Beginner's Introduction to The CTMU

#11
Is this the shooting fish in a barrel thread?
Is that really any fun?
Reply
#12
I've moved this to Alternative Theories. Although the theory is not something I agree with, however one day perhaps it will be explained in full why it's completely out of whack with "reality".
Reply
#13
(Oct 18, 2017 11:48 PM)Syne Wrote: Is this the shooting fish in a barrel thread?
Is that really any fun?

Wow, who’s the one being a pretentious snob now?

No, more like barrel tasting—just out socializing with the locals.

What’s the matter, sweetie? Do you think you’re a more proficient blender, is that it? I know—I know, you’ve worked hard to assemble a more sophisticated, ideal blend but blending is more like an art than a science. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but no matter how you blend it, it’s still 100% Kool-Aide. Big Grin
Reply
#14
Hey, some people like easy targets. I assume this means you enjoy them.

No need to get defensive.
Reply
#15
(Oct 19, 2017 02:00 AM)stryder Wrote: I've moved this to Alternative Theories. Although the theory is not something I agree with, however one day perhaps it will be explained in full why it's completely out of whack with "reality".


Yep, unless my memory is playing tricks, this CTMU stuff is primarily what Alternative Theories was created for however many months ago. Spellbound could at least start distinct threads in this sub-forum whereas over at SciForums they were combining everything he posted under one "Reality is..." thread.

The religion / spirituality forum would be another applicable sub-forum if it was just about gods in some generic sense rather than being crouched specifically in CTMU.

- - -
Reply
#16
I think I could substitute a mainframe computer for God/cosmic consciousness, replace humanity with a multitude of PC's, then network them, a little virus scan/repair if necessary, secure it and maybe then make CTMU work.

I think Langan had a fixation for the movie "TRON". He must have watched it the night before he penned the theory. In the movie Flynn learns he can manipulate energy and matter within the system, effectively allowing him to control its environment.

Now where have I heard something like that before.
Reply
#17
(Oct 18, 2017 05:56 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: He's a well-known crank, and if you want my opinion, kind of a creepy one.  Confused

I emphatically agree.

I'm very interested in academic philosophical metaphysics in the 'analytic' vein. But I don't think that Christopher Langan's overheated metaphysical speculations have a whole lot of value in that regard. I'm more interested in studying the work of less-grandiose conventional philosophers. So I'm not really motivated to put much very effort into trying to understand CTMU.

(Oct 19, 2017 02:00 AM)stryder Wrote: I've moved this to Alternative Theories.

Thanks.  

Quote:Although the theory is not something I agree with, however one day perhaps it will be explained in full why it's completely out of whack with "reality".

I don't think that it's 'out of whack with reality' so much as it's a bunch of unsupported metaphysical assertions typically surrounded by a wall of pseudo-technical obfuscation seemingly intended to hide the non-sequiturs.

But having said that, the thing that leads off this thread does seem to be the most approachable and comprehensible description of CTMU that I've come across. So it probably deserves a more thoughtful response than I'm giving it now.
Reply
#18
(Oct 29, 2017 05:09 PM)Yazata Wrote: I'm very interested in academic philosophical metaphysics in the 'analytic' vein. But I don't think that Christopher Langan's overheated metaphysical speculations have a whole lot of value in that regard. I'm more interested in studying the work of less-grandiose conventional philosophers. So I'm not really motivated to put much very effort into trying to understand CTMU.

I don't think that it's 'out of whack with reality' so much as it's a bunch of unsupported metaphysical assertions typically surrounded by a wall of pseudo-technical obfuscation seemingly intended to hide the non-sequiturs.

Yeah, same here. Once I have to look up two or more words in the definition of one term, that themselves requiring looking up two or more made-up jargon, I'm done. Especially when these seem to circle back on each other and have no other definitive definition elsewhere.
Reply
#19
(Oct 18, 2017 04:05 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: Matter can be reduced to atoms, atoms can be reduced to subatomic particles, etc, etc. Eventually, if we keep reducing in this manner, we get to the most fundamental constituents of reality: information.

That's an awfully strong metaphysical statement right there. It may or may not be true.

Quote:The universe can be conceived as a vast arrangement of information: ones and zeros and the mathematical relationships between them.

Information seems to be something a lot more abstract than zeros and ones. That's just its representation in simplest binary form. I don't know what information is or what it's ontological place might be in the big picture. I'd even question whether everything can be reduced to one kind of being.

Quote:At the same time, all of the information we have about the universe comes to us in the form of conscious perceptions. It is only through consciousness that we can perceive or know anything at all. Thus, our reality can just as well be conceived as a vast network of conscious experiences: perceptions and the laws which govern them.

Only if we make a very controversial idealistic move, collapsing the objects of experience together with the experiences themselves.

Quote:Now, by definition, reality contains everything that exists. There is nothing outside reality. This means that its informational, perceptual content, the rules it obeys, and indeed its very existence, cannot have been determined by anything external to it.

I don't think that we are currently in any position to answer the ultimate 'Why does existence exist?' question. (I suspect that we never will be.)

Quote:It follows that reality contains all of the conditions necessary for its own existence. Its mere possibility is enough to ensure that it generates itself. It is sort of like a self-executing algorithm that generates the mind in which the algorithm itself is known.

Just imagining something that exists because its nature is to exist, still doesn't explain why there would be something whose nature is to exist rather than nothing at all.

Quote:Although this mind (God's mind) sits in knowledge of itself in an unchanging, eternal way, it contains within it all of the processes required for it to refine itself into existence out of nothingness.

What justifies inserting the word 'God' in there? Why conclude that reality is a mind? How could a mind learn, forget, have thoughts, respond to events, make decisions and form volitions (in other words, do the things that minds do) if it is totally unchanging? An eternally unchanging mind would seem to be very similar to death.

Quote:As such, consciousness is stratified: the bottom stratum is the all-knowing mind of God

That sounds like pantheistic theology to me. I'm still unclear on why I should believe it.

Quote:and within this all-knowing mind of God is contained all of the more superficial strata of consciousness that are inherent in the creation process.

The Neoplatonists imagined that reality was created by a series of emanations from the eternal uncomprehensible God-head, each emanation imagined as a divine being. Langan seems to be trying to repackage mystical speculations and arguments from late antiquity in modern pseudoscientific language.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/

Quote:In other words, God is aware of all the steps in its own creation. However, from the vantage point of these more superficial strata, the universe appears as a physical entity unfolding in physical space. Our human minds are pieces of these more superficial strata. To us, things look like they are still unfolding.

Unless one acquires the Higher Knowledge of the enlightened ones. Knowledge that Christopher Langan apparently believe he has.

This isn't philosophy, it's mysticism.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  CTMU glossary (sort of) C C 6 868 Oct 20, 2017 07:11 PM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)