Langan was right!

#31
(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.  Rolleyes

(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.  Rolleyes

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.
Reply
#32
(Nov 13, 2017 03:50 AM)Ostronomos Wrote: 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.

No, that doesn't fly, because if "all theory (sic) are theories of reality" then that literally means that Langan's MUST be a scientific theory. Otherwise he's just conflating scientific theory with what basically amounts to layman's guess.

See, all you can do is keep chanting his pseudo-religious mantras at people. You're just a zealous sycophant. You just assume it is self-evidently true without even being capable of justifying it as such to anyone else. What a sad, lonely world you must live in. Sad
Reply
#33
Quote:No, that doesn't fly, because if "all theory (sic) are theories of reality" then that literally means that Langan's MUST be a scientific theory. 

Good observation. However I've also seen CTMU referred to here as a metatheory which probably, for reasons I can't express, disqualifies it from the scientific.
Reply
#34
(Nov 13, 2017 05:27 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
Quote:No, that doesn't fly, because if "all theory (sic) are theories of reality" then that literally means that Langan's MUST be a scientific theory. 

Good observation. However I've also seen CTMU referred to here as a metatheory which probably, for reasons I can't express, disqualifies it from the scientific.

Yeah, I have no problem with him calling it a metatheory. He just fails to define "theory of reality" in any way that makes it clear that he is not attempting to make a scientific claim...which is apparently enough to dupe his acolytes.
Reply
#35
(Nov 13, 2017 04:21 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Nov 13, 2017 03:50 AM)Ostronomos Wrote: 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.

No, that doesn't fly, because if "all theory (sic) are theories of reality" then that literally means that Langan's MUST be a scientific theory. Otherwise he's just conflating scientific theory with what basically amounts to layman's guess.

See, all you can do is keep chanting his pseudo-religious mantras at people. You're just a zealous sycophant. You just assume it is self-evidently true without even being capable of justifying it as such to anyone else. What a sad, lonely world you must live in.  Sad

Science is reality. Reality is science.
Reply
#36
(Nov 12, 2017 09:01 PM)Ostronomos Wrote:
(Nov 12, 2017 05:49 PM)Yazata Wrote: "CTMU shows"?? That's just an assertion of what's supposed to be a grand metaphysical truth. It doesn't follow from the proceeding discussion at all.

Certainly given that human beings are self-aware and that they are certifiably real, reality obviously includes self-awareness among its many contents and potentialities. But that doesn't begin to suggest that reality as a whole is self-aware.

Actually it does. By adding 2 and 2 together, you will know that my threads in sciforums have succeeded in demonstrating this.

I'm not interested in looking through your thousands of posts over there, made under a succession of usernames that I don't recall. Especially after so many of your posts were totally scrambled by that board's idiot-moderators.

Quote:It's really quite simple.

Then why not try to explain it as best you can in your own words?  

Quote:"Reality is self-distributed."

What does 'self-distributed' mean? How does this short little sentence support the larger claim that reality as a whole is a conscious mind?

Quote:"Reality is not external to itself."

That's pretty cryptic too. Are you trying to say that if 'reality' means everything that exists, then nothing can exist that's not included in the scope of the word 'reality'? That might actually be a plausible assertion, but you need to make it. It still isn't clear to me how that kind of observation contributes to the conclusion that reality as a whole is conscious mind.

Quote:"Reality is mind".

Well sure. If you assume that one, then the whole thing becomes circular. You are assuming what you want to prove and just proclaiming your conclusion. So... why should any of the rest of us assume it is true? That's the argument that you still need to make.

Quote:"Reality is One."

I don't understand what that means. 'One' is used in lots of different ways, ranging from purely numerically, to the more mystical Neoplatonic sense.

Quote:"Reality is axiomatizable".

Logical and mathematical proofs proceed from axioms, but reality isn't a logical or mathematical proof.

Quote:"Reality is real."

Isn't that trivial?

Quote:"Reality is hard to see."

Not always. Our life experiences are pretty obvious. If there's something deeper that you think that you see that others don't, something that you want other people to believe in as you do, then the responsibility is on you to explain what it is and to provide plausible and convincing reasons why we should believe it.

Quote:I am truly sorry that you failed to perform a simple addition of these axiomatic truths.

Your conclusion can't be included among your initial assumptions. If you do that, you are simply arguing in a circle.

What's more, the steps in a logical argument aren't just a process of addition. If 1,2, and 3 are one's initial axiomatic assumptions, then the intervening step 4 needs to be implied by 1,2, and 3 in such a way that if 1,2, and 3 are true, then 4 has to be true too. Step 5 has to be implied by 1,2,3, and 4 in the same way. When you reach your conclusion, call it 6, it has to be implied by all the proceeding steps 1,2,3,4, and 5 in such a way that if they are all true, then the conclusion has to be true too. It all builds on itself. What the whole process ends up demonstrating is that if 1,2, and 3 are true, then 6 must be true too.

In other words, logical arguments aren't just a matter of adding the steps. Each of the intervening steps subsequent to the initial assumptions must be arrived at by application of rules of inference. And even when we are finished and have a proof that proves our conclusion, the truth of the conclusion is still dependent on the truth of the initial assumptions. If any of them are false or doubtful, then the conclusion can be false or doubtful too, despite the fact that we've just proved it.    

Quote:I apologize if I do not handle your ignorance very well. But grace is rarely easy to show when challenged by blindness.

You can't depend on your readers to try to interpret what your cryptic remarks might possibly mean and then to try to construct a rational argument around them. That's your job.
Reply
#37
Quote:apparently enough to dupe his acolytes

Cultish? Recruiter? Maybe there's money to be made.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:All theory are theories of reality.......Science is reality. Reality is science.
I guess Syne was right after all. 
Ostro sounds so much like my brother when he was swallowed up by a religious cult. Plenty of convoluted mumbo-jumbo about nothing, full of nonsensical definitions that left one scratching their head. Why is it so hard for Ostro to say all theory is science? I mean that's what's being said here. Do we need a complete treatise to tell us this simple tidbit? And the defensive strategy is the same, as in 99.9% of the world isn't normal or not tuned in. Where have I heard that before? 
I don't want to diss Ostro if I can help it. I actually feel some compassion for him/her. Yep, I've failed to maintain a modicum of sanity at times and fell prey to basic human emotion. If Ostro's situation is anything like my brother's then I know it's not easy to deal with from the point of where one might want to change his/her mind (is it still called deprogramming?). I'm afraid Ostro takes CTMU to the grave, unfortunate. Frustrating to watch and listen, especially when  comparing Ostro to a family member, but I've seen it before more than once.  .
Reply
#38
(Nov 13, 2017 03:50 AM)Ostronomos Wrote: All theory are theories of reality.

I'm not sure that I believe that.

Quote: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.

If you are "capable of following his logic", then why not try to explain it?

Quote:CTMU reality is analytically self-contained.

What does 'analytically self-contained' mean?

Quote:It mirrors reality as a theory.

I don't believe that any theory really does that with total accuracy. At best they are approximations that simplify some aspects of reality in hopes of making things more intelligible.

Reality is an unbounded set. We don't really know what it includes or what its ultimate boundaries are. Reality just kind of fades off into the distance, into the unknown, into what we don't understand or don't even suspect. We can't even be certain that the powers of human cognition are sufficient to fully understand everything that is real.

Earthworm cognition isn't, insect cognition isn't, mouse cognition isn't, dog cognition isn't, chimpanzee cognition isn't. From our human perspective we can see that there are whole aspects of reality whose existence they can't even suspect. (Astrophysics for one.) So how can we be sure that finally, of all possible beings, humans occupy the pinnacle of all possible cognitive development, uniquely equipped to take it all in and understand all of it?  

That, BTW, is at the core of my skepticism about the more grandiose claims made about science.

Quote:It describes perception as its model.

Why should we believe that the scope of human perception is coextensive with the scope of reality?

Quote:Not merely the life identity existing in transient and destructible memory. But the identity of the real world, within the real universe.

If you aren't talking about the perception of real flesh-and-blood human beings, then what kind of perception are you talking about? Some totally hypothetical ideal divine perception? If so, how do you (or Langan) know anything about it?

Quote: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.

Except that you didn't say anything very informative in that post.
Reply
#39
(Nov 13, 2017 02:46 PM)Ostronomos Wrote:
(Nov 13, 2017 04:21 AM)Syne Wrote: No, that doesn't fly, because if "all theory (sic) are theories of reality" then that literally means that Langan's MUST be a scientific theory. Otherwise he's just conflating scientific theory with what basically amounts to layman's guess.

See, all you can do is keep chanting his pseudo-religious mantras at people. You're just a zealous sycophant. You just assume it is self-evidently true without even being capable of justifying it as such to anyone else. What a sad, lonely world you must live in.  Sad

Science is reality. Reality is science.

Langan isn't doing science. So any pronouncements he makes about reality are purely philosophical...just like your local guru.
Reply
#40
(Nov 13, 2017 04:23 PM)Yazata Wrote: In other words, logical arguments aren't just a matter of adding the steps. Each of the intervening steps subsequent to the initial assumptions must be arrived at by application of rules of inference. And even when we are finished and have a proof that proves our conclusion, the truth of the conclusion is still dependent on the truth of the initial assumptions. If any of them are false or doubtful, then the conclusion can be false or doubtful too, despite the fact that we've just proved it.    

I must admit that I do not appreciate your inability to grasp simple and obvious truths that make sense with a little expenditure of effort. In fact I am rather disappointed. "Self-distributed" indicates that reality is all that can exist anywhere at anytime, except outside or externally. Hence reality is not external to itself.

Are you going to make this simple truth into a complicated issue too?

(Nov 13, 2017 06:12 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Nov 13, 2017 02:46 PM)Ostronomos Wrote:
(Nov 13, 2017 04:21 AM)Syne Wrote: No, that doesn't fly, because if "all theory (sic) are theories of reality" then that literally means that Langan's MUST be a scientific theory. Otherwise he's just conflating scientific theory with what basically amounts to layman's guess.

See, all you can do is keep chanting his pseudo-religious mantras at people. You're just a zealous sycophant. You just assume it is self-evidently true without even being capable of justifying it as such to anyone else. What a sad, lonely world you must live in.  Sad

Science is reality. Reality is science.

Langan isn't doing science. So any pronouncements he makes about reality are purely philosophical...just like your local guru.

Both Langan and me have made observations on the existence of God through psy phenomenon. All theories are mental contructs that have objective reality as their content. Hence, "theory of reality".

Yazata Wrote:
(Nov 13, 2017 03:50 AM)Ostronomos Wrote: All theory are theories of reality.

I'm not sure that I believe that.

Well, I am.

Quote:
Quote: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.

If you are "capable of following his logic", then why not try to explain it?

I have.



Quote:
Quote:CTMU reality is analytically self-contained.

What does 'analytically self-contained' mean?

It means it logically and analytically contains itself. Or do I need to spell this too out in crayons?

Quote:
Quote:It mirrors reality as a theory.

I don't believe that any theory really does that with total accuracy. At best they are approximations that simplify some aspects of reality in hopes of making things more intelligible.

Reality is an unbounded set. We don't really know what it includes or what its ultimate boundaries are. Reality just kind of fades off into the distance, into the unknown, into what we don't understand or don't even suspect. We can't even be certain that the powers of human cognition are sufficient to fully understand everything that is real.

Reality is not only an unbounded set of all that exists because it is one thing in existence which includes bounded sets too. Reality is an electron for instance. Reality is matter, object, space, time, forces, etc. Reality is a thing in existence.

Quote:Earthworm cognition isn't, insect cognition isn't, mouse cognition isn't, dog cognition isn't, chimpanzee cognition isn't. From our human perspective we can see that there are whole aspects of reality whose existence they can't even suspect. (Astrophysics for one.) So how can we be sure that finally, of all possible beings, humans occupy the pinnacle of all possible cognitive development, uniquely equipped to take it all in and understand all of it?  

What an arbitrary and spurious supposition you take here.


Quote:
Quote:It describes perception as its model.

Why should we believe that the scope of human perception is coextensive with the scope of reality?

Because reality is perceiving itself through us.


Quote:
Quote:Not merely the life identity existing in transient and destructible memory. But the identity of the real world, within the real universe.

If you aren't talking about the perception of real flesh-and-blood human beings, then what kind of perception are you talking about? Some totally hypothetical ideal divine perception? If so, how do you (or Langan) know anything about it?

Through observational and empirical means. After which we proceeded to prove.



Quote:
Quote: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.

Except that you didn't say anything very informative in that post.

Notice that you can add each truth to the other via the common link, namely reality.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)