Chris Langan's CTMU theory is genuinely brilliant
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
black_squirrel
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  1/21/2014  Category:  Philosophy  
Updated:  3 years ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  4,213 times  Debate No:  44391 
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)
It's pitiful the ignorance that has amassed and germinated from the dissenters of CTMU theorythe orientation of these laypeople are bound by their range, unaware of the encompassing depth of Chris Langan's theory.
I will argue that Chris Langan's CTMU theory is not brilliant. This theory seems more like metaphysical diarrhea to me, a "proof" of God by obfuscation. Here is an introduction straight from the horse's mouth http://www.ctmu.org... Langan claims to have a logical proof for the existence of God. In the introduction he explains Set Theory. To be a logical proof, it would have to have the same kind of rigidity as the rest of mathematics. Mathematics can be build up from set theory, using the ZermoloFraenkel axioms together with the axiom of choice (ZFC). The axioms are generally accepted as truth within the mathematical community. However, Langan writes: "In the CognitiveTheoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, the set of all sets, and the real universe to which it corresponds, take the name (SCSPL) of the required extension of set theory." ZFC is generally believed/assumed to be nonself contradictory. However, if we extend the ZFC model to the SCSPL then there is a risk that the new logical system IS selfcontradictory. This is a REAL risk. For example, preliminary models that preceded the ZFC model actually DID have contradictions in them. This is Russel's Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradox (This link might not work because of the special characters in the address, but one can go to "Russel's Paradox" on Wikipedia.) If the SCSPL model is selfcontradictory, then anything that would be deduced from such logic would be completely useless. So this new theory does not have the same kind of logical rigidity. The second problem I have with this theory is that, as far as I can tell, Langan uses his terms quite loosely. In logic, everything has to be defined exactly. It is a formal language. But the CTMU does not seem all that formal. The problem with that is that the English language is often ambiguous. Langan does not seem to define all the terms he uses, but even if he did, there could be ambiguity because that is inherent to the English language. It also seems to me that Langan makes a lot of assumptions about the physical universe. First I must point out that all theories in physics describe reality, but there are not the same as reality. Newtonian mechanics describes reality pretty well, but at high speeds it breaks down. Relativity theory is a better approximation of the universe, but breaks down at the quantum level etc. etc. But Langan writes: "So mathematicians view sets, broadly including null, singleton, finite and infinite sets, as fundamental objects basic to meaningful descriptions of reality.It follows that reality itself should be a set…in fact, the largest set of all." Just because reality can be modeled by a set in set theory (or SCSPL), it does NOT follow that reality IS a set. Elsewhere, Langan speaks about " topological containment in the physical universe". I guess he claims that the universe is a topological space in the mathematical sense, which is also not clear to me. Anyway, there are lots of problems with this theory. I am just giving a few examples that I fished out of this introduction. PRO writes: "It's pitiful the ignorance that has amassed and germinated from the dissenters of CTMU theorythe orientation of these laypeople are bound by their range, unaware of the encompassing depth of Chris Langan's theory." It is my impression that this theory is an obfuscation. Langan makes the theory more complicated that it needs to be, in order to hide the weaknesses of his arguments. Then, if the dissenters do not understand the arguments, they can be accused of of "ignorance" and "bounded by their range", "unaware of the encompassing depth". But I am not easily fooled. 

002682 forfeited this round.
vote CON. 

002682 forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited again. Vote CON! I mentioned Russell paradox only as an example where, a set of reasonable axioms might lead to a contradiction. This paradox was resolved in the ZFC axiomatic system. So Russell's paradox does not disprove ZFC or SCSPL. It is not so clear to me what the exact axioms of SCSPL are. But since it is an extension ZFC, it could be that there is a contradiction within the SCSPL axioms itself. I was just making a historic comment that it has happened before that a list of suggested axioms for the foundation of mathematics was contradictory. One of my main criticisms is that CTMU lacks the kind of rigor, that mathematical logic has. 
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JayD 3 years ago
002682  black_squirrel  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  0  4 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for obvious reasons. Arguments to Con since Pro never refuted any of them.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
002682  black_squirrel  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  0  4 
Reasons for voting decision: Apparently faced with any signs that it might not be brilliant, pro ran away.
The CognitiveTheoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is True Metaphysics
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.megafoundation.org...
"The English word "grammar" neatly conveys the various shades of meaning that are implicit in the Bāb"s discussion of the subject. On one level, grammar is a system of rules that govern the formation of words (morphology) and their arrangement into units of meaning (syntax). On another level, a "grammar" is the basic principles of any branch of knowledge. In this sense we can talk about a grammar of music or a grammar of geography. Although the Bāb does talk about grammar in the first sense of the word in this treatise, he is primarily interested in the second sense; namely, the principles governing God"s interaction with the world. Therefore, the Bāb delineates what might be called a grammar of the Divine.
http://bahailibrary.com...
"That first verse is believed to be contained in the letter "B" ( ) at the beginning of the verse, and that letter "B" is believed to be contained in the dot or point beneath the letter. The mystical significance is that the initial "B", the "19 letters of the first verse", the first chapter, and the entire Qur'an were generated from the first point."
http://bahailibrary.com...
"We explain this subject as follows:(8) By the "word" we mean that creation with its infinite forms is like unto letters,(9) a letter individually has no meaning, no independent significance, but the station of Christ is the station of the word.(10) That is why we say Christ is the word. By complete significance we mean that the universal bestowal of divinity(11) is manifest in Christ. It is obvious that the evolution(12) of other souls is approximate, or only a part of, the whole, but the perfections of the Christ are universal, or the whole. The reality of Christ is the collective centre of all the independent virtues and infinite significances.(13)"
http://bahailibrary.com...
"The operation of combining language, universe, and model to create a perfectly selfcontained metalanguage results in SCSPL, short for SelfConfiguring SelfProcessing Language. This language is "selfsimilar" in the sense that it is generated within a formal identity to which every part of it is mapped as content; its initial form, or grammatical "start symbol", everywhere describes it on all scales.
...
In the New Testament, John 1 begins as follows: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (my italics). Much controversy has centered on this passage, as it seems to be saying that God is literally equivalent to logos, meaning "word", "wisdom", "reason", or "truth"."
http://www.superscholar.org...
"The English word "grammar" neatly conveys the various shades of meaning that are implicit in th
http://www.logika.umk.pl...
As mentioned in the Intro to the CTMU essay, "objects" and not "sets" are of primary interest, particularly dually related objects, which Langan mentions later in the essay is studied in category theory, not ZFC. In his 2002 PCID paper he makes references to concepts such as "locales" which is not a concept native to ZFC. Langan's work may not be mainstream or be presented in a style which is academically rigorous by some people's standards, but these are superficial aspects and do not address the deeper concepts which he is kind enough to write in a language which is comprehensible to the diligent nonspecialist, introducing people like me to a more rigorous approach to philosophy starting with the work of Tarski and leading up to the ideas of Pratt and Abramsky.
I think mereology is a simple and relevant place to start:
http://www.inf.unibz.it...
http://boole.stanford.edu...
The person arguing "Con" didn't do his CTMU related research.
"Thus, the real universe is not a static set, but a dynamic process resolving the selfinclusion paradox. Equivalently, because any real explanation of reality is contained in reality itself, reality gives rise to a paradox unless regarded as an inclusory selfmapping. This is why, for example, category theory is increasingly preferred to set theory as a means of addressing the foundations of mathematics; it centers on invariant relations or mappings between covariant or contravariant (dually related) objects rather than on static objects themselves. For similar reasons, a focus on the relative invariants of semantic processes is also wellsuited to the formulation of evolving theories in which the definitions of objects and sets are subject to change; thus, we can speak of time and space as equivalent to cognition and information with respect to the invariant semantic relation processes, as in "time processes space" and "cognition processes information". But when we define reality as a process, we must reformulate containment accordingly. Concisely, reality theory becomes a study of SCSPL autology naturally formulated in terms of mappings. This is done by adjoining to logic certain metalogical principles, formulated in terms of mappings, that enable reality to be described as an autological (selfdescriptive, selfrecognizing/selfprocessing) system."
http://www.ctmu.org...
Chu(Set,K), defined by Barr and studied by Chu in 1979, is a universal
complete selfdual symmetric closed category whose objects are matrices
over a *set* K dualized by transposition. Its morphisms may be understood
as any of linear transformations, continuous functions, Boolean theory
morphisms, or a certain 2D "genetic splicing" process, but not as
hypergraph morphisms. Most or all PontrjaginStone dualities in
Johnstone's "Stone Spaces" embed in Chu(Set,K). We interpret Prolog, Petri
nets, Kripke structures, and objectoriented (selfsufficient) programs,
but not PRAM's, as Chu matrices whose rows are attributes and columns
states, taking time to be linear and discrete and dually information
rotational and dense, with each satisfying a local triangle inequality.
Each matrix has its own Planck constant hbar = 1/width x 1/height as
an entropic abstraction of Heisenberg's constructive refinement of the
CantorRussell paradox."
http://pauillac.inria.fr...
http://en.wikipedia.org...