Nov 13, 2017 03:50 AM
(Nov 13, 2017 03:03 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ](Nov 12, 2017 03:06 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ](Nov 11, 2017 08:12 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Then point me to ONE definition of a CTMU term that doesn't use a single idiosyncratic term. IOW, a definition where all the words used can simply be looked up in a dictionary. Can you? Does even one such definition exist?
The theory is written in english with special technical jargon used. For example, it may say that the mind of God communicates information in the form of SCSPL.
Just as I thought. You can't even give me ONE CTMU definition in plain English.
(Nov 11, 2017 09:02 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Also: http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Q&A/Archive.html
excerpt
...Because all theories have certain necessary logical properties that are abstract and mathematical, and therefore independent of observation - it is these very properties that let us recognize and understand our world in conceptual terms - we could just as well start with these properties and see what they might tell us about objective reality. Just as scientific observation makes demands on theories, the logic of theories makes demands on scientific observation, and these demands tell us in a general way what we may observe about the universe.
At best, he's only talking about epistemology and philosophy of science here. While these effect how we can justify conceptualized theories, they do not, themselves, limit "what we may observe".
Quote:This linkage of mind and reality is what a TOE (Theory of Everything) is really about. The CTMU is such a theory; instead of being a mathematical description of specific observations (like all established scientific theories), it is a "metatheory" about the general relationship between theories and observations…i.e., about science or knowledge itself. Thus, it can credibly lay claim to the title of TOE.
No. Again, he's just describing epistemology and philosophy of science. IOW, he's making wholly unjustified claims, based on what he's giving here.
Quote:Mind and reality - the abstract and the concrete, the subjective and the objective, the internal and the external - are linked together in a certain way, and this linkage is the real substance of "reality theory".
As if the term "reality theory" has any meaning beyond the one he just fabricated without justification. It didn't take him long to introduce unjustified and poorly defined jargon.
Quote:Just as scientific observation determines theories, the logical requirements of theories to some extent determine scientific observation.
No, they don't. You could have a completely logically consistent theory that describes some set of observations. Then a new observation could introduce something that theory could not consistently handle. It happens all the time. The theory thus could not determine observation.
Quote:Since reality always has the ability to surprise us, the task of scientific observation can never be completed with absolute certainty, and this means that a comprehensive theory of reality cannot be based on scientific observation alone. Instead, it must be based on the process of making scientific observations in general, and this process is based on the relationship of mind and reality. So the CTMU is essentially a theory of the relationship between mind and reality.
Unsupported, and seemingly non-sequitur, claim...once again referring to his previously undefined "theory of reality".
Quote:In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness.
From here on it's just a string of unjustified claims.
So what did he communicate?
A few well-known ideas in existing fields of study, and quite a few unjustified claims.
All theory are theories of reality. The justification for his claims on the objective of the CTMU comes when the reader is capable of following his logic. Clearly, you are not. You blindness and arrogance is an obstacle to meeting this criteria.
[[This statement is a statement]is false]is false]
CTMU reality is analytically self-contained. It mirrors reality as a theory. It describes perception as its model. Not merely the life identity existing in transient and destructible memory. But the identity of the real world, within the real universe.
The mind operates on logic (cognitive identities). X differs from Y. Please see my last response to Yazata for more information that hopefully will open your eyes.