A Summary of the CTMU

[Ostronomos]

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/CykhGMVYIt4
This is a riveting summary of the CTMU. It goes into great depth on the subject of God and His relationship to the universe.

[Yazata]

Did a New York bouncer create the Ultimate Theory of Reality?

Short answer: 'No'

[Ostronomos]

Did a New York bouncer create the Ultimate Theory of Reality?

Short answer: 'No'

This is not a refutation of Langan's and my logic. Why do you cast doubt on someone with an IQ of 200? I have seen first-hand what an extraordinarily high intelligence can do at the highest extremes. Especially when I myself have access to higher genius at times. If you wish to see a proof of God look no further than the CTMU Wiki website. There, you will find some of my publications under "further reading". I expanded upon Langan's theory.

A supertautology, in short, is a series of self-evident statements about reality.

[/url][url=https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/MU#p-search]
The principle of MU (Multiplex Unity) is a very general philosophical principle of the CTMU. In essence, it states that reality is consistent, in the sense that it is stable with respect the laws of perception and cognition. If reality were not consistent, you would be both simultaneously perceiving it and not perceiving it, which is impossible (either that, or you would literally branch off and occupy two different realities, as is proposed in multiverse theory). More specifically, MU states that inasmuch as objects, processes, and events differ with respect to each other, they are fundamentally the same in the very general sense of sharing the same existential medium (reality). The MU could be stated quite simply in the phrase "different but the same".
Definition
The minimum and most general informational configuration of reality, defines the relationship holding between unity and multiplicity, the universe and its variegated contents. Through its structure, the universe and its contents are mutually inclusive, providing each other with a medium.[1]

MU - CTMU Wiki

If you are a verbose feminine man you will no doubt write long winded and intellectually tiresome explanations on why to deny God and convert to asceticism and materialism. These however are all subjective interpretations of reality from one's own point of view. It has no bearing on the true nature of God and does not resolve the set of all sets paradox. It has been shown that the edge of the universe must be self-perceptual in order to resolve the self-inclusion paradox.

Thus, the real universe is not a static set, but a dynamic process resolving the self-inclusion paradox. Equivalently, because any real explanation of reality is contained in reality itself, reality gives rise to a paradox unless regarded as an inclusory self-mapping.

[stryder]

Did a New York bouncer create the Ultimate Theory of Reality?

Short answer: 'No'

This is not a refutation of Langan's and my logic. Why do you cast doubt on someone with an IQ of 200? I have seen first-hand what an extraordinarily high intelligence can do at the highest extremes. Especially when I myself have access to higher genius at times. If you wish to see a proof of God look no further than the CTMU Wiki website. There, you will find some of my publications under "further reading". I expanded upon Langan's theory.

A supertautology, in short, is a series of self-evident statements about reality.

Tautology... "The sky is blue.", the statement is true in some respects but evidently is false in "Reality" (or technically a normal term would be "Empirical Science").
The sky bears no actual colour, it's actually an artifact of light diffused through particulates. (It could be further analysed by the sentiment is enough to suffice for the purpose of this)

Does the characterisation of words imply intelligence, or just "make peoples brains hurt?"

[Syne]

There's no way to refute claims that obscure themselves in jargon that it's proponents refuse, or are unable, to unpack. When they do attempt to do so, it's quickly exposed that their terms have no precise definitions and are a cover for circular reasoning and other fallacies.

[Zinjanthropos]

A person with an IQ of 200+ is probably smart enough to dupe many with a lesser endowed noodle. I think as long as you’re smart enough to realize this then you’ll be ok.

[Yazata]

Did a New York bouncer create the Ultimate Theory of Reality?

Short answer: 'No'

This is not a refutation of Langan's and my logic.

I've yet to see any logic.

Why do you cast doubt on someone with an IQ of 200?

I don't believe that Langan has an IQ of 200. Nor do I believe that his boasts about his supposedly stratospheric IQ somehow obligates me to believe whatever he says.

Why do I doubt his (and your) claims? Because those claims are exceedingly grandiose, basically boasts that he uniquely possesses the Secret of the Universe. (In this case, the "Ultimate Theory of Reality".) I doubt very much whether any human possesses the Secret of the Universe. (I'm an agnostic.)

And because his rhetoric sounds suspiciously like bullshit. He's pretty clearly looked at some advanced mathematics texts. And he's learned the names of some advanced concepts that very few people understand. It isn't clear that he understands the concepts that he uses himself, but for his purposes I don't think that he needs to. He just name-drops the names of a whole series of advanced mathematical ideas and strings them together with a whole vocabulary of his own invention. There's always a suggestion that each (largely incomprehensible) claim logically implies the next, without any attempt at actually constructing a proof or even a comprehensible argument that ties them together. There's just this sense of having heard the names of some of the ideas before, creating the illusion that it might not all be BS and that any failure to understand is the readers' fault because he/she hasn't studied all the concepts Langan namedrops.

In other words, I'm inclined to think of Langan as sort of an intellectual con-artist. He's trying to be as opaque and incomprehensible as he can (he's very good at that), while creating the illusion that there's real intellectual content there which only he is smart enough to comprehend.

Which is OK I guess, he doesn't seem to be hurting anyone. But I don't think that he's of much value to me in my own philosophical quests. I don't believe that there's a whole lot of value for me in paying much attention to him.

I have seen first-hand what an extraordinarily high intelligence can do at the highest extremes. Especially when I myself have access to higher genius at times.

How wonderful for you.

I don't know whether what you experienced was psychiatric, drug induced or a true religious experience. (Those three can overlap.) But whatever revelations you think you have experienced, they are only persuasive to you, not to myself or to others. That's the nature of subjective experience.

If you wish to see a proof of God look no further than the CTMU Wiki website.

It's trivial to construct a proof of the existence of God. I've done it myself. Like all proofs, it's an inference from premises to conclusion and is only as convincing as the premises

There, you will find some of my publications under "further reading". I expanded upon Langan's theory.

A supertautology, in short, is a series of self-evident statements about reality.

A tautology is simply a logical formula that is true on all interpretations of its variables.

An example from propositional logic:

[(A and B) or (not-A or not-B)]

This will be true no matter how we interpret A and B. It's true simply because of its logical form. Hence it doesn't tell us anything about reality, except perhaps for logical principles, whatever kind of reality they might have. (It might not be so tautological if we reject the law of the excluded middle.)

A "supertautology" is another one of those words/ideas of Langan's own invention. It isn't clear what it means or what it's relevance is.

[Ostronomos]

Did a New York bouncer create the Ultimate Theory of Reality?

Short answer: 'No'

This is not a refutation of Langan's and my logic.

I've yet to see any logic.

As you may recall, I wrote a logical proof of God on sciforums entitled One X, Therefore One God.

It attempted to argue for a singular source for everything in existence. This is logical, since objects in reality can be considered equivalent as far as they exist. Hence the statement, where objects in reality are s, possessing the structure... etc.

S distributes over S.

Why do you cast doubt on someone with an IQ of 200?

I don't believe that Langan has an IQ of 200. Nor do I believe that his boasts about his supposedly stratospheric IQ somehow obligates me to believe whatever he says.

You are entitled to believe whatever you like. I've actually read some of Langan's self-simulation arguments. He seems to be making more than just empty claims about his intelligence from what I gather.

Why do I doubt his (and your) claims? Because those claims are exceedingly grandiose, basically boasts that he uniquely possesses the Secret of the Universe. (In this case, the "Ultimate Theory of Reality".) I doubt very much whether any human possesses the Secret of the Universe. (I'm an agnostic.)

And because his rhetoric sounds suspiciously like bullshit. He's pretty clearly looked at some advanced mathematics texts. And he's learned the names of some advanced concepts that very few people understand. It isn't clear that he understands the concepts that he uses himself, but for his purposes I don't think that he needs to. He just name-drops the names of a whole series of advanced mathematical ideas and strings them together with a whole vocabulary of his own invention. There's always a suggestion that each (largely incomprehensible) claim logically implies the next, without any attempt at actually constructing a proof or even a comprehensible argument that ties them together. There's just this sense of having heard the names of some of the ideas before, creating the illusion that it might not all be BS and that any failure to understand is the readers' fault because  he/she hasn't studied all the concepts Langan namedrops.

Langan makes a reasonable attempt at logic and I can assure that his aim is noble, as I have independently arrived at similar conclusions and have verified some of his claims. Although he misses the mark at times, overall his attempt is noble and he is correct about God and the after-life. As I have also verified some of his claims.

I happen to know that our universe was generated by the SCSPL which displays reality as that is a conclusion that I independently reached along with a number of other philosophers old and new.

In other words, I'm inclined to think of Langan as sort of an intellectual con-artist. He's trying to be as opaque and incomprehensible as he can (he's very good at that), while creating the illusion that there's real intellectual content there which only he is smart enough to comprehend.

Do not be discouraged by your difficulties with some of Langan's claims. I can assure you that, in the immortal words of Einstein, mine are still greater.

Which is OK I guess, he doesn't seem to be hurting anyone. But I don't think that he's of much value to me in my own philosophical quests. I don't believe that there's a whole lot of value for me in paying much attention to him. 

Consider merely one example of his claims - the Mind Equals Reality principle. Mind is equivalent to reality because this maintains consistency with the idea that all things within reality are real, even if they only exist within the mind. Reality permeates everything and reaches and enters the mind.

I have seen first-hand what an extraordinarily high intelligence can do at the highest extremes. Especially when I myself have access to higher genius at times.

How wonderful for you.

I don't know whether what you experienced was psychiatric, drug induced or a true religious experience. (Those three can overlap.) But whatever revelations you think you have experienced, they are only persuasive to you, not to myself or to others. That's the nature of subjective experience.

 Again, you are entitled to your opinion.

If you wish to see a proof of God look no further than the CTMU Wiki website.

It's trivial to construct a proof of the existence of God. I've done it myself. Like all proofs, it's an inference from premises to conclusion and is only as convincing as the premises

Agreed.

There, you will find some of my publications under "further reading". I expanded upon Langan's theory.

A supertautology, in short, is a series of self-evident statements about reality.

A tautology is simply a logical formula that is true on all interpretations of its variables.

An example from propositional logic:

[(A and B) or (not-A or not-B)]

This will be true no matter how we interpret A and B. It's true simply because of its logical form. Hence it doesn't tell us anything about reality, except perhaps for logical principles, whatever kind of reality they might have. (It might not be so tautological if we reject the law of the excluded middle.)

A "supertautology" is another one of those words/ideas of Langan's own invention. It isn't clear what it means or what it's relevance is.

I suggest you search the CTMU Wiki site for my publications. You will be astonished by my logic. It succeeds on all levels.

[C C]

[...] This is not a refutation of Langan's and my logic. [...] As you may recall, I wrote a logical proof of God on sciforums [...] Langan makes a reasonable attempt at logic and I can assure that his aim is noble, as I have independently arrived at similar conclusions and have verified some of his claims. Although he misses the mark at times, overall his attempt is noble and he is correct about God and the after-life. As I have also verified some of his claims. [...]

A rational process is only as reliable as the set of assumptions, "supposed facts", and ideas that it contingently begins operation from. If those are biased, inaccurate, flawed, or uncertain (with respect to evidence or empirical testing) then so is the product outputted.

Reasoning doesn't make new, radical, tangible discoveries in and of itself. When it does rarely anticipate something that is "novel", it is due to that knowledge already being packaged within the starting umbrella concepts or what consequently falls out of a selected presupposition or principle. In turn adding credence to the latter representing aspects of the observed world effectively.

A religious sect could have well-defined beliefs about circumstances in an occult realm that correspond to nothing in our phenomenal domain. Accordingly, that aloof system can neither be confirmed nor rejected by empirical activity.

The only thing the sect's members can do is inspect the details of their doctrine to see if those are coherent or consistent with each other. And if some are not, then they make adjustments to resolve the conflict or contradiction. However, no amount of rational examination and revision can ever establish that their beliefs are existentially the case, if those have no detectable presence in or falsifiable connection to our environment.

If an individual is already locked into a set of beliefs that overlap or have affinity with Langan's rule-following symbol or concept manipulation game, then obviously they could in theory be impressed by a demonstration that the "game" is internally coherent with itself. But the ultimate source of their acceptance of CTMU is due to their pre-existing psychological preference for that sort of belief system or hypothesis. Since being approved by an intellectual evaluation is not the same thing as being scientifically vetted.

[Ostronomos]

[...] This is not a refutation of Langan's and my logic. [...] As you may recall, I wrote a logical proof of God on sciforums [...] Langan makes a reasonable attempt at logic and I can assure that his aim is noble, as I have independently arrived at similar conclusions and have verified some of his claims. Although he misses the mark at times, overall his attempt is noble and he is correct about God and the after-life. As I have also verified some of his claims. [...]

A rational process is only as reliable as the set of assumptions, "supposed facts", and ideas that it contingently begins operation from. If those are biased, inaccurate, flawed, or uncertain (with respect to evidence or empirical testing) then so is the product outputted.

I applaud your efforts to offer a sound argument. 

Yes, a rational argument relies on one's powers of deduction and logic. It is a logical bridge between the premise and conclusion. I invite you to evaluate this statement if you like. However, I am simply replying out of common courtesy.