Reality is the Set of All things That Exist

[Ostronomos]

I have demonstrated on the first page that reality simultaneously includes itself while being included by itself making it a dual entity. This duality accounts for the wave-particle duality of Quantum Mechanics and the 2-stage process of hology. We cannot see God because we are cut off from divinity unless we enter a meditative state such as in sleep in which we can perceive higher order phenomenon. Evil acts are distinguished from acts of kindness. And example of entering the Quantum world in which evil is perceived would be random strangers acting in opposition to your immediate aims and attempting to suppress you with threats of violence but never actually acting them out because reality justly does not allow such dangers from being enacted.

[Zinjanthropos]

We cannot see God because we are cut off from divinity unless we enter a meditative state such as in sleep in which we can perceive higher order phenomenon. Evil acts are distinguished from acts of kindness.

Logical fallacies and flaming non sequiturs are the hallmark of your texts. 

I have no doubt evil is distinguishable from kindness but it's totally subjective. What it has to do with perceiving God while awake or asleep is anybody's guess. 

What does 'see' mean to you? Do we only see when awake? Do we really see our thoughts, dreams, imaginations, etc. when our eyes are closed? 

Look at your keyboard then close your eyes and picture it in your mind exactly as you saw it with eyes open. Personally I can't form a duplicate of it in my mind. I can think shape, color, size, symbols yet it truly isn't what I'd see with my eyes open. I can see the keyboard visually without thinking of it but I have to form the keyboard image when forced to think of it, although it's of poor quality or totally without form. Maybe you're better equipped than me and can do better. 

So does the imagination actually see the detail that my open eyes do? It forms images, won't dispute that. Incomplete images, strange images, impossible images etc., lacking the quality of natural vision.... This is what you deem the doorway to divinity?

[Ostronomos]

We cannot see God because we are cut off from divinity unless we enter a meditative state such as in sleep in which we can perceive higher order phenomenon. Evil acts are distinguished from acts of kindness.

Logical fallacies and flaming non sequiturs are the hallmark of your texts. 

I have no doubt evil is distinguishable from kindness but it's totally subjective. What it has to do with perceiving God while awake or asleep is anybody's guess. 

Evil has an objective reality to it and a distinct characteristic. And I was only using sleep as an example. A person can have their recognition manipulated by nondeterministic higher order phenomenon when their brain has entered a meditative state.

---

https://www.quora.com/Within-the.../answ...s-Langan-7
Quora question: Within the context of Christopher Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), could we technically be in a computer simulation of sorts, with ‘God’ being the programmer?

Chris Langan
Answered Jan 31
Yes. According to the CTMU, reality can be understood as a “self-simulation”, at least in the sense that what we see outside of ourselves - the physical universe - conceals the process which actually produces it, and cannot account for the entirety of what producing it actually requires.

However, the simulation is not merely computational in the mechanical sense, but (in CTMU terminology) “protocomputational” or “precomputational”. That is, it utilizes a kind of “metaprocessing” called telic recursion, which generates entire timelines instead of individual events.

God is indeed the Programmer-in-Chief, but does His “programming” largely through secondary sensor-controllers, including human beings, which locally inhabit the simulation. As for God Himself, He distributes over the entire simulation and is therefore omnipresent.

The entire simulation can be reduced to a master “programming language” sometimes referred to as Logos, which is trialic, serving as its own universe and model. On a more technical level, it is known as the CTMU.

[Syne]

As usual, Ostro is preaching. He won't define his terms and only makes proclamations he cannot or will not justify. He might as well just be blogging, except he's looking for converts.
There's a reason he's been banned elsewhere.

[Zinjanthropos]

As usual, Ostro is preaching. He won't define his terms and only makes proclamations he cannot or will not justify. He might as well just be blogging, except he's looking for converts.
There's a reason he's been banned elsewhere.

No kidding. It's what I like about this forum, say what you think and not get run for being on the extreme end of a POV. Harmless stuff that most of us realize and if we learn anything profound then that's a bonus. I enjoy hearing from all sides no matter what

[Ostronomos]

As usual, Ostro is preaching. He won't define his terms and only makes proclamations he cannot or will not justify. He might as well just be blogging, except he's looking for converts.
There's a reason he's been banned elsewhere.

On the subject of free will, reality possesses it by defining itself internally. From the perspective of external existence it is undefined. Reality therefore possesses freedom by negating its own complementary non-existence. Thus it selects itself for self-defined existence. The matter and energy we see would exist along with the processes that generate and define reality. Including Quantum Mechanics.

[Syne]

As usual, Ostro is preaching. He won't define his terms and only makes proclamations he cannot or will not justify. He might as well just be blogging, except he's looking for converts.
There's a reason he's been banned elsewhere.

On the subject of free will, reality possesses it by defining itself internally. From the perspective of external existence it is undefined. Reality therefore possesses freedom by negating its own complementary non-existence. Thus it selects itself for self-defined existence. The matter and energy we see would exist along with the processes that generate and define reality. Including Quantum Mechanics.

Where did I say anything about free will or QM? So now you're just making up non sequiturs to give a superficial appearance that you are actually engaging with anyone.

[Ostronomos]

As usual, Ostro is preaching. He won't define his terms and only makes proclamations he cannot or will not justify. He might as well just be blogging, except he's looking for converts.
There's a reason he's been banned elsewhere.

On the subject of free will, reality possesses it by defining itself internally. From the perspective of external existence it is undefined. Reality therefore possesses freedom by negating its own complementary non-existence. Thus it selects itself for self-defined existence. The matter and energy we see would exist along with the processes that generate and define reality. Including Quantum Mechanics.

Where did I say anything about free will or QM? So now you're just making up non sequiturs to give a superficial appearance that you are actually engaging with anyone.

Interesting that you see it that way. Permit me to follow up with a more appropriate response so as not to derail my thread. Would you like to discuss wave-particle duality as it is understood in relation to dual self-inclusion?

[Syne]

No, I'm not interested in discussing valid physics in relation to your vague and ill-defined nonsense. For example, can you even define "dual self-inclusion" in simple language, without reference to any other Langan jargon? Until you can effectively communicate an idea, there's not even any reason to think you understand anything more than cult mantras.

I actually do think "dual self-inclusion" could mean something, but every time I try to engage you on the subject you cite some bullshit that requires chasing down an endless stream of specialized, self-referential jargon. Jargon that seems designed to mystify, likely to protect Langan's fragile ego, rather than communicate what I know is much more readily communicable. Much of the problem resides in Langan not being as smart as he thinks he is. Instead of drilling down to readily available fundamentals, he, like many people, gets only so far and then makes up a word to stand in for an unknown origin that supposedly avoids an infinite regress, but definitely is not the "simplest state".

[Ostronomos]

No, I'm not interested in discussing valid physics in relation to your vague and ill-defined nonsense. For example, can you even define "dual self-inclusion" in simple language, without reference to any other Langan jargon? Until you can effectively communicate an idea, there's not even any reason to think you understand anything more than cult mantras.

I actually do think "dual self-inclusion" could mean something, but every time I try to engage you on the subject you cite some bullshit that requires chasing down an endless stream of specialized, self-referential jargon. Jargon that seems designed to mystify, likely to protect Langan's fragile ego, rather than communicate what I know is much more readily communicable. Much of the problem resides in Langan not being as smart as he thinks he is. Instead of drilling down to readily available fundamentals, he, like many people, gets only so far and then makes up a word to stand in for an unknown origin that supposedly avoids an infinite regress, but definitely is not the "simplest state".

I think you have Langan wrong. You seem not to tolerate the style of communication that Langan engages in. This would definitely be an obstacle to understanding the CTMU. I enjoy Langan's writing. Frankly, I don't think it can be simplified any further as most of the terms he uses are already as accurate and efficient as someone expected of his inadequacies would assume. As I recall, he is a proponent of Occam's razor. Right there is a reason you should entrust him with important explanations of reality. In other words he is doing his best. Dual self-inclusion as I understand it is the simultaneous inclusion of and inclusion by reality. I will introduce you to a fascinating 2018 work by Langan on human identity if that will persuade you, here: http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/jo...e/694/1157