Total Posts:225|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

CTMU the theory

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 4:26:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
CTMU is a theory proposed by Chirstopher Langan.

(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Due in part to edits it is believed he made to the articles on himself and CTMU, there is no wikipedia page on CTMU.

(http://www.cosmosmagazine.com...)

For those who don't know what it is, I'll link two different "sides" as it were.

An introduction:
http://www.ctmu.org...
http://megafoundation.org...

Some criticism:

http://anamericanatheist.org...
http://rationalwiki.org...

Langan claims that:

"CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. "

I maintain that this is speculative at best.

Dylancatlow is a proponent of this theory, and I told him I'd start this thread so that he could defend it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 4:29:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A major starting point would be to ask:

"Is this theory falsifiable", and/or "Is there any difference that we could tell between if this theory was TRUE, or if it was FALSE?"
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 4:45:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 4:29:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
A major starting point would be to ask:

"Is this theory falsifiable", and/or "Is there any difference that we could tell between if this theory was TRUE, or if it was FALSE?"

You could falsify it by examining it for errors or internal contradictions (but not really). The CTMU is a supertautological extension of logic i.e. it purports to be necessarily true. A more in depth explanation can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

It is empirically confirmed by the accelerating expansion of the cosmos among various other observable phenomena. However, it is not predicated on such occurrences.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 4:47:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 4:47:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Also, could the title of this be more awkward? ffs

It was "CTMU the theory" or "CTMU (nac)"

Cut me some gorram slack.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 4:51:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 4:45:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:29:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
A major starting point would be to ask:

"Is this theory falsifiable", and/or "Is there any difference that we could tell between if this theory was TRUE, or if it was FALSE?"

You could falsify it by examining it for errors or internal contradictions (but not really). The CTMU is a supertautological extension of logic i.e. it purports to be necessarily true. A more in depth explanation can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

dylan, you were supposed to make and defend your claims HERE.

Please do so.

As to this "supertautology", why don't you spell it out, then.

It is empirically confirmed by the accelerating expansion of the cosmos among various other observable phenomena. However, it is not predicated on such occurrences.

It appears as though what you're saying, overall, here is "No" and "Nothing".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 5:00:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 4:45:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is empirically confirmed by the accelerating expansion of the cosmos among various other observable phenomena. However, it is not predicated on such occurrences.

Also, no: the expansion of the cosmos is not empirical confirmation of the theory. He rejects the ectomorphism of cosmic expansion in favor of endomorphic points.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 5:02:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 5:00:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:45:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is empirically confirmed by the accelerating expansion of the cosmos among various other observable phenomena. However, it is not predicated on such occurrences.

Also, no: the expansion of the cosmos is not empirical confirmation of the theory. He rejects the ectomorphism of cosmic expansion in favor of endomorphic points.

Sorry, apparent accelerating expansion of the cosmos (however, they are empirically interchangeable according to the theory).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 5:10:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 4:51:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:45:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:29:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
A major starting point would be to ask:

"Is this theory falsifiable", and/or "Is there any difference that we could tell between if this theory was TRUE, or if it was FALSE?"

You could falsify it by examining it for errors or internal contradictions (but not really). The CTMU is a supertautological extension of logic i.e. it purports to be necessarily true. A more in depth explanation can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

dylan, you were supposed to make and defend your claims HERE.

Please do so.

What on earth are you talking about? I answered the question - YES.


As to this "supertautology", why don't you spell it out, then.

"A logical tautology possess three
distinctive properties: it is descriptively universal, it is closed under recursive self-composition,
and it is internally and externally consistent on the syntactic and semantic levels of reference.
Since logic is the theory of truth, the way to construct a fully verifiable theory is to start with logic
and develop the theory by means of rules or principles under which truth is heritable. Because
truth is synonymous with logical tautology, this means developing the theory by adjoining rules
which themselves have a tautological structure - i.e., which are universal, closed and consistent -
and logically extracting the implications. A theory of reality constructed in this way is called a
supertautology."


It is empirically confirmed by the accelerating expansion of the cosmos among various other observable phenomena. However, it is not predicated on such occurrences.

It appears as though what you're saying, overall, here is "No" and "Nothing".

Yes, as far as I know, the theory doesn't make any predictions of phenomena that haven't already been observed (it merely gives them a logical explanation).
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 6:09:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ace! Let the slaughter begin!

"A logical tautology possess three distinctive properties: it is descriptively universal, it is closed under recursive self-composition, and it is internally and externally consistent on the syntactic and semantic levels of reference.

Analysis of the above:

A tautology (all tautologies are logical) posses three distinctive properties: it is universal (descriptive is redundant), it is a closed system (recursive and self-compositions are synonymous here) and it is internally consistent (there is nothing external to a tautology and they are syntactically and semantically identical because they only express "X is X" which is tautologically the same as "X").

Without clarifications:

A tautology possess three distinctive properties: it is a universal, closed and internally consistent system.

Translation of the above:

A tautology possesses ONE property: it is not self-contradictory.

Further clarification:

A tautology is a tautology.

Since logic is the theory of truth

No it isn't. Logic is a framework of the same kind as the rules of chess, just more widely useful to everyday life.

the way to construct a fully verifiable theory is to start with logic

No it isn't, as something can be logical but not map to reality. The way to construct a fully verifiable theory is to test it against reality because that is what 'verifiable' means in this context.

and develop the theory by means of rules or principles under which truth is heritable.

So... where truth comes from truth. There needs to be a metric for this 'heritability of truth', by which truth can be judged and tested. Otherwise it is just supposition.

Because truth is synonymous with logical tautology

Only linguistically. Definitions are not prescriptive of reality.

this means developing the theory by adjoining rules which themselves have a tautological structure - i.e., which are universal, closed and consistent - and logically extracting the implications. A theory of reality constructed in this way is called a supertautology."

No, it is just tautological. Tautologies - by definition, amusingly enough - tell us nothing about anything other than how a set of rules are being defined.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 6:20:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The clearest indication that this 'theory' is complete b*llshit is when Dylan claims that CTMU explains QM, Expansion, Relativity etc.

BUT than claims the theory makes no testable predictions.

This is impossible unless the theory was a theory of anything. If CTMU predicts an expanding universe, then later discovery tha the universe is actually shrinking should falsify it, if CTMU predicts relativity, which was later shown to actually be some false reference, and the aether actually exists, then CTMU would be falsified.

So either CTMU either predicts these, or it does not. You cant have your cake and eat it. If CTMU predicts inflation, then how does it do that, and what can be tested about it, perhaps in the CMB?

Etc

Etc.

Furthermore, to lack even a summary of the theory in basic English is just about the biggest red flag for *bullsh1t right ahead*

.....

/rant
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 6:27:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That and it's very easy to take apart as utter guff, contains no real maths, what maths it does contain is flaky at best and is one huge semantic curlywurly.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 6:52:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 6:20:33 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
The clearest indication that this 'theory' is complete b*llshit is when Dylan claims that CTMU explains QM, Expansion, Relativity etc.

BUT than claims the theory makes no testable predictions.


If that's the clearest indication you have, then your rejection of the CTMU is based on nothing but your incredulity and perhaps what you've heard about it from the moronic anti-Langan squad (as I figured).

The CTMU arrives at empirically meaningful conclusions with the use of deduction. That is, is seeks to answer the question "what are the necessary conditions of existence" (of which some are empirically observable and relevant). The accelerating expansion of the cosmos, for instance, is implied by the self-containment principle among various others. Since the universe can be accurately described as a set (the set of all sets), and since every set, even the largest one, has a powerset which contains it, that which contains it must be larger (a contradiction). In order to resolve this paradox - which reality must do in order to exist - it must enforce its consistency through dual self-containment. Ergo, the universe is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe. The paradox is resolved since each part contains that which contains itself and vice versa. "When we imagine a dynamic self-including set, we think of a set growing larger and larger in order to engulf itself from without. But since there is no "without" relative to the real universe, external growth or reference is not an option; there can be no external set or external descriptor. Instead, self-inclusion and self-description must occur inwardly as the universe stratifies into a temporal sequence of states, each state topologically and computationally contained in the one preceding it (where the conventionally limited term computation is understood to refer to a more powerful SCSPL-based concept, protocomputation, involving spatiotemporal parallelism). On the present level of discourse, this inward self-inclusion is the conspansive basis of what we call spacetime... Because the universe now plays the role of invariant, there exists a global standard rate of inner expansion or mutual absorption among the contents of the universe ("c- invariance"), and due to syntactic covariance, objects must be resized or "requantized" with each new event according to a constant (time-independent) rescaling factor residing in global syntax. Second, because the rate of shrinkage is a constant function of a changing size ratio, the universe appears from an internal vantage to be accelerating in its "expansion", leading to the conspansive dual of a positive cosmological constant."
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 7:04:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
He's certainly mastered self-refutation, I'll give him that. Mixing different types of set theory is bound to lead to confusion. That's why there are different types of set theory, rather than just one massive incoherent "set of all set theories", which is what he seems to be trying work with.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 7:30:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 6:09:37 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Ace! Let the slaughter begin!

"A logical tautology possess three distinctive properties: it is descriptively universal, it is closed under recursive self-composition, and it is internally and externally consistent on the syntactic and semantic levels of reference.

Analysis of the above:

A tautology (all tautologies are logical) posses three distinctive properties: it is universal (descriptive is redundant), it is a closed system (recursive and self-compositions are synonymous here) and it is internally consistent (there is nothing external to a tautology and they are syntactically and semantically identical because they only express "X is X" which is tautologically the same as "X").

Without clarifications:

A tautology possess three distinctive properties: it is a universal, closed and internally consistent system.

Translation of the above:

A tautology possesses ONE property: it is not self-contradictory.

"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."

While you may not see the significance of this information, it most certainly is for numerous CTMU deductions.

Further clarification:

A tautology is a tautology.

In logic, truth is defined by means of always-true expressions called tautologies. Thus, tautologies are semantically meaningful.


the way to construct a fully verifiable theory is to start with logic

No it isn't, as something can be logical but not map to reality. The way to construct a fully verifiable theory is to test it against reality because that is what 'verifiable' means in this context.

When he says "start with logic", he obviously isn't implying that a consistent theory necessarily maps to reality.

and develop the theory by means of rules or principles under which truth is heritable.

So... where truth comes from truth. There needs to be a metric for this 'heritability of truth', by which truth can be judged and tested. Otherwise it is just supposition.

The metric is logic itself. This is why it's important not to skim over his explanations of tautologies.

Because truth is synonymous with logical tautology

Only linguistically. Definitions are not prescriptive of reality.

Language conforms to the rules of reality as well. In any attempt to deny it, one would destroy their own means of argumentation.

this means developing the theory by adjoining rules which themselves have a tautological structure - i.e., which are universal, closed and consistent - and logically extracting the implications. A theory of reality constructed in this way is called a supertautology."

No, it is just tautological. Tautologies - by definition, amusingly enough - tell us nothing about anything other than how a set of rules are being defined.

What utter nonsense. Tautologies express necessarily true propositions, which reality must conform to in order to exist - in order to distinguish itself form nonexistence.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 7:54:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 7:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"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."

Quoting more of the same nonsense doesn't change the fact it is, in fact, nonsense. If you have objections to the semantic analysis, please make them clear. If you don't, I can only assume you admit they are valid or do not have the ability to refuse them and therefore aren't positioned to tell whether they're valid or not.

In logic, truth is defined by means of always-true expressions called tautologies. Thus, tautologies are semantically meaningful.

In semantics, tautologies are statements of definition of terms and contain no meaning beyond "X is X", from which nothing of use can be derived by anyone who knows what the terms already mean.

When he says "start with logic", he obviously isn't implying that a consistent theory necessarily maps to reality.

Yes he concludes that it dictates it.

The metric is logic itself. This is why it's important not to skim over his explanations of tautologies.

I didn't skim over it, I just took it apart bit by bit. If the metric for logic is logic, the metric is self-referential. Tautological. Useless for all practical purposes beyond the definition of the term the tautology defines.

Language conforms to the rules of reality as well. In any attempt to deny it, one would destroy their own means of argumentation.

Nonsense. Literally, devoid of sense.

What utter nonsense. Tautologies express necessarily true propositions, which reality must conform to in order to exist - in order to distinguish itself form nonexistence.

So you don't know what a tautology is. Why am I not surprised? Oh, because you're a sycophantic goon who has absolutely no interest in the critical analysis of something they desperately want to be true because they think it sounds clever and therefore thinks makes them clever themselves. Just give it up Dylan, go and get help and drop your ridiculous pseudo-intellectual crush on Langan. He's a fraud and you're a dupe.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:14:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 7:54:09 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/8/2014 7:30:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"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."

Quoting more of the same nonsense doesn't change the fact it is, in fact, nonsense. If you have objections to the semantic analysis, please make them clear. If you don't, I can only assume you admit they are valid or do not have the ability to refuse them and therefore aren't positioned to tell whether they're valid or not.

When you don't object to anything in particular, I assume you're just sounding off and have no ideas.

In logic, truth is defined by means of always-true expressions called tautologies. Thus, tautologies are semantically meaningful.

In semantics, tautologies are statements of definition of terms and contain no meaning beyond "X is X", from which nothing of use can be derived by anyone who knows what the terms already mean.

Why are you saying this?


When he says "start with logic", he obviously isn't implying that a consistent theory necessarily maps to reality.

Yes he concludes that it dictates it.

When you say things like this, I can't take you seriously at all. You're obviously only here to disagree with everything I say, and I don't think I can take much more of it.

Langan: Having explained the main technical issues in reality theory, we may now cut to the chase: the way to build a theory of reality is to identify the properties that it must unconditionally possess in order to exist, and then bring the theory into existence by defining it to possess these properties without introducing merely contingent properties that, if taken as general, could impair its descriptive relationship with the real universe (those can come later and will naturally be subject to empirical confirmation).


The metric is logic itself. This is why it's important not to skim over his explanations of tautologies.

I didn't skim over it, I just took it apart bit by bit. If the metric for logic is logic, the metric is self-referential. Tautological. Useless for all practical purposes beyond the definition of the term the tautology defines.


Yes, logic is true even of itself. And no, logical tautologies express necessarily true propositions about the real universe. In denying this fact, you are refuting your own argument, since the reasons that you claim your argument is true reduce to tautologies.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:46:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I find his writing impenetrable. If I think I understand it, what I think I understand is far too simple and obvious to be what he actually means. The reduction of his argument presented in the OP is very comprehensible, but I feel as though making any comment based on that statement would miss the subtleties or complexity of the idea being proposed.

To expend a considerable amount of time trudging through this man's prose would require both commitment and faith with regard to the veracity of his theory - but he's given me no incentive to make that investment. I shouldn't put that much effort into what turns out to be an exercise in intellectual bravado. And so I suppose my point is, he should do a better job simplifying and explaining his argument. The explanation need not be thorough and exhaustive but he SHOULD be able to simply the thought process that leads to the conclusion. All I've seen thus far is the simplified conclusion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:52:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:14:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
When you don't object to anything in particular, I assume you're just sounding off and have no ideas.

Are you f*cking kidding me?! I just showed that he said NOTHING in several lines of his pseudo-drivel, other than "tautologies are tautologies" which is IDENTICAL to saying only "tautologies". That's it. You don't think it's a problem with his argument that it contains no information and is just using lots of words to say a single word that tells us nothing about the universe or anything else? It was as particular an objection as there can possibly be.

Either you're actually far, far more stupid than pretty much everyone I've ever met or you have to see how this is a problem. If you see how it is a problem then you need to address the points I raised, rather than YET AGAIN pretending that no points have been raised.

Why are you saying this?

Because you're so dumb that you need it spelling out. That's it. Anyone less dumb than you - for instance, most types of moss and probably a good few kinds of rock - wouldn't need it explaining to them.

When you say things like this, I can't take you seriously at all. You're obviously only here to disagree with everything I say, and I don't think I can take much more of it.

That's because, as I've pointed out several times, you're a total narcissist. If you can't take much more of it, I suggest you stfu and try talking less unqualified shite.

Yes, logic is true even of itself. And no, logical tautologies express necessarily true propositions about the real universe. In denying this fact, you are refuting your own argument, since the reasons that you claim your argument is true reduce to tautologies.

No. The fact you think 'logical tautology' means anything other than 'tautology' is a fairly good sign that you're just making as much noise as you can in the hope someone mistakes it for sense. They are not necessarily true propositions about the real universe. "A unicorn is a unicorn" is a tautology. There is nothing necessarily true about the universe in relation to it and if you really can't grasp this point then you need to give up anything more complex than breathing because it is going to be an undue load on your sorely stretched and woefully under-equipped brain.

Go and study some linguistic philosophy. Go and study some logic. That, by the way, does not mean 'read', but 'study' in the sense of 'listen to someone who knows what they are talking about', because your OBVIOUSLY self-taught attempts at making sense of it have turned you into an intellectual cripple of the worst sort.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:52:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:46:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
I find his writing impenetrable. If I think I understand it, what I think I understand is far too simple and obvious to be what he actually means. The reduction of his argument presented in the OP is very comprehensible, but I feel as though making any comment based on that statement would miss the subtleties or complexity of the idea being proposed.

To expend a considerable amount of time trudging through this man's prose would require both commitment and faith with regard to the veracity of his theory - but he's given me no incentive to make that investment. I shouldn't put that much effort into what turns out to be an exercise in intellectual bravado. And so I suppose my point is, he should do a better job simplifying and explaining his argument. The explanation need not be thorough and exhaustive but he SHOULD be able to simply the thought process that leads to the conclusion. All I've seen thus far is the simplified conclusion.

If you find the CTMU too technical, try reading the CTMU primer: http://www.teleologic.org...
It gives a good overview of key CTMU principles, but only covers what the CTMU says, not why it says it.

For a more detailed simplifiction, read Introduction to the CTMU: http://www.ctmu.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 9:01:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:46:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
I find his writing impenetrable. If I think I understand it, what I think I understand is far too simple and obvious to be what he actually means. The reduction of his argument presented in the OP is very comprehensible, but I feel as though making any comment based on that statement would miss the subtleties or complexity of the idea being proposed.

To expend a considerable amount of time trudging through this man's prose would require both commitment and faith with regard to the veracity of his theory - but he's given me no incentive to make that investment. I shouldn't put that much effort into what turns out to be an exercise in intellectual bravado. And so I suppose my point is, he should do a better job simplifying and explaining his argument. The explanation need not be thorough and exhaustive but he SHOULD be able to simply the thought process that leads to the conclusion. All I've seen thus far is the simplified conclusion.

Oh, and Langan is coming out with a CTMU-related book soon. Hopefully it will have less condensed explanations than CTMU. Rest assured, the forums will be spammed to hell with it ;)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 10:22:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I definitely believe that we are inside of some grand mind (not necessarily the Christian God, or even a moral one, but some type of fundamental mind). I'm not sure about this theory in particular though, but I will look into it. The reason I believe reality is a mind is because of the interaction problem, but that is delving into metaphysics.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 10:50:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 10:22:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I definitely believe that we are inside of some grand mind (not necessarily the Christian God, or even a moral one, but some type of fundamental mind). I'm not sure about this theory in particular though, but I will look into it. The reason I believe reality is a mind is because of the interaction problem, but that is delving into metaphysics.

If you have any questions regarding it, feel free to ask them over PM.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 11:14:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 4:26:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
CTMU is a theory proposed by Chirstopher Langan.

(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Due in part to edits it is believed he made to the articles on himself and CTMU, there is no wikipedia page on CTMU.

(http://www.cosmosmagazine.com...)

For those who don't know what it is, I'll link two different "sides" as it were.

An introduction:
http://www.ctmu.org...
http://megafoundation.org...

Some criticism:

http://anamericanatheist.org...
http://rationalwiki.org...

Langan claims that:

"CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. "

I maintain that this is speculative at best.

Dylancatlow is a proponent of this theory, and I told him I'd start this thread so that he could defend it.

I'm also a proponent of this theory in its general form.

I think the universe can actually be described as a mind and as a physical body.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 6:00:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 5:00:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 4:45:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is empirically confirmed by the accelerating expansion of the cosmos among various other observable phenomena. However, it is not predicated on such occurrences.

Also, no: the expansion of the cosmos is not empirical confirmation of the theory. He rejects the ectomorphism of cosmic expansion in favor of endomorphic points.

I think it is actually a matter of the accelerating expansion of the Looniverse.
"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
4/9/2014 8:16:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:52:53 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:14:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


Yes, logic is true even of itself. And no, logical tautologies express necessarily true propositions about the real universe. In denying this fact, you are refuting your own argument, since the reasons that you claim your argument is true reduce to tautologies.

No. The fact you think 'logical tautology' means anything other than 'tautology' is a fairly good sign that you're just making as much noise as you can in the hope someone mistakes it for sense. They are not necessarily true propositions about the real universe. "A unicorn is a unicorn" is a tautology. There is nothing necessarily true about the universe in relation to it and if you really can't grasp this point then you need to give up anything more complex than breathing because it is going to be an undue load on your sorely stretched and woefully under-equipped brain.

You're referring to the law of identity. While it is indeed a tautology, it has no real content. It's merely an ingredient - a manifestation of - the rules by which useful tautologies are constructed.

His use of "tautology" corresponds to the following definition: A tautology is a sentential relation, i.e. a formula consisting of variables and logical connectives, with the property that it is true for all possible assignments of Boolean truth values (true or false) to its variables. For example, the statement "if x is a sentence, then either x or not-x (but not both) must be true" is a tautology because no matter which truth values are consistently applied to x and not-x, the statement is unequivocally true. Indeed, tautologies comprise the axioms and theorems of 2-valued logic itself, and because all meaningful theories necessarily conform to 2-valued logic, define the truth concept for all of the sciences. From mathematics and physics to biology and psychology, logical tautologies reign supreme and inviolable.

"That a tautology constitutes absolute truth can be proven as follows. First, logic is absolute within any system for which (a) the complementary truth values T (true) and F (false) correspond to systemic inclusion and exclusion, a semantic necessity without which meaningful reference is impossible; and (b) lesser predicates and their complements equal subsystemic inclusion and exclusion. Because a tautology is an axiom of 2-valued logic, violating it disrupts the T/F distinction and results in the corruption of informational boundaries between perceptual and cognitive predicates recognized or applied in the system, as well as between each predicate and its negation. Thus, the observable fact that perceptual boundaries are intact across reality at large implies that no tautology within its syntax, or set of structural and functional rules, has been violated; indeed, if such a tautology ever were violated, then reality would disintegrate due to corruption of the informational boundaries which define it. So a tautology is "absolute truth" not only with respect to logic, but with respect to reality at large."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 8:32:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 6:20:33 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
The clearest indication that this 'theory' is complete b*llshit is when Dylan claims that CTMU explains QM, Expansion, Relativity etc.

BUT than claims the theory makes no testable predictions.

This is impossible unless the theory was a theory of anything. If CTMU predicts an expanding universe, then later discovery tha the universe is actually shrinking should falsify it, if CTMU predicts relativity, which was later shown to actually be some false reference, and the aether actually exists, then CTMU would be falsified.

So either CTMU either predicts these, or it does not. You cant have your cake and eat it. If CTMU predicts inflation, then how does it do that, and what can be tested about it, perhaps in the CMB?

Etc

Etc.

Furthermore, to lack even a summary of the theory in basic English is just about the biggest red flag for *bullsh1t right ahead*


.....

/rant

This is totally unrelated, but in a way, isn't this assuming the principle of sufficient reason? I mean science assumes that things make sense, and that the world is "understandable" and that if we understand HOW the world works (not if the world is understandable) then we'll be able to make predictions about it.

But then it seems that most physicists would disregard the PSR?
"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."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 8:40:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 8:32:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/8/2014 6:20:33 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
The clearest indication that this 'theory' is complete b*llshit is when Dylan claims that CTMU explains QM, Expansion, Relativity etc.

BUT than claims the theory makes no testable predictions.

This is impossible unless the theory was a theory of anything. If CTMU predicts an expanding universe, then later discovery tha the universe is actually shrinking should falsify it, if CTMU predicts relativity, which was later shown to actually be some false reference, and the aether actually exists, then CTMU would be falsified.

So either CTMU either predicts these, or it does not. You cant have your cake and eat it. If CTMU predicts inflation, then how does it do that, and what can be tested about it, perhaps in the CMB?

Etc

Etc.

Furthermore, to lack even a summary of the theory in basic English is just about the biggest red flag for *bullsh1t right ahead*


.....

/rant

This is totally unrelated, but in a way, isn't this assuming the principle of sufficient reason? I mean science assumes that things make sense, and that the world is "understandable" and that if we understand HOW the world works (not if the world is understandable) then we'll be able to make predictions about it.

But then it seems that most physicists would disregard the PSR?

I don't understand what you mean by physicists would disregard this?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 8:42:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 8:40:53 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/9/2014 8:32:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/8/2014 6:20:33 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
The clearest indication that this 'theory' is complete b*llshit is when Dylan claims that CTMU explains QM, Expansion, Relativity etc.

BUT than claims the theory makes no testable predictions.

This is impossible unless the theory was a theory of anything. If CTMU predicts an expanding universe, then later discovery tha the universe is actually shrinking should falsify it, if CTMU predicts relativity, which was later shown to actually be some false reference, and the aether actually exists, then CTMU would be falsified.

So either CTMU either predicts these, or it does not. You cant have your cake and eat it. If CTMU predicts inflation, then how does it do that, and what can be tested about it, perhaps in the CMB?

Etc

Etc.

Furthermore, to lack even a summary of the theory in basic English is just about the biggest red flag for *bullsh1t right ahead*


.....

/rant

This is totally unrelated, but in a way, isn't this assuming the principle of sufficient reason? I mean science assumes that things make sense, and that the world is "understandable" and that if we understand HOW the world works (not if the world is understandable) then we'll be able to make predictions about it.

But then it seems that most physicists would disregard the PSR?

I don't understand what you mean by physicists would disregard this?

Like they say "The universe just exists, and that's it. There's no explanation to the universe's existing." Well maybe not physicists, but atheists in general...
"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."