Reality is...

[danshawen]

Perhaps we should all deny reality and walk hand in hand with the blind and stupid.

That some people are blind is reality. That all are stupid (relatively speaking) is reality also. In both cases, the afflicted are blameless for their condition although the latter may deny the reality of that particular situation. Both may benefit from guidance, but I noticed no topic in the compiled list above that might avail their respective situations.

You evidently went to some trouble to understand CTMU, and so did I, a very long time ago. I do not feel it helped me grasp any more of reality than I did before reading it, but it did affirm a disposition I had to ignore philosophy whenever and wherever possible. Your discussion of reality based on CTMU reinforced my idea that any philosophy that does not put forth sufficient effort to define "truth" before attempting to define reality, like a bad religion, is not worth many regrets. Thank you for that at least.

An assumption that everyone here understands a sufficient amount of truth to discuss the concept in philosophical terms is probably as misguided as a discussion of reality, so what led you to think you could do this? I always felt like something was missing from the various discussions. What do you think it was?

 

[Spellbound]

That some people are blind is reality. That all are stupid (relatively speaking) is reality also. In both cases, the afflicted are blameless for their condition although the latter may deny the reality of that particular situation. Both may benefit from guidance, but I noticed no topic in the compiled list above that might avail their respective situations.

We agree. It is not their fault since their P's and Q's are deterministic.

It is not necessarily a privilege of the fool to be governed by the wise.

You evidently went to some trouble to understand CTMU, and so did I, a very long time ago. I do not feel it helped me grasp any more of reality than I did before reading it, but it did affirm a disposition I had to ignore philosophy whenever and wherever possible. Your discussion of reality based on CTMU reinforced my idea that any philosophy that does not put forth sufficient effort to define "truth" before attempting to define reality, like a bad religion, is not worth many regrets. Thank you for that at least.

You are welcome. Truth may be subjective and may exist only in our heads and hearts. But deep truth expressed without flaw is always relevant and objective.

An assumption that everyone here understands a sufficient amount of truth to discuss the concept in philosophical terms is probably as misguided as a discussion of reality, so what led you to think you could do this? I always felt like something was missing from the various discussions. What do you think it was?

I don't think I was motivated by anything except the desire for the greater good to obtain knowledge. I personally was satisfied with the majority of my Reality threads. I define a "stupid person" as one who thinks they know far more than they actually do. They are not qualified to make an assessment on the CTMU or Reality yet they think they are. This has presented a challenge for me on this forum. Overall, most of my threads went well, receiving 5 out of 5 stars when the rating system was still in place. I'm happy for that.

 

[Oystein]

It is not their fault since their P's and Q's are deterministic. It is not necessarily a privilege of the fool to be governed by the wise.

I see it that way too. Reality has always been full of storytellers whose essences are engulfed in joy. We are at a crossroads of rebirth and suffering. We are in the midst of an ancient refining of learning that will tap into the biosphere itself.

 

[Spellbound]

I see it that way too. Reality has always been full of storytellers whose essences are engulfed in joy. We are at a crossroads of rebirth and suffering. We are in the midst of an ancient refining of learning that will tap into the biosphere itself.

Exactly. What purpose is there to life other than to interact, explore and discover?

 

[Oystein]

Exactly. What purpose is there to life other than to interact, explore and discover?

It can be difficult to know where to begin. The galaxy is calling to you via ultrasonic energy. Can you hear it? If you have never experienced this quantum shift through non-local interactions, it can be difficult to self-actualize.

 

[danshawen]

Can you hear it?

Yes I hear it, and echoes of Maslow as well. Tinnitus, too eh? Earwax removal drops sometimes help.

If they call and tell you to kill, please ignore them; usually, those are only the insects. Ultrasonic buggers; no self-actualization for them!

 

[Oystein]

Yes I hear it, . . .

That is a start. We exist as sub-atomic particles. Being is the richness of awareness, and of us. You and I are storytellers of the totality. The quantum cycle is calling to you via transmissions. How should you navigate this interstellar grid? Although you may not realize it, you are holistic.

 

[Yazata]

It uses concepts and terminology invented by Langan that a newcomer to the CTMU may not fully grasp. Personally, I get what he's saying and may be able to help others understand it because it really isn't all that difficult.

Then why don't you try to do that?

Start by explaining why you are so fascinated with Langan. Why do you think that what he's saying is so important and why do you think that it's true?

Langan boasts of having solved all the age-old questions about God, the universe and everything. Why are you so utterly convinced that he's succeeded?

How did Langan begin his inquiries and what assumptions did he start out with? How did he move away from his starting point and how did he arrive at his many grandiose conclusions?

Is there any reason why other people should accept anything that he says? Can any of it be justified with reasons or with credible comprehensible argument?

Are you familiar with topology?

Not really. I know vaguely what topology is, as a mathematical specialty. But I have never studied topology and don't know any of the technical details. (And neither, I would wager, do you.) How is topology relevant to Langan's philosophical conclusions?

Axioms?

I probably know as much about logic as anyone who posts to Sciforums.

So what assumptions does Langan accept as axiomatic in his speculations? (If you are going to use the word 'axioms', you should probably tell us what they are.) And why use the word 'axiom' at all? It suggests the idea of logical or mathematical proof, and I'm not aware that Langan has derived any of his conclusions by means of formal proofs. Most of the pseudo-mathematical jargon seems to me to be gratuitous, trying to suggest a logical certainty that really isn't justified.

Self Configuring Self Processing Language (the language of languages that is real)?

That's Langan-jargon. I don't have a clue what it means. Neither, I would guess, do you. I'm not even convinced that Langan is clear about what it means.

The logic behind the self-containment of reality?

More Langan-jargon. I can guess what 'self-containment of reality' might mean, but I don't know what it means to talk about 'the logic' supposedly behind it.

 

[Spellbound]

Then why don't you try to do that?

Start by explaining why you are so fascinated with Langan. Why do you think that what he's saying is so important and why do you think that it's true?

I have had personal experiences with the metaphysical and I am convinced Langan has reconciled science with spirituality. I believe that he is endowed with the intellectual capability to pull off a theory that proves the existence of God. And I believe he has done so.

Langan boasts of having solved all the age-old questions about God, the universe and everything. Why are you so utterly convinced that he's succeeded?

Because of personal experience matching up with my studies of the metaphysical.

How did Langan begin his inquiries and what assumptions did he start out with? How did he move away from his starting point and how did he arrive at his many grandiose conclusions?

His intelligence allowed him to unify various sources of knowledge and make insights on them. He's smarter than your typical run of the mill university professor. Here is an example:

On Absolute Truth and Knowledge

First, a word on the title of this essay. Absolute knowledge is absolutely true, and absolute truth is the definitive predicate of absolute knowledge. That is, if something is known with absolute certainty, then it can be subjected to tests affirming its truth, while if something can be affirmatively tested for truth, then it is known with certainty by the tester. This applies whether the tests in question are perceptual or inferential. Where knowledge can denote either direct embodiment or internal modeling by an arbitrary system, and test denotes a straightforward systemic efficacy criterion, knower and tester can refer to reality at large. In this generalization, truth and knowledge are identical. While it is possible to split, splice and braid countless philosophical hairs over the connotations respectively attached to truth and knowledge, this simple generalized relationship conveniently spares us the necessity. It is with this express understanding that these terms and phrases are employed herein.

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/OnAbsoluteTruth.html

Is there any reason why other people should accept anything that he says? Can any of it be justified with reasons or with credible comprehensible argument?

Certainly. He admits the ideas in his theory are not new, however they haven't been brought together before.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

Not really. I know vaguely what topology is, as a mathematical specialty. But I have never studied topology and don't know any of the technical details. (And neither, I would wager, do you.) How is topology relevant to Langan's philosophical conclusions?

It is due to the fact that reality is a spatial set. And so it can be described as a topology.

I probably know as much about logic as anyone who posts to Sciforums.

So what assumptions does Langan accept as axiomatic in his speculations? (If you are going to use the word 'axioms', you should probably tell us what they are.) And why use the word 'axiom' at all? It suggests the idea of logical or mathematical proof, and I'm not aware that Langan has derived any of his conclusions by means of formal proofs. Most of the pseudo-mathematical jargon seems to me to be gratuitous, trying to suggest a logical certainty that really isn't justified.

It is justified. Although I agree that it should be simplified. There are quite a few highly intelligent people that I know of who are writing on the CTMU.

That's Langan-jargon. I don't have a clue what it means. Neither, I would guess, do you. I'm not even convinced that Langan is clear about what it means.

More Langan-jargon. I can guess what 'self-containment of reality' might mean, but I don't know what it means to talk about 'the logic' supposedly behind it.

Reality obviously contains something, namely reality. This is a logical necessity. Even if one were to propose an infinite universe, such a universe must exist as itself, and hence contain itself from within and without.

 

[Oystein]

Reality obviously contains something, namely reality. This is a logical necessity. Even if one were to propose an infinite universe, such a universe must exist as itself, and hence contain itself from within and without.

You have hit on the absolute truth. You and I are lifeforms of the quantum soup. Consciousness consists of morphogenetic fields of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a condensing of the non-dual. We exist as morphogenetic fields.

 

[James R]

Absolute Truth is the Truth with the most Truthiness of all. Reality is the a set of topologically united number fields in the quantum vortex of the continuum. God exists because the self-referential unity of the biomorphic resonance creates a dual hyperbola, wherein the paradigmatic consequentialism of the super-finite exists in harmony with the optogenetic matrices, together merging and creating a universalist tectonicity that unifies the relativistic hyperspace.

Am I getting this right?

 

[river]

Quantum” means a condensing of the non-dual.

What does this statement mean Oystein?

 

[paddoboy]

What does this statement mean Oystein?

What he means is that the quantum temperature, developed from the heat of the meat, must always equal the relative fall of the left hand ball, ignoring the velocity of the angle of the dangle.

 

[paddoboy]

You have hit on the absolute truth. You and I are lifeforms of the quantum soup. Consciousness consists of morphogenetic fields of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a condensing of the non-dual. We exist as morphogenetic fields.

I love your stuff Oystein.
It puts into proper perspective the nonsense that some of our weirdos and alternative hypothesis pushers are infesting the forum with.
Well done, although I think you may have river somewhat baffled.

 

[The God]

Absolute Truth is the Truth with the most Truthiness of all. Reality is the a set of topologically united number fields in the quantum vortex of the continuum. God exists because the self-referential unity of the biomorphic resonance creates a dual hyperbola, wherein the paradigmatic consequentialism of the super-finite exists in harmony with the optogenetic matrices, together merging and creating a universalist tectonicity that unifies the relativistic hyperspace.

Am I getting this right?

You must be joking.

Truth is truth, truthiness is grainy, so in general day today parlance Absolute truth is like saying perfect circle or perfect sqaure, the adjective is useless and redundant and probably used to emphasize.

But yes, there is lot of work on relativism, that defines truth as relative based on certain frames like language, culture etc or perceptions etc. In the religion, Absolute Truth is very sacred, and denial may lead to problems, it is probably associated with ethics and moralty and even with existence of Supreme deity.

But in my opinion truth may be relative, but once inside a frame it should become absolute in a sense (Black and white; true or false).

 

[Spellbound]

(Note to moderators: You will notice this thread is not a pseudoscientific thread and thus does not belong in the same class as a few of the "Reality is" threads that I've created. I am formulating a reality-theoretic extension of logic, so please, leave it be. Thank you.)

Let it be said that there are no elements x in reality P.

That is, the negation of

is logically equivalent to "For any element x, x does not exist in reality P", or:

Generally, then, the negation of a propositional function's existential quantification is a universal quantification of that propositional function's negation; symbolically,

Hence, for no x does reality P exist.

For more, see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/

 

[someguy1]

(Gets a bowl of popcorn, waits for the f-bombs from the regulars)

 

[Oystein]

Nothing is impossible. Consciousness consists of atomic ionization of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a deepening of the astral. The multiverse is beaming with expanding wave functions.

 

[exchemist]

(Gets a bowl of popcorn, waits for the f-bombs from the regulars)

I am exerting iron self-control .

 

[exchemist]

Nothing is impossible. Consciousness consists of atomic ionization of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a deepening of the astral. The multiverse is beaming with expanding wave functions.

Lovely stuff. But what about vibrations? Man.