Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

On causality

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2014 6:12:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This was made using excerpts I pulled from various sources. I hope it's not too hard to follow :)

Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance).

In sentential logic, a tautology is an expression of functor-related sentential variables that is always true, regardless of the truth values assigned to its sentential variables themselves. A tautology has three key properties: it is universally (syntactically) true, it is thus self-referential (true even of itself and therefore closed under recursive self-composition), and its implications remain consistent under inferential operations preserving these properties. That is, every tautology is a self-consistent circularity of universal scope, possessing validity by virtue of closure under self-composition, comprehensiveness (non-exclusion of truth), and consistency (freedom from irresolvable paradox). But tautologies are not merely consistent unto themselves; they are mutually consistent under mutual composition, making sentential logic as much a "self-consistent circularity of universal scope" as any one of its tautologies. Two-valued logic is something without which reality could not exist. If it were eliminated, then true and false, real and unreal, and existence and nonexistence could not be distinguished, and the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible.

Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or "difference-in-sameness". Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality [ Syndiffeonesis is necessary to show why there is a single reality]

The ultimate "boundary of the boundary" of the universe is UBT, a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. In CTMU cosmogony, "nothingness" is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. In a realm of unbound ontological potential, defining a constraint is not as simple as merely writing it down; because constraints act restrictively on content, constraint and content must be defined simultaneously in a unified syntax-state relationship

Determinacy and indeterminacy...at first glance, there seems to be no middle ground. Events are either causally connected or they are not, and if they are not, then the future would seem to be utterly independent of the past. Either we use causality to connect the dots and draw a coherent picture of time, or we settle for a random scattering of independent dots without spatial or temporal pattern and thus without meaning.But there is another possibility after all: self-determinacy. Self-determinacy is like a circuitous boundary separating the poles of the above dichotomy...a reflexive and therefore closed boundary, the formation of which involves neither preexisting laws nor external structure. Thus, it is the type of causal attribution suitable for a perfectly self-contained system. Self-determinacy is a deep but subtle concept, owing largely to the fact that unlike either determinacy or randomness, it is a source of bona fide meaning. Where a system determines its own composition, properties and evolution independently of external laws or structures, it can determine its own meaning, and ensure by its self configuration that its inhabitants are crucially implicated therein.

Accordingly, the universe must adopt a reflexive form in which it can "select itself" for self-defined existence, with the selection function identical to that which is selected. This means that it must take a certain general or "initial" form, the MU form, which contains all of the requisites for generating the contents of reality. Due to hology, whereby the self-contained universe has nothing but itself of which to consist, this form is self-distributed.

One might at first be tempted to object that there is no reason to believe that the universe does not simply "exist", and thus that self-selection is unnecessary. However, this is not a valid position. First, it involves a more or less subtle appeal to something external to the universe, namely a prior/external informational medium or "syntax" of existence; if such a syntax were sufficiently relevant to this reality, i.e. sufficiently real, to support its existence, then it would be analytically included in reality (as defined up to perceptual relevance). Second, active self-selection is indeed necessary, for existence is not merely a state but a process; the universe must internally distinguish that which it is from that which it is not, and passivity is ruled out because it would again imply the involvement of a complementary active principle of external origin...If there were no real (internal) distinction between them, real as opposed to unreal would fall apart and reality could not exist.

Continued below
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2014 6:12:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The "no gaps" criterion of MAP permits no critical explanatory holes omitting any essential aspect of structure. What this means can best be illustrated by means of a recurrent fallacy: "The existence of the universe is given and therefore in no need of explanation." The phrase is given is incomplete; it has hidden "loose ends" corresponding to that by which existence is given, the means by which it is given, and the reason for which it is given. If the source, means and reason are actually real, then they are inside reality, and the explanatory gap exists only in the mind of the claimant rather than in the self-explanatory network of reality itself.

On the other hand, omitting this phrase (is given) results in something like "the existence of the universe is inexplicable". However, this amounts to the assertion that the universe has no identifiable basis or medium of existence, not even itself"i.e., that no explanatory function can be defined on the explanandum, and that the universe is somehow prohibited from serving as its own source, means, or reason [and why settle for inexplicability when there's a perfectly logical alternative?]

Ordinary feedback, describing the evolution of mechanical (and with somewhat less success, biological) systems, is cyclical or recursive. The system and its components repeatedly call on internal structures, routines and actuation mechanisms in order to acquire input, generate corresponding internal information, internally communicate and process this information, and evolve to appropriate states in light of input and programming. However, where the object is to describe the evolution of a system from a state in which there is no information or programming (information-processing syntax) at all, a new kind of feedback is required: telic feedback.

The currency of telic feedback is a quantifiable self-selection parameter, generalized utility, a generalized property of law and state in the maximization of which they undergo mutual refinement (note that generalized utility is self-descriptive or autologous, intrinsically and retroactively defined within the system, and "pre-informational" in the sense that it assigns no specific property to any specific object).

Through telic feedback, a system retroactively self-configures by reflexively applying a "generalized utility function" to its internal existential potential or possible futures. In effect, the system brings itself into existence as a means of atemporal communication between its past and future whereby law and state, syntax and informational content, generate and refine each other across time to maximize total systemic self-utility. This defines a situation in which the true temporal identity of the system is a distributed point of temporal equilibrium that is both between and inclusive of past and future. In this sense, the system is timeless or atemporal.

A system that evolves by means of telic recursion - and ultimately, every system must either be, or be embedded in, such a system as a condition of existence - is not merely computational, but protocomputational. That is, its primary level of processing configures its secondary (computational and informational) level of processing by telic recursion. Telic recursion can be regarded as the self-determinative mechanism of not only cosmogony, but a natural, scientific form of teleology.

In a self-deterministic system, causal regression leads to a completely intrinsic self-generative process. In any system that is not ultimately self-deterministic, including any system that is either random or deterministic in the standard extrinsic sense, causal regression terminates at null causality or does not terminate. In either of the latter two cases, science can fully explain nothing; in the absence of a final cause, even material and efficient causes are subject to causal regression toward ever more basic (prior and embedding) substances and processes, or if random in origin, toward primitive acausality. So given that explanation is largely what science is all about, science would seem to have no choice but to treat the universe as a self-deterministic, causally self-contained system. In any case, the self-containment of the real universe is implied by the following contradiction: if there were any external entity or influence that were sufficiently real to affect the real universe, then by virtue of its reality, it would by definition be internal to the real universe.

Given that the self-containment of nature implies causal closure implies self-determinism implies self-actualization, how is self-actualization to be achieved? Obviously, nature must select some possible form in which to self-actualize. Since a self-contained, causally closed universe does not have the luxury of external guidance, it needs to generate an intrinsic self-selection criterion in order to do this. Since utility is the name already given to the attribute which is maximized by any rational choice function, and since a totally self-actualizing system has the privilege of defining its own standard of rationality, we may as well speak of this self-selection criterion in terms of global or generic self-utility. That is, the self-actualizing universe must generate and retrieve information on the intrinsic utility content of various possible forms that it might take.

And now we come to what might be seen as the pivotal question: what is the goal of self-actualization? Conveniently enough, this question contains its own answer: self-actualization, a generic analogue of Aristotelian final causation and thus of teleology, is its own inevitable outcome and thus its own goal. Whatever its specific details may be, they are actualized by the universe alone, and this means that they are mere specific instances of cosmic self-actualization. Although the word "goal" has subjective connotations -- for example, some definitions stipulate that a goal must be the object of an instinctual drive or other subjective impulse -- we could easily adopt a reductive or functionalist approach to such terms, taking them to reduce or refer to the objective features of reality.

It is important to be clear on the relationship between utility and causality. Utility is simply a generic selection criterion essential to the only cosmologically acceptable form of causality, namely self-determinism. The subjective gratification associated with positive utility in the biological and psychological realms is ultimately beside the point. No longer need natural processes be explained under suspicion of anthropomorphism; causal explanations need no longer implicitly refer to instinctive drives and subjective motivations. Instead, they can refer directly to a generic objective "drive", namely intrinsic causality"the "drive" of the universe to maximize an intrinsic self-selection criterion over various relational strata within the bounds of its internal constraints.

In other words, the universe must possess a global analogue of free will that lets it internally define and calibrate the very scale on which its intrinsic value is internally measured.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2014 7:58:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll read it when I get the chance.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 1:17:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Whoa, what a rush, awesome trip dude.

Far out man.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 5:07:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 3:30:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/16/2014 1:17:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Whoa, what a rush, awesome trip dude.

Far out man.

You're such a punk lol

Well, speaking sententially, it's really just a supertautological syndiffeonesic syntax of ectomorphic punk conspansion.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 4:18:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 5:07:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/16/2014 3:30:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/16/2014 1:17:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Whoa, what a rush, awesome trip dude.

Far out man.

You're such a punk lol

Well, speaking sententially, it's really just a supertautological syndiffeonesic syntax of ectomorphic punk conspansion.

What about this was confusing for you? Besides the first four paragraphs (which are essentially background information) I think it flows very smoothly and isn't really hard to understand.
Mysticist
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 5:05:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 4:18:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/16/2014 5:07:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/16/2014 3:30:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/16/2014 1:17:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Whoa, what a rush, awesome trip dude.

Far out man.

You're such a punk lol

Well, speaking sententially, it's really just a supertautological syndiffeonesic syntax of ectomorphic punk conspansion.

What about this was confusing for you? Besides the first four paragraphs (which are essentially background information) I think it flows very smoothly and isn't really hard to understand.

I'm actually shocked how little explicit response CTMU is getting considering its truth value. It's disgraceful.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 2:36:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/15/2014 6:12:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real...
I can accept that tautology, for now...

Two-valued logic is something without which reality could not exist.
I agree fully.

If it were eliminated, then true and false, real and unreal, and existence and nonexistence could not be distinguished, and the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible.
And the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible because there would exist no difference between perception and imperception or cognition and non-cognition. What I am not sure of is whether "you" are drawing a distinction between the members of set A {true, real, existence} and/or a distinction between the members of set B {false, unreal, non-existence}?

Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar.
By that reasoning, the assertion that two things are different like reality and non-reality, implies that reality and non-reality are reductively the same; since their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. So, I see 2 failures here: (1) reality and non-reality are not the same, (2) reality cannot be a part of the same reality that includes non-reality.

...reality is a syndiffeonic relation.
Clearly this is false, as I have shown above.

Seems to me that much of this came from: http://megafoundation.org... so I will proceed from there.

After Syndiffeonesis, it speaks of the MAP principal. I find a major flaw in this concept because the definition given for reality essentially makes "Meta-Reality" = "Unreality" as well as imply that the mind is also unreality, which contradicts the definition of reality. As such, the CTMU falls apart.

I'll stop here for now because it seems to be grossly inconsistent. If you can show me that my understanding of it so far is incorrect, it would be appreciated.

I will read the theory further, in case there is something I am missing.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 7:29:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 2:36:35 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 3/15/2014 6:12:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real...
I can accept that tautology, for now...

Two-valued logic is something without which reality could not exist.
I agree fully.

If it were eliminated, then true and false, real and unreal, and existence and nonexistence could not be distinguished, and the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible.
And the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible because there would exist no difference between perception and imperception or cognition and non-cognition. What I am not sure of is whether "you" are drawing a distinction between the members of set A {true, real, existence} and/or a distinction between the members of set B {false, unreal, non-existence}?

Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar.
By that reasoning, the assertion that two things are different like reality and non-reality, implies that reality and non-reality are reductively the same; since their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. So, I see 2 failures here: (1) reality and non-reality are not the same, (2) reality cannot be a part of the same reality that includes non-reality.

...reality is a syndiffeonic relation.
Clearly this is false, as I have shown above.

Seems to me that much of this came from: http://megafoundation.org... so I will proceed from there.

After Syndiffeonesis, it speaks of the MAP principal. I find a major flaw in this concept because the definition given for reality essentially makes "Meta-Reality" = "Unreality" as well as imply that the mind is also unreality, which contradicts the definition of reality. As such, the CTMU falls apart.

I'll stop here for now because it seems to be grossly inconsistent. If you can show me that my understanding of it so far is incorrect, it would be appreciated.

I will read the theory further, in case there is something I am missing.

tBoonePickens!!!

Long time no see, been wondering where you went.

Welcome back!
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 9:00:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 2:36:35 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 3/15/2014 6:12:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real...
I can accept that tautology, for now...

Two-valued logic is something without which reality could not exist.
I agree fully.

If it were eliminated, then true and false, real and unreal, and existence and nonexistence could not be distinguished, and the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible.
And the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible because there would exist no difference between perception and imperception or cognition and non-cognition. What I am not sure of is whether "you" are drawing a distinction between the members of set A {true, real, existence} and/or a distinction between the members of set B {false, unreal, non-existence}?

Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar.
By that reasoning, the assertion that two things are different like reality and non-reality, implies that reality and non-reality are reductively the same; since their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. So, I see 2 failures here: (1) reality and non-reality are not the same, (2) reality cannot be a part of the same reality that includes non-reality.

...reality is a syndiffeonic relation.
Clearly this is false, as I have shown above.

Seems to me that much of this came from: http://megafoundation.org... so I will proceed from there.

After Syndiffeonesis, it speaks of the MAP principal. I find a major flaw in this concept because the definition given for reality essentially makes "Meta-Reality" = "Unreality" as well as imply that the mind is also unreality, which contradicts the definition of reality. As such, the CTMU falls apart.

I'll stop here for now because it seems to be grossly inconsistent. If you can show me that my understanding of it so far is incorrect, it would be appreciated.

I will read the theory further, in case there is something I am missing.

The principle of Syndiffeonesis says that if the difference between two things is real, then they both reduce to a common reality. Non-reality is, by definition, not something. Do you really think the author of the CTMU hadn't thought of that?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 9:06:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 7:29:04 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2014 2:36:35 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 3/15/2014 6:12:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real...
I can accept that tautology, for now...

Two-valued logic is something without which reality could not exist.
I agree fully.

If it were eliminated, then true and false, real and unreal, and existence and nonexistence could not be distinguished, and the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible.
And the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible because there would exist no difference between perception and imperception or cognition and non-cognition. What I am not sure of is whether "you" are drawing a distinction between the members of set A {true, real, existence} and/or a distinction between the members of set B {false, unreal, non-existence}?

Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar.
By that reasoning, the assertion that two things are different like reality and non-reality, implies that reality and non-reality are reductively the same; since their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. So, I see 2 failures here: (1) reality and non-reality are not the same, (2) reality cannot be a part of the same reality that includes non-reality.

...reality is a syndiffeonic relation.
Clearly this is false, as I have shown above.

Seems to me that much of this came from: http://megafoundation.org... so I will proceed from there.

After Syndiffeonesis, it speaks of the MAP principal. I find a major flaw in this concept because the definition given for reality essentially makes "Meta-Reality" = "Unreality" as well as imply that the mind is also unreality, which contradicts the definition of reality. As such, the CTMU falls apart.

I'll stop here for now because it seems to be grossly inconsistent. If you can show me that my understanding of it so far is incorrect, it would be appreciated.

I will read the theory further, in case there is something I am missing.

tBoonePickens!!!

Long time no see, been wondering where you went.

Welcome back!
Thanks SIdewalker! Good to be back!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 9:14:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 9:00:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The principle of Syndiffeonesis says that if the difference between two things is real, then they both reduce to a common reality. Non-reality is, by definition, not something.
OK. So explain then how Reality is Syndiffeonic.

Also, you never addressed the problems with the MAP principal. In the MAP principal, "Meta-Reality" lies in the domain of Non-reality. It also has 2 Realities where one lies inside the other. This create the problem that everything outside the smaller reality (Mind, larger Reality, Meta-Reality) is Non-reality, etc.

Do you really think the author of the CTMU hadn't thought of that?
If I had a nickle for every time I heard that...
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 10:22:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 9:14:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 3/23/2014 9:00:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The principle of Syndiffeonesis says that if the difference between two things is real, then they both reduce to a common reality. Non-reality is, by definition, not something.

OK. So explain then how Reality is Syndiffeonic.

The concept is not difficult to understand. It says that if the difference between two things is real, they are both part of a common medium which provides the metric of separation. That is, in order for two things to be different, the difference must be real for both things, and therefore, there must be a "middleman", so to speak, of difference (the common medium).


Also, you never addressed the problems with the MAP principal. In the MAP principal, "Meta-Reality" lies in the domain of Non-reality. It also has 2 Realities where one lies inside the other. This create the problem that everything outside the smaller reality (Mind, larger Reality, Meta-Reality) is Non-reality, etc.

Mind is reality in the sense that it shares the distributed reality syntax. That is, reality is everywhere the same as itself. The meta-reality is reality's self-description. Since reality is self-contained, it must descriptively contain itself from within, such that the universe is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe.


Do you really think the author of the CTMU hadn't thought of that?
If I had a nickle for every time I heard that...

If I had a nickel for every time a pseudo-intellectual internet jackal thought they had Langan pinned with their genius insight that took them five minutes...seriously, are people so moronic that you honestly believe your critiques are indicative of anything BUT your evaluative-incompetence? I don't mean to say that you shouldn't question the CTMU, but I'm just astonished at the number of people who seem to actually believe they've thought of something Langan, a man who has spent the past 25 years developing the theory, hasn't. From where I sit, such an assumption is just completely insane. By all means, critique the CTMU (it's a great way of learning about it) but please, don't do it with that insufferably irrational tone of certainty which you obviously have no business using. It's simply counterproductive. (I'm feeling especially wrathful this morning lol)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 10:38:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 9:14:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 3/23/2014 9:00:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The principle of Syndiffeonesis says that if the difference between two things is real, then they both reduce to a common reality. Non-reality is, by definition, not something.
OK. So explain then how Reality is Syndiffeonic.

Also, you never addressed the problems with the MAP principal. In the MAP principal, "Meta-Reality" lies in the domain of Non-reality. It also has 2 Realities where one lies inside the other. This create the problem that everything outside the smaller reality (Mind, larger Reality, Meta-Reality) is Non-reality, etc.

If you need clarification on this concept, read through this thread: http://www.debate.org...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 2:40:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 10:22:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2014 9:14:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
OK. So explain then how Reality is Syndiffeonic.
The concept is not difficult to understand. It says that if the difference between two things is real, they are both part of a common medium which provides the metric of separation. That is, in order for two things to be different, the difference must be real for both things, and therefore, there must be a "middleman", so to speak, of difference (the common medium).
So then I would say that Syndiffeonesis occurs WITHIN Reality but Reality itself is not Syndiffeonic. In other words, Reality is the medium inside which Syndiffeonesis occurs. It also seems to me that I can say "Existence is the medium inside which Syndiffeonesis occurs."

Also, you never addressed the problems with the MAP principal. In the MAP principal, "Meta-Reality" lies in the domain of Non-reality. It also has 2 Realities where one lies inside the other. This create the problem that everything outside the smaller reality (Mind, larger Reality, Meta-Reality) is Non-reality, etc.
Mind is reality in the sense that it shares the distributed reality syntax.
What is "the distributed reality syntax"? Please use plain English. Thanks.

That is, reality is everywhere the same as itself.
Are you trying to say that "existence exists everywhere?" If so, I agree. It's implied in the concept though. If this is what you meant by "the distributed reality syntax" then I think I understand.

The meta-reality is reality's self-description.
That "reality/existence has a self-description" is a bold assertion. Not that I don't BELIEVE this bold assertion, I do, but it is a bold assertion nonetheless.

Since reality is self-contained, it must descriptively contain itself from within, such that the universe is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe.
1) The Universe does not have topology, it has no shape. A shape would imply a border/limit/boundary which the Universe does not poses because there isn't anything that the Universe isn't. In other words, there's nothing left over to border. The Universe is infinite in the sense that infinite = complete, not lacking.

2) I hope you don't mean this "Since reality is self-contained, it must descriptively contain itself from within..." in violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics?

Do you really think the author of the CTMU hadn't thought of that?
If I had a nickle for every time I heard that...
If I had a nickel for every time a pseudo-intellectual internet jackal thought they had Langan pinned with their genius insight that took them five minutes...seriously, are people so moronic that you honestly believe your critiques are indicative of anything BUT your evaluative-incompetence?
Ad hominems, the sign of a loosing argument. As such, there are still plenty of inconsistencies and at least 1 bold assertion.

I don't mean to say that you shouldn't question the CTMU, but I'm just astonished at the number of people who seem to actually believe they've thought of something Langan, a man who has spent the past 25 years developing the theory, hasn't.
That sounds a lot like something a zealot would say rather than rational mind.

From where I sit, such an assumption is just completely insane. By all means, critique the CTMU (it's a great way of learning about it) but please, don't do it with that insufferably irrational tone of certainty which you obviously have no business using. It's simply counterproductive. (I'm feeling especially wrathful this morning lol)
Lol at how full of yourself you are! Regardless, in all likelihood, I have probably forgotten more than you'll ever know. The only thing counter productive are your ad hominems.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 3:07:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 2:40:22 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:22:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2014 9:14:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
OK. So explain then how Reality is Syndiffeonic.
The concept is not difficult to understand. It says that if the difference between two things is real, they are both part of a common medium which provides the metric of separation. That is, in order for two things to be different, the difference must be real for both things, and therefore, there must be a "middleman", so to speak, of difference (the common medium).

So then I would say that Syndiffeonesis occurs WITHIN Reality but Reality itself is not Syndiffeonic. In other words, Reality is the medium inside which Syndiffeonesis occurs. It also seems to me that I can say "Existence is the medium inside which Syndiffeonesis occurs."


No, reality is everywhere syndiffenoic (everywhere the same as itself). That is, the principle "everywhere the same as itself" is everywhere distributed.

Also, you never addressed the problems with the MAP principal. In the MAP principal, "Meta-Reality" lies in the domain of Non-reality. It also has 2 Realities where one lies inside the other. This create the problem that everything outside the smaller reality (Mind, larger Reality, Meta-Reality) is Non-reality, etc.
Mind is reality in the sense that it shares the distributed reality syntax.
What is "the distributed reality syntax"? Please use plain English. Thanks.

Reality syntax is the level of perfect generality an homogeneity implied by the principle of syndiffeonesis. You can read about it on pages 16, 18 and 24 http://www.megafoundation.org...

That is, reality is everywhere the same as itself.
Are you trying to say that "existence exists everywhere?" If so, I agree. It's implied in the concept though. If this is what you meant by "the distributed reality syntax" then I think I understand.

Yes, that is implicit in the assertion "reality is everywhere the same as itself".


The meta-reality is reality's self-description.
That "reality/existence has a self-description" is a bold assertion. Not that I don't BELIEVE this bold assertion, I do, but it is a bold assertion nonetheless.

It's a logical necessity and empirically confirmed by the acceleration expansion of the cosmos. Read the thread I posted earlier.


Since reality is self-contained, it must descriptively contain itself from within, such that the universe is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe.
1) The Universe does not have topology, it has no shape. A shape would imply a border/limit/boundary which the Universe does not poses because there isn't anything that the Universe isn't. In other words, there's nothing left over to border. The Universe is infinite in the sense that infinite = complete, not lacking.

You're right, the universe has no shape, because that would require an external descriptor. Since reality is everywhere the same as itself, reality can everywhere contain itself. Since the overall size of the universe is undefinable, and since there is no "outside" relative to the universe, self-containment occurs inwardly (and therefore the universe is expanding from our perspective), and appears accelerating because the inner-expansion is the function of an unchanging size ratio (the size of the universe).

2) I hope you don't mean this "Since reality is self-contained, it must descriptively contain itself from within..." in violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics?

?


Do you really think the author of the CTMU hadn't thought of that?
If I had a nickle for every time I heard that...
If I had a nickel for every time a pseudo-intellectual internet jackal thought they had Langan pinned with their genius insight that took them five minutes...seriously, are people so moronic that you honestly believe your critiques are indicative of anything BUT your evaluative-incompetence?
Ad hominems, the sign of a loosing argument. As such, there are still plenty of inconsistencies and at least 1 bold assertion.

It wasn't in place of argumentation. I refuted all of your arguments.


I don't mean to say that you shouldn't question the CTMU, but I'm just astonished at the number of people who seem to actually believe they've thought of something Langan, a man who has spent the past 25 years developing the theory, hasn't.
That sounds a lot like something a zealot would say rather than rational mind.

From where I sit, such an assumption is just completely insane. By all means, critique the CTMU (it's a great way of learning about it) but please, don't do it with that insufferably irrational tone of certainty which you obviously have no business using. It's simply counterproductive. (I'm feeling especially wrathful this morning lol)
Lol at how full of yourself you are! Regardless, in all likelihood, I have probably forgotten more than you'll ever know. The only thing counter productive are your ad hominems.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 5:08:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 10:38:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2014 9:14:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Also, you never addressed the problems with the MAP principal. In the MAP principal, "Meta-Reality" lies in the domain of Non-reality. It also has 2 Realities where one lies inside the other. This create the problem that everything outside the smaller reality (Mind, larger Reality, Meta-Reality) is Non-reality, etc.
If you need clarification on this concept, read through this thread: http://www.debate.org...
I don't see my objections to the MAP principal answered in the link; instead, I see further inconsistencies:

Set Theory is inconsistent and incomplete. It is possible to define a set and show that that set cannot possibly exist. For example, Russell's Paradox: A = set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If A is NOT an element of the set A, then A is a set which is not a member of itself; therefore, it should be an element of the set A. If A is an element of the set A, then A is NOT a set which is not a member of itself: it is a member of itself. This is a contradiction and set A cannot exist; ergo, inconsistent. (This is bad.)

Since there is at least one set that cannot exist, then it is not possible for every set to exist; therefore, it is not possible to construct a set that contains every set: set theory is incomplete. (This is not so bad.)

Set theory is an inconsistent and incomplete description of reality. But this shouldn't be a surprise as Godel's Incompleteness Theorem tells us that "a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible." So we can have a complete set of axioms BUT then there must by inconsistency; or we can have consistency BUT then it will be incomplete. I prefer the latter.

As such, one should NOT expect the Universe to conform to Set Theory. For example, let's say that the Universe is the set of all things that exist and call it set U. One might think that set U is the largest of all sets but one would be in error to think that. The reason that it is not the largest is because in set theory and any mathematical system that contains the concept of infinity as "never finishing," cannot simultaneously contain the concept of "largest" because they are mutually exclusive concepts. You can have concepts like "larger" and "smaller" but not "largest" or "smallest" along with "never finishing."

But every set, even the largest one, has a powerset which contains it, and that which contains it must be larger (a contradiction).
The contradiction is in the concept "largest one": see above. It has nothing to do with the general concept of containment, per se. Of course, if one where to define "infinity" in a different fashion (ie have a different axiom of infinity) then perhaps it might be possible to have a largest or smallest: infinite/infinitesimal = largest/smallest!

But let's look at the concept of containment as it pertains to Set Theory: "something containing itself" has no corollary in physical reality, only in Set Theory. So this concept of something containing itself is ONLY in the ABSTRACT, because Set Theory is not consistent with Reality. In Reality, containers contain other things, they cannot contain themselves. Can your car contain itself? No, it cannot. If your car could contain itself, how do know when it is containing itself and when it is not? If it is always containing itself then, can it ever really be empty? So many absurdities arise.

While on the subject of inconsistency, the concept of an "empty set" also has no corollary in physical reality. Is there any container that is empty of all things? No. There is always something in it: air, water, energy, space, etc.

I'll stop here and await your answers if you care to be civil and quit the ad hominems.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 5:54:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 3:07:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2014 2:40:22 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
So then I would say that Syndiffeonesis occurs WITHIN Reality but Reality itself is not Syndiffeonic. In other words, Reality is the medium inside which Syndiffeonesis occurs. It also seems to me that I can say "Existence is the medium inside which Syndiffeonesis occurs."
No, reality is everywhere syndiffenoic (everywhere the same as itself). That is, the principle "everywhere the same as itself" is everywhere distributed.
What do you mean by "everywhere the same as itself"? Reality is everywhere; as such, there isn't a place anywhere where Reality is not there. Thus it is no surprise to find that "wherever you find Reality," Reality is the same in THAT place as in any OTHER place that you find Reality. But this tautology is true for anything that exists: wherever you find X, it is the same X at THAT place as in any OTHER place that you find X.

It has come to my attention that you are equivocating "Reality" and "reality"; in other words, you are equivocating subsets of Reality (or little r reality) with ALL of Reality (big r Reality or the Universe.) It is confusing when you equivocate the whole with its parts, and it further obfuscates our discussion.

So my point still stands, Syndiffeonesis occurs WITHIN "Reality" but "Reality" itself is not Syndiffeonic. In other words, "Reality" is the medium inside which Syndiffeonesis occurs between "realities". Case in point: Syndiffeonesis is contingent upon Reality and NOT the other way around.

Also, you never addressed the problems with the MAP principal. In the MAP principal, "Meta-Reality" lies in the domain of Non-reality. It also has 2 Realities where one lies inside the other. This create the problem that everything outside the smaller reality (Mind, larger Reality, Meta-Reality) is Non-reality, etc.
Mind is reality in the sense that it shares the distributed reality syntax.
What is "the distributed reality syntax"? Please use plain English. Thanks.
Reality syntax is the level of perfect generality an homogeneity implied by the principle of syndiffeonesis. You can read about it on pages 16, 18 and 24 http://www.megafoundation.org...
I don't see what "perfect generality and homogeneity" have to do with any of this. I will read it and come back to this point.

Are you trying to say that "existence exists everywhere?" If so, I agree. It's implied in the concept though. If this is what you meant by "the distributed reality syntax" then I think I understand.
Yes, that is implicit in the assertion "reality is everywhere the same as itself".
Again, this is true of all things.

The meta-reality is reality's self-description.
That "reality/existence has a self-description" is a bold assertion. Not that I don't BELIEVE this bold assertion, I do, but it is a bold assertion nonetheless.
It's a logical necessity and empirically confirmed by the acceleration expansion of the cosmos. Read the thread I posted earlier.
1) There is no logical necessity for self anything.
2) The acceleration of the "expansion" of the cosmos is the unfolding of the Universe. It is the progress of the Universe going from it's Alpha State to it's eventual Omega State. None of which has the slightest thing to so with the self.

1) The Universe does not have topology, it has no shape. A shape would imply a border/limit/boundary which the Universe does not poses because there isn't anything that the Universe isn't. In other words, there's nothing left over to border. The Universe is infinite in the sense that infinite = complete, not lacking.
You're right, the universe has no shape, because that would require an external descriptor. Since reality is everywhere the same as itself, reality can everywhere contain itself.
Things cannot contain themselves, that's an absurdity. Does your car contain itself? No.

Since the overall size of the universe is undefinable, and since there is no "outside" relative to the universe, self-containment occurs inwardly (and therefore the universe is expanding from our perspective), and appears accelerating because the inner-expansion is the function of an unchanging size ratio (the size of the universe).
If the size is "undefinable" so is the ratio; ergo, not a ratio to begin with.

2) I hope you don't mean this "Since reality is self-contained, it must descriptively contain itself from within..." in violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics?
?
If anything did "contain itself" it would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Anyways, the concept of self-containment is a contradiction.

If I had a nickel for every time a pseudo-intellectual internet jackal thought they had Langan pinned with their genius insight that took them five minutes...seriously, are people so moronic that you honestly believe your critiques are indicative of anything BUT your evaluative-incompetence?
Ad hominems, the sign of a loosing argument. As such, there are still plenty of inconsistencies and at least 1 bold assertion.
It wasn't in place of argumentation. I refuted all of your arguments.
Not even in your wildest hallucinations did you refute them. At best, you can point to something that I may have misunderstood; but as you can see, most of my objections still stand.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 5:57:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 5:08:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:38:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2014 9:14:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Also, you never addressed the problems with the MAP principal. In the MAP principal, "Meta-Reality" lies in the domain of Non-reality. It also has 2 Realities where one lies inside the other. This create the problem that everything outside the smaller reality (Mind, larger Reality, Meta-Reality) is Non-reality, etc.
If you need clarification on this concept, read through this thread: http://www.debate.org...
I don't see my objections to the MAP principal answered in the link; instead, I see further inconsistencies:

Set Theory is inconsistent and incomplete. It is possible to define a set and show that that set cannot possibly exist. For example, Russell's Paradox: A = set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If A is NOT an element of the set A, then A is a set which is not a member of itself; therefore, it should be an element of the set A. If A is an element of the set A, then A is NOT a set which is not a member of itself: it is a member of itself. This is a contradiction and set A cannot exist; ergo, inconsistent. (This is bad.)

Since there is at least one set that cannot exist, then it is not possible for every set to exist; therefore, it is not possible to construct a set that contains every set: set theory is incomplete. (This is not so bad.)

Set theory is an inconsistent and incomplete description of reality. But this shouldn't be a surprise as Godel's Incompleteness Theorem tells us that "a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible." So we can have a complete set of axioms BUT then there must by inconsistency; or we can have consistency BUT then it will be incomplete. I prefer the latter.

As such, one should NOT expect the Universe to conform to Set Theory. For example, let's say that the Universe is the set of all things that exist and call it set U. One might think that set U is the largest of all sets but one would be in error to think that. The reason that it is not the largest is because in set theory and any mathematical system that contains the concept of infinity as "never finishing," cannot simultaneously contain the concept of "largest" because they are mutually exclusive concepts. You can have concepts like "larger" and "smaller" but not "largest" or "smallest" along with "never finishing."

You are correct, set theory is inconsistent. Fortunately, Langan's theories don't rely on it whatsoever, and depend only on the set concept. Conveniently enough, someone else made this error as well, and Langan spent a great deal of time correcting it. http://scientopia.org...
It shouldn't be very hard to find the relevant posts.

But every set, even the largest one, has a powerset which contains it, and that which contains it must be larger (a contradiction).
The contradiction is in the concept "largest one": see above. It has nothing to do with the general concept of containment, per se. Of course, if one where to define "infinity" in a different fashion (ie have a different axiom of infinity) then perhaps it might be possible to have a largest or smallest: infinite/infinitesimal = largest/smallest!

But let's look at the concept of containment as it pertains to Set Theory: "something containing itself" has no corollary in physical reality, only in Set Theory.

um, that would be reality lol. Reality contains itself.

So this concept of something containing itself is ONLY in the ABSTRACT, because Set Theory is not consistent with Reality. In Reality, containers contain other things, they cannot contain themselves. Can your car contain itself? No, it cannot. If your car could contain itself, how do know when it is containing itself and when it is not? If it is always containing itself then, can it ever really be empty? So many absurdities arise.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, so I'll just explain how it works. For the reasons outlined in that post, reality must contain itself. Thus, the universe is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe. In this compact definition hides the following fact: since the universe is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe, that which topologically contains is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe! There's a diagram of this concept on page 24 of the ctmu.

While on the subject of inconsistency, the concept of an "empty set" also has no corollary in physical reality. Is there any container that is empty of all things? No. There is always something in it: air, water, energy, space, etc.

I'll stop here and await your answers if you care to be civil and quit the ad hominems.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 6:22:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 5:57:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2014 5:08:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Set theory is an inconsistent and incomplete description of reality. But this shouldn't be a surprise as Godel's Incompleteness Theorem tells us that "a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible." So we can have a complete set of axioms BUT then there must by inconsistency; or we can have consistency BUT then it will be incomplete. I prefer the latter.

As such, one should NOT expect the Universe to conform to Set Theory. For example, let's say that the Universe is the set of all things that exist and call it set U. One might think that set U is the largest of all sets but one would be in error to think that. The reason that it is not the largest is because in set theory and any mathematical system that contains the concept of infinity as "never finishing," cannot simultaneously contain the concept of "largest" because they are mutually exclusive concepts. You can have concepts like "larger" and "smaller" but not "largest" or "smallest" along with "never finishing."
You are correct, set theory is inconsistent. Fortunately, Langan's theories don't rely on it whatsoever, and depend only on the set concept.
And when I communicate with him, I'll congratulate him on that; but since I'm communicating with YOU, your point here is a non sequitur.

Conveniently enough, someone else made this error as well, and Langan spent a great deal of time correcting it. http://scientopia.org...
It shouldn't be very hard to find the relevant posts.
Conveniently enough, my points above still stand because they apply to what YOU have posted irrespective of Set Theory and Langan's theory.

But every set, even the largest one, has a powerset which contains it, and that which contains it must be larger (a contradiction).
The contradiction is in the concept "largest one": see above. It has nothing to do with the general concept of containment, per se. Of course, if one where to define "infinity" in a different fashion (ie have a different axiom of infinity) then perhaps it might be possible to have a largest or smallest: infinite/infinitesimal = largest/smallest!

But let's look at the concept of containment as it pertains to Set Theory: "something containing itself" has no corollary in physical reality, only in Set Theory.
um, that would be reality lol. Reality contains itself.
Not as lol as half the absurdities that you post. Again, show me that your car contains itself and then show me how you can take your car out of itself. Stop trying to equivocate and play your silly language games with "contain."

So this concept of something containing itself is ONLY in the ABSTRACT, because Set Theory is not consistent with Reality. In Reality, containers contain other things, they cannot contain themselves. Can your car contain itself? No, it cannot. If your car could contain itself, how do know when it is containing itself and when it is not? If it is always containing itself then, can it ever really be empty? So many absurdities arise.
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, so I'll just explain how it works.
Yeah, feign ignorance.

For the reasons outlined in that post, reality must contain itself.
Yeah, a BOLD ASSERTION. Why would I extend a flawed concept that does not work on a portion of Reality to ALL of Reality and somehow expect it to make sense. No, that's not how reason works and certainly not how science works.

Thus, the universe is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe. In this compact definition hides the following fact: since the universe is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe, that which topologically contains is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe! There's a diagram of this concept on page 24 of the ctmu.
There is no topology to the Universe, that's already been refuted and conceded by you. The rest that follows is nonsense.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.