Reality is...

What are you talking about?

One thing that turns me off is reading a load of text and find out I just wasted my time. I try to be concise in my posts.
 
Beer w/Straw said:
What are you talking about?

One thing that turns me off is reading a load of text and find out I just wasted my time. I try to be concise in my posts.
Click to expand...

Um, f'ckin thingie gave me trouble posting. ~ ; - )

Read Cuckyoufunts and segFault11235's posts. Thank you.
 
Just tell us what you want to communicate to us and what conclusions you hope we will draw from it.

Don't respond to that request by posting more cut-and-pastes.

Explain what your point is and what you are trying to accomplish in your own words.
 
Yazata said:
Just tell us what you want to communicate to us and what conclusions you hope we will draw from it.

Don't respond to that request by posting more cut-and-pastes.

Explain what your point is and what you are trying to accomplish in your own words.
Click to expand...

Everything. I've already communicated what I hope to accomplish about the CTMU. The unity of humanity with each other and with God. You already know, unless you're pretending, but I never would have taken you for a pretender. ~
 
Even serial killers who preach how they're a prophet of God get convicted - cause they know they're dishonest.
 
And you sound like a sick and twisted individual who will do anything to spread his depraved fantasies in a most inappropriate way.

Have a nice day.
 
Yazata said:
Just tell us what you want to communicate to us and what conclusions you hope we will draw from it.

Don't respond to that request by posting more cut-and-pastes.

Explain what your point is and what you are trying to accomplish in your own words.
Click to expand...

I have the feeling Spellbound comes and goes, in terms of lucidity. Things don't appear to be going so well at the moment.
 
Spellbound said:
Everything. I've already communicated what I hope to accomplish about the CTMU. The unity of humanity with each other and with God. You already know, unless you're pretending, but I never would have taken you for a pretender. ~
Click to expand...

Yes, I already know about your faith in your muscle-bound Prophet.

That doesn't explain what this thread is about or what you imagine that you're accomplishing.

How do you imagine that your cutting and pasting anonymous remarks from another discussion board to this one will contribute anything to bringing about "the unity of humanity with each other and with God"?
 
Last edited:
From: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy...ognitivetheoretical_model_of_the_universe_by/

yellow900 1 point 19 hours ago

IMHO:An aspect of this short passage is, to my reading, tautological. If the language of the universe is a self-fulfilling algorithm, it would not be possible to act against it. Thus whether a particular action is for or against the 'telos' is irrelevant given that any action is guided by a deterministic, algorithmic process.The unnecessarily complex language masks a weak central argument equitable to determinism (in this passage). A high IQ has no bearing on the quality of an argument. That being said, perhaps there is more clarity in the actual, full text.

Sherpanauts 1 point 2 days ago

From what I've gathered it seems plausible but lacking in necessary evidence. It's overlapping a grey area of Science and Philosophy which is completely fine but it's going to require a lot more observable evidence before Academics of any field would begin to remotely accept this model. At the moment it sounds more like Pseudoscience with Un-falsifiable points. Interesting but i would take it with a grain of salt.

Reality is a self-fulfilling algorithm.
 
How do you think the discussion board comments you posted support the conclusion you highlighted?

The individual with the username 'yellow900' was arguing against Langan, suggesting that Langan's theory implies determinism.

"If the language of the universe is a self-fulfilling algorithm, it would not be possible to act against it. Thus whether a particular action is for or against the 'telos' is irrelevant given that any action is guided by a deterministic, algorithmic process. The unnecessarily complex language masks a weak central argument equitable to determinism (in this passage). A high IQ has no bearing on the quality of an argument."

The individual with the username 'Sherpanauts' was also criticizing 'the CTMU', on the grounds that it lacks evidence and is unfalsifiable.

"From what I've gathered it seems plausible but lacking in necessary evidence. It's overlapping a grey area of Science and Philosophy which is completely fine but it's going to require a lot more observable evidence before Academics of any field would begin to remotely accept this model. At the moment it sounds more like Pseudoscience with Un-falsifiable points. Interesting but i would take it with a grain of salt."

I think that both of their points are good ones. So once again: how do their critical remarks about 'the CTMU' remarks support your statement of your own faith about the nature of reality?
 
Yazata said:
How do you think the discussion board comments you posted support the conclusion you highlighted?

The individual with the username 'yellow900' was arguing against Langan, suggesting that Langan's theory implies determinism.
Click to expand...

No he is not. He is arguing FOR Langan. Notice that he said that any action taken for or against the telos is 'irrelevant'. Not that we lack free will entirely. As free will and determinism may be at odds but are mutual participants in a constant struggle for power.

"If the language of the universe is a self-fulfilling algorithm, it would not be possible to act against it. Thus whether a particular action is for or against the 'telos' is irrelevant given that any action is guided by a deterministic, algorithmic process. The unnecessarily complex language masks a weak central argument equitable to determinism (in this passage). A high IQ has no bearing on the quality of an argument."

The individual with the username 'Sherpanauts' was also criticizing 'the CTMU', on the grounds that it lacks evidence and is unfalsifiable.
Click to expand...

Yes. That is correct.

The evidence for the CTMU is not testable. As in, you cannot sit in a lab and test it out. However it is, like all of observation and experimentation, objective.

"From what I've gathered it seems plausible but lacking in necessary evidence. It's overlapping a grey area of Science and Philosophy which is completely fine but it's going to require a lot more observable evidence before Academics of any field would begin to remotely accept this model. At the moment it sounds more like Pseudoscience with Un-falsifiable points. Interesting but i would take it with a grain of salt."

I think that both of their points are good ones. So once again: how do their critical remarks about 'the CTMU' remarks support your statement of your own faith about the nature of reality?
Click to expand...

Well I agree with the both of them completely. What yellow900 says is 100% agreeable. Reality is a self-fulfilling algorithm in that the people we meet, the places we go, the things we see, or read, the body or physical appearance we are genetically programmed with are all determined by this reality or self-fulfilling algorithm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top