Reality is a Syntax-State Relationship

5. To put it another way: if the “noumenal” (perceptually independent) part of reality were truly
unrelated to the phenomenal (cognition-isomorphic) part, then these two “halves” of reality
would neither be coincident nor share a joint medium relating them. In that case, they would
simply fall apart, and any integrated “reality” supposedly containing both of them would fail for
lack of an integrated model. (p. 23)

6. 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. (p. 27)

7. Conspansion describes the “alternation” of these units between the dual (generalized-
cognitive and informational) aspects of reality, and thus between syntax and state. This
alternation, which permits localized mutual refinements of cognitive syntax and informational
state, is essential to an evolutionary process called telic recursion. . . the conspansive nesting of atemporal events puts all of time in “simultaneous self-contact” without compromising ordinality (p. 30)

8. By putting temporally remote events in extended descriptive contact with each other, the Extended Superposition Principle enables coherent cross-temporal telic feedback and thus plays a necessary role in cosmic self-configuration. Among the higher-order determinant relationships in which events and objects can thus be implicated are utile state-syntax relationships called telons, telic attractors capable of guiding cosmic and biological evolution.(p. 31)

9. The process of reducing distinctions to the homogeneous syntactic media that support
them is called syndiffeonic regression. This process involves unisection, whereby the rules of structure and dynamics that respectively govern a set of distinct objects are reduced to a “syntactic join” in an infocognitive lattice of syntactic media.

10. It follows that the active medium of cross-definition possesses logical primacy over laws
and arguments alike, and is thus pre-informational and pre-nomological in nature...i.e., telic.
Telesis , which can be characterized as “infocognitive potential”, is the primordial active medium from which laws and their arguments and parameters emerge by mutual refinement or telic recursion . (p. 35)

11. The Telic principle simply asserts that this is the case; the most fundamental imperative of reality is such as to force on it a supertautological, conspansive structure. Thus, the universe “selects itself” from unbound telesis or UBT, a realm of zero information and unlimited ontological potential, by means of telic recursion , whereby infocognitive syntax and its informational content are cross-refined through telic (syntax-state) feedback over the entire range of potential syntax-state relationships, up to and including all of spacetime and reality in general. . . the Extended Superposition Principle, a property of conspansive spacetime that coherently relates widely-separated events, lets the universe “retrodict” itself through meaningful cross-temporal feedback (p. 38)

12. Where the term telesis denotes this common component of information and syntax, SCSPL grammar refines infocognition by binding or constraining telesis as infocognition. (p.43)

13. While an ordinary grammar recursively processes information or binds informational potential to an invariant syntax that distributes over its products, Γ grammar binds telesis, infocognitive potential ranging over possible relationships of syntax and state, by cross-refining syntax and its informational content through telic recursion. Telic recursion is the process responsible for configuring the syntax-content relationships on which standard informational recursion is based; its existence is an ontological requirement of reality. (p. 44)

http://www.thejournalofunconsciouspsychology.com/web_documents/norman_on_langan_atemp._recur.pdf

So we see that telesis cross-refines informational content and syntactic operation through telic recursion. Where the content of reality is both information and syntax, or content and cognition. Where the universe selects itself from UBT or unbound telesis, syntax and content are thereby cross-refined through telic feedback. The universe applies a quantifiable self-selection parameter to select itself for self-refined existence. SCSPL or Γ grammar binds telesis as infocognition (a single, unified reality of informational content and cognitive syntax). Reality being a syntax-state relationship, can also be called telons, which, according to the above, guides the biological and cosmological evolution of the universe. Where both mirror each other, they are exemplified by this relationship between syntax and state. Syntax and state are both real, reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reality is reduced to a homogenous syntactic media.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The only thing that can distinguish reality from itself is reality. Therefore, reality is reality.

 

Reality is a chicken with a limp and an out-of-date bus ticket.

 

Reality is itself.

 

Reality is fixed, while human perception of reality is limited by filters of the mind created by language. At one time the earth was the center of the universe in terms of human perception of reality. This was not reality, but human perception of reality. Science has not yet retired because it has all the answers. Reality is still far away.

 

Sheesh. Your insights are just too much!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When are you going to stop posting this drivel?

 

yes, yes.... exactly.

 

Reality is nested within reality, making it real as opposed to unreal or nothing (think of an unreal containment leading to logical contradiction or unbound Telesis). This makes it dually self-contained (topologically and descriptively so) giving rise to contents as both consciousness and matter. Reality therefore employs a self-selection parameter to select itself from unbound Telesis so that various possibilities are realized within it. Where it mutually refines itself through telic feedback over possible syntax-state relationships choosing its best outcomes.

The CTMU can be regarded as a theory of theories. A meta-theory on how the mind formulates theories. It uses three meta-logical principles; containment, consistency and closure. M=R or Mind = Reality principle ensures that mind and reality are related within the same medium and hence become one through syndiffeonic regression.

One day we may all share in Langan's theic identity.

 

For those of you with further questions regarding tautological systems see: http://megasociety.org/noesis/76/05.htm

 

Here is a Wiki link that simplifies the CTMU: http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Main_Page

 

Reality retroactively self-configures by reflexively applying a “generalized utility function” to its internal existential potential or possible futures.

 

Oh goody back to Langan again. I don't think you have any idea what any of this shite means. I bet you can't paraphrase it, without the cod-philosophical buzzwords. How about "syndiffeonic regression", for a start?

P.S. When I googled this impenetrable term, I found the following: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1274;p=112703 which rather supports Aqueous Id's conspiracy theories about this forum being under covert attack by proponents of "Intelligent" Design. I had no idea that Dembski had embraced Langan. In my opinion they deserve each other. (And if, by any chance, you, Spellbound, are some sort of ID mole, then let me the first to give you a smart kick up the arse.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Syndiffeonic regression is simply the process of reducing the differences, differentiations and distinctions within reality so that all you are left with is a homogenous syntactic media that support reality's differences, differentiations and distinctions.

 

And a homogenous (homeogeneous?) syntactic media (medium?) is what?

 

How could you re-phrase your statements about reality so that the average layperson who is unfamiliar with your technical terminology could understand it?

 

Written and spoken language is a tool that can be used to represent reality. There are 7000 human languages, on earth at the present, each with a different sound or noise for various aspects of reality. Not all languages contain sounds for all the things other languages have sounds for. This difference can make reality different for each, if reality is based on syntax, alone.

If we took one person, from each of the 7000 languages, and put them in a large room and then placed a glass of water on a table, there would a wide range of sounds used to represent the glass of water. The visual input language, due to light waves will be universal (they all see the glass of water). However the audio representation will be language dependent and not universal.

The value of spoken and written language is the ability to represent the universal language, so one can recreate universal language, when the reality stimulus is not there. I can say I saw a deer in the field. This is not perfect for all people, since there is loss, due to my spoken language not being universal enough to represent this universal. One language can't reach all humans, although members from each language will think its members can see reality with their language. But how can the universal nature of reality be limited by the tools of one group?

Say we take a stimulus language like touch; someone gives you a massage. This touch language is not easy to transfer with written or spoken language, unless one already has a direct reality experience to act as a bridge. How do you explain the sensations one will feel, to someone who has never had a massage? That person amy try to empathize with the words, but this will never replace or be as accurate as direct touch data. Language can sort of bottleneck the mind, into a false sense of reality, where we speak the words, but lack a tangible connection to universal reality. We can talk about the relativity of Einstein but never really experience it to know it is more than the sounds.

The value of the subjectivity of language is because it misses the mark in terms of universal reality, it offers a means to depart from natural reality into the world of synthetic. This is what separates humans from nature. If I try to explain what the massage feels like, to someone who never has a massage, they will still form an image in their imagination, but it will depart from hard reality. Now something new has been created that never existed. The wise men of old/new know that language is more about the ego reality, which stands in the way of universal reality. Reality is found within, where we see the glass on the table and feel the massage, just like all humans can see and feel, until language gets in the way.

 

No he can't. Because it's nonsense.

 

In topics like evolution, language often defines reality, until the only the proper language is accepted. Anything not with the program syntax is lumped as creationism. It is not about conveying universal visual experiences but memorizing syntax. This is true of many people, but not all.

If we use the universal language, we can see the glass of water on the table. Say we begin with language, such that someone tells us about the glass of water on the table. We are not using the universal language of sight so we will need to imagine some glass we know. However, we are not sure this is the proper glass, but only a memory peg. We may need to stick to the bottom line string of sounds or syntax; the glass of water on the table. If anyone says this glass was a martini glass, true or not, this goes beyond the syntax, because it is not by the book of sounds. One sees this effect in evolution discussions, if you depart from the text book string of sounds; subjective lacks objectivity.

PC is an example of syntax, in that the herd agrees that reality will defined a certain way by certain sounds. It is not about the universal language, but a narrow version of a subjective language that alters universal visual reality, into the image of the accepted sounds. This is sort of regressive since it lose touch with reality.