'm interested in the idea of self-containment, does this self-containment exist as pure information in Langans idea?

I'm actually interested in various aspects of this theory, which is actually why I dislike the way krash deals with it, I've watched this thread for a while and got frustrated that he acted so childish instead of just giving some clear answers; one aspect I'm interested in is the way that all things are possible and happen when there is no constraints, this is something I also believe and have believed long before any mention of Langan, how can we take this idea of spontanious appearence and put a process behind it? In other words; it comes from infinite potential, because it has no constraints, but what process makes something distinguishable come from something that is a "infinite mix" of sorts? What makes it real as this particular thing aside from any other possibility? Obviously one constraint is that it has to be self-consistent, but there are without doubt many things that are self-consistent and should therefor have equal probability to appear at any given time (given that time has appeared first obviously).

It's interesting that I argued this way back in 2011:

krash:I only argue about the way you are dealing with the ridicule, I do see how you can perceive it as ridicule, I don't claim to understand this theory completely, I do understand aspects of it though, not everyone is against you or this theory, some of us actually wants to understand it so we can discuss it. There is no reason to act like a troll just because you perceive others doing so - It Is Childish!

 

My previous post was not meant to ridicule. I should have put a smiley in there. I am curious about these higher levels of consciousness. How are you experimenting with this?

 

ok , i understand.