Total Posts:153|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Need questions for CTMU website

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 2:47:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Many of you are probably familiar with the CTMU by now. Anyway, I'm starting a blog where I will be addressing frequently asked questions regarding it using Langan quotes. But first I need to compile a list of questions/objections people have. So if you have any, please share them. Try to keep them specific enough so that they can be answered easily. Thank you
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 6:46:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 2:47:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many of you are probably familiar with the CTMU by now. Anyway, I'm starting a blog where I will be addressing frequently asked questions regarding it using Langan quotes. But first I need to compile a list of questions/objections people have. So if you have any, please share them. Try to keep them specific enough so that they can be answered easily. Thank you

Here are a few:
1) WTF, is Langan on drugs or what?
2) What words rhyme with syndiffeonesis?
3) Is that how they do logic on the planet Langan comes from?
4) Why isn"t Hology the study of holes?
5) Why is it that eugenics advocates always exemplify the very underbelly of the gene pool?
"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
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 7:21:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why is a supposed genius so incapable of describing his ideas in understandable terms, when analysing the descriptions he does give show the ideas to be incredibly simple ones?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:23:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 6:48:12 PM, Sargon wrote:
My question is why I have to practically beg you to provide arguments that CTMU is true.

You approached me out of no where asking that I not only defend the entire CTMU from you in formal debate, but that I explain to you the theory being defended. I told you why this was unnecessary and impossible and why you should be the one to point out errors in a theory you've shown signs of actually reading. Instead of attempting to meet me half way, you demanded that I give answers to questions you didn't even know you should be asking. Like I said before, the CTMU is its own argument. If you need help understanding it, I would be glad to answer questions. I am not, however, interested in engaging people on topics they admittedly know nothing about. Doing so would only be a thankless waste of my time.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:30:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 7:21:07 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Why is a supposed genius so incapable of describing his ideas in understandable terms, when analysing the descriptions he does give show the ideas to be incredibly simple ones?

Langan's explanations are very precise, but they are all very navigable. Most people give up trying to understand them as soon as they've started. This is evidenced by the blatant errors made in regard to them...errors that have absolutely no excuse.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:13:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Almost everything dylan says in his post is refuted by an actual record of what I said. Let's begin...

At 5/21/2014 8:23:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You approached me out of no where asking that I not only defend the entire CTMU from you in formal debate,

Actually, I explicitly said this wasn't the case when I wrote:

"You expressed a concern about having to justify the CTMU hypothesis and the entirety of its claims. However, I do not believe the standards will be this strict for the debate. All you would have to do is present the hypothesis, explain why it is falsifiable, and state the empirical consequences."

but that I explain to you the theory being defended.

This is also false; I did not once request you to explain anything.

I told you why this was unnecessary and impossible and why you should be the one

What you did was refuse to provide a single argument, of any type, for the CTMU in whole or in part. This led to me conclude that there are no good reasons to believe in CMTU.

Instead of attempting to meet me half way

If by "meeting you half way" you mean "shifting the burden of proof"...

I am not, however, interested in engaging people on topics they admittedly know nothing about.

The term "admittedly" means that I admitted something. Nowhere in my conversations with you did I admit that I know nothing about CMTU, so this is a simple vocabulary error.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:04:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:13:20 PM, Sargon wrote:
Almost everything dylan says in his post is refuted by an actual record of what I said. Let's begin...


You wish.

At 5/21/2014 8:23:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You approached me out of no where asking that I not only defend the entire CTMU from you in formal debate,

Actually, I explicitly said this wasn't the case when I wrote:

"You expressed a concern about having to justify the CTMU hypothesis and the entirety of its claims. However, I do not believe the standards will be this strict for the debate. All you would have to do is present the hypothesis, explain why it is falsifiable, and state the empirical consequences."

Your first comment was 'Let's debate the soundness of the CTMU'. Since the CTMU is in fact a logical theory, and not a scientific one, those standards do not apply (as I already explained).


but that I explain to you the theory being defended.

This is also false; I did not once request you to explain anything.

In asking me to debate you under those conditions, you were requesting that I explain the CTMU. By 'demand' I meant that those were your demands.


I told you why this was unnecessary and impossible and why you should be the one

What you did was refuse to provide a single argument, of any type, for the CTMU in whole or in part. This led to me conclude that there are no good reasons to believe in CMTU.


That's an absurd conclusion. Not only because it's essentially an ad hom, but also because it's well known that I've been defending the CTMU on and off for the past 6 months. Also, if that's what lead you to the conclusion that there are no good reasons to believe in CTMU, then why did you want to debate its soundness in the first place? An unsound theory, by definition, provides no "good" reasons to accept it as fact.

Instead of attempting to meet me half way

If by "meeting you half way" you mean "shifting the burden of proof"...

I already explained why this is an unjustified concern. In either case, you would need to point out some error in the CTMU, so why not just do that?


I am not, however, interested in engaging people on topics they admittedly know nothing about.

The term "admittedly" means that I admitted something. Nowhere in my conversations with you did I admit that I know nothing about CMTU, so this is a simple vocabulary error.

To "admit" does not necessarily mean to state openly (it just means to acknowledge in some way). Your total ignorance of the CTMU was implicit in nearly every one of your comments. Even now, you make it clear that you don't know anything about it and have no intention of learning.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 11:38:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 6:46:25 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/21/2014 2:47:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Many of you are probably familiar with the CTMU by now. Anyway, I'm starting a blog where I will be addressing frequently asked questions regarding it using Langan quotes. But first I need to compile a list of questions/objections people have. So if you have any, please share them. Try to keep them specific enough so that they can be answered easily. Thank you

Here are a few:
1) WTF, is Langan on drugs or what?
2) What words rhyme with syndiffeonesis?
3) Is that how they do logic on the planet Langan comes from?
4) Why isn"t Hology the study of holes?
5) Why is it that eugenics advocates always exemplify the very underbelly of the gene pool?

4 made me laugh way more than it should have.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 3:57:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:30:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/21/2014 7:21:07 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Why is a supposed genius so incapable of describing his ideas in understandable terms, when analysing the descriptions he does give show the ideas to be incredibly simple ones?

Langan's explanations are very precise, but they are all very navigable. Most people give up trying to understand them as soon as they've started. This is evidenced by the blatant errors made in regard to them...errors that have absolutely no excuse.

As I've shown repeatedly, his explanations are a mess of tautological restatement of obvious facts, mixed with some undefined gibberish and outright falsehood. Simply saying "but he's a great writer!" or "you haven't understood!" without presenting a cogent response is yet more evidence that neither you nor he can actually defend it. It's horsesh*t of the most galling kind and no-one with any expertise in the fields of philosophy, mathematics or physics takes it seriously. Mostly because it is totally devoid of any meaningful content in these areas. Or any other areas, for that matter.

Claiming he's anything other than a terrible communicator is just going a step further and outright taking the p*ss. You might as well claim he's actually Zombie Einstein travelling back in time from the future, it's that absurd a claim. But then, like most other things, I suspect you don't actually understand what "clear communication" actually means.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 3:58:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:11:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Now, will I have to embarrass any more people tonight?

As always, Dylan, you've only embarrassed yourself.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 6:07:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Since you've described it as 'tautological' or 'logical', rather than scientific, does the CTMU provide new information, or only clarify / reword information which people would already be aware of?

What readings are recommended to someone new to CTMU?

The regress problem in skepticism states that the justification for any theory must ultimately rest on some axioms (assumptions), which are themselves unjustified. Hence, it states that there can be no theory which rests on no assumptions. Does the CTMU rest on any axioms, or does it reject / provide an alternative to the regress problem?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 8:19:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 2:47:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
using Langan quotes.

WHY CAN'T YOU EXPLAIN IT IN YOUR OWN SIMPLIFIED WORDS!?!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 9:18:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 8:19:52 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 5/21/2014 2:47:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
using Langan quotes.

WHY CAN'T YOU EXPLAIN IT IN YOUR OWN SIMPLIFIED WORDS!?!

The blog would be dedicated to people serious about and capable of understanding the CTMU, and those people want to read source material, not some teenager's interpretation of it. The goal of the blog would be to organize information in a straightforward and accessible way i.e. give people the means to understand it for themselves. There's no reason to think I wouldn't miss subtle yet important distinctions if I tried to "rewrite" the CTMU.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 9:25:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Translation: I can't because I'm a fraud and only think it makes any sense because I'm too stupid to understand it, leaving me only able to be impressed by all the technical terms and the fact the guy who wrote it claims to be the smartest guy on the planet.

I don't know if it's possible to die from shame, but I'm hoping you're still on this site in about 5 years time so I can hang around and see if you do.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 9:30:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:04:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Your first comment was 'Let's debate the soundness of the CTMU'. Since the CTMU is in fact a logical theory, and not a scientific one, those standards do not apply (as I already explained).

The purpose of my quote was not to focus on the third sentence, as you have done for some inexplicable reason. Rather, the focus of the quote is in the second sentence, where I explicitly state the opposite of what you claimed I stated. You claimed that I asked you to defend the whole of CMTU, while my quote shows that I stated the exact opposite.

That's an absurd conclusion.

That's interesting; I consider it rational to conclude that there are no good arguments for a position when none are presented.

Not only because it's essentially an ad hom,

Either you don't understand what an ad hominem attack is, or you have some bizarre and esoteric personal definition of the word that allows this sentence to be coherent.

but also because it's well known that I've been defending the CTMU on and off for the past 6 months.

I have yet to see any argument, be it empirical or philosophical, which actually supports the CMTU. If you do have these arguments, I'd love to debate them with you

Also, I'm pretty sure that plagiarizing from Lagnan constitutes Lagnan defending CMTU, not you.

Also, if that's what lead you to the conclusion that there are no good reasons to believe in CTMU, then why did you want to debate its soundness in the first place? An unsound theory, by definition, provides no "good" reasons to accept it as fact.

I believe that the CMTU is unsound, so I don't believe that there are good reasons to accept it as a fact. You believe that it is sound, however, so clearly you believe that there are good reasons to believe in it. The purpose of a debate is for me to defend my contention against the arguments for your contention. Your question is as cogent as asking an atheist why they want to debate a theist if they don't believe that there are any good arguments for the existence of god. The purpose is to have that belief changed by the reasoning of an opponent

I already explained why this is an unjustified concern. In either case, you would need to point out some error in the CTMU, so why not just do that?

There is all the difference in the world between refuting the CMTU and refuting an argument for the CMTU.

To "admit" does not necessarily mean to state openly (it just means to acknowledge in some way). Your total ignorance of the CTMU was implicit in nearly every one of your comments. Even now, you make it clear that you don't know anything about it and have no intention of learning.

So my ignorance is both "implicit" and "clear", despite these two words being contradictory? You should use words because of their actual meaning, not because they sound intelligent. Especially when you're using them in contradictory ways.

Because I am almost certain that implicit, a word defined as "understood though not clearly or directly stated", cannot be used along with the word "clear" to describe the same thing.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 10:30:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 6:07:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
Since you've described it as 'tautological' or 'logical', rather than scientific, does the CTMU provide new information, or only clarify / reword information which people would already be aware of?

The CTMU provides the logical basis on which to answer any question. Since it is a comprehensive theory of reality, any hypothesis inconsistent with it can be ruled out a prioi. It has direct implications for quantum mechanics, evolutionary science, computation theory, and a host of others. Since it answers the question "what is important", it can be regarded as the most important theory possible.

What readings are recommended to someone new to CTMU?


Anything you need can be found here: http://ctmucommunity.org...
The CTMU does not end with the main paper. Many people will find it necessary to read Langan's discussions in order to get a full grasp of the topic. I know I had to.

The regress problem in skepticism states that the justification for any theory must ultimately rest on some axioms (assumptions), which are themselves unjustified. Hence, it states that there can be no theory which rests on no assumptions. Does the CTMU rest on any axioms, or does it reject / provide an alternative to the regress problem?

Yes, the CTMU has axioms. They are M=R, MAP, and MU. They are explained in the CTMU and elsewhere.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 10:32:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 9:25:33 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Translation: I can't because I'm a fraud and only think it makes any sense because I'm too stupid to understand it, leaving me only able to be impressed by all the technical terms and the fact the guy who wrote it claims to be the smartest guy on the planet.

I don't know if it's possible to die from shame, but I'm hoping you're still on this site in about 5 years time so I can hang around and see if you do.

Yet another predictable response from the indefatigable graincruncher. You're about as mysterious as a one-sided die, you know.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 10:35:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 10:32:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/22/2014 9:25:33 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Translation: I can't because I'm a fraud and only think it makes any sense because I'm too stupid to understand it, leaving me only able to be impressed by all the technical terms and the fact the guy who wrote it claims to be the smartest guy on the planet.

I don't know if it's possible to die from shame, but I'm hoping you're still on this site in about 5 years time so I can hang around and see if you do.

Yet another predictable response from the indefatigable graincruncher. You're about as mysterious as a one-sided die, you know.

I wasn't aware that it was a requirement of the forum to be mysterious. I'll stop making the same accusations when you either address them or abandon this imbecilic posturing that you're so keen to drown the forum in.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 10:43:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 9:30:28 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 5/21/2014 10:04:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Your first comment was 'Let's debate the soundness of the CTMU'. Since the CTMU is in fact a logical theory, and not a scientific one, those standards do not apply (as I already explained).

The purpose of my quote was not to focus on the third sentence, as you have done for some inexplicable reason. Rather, the focus of the quote is in the second sentence, where I explicitly state the opposite of what you claimed I stated. You claimed that I asked you to defend the whole of CMTU, while my quote shows that I stated the exact opposite.

You wanted to debate the soundness of the CTMU. Since the 'CTMU' necessarily includes the entire theory in question, 'CTMU', by definition, is the entire CTMU. I don't care what you stated.


That's an absurd conclusion.

That's interesting; I consider it rational to conclude that there are no good arguments for a position when none are presented.

That's hardly rational in these circumstances. That's a frantic assumption with no possible justification.


Not only because it's essentially an ad hom,

Either you don't understand what an ad hominem attack is, or you have some bizarre and esoteric personal definition of the word that allows this sentence to be coherent.

You are concluded that the CTMU is false because I have not chosen to defend it to your liking. That is, by definition, an ad hom i.e. an argument relevant to a person and not the argument in question.


but also because it's well known that I've been defending the CTMU on and off for the past 6 months.

I have yet to see any argument, be it empirical or philosophical, which actually supports the CMTU. If you do have these arguments, I'd love to debate them with you

That's not my problem. I post threads on it all the time.


Also, I'm pretty sure that plagiarizing from Lagnan constitutes Lagnan defending CMTU, not you.

Also, if that's what lead you to the conclusion that there are no good reasons to believe in CTMU, then why did you want to debate its soundness in the first place? An unsound theory, by definition, provides no "good" reasons to accept it as fact.

I believe that the CMTU is unsound, so I don't believe that there are good reasons to accept it as a fact. You believe that it is sound, however, so clearly you believe that there are good reasons to believe in it. The purpose of a debate is for me to defend my contention against the arguments for your contention. Your question is as cogent as asking an atheist why they want to debate a theist if they don't believe that there are any good arguments for the existence of god. The purpose is to have that belief changed by the reasoning of an opponent

What nonsense. You believe it is unsound for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory. If you wanted to debate the soundness of the CTMU, and weren't expecting that I spoon feed it to you at the same time, then you would have other reasons for not believing it. But obviously, you know nothing about it, which explains why you are only now making that conclusion.

I already explained why this is an unjustified concern. In either case, you would need to point out some error in the CTMU, so why not just do that?

There is all the difference in the world between refuting the CMTU and refuting an argument for the CMTU.

Nope. In order to be sound, the CTMU must be completely valid. All you have to do is point out one error.


To "admit" does not necessarily mean to state openly (it just means to acknowledge in some way). Your total ignorance of the CTMU was implicit in nearly every one of your comments. Even now, you make it clear that you don't know anything about it and have no intention of learning.

So my ignorance is both "implicit" and "clear", despite these two words being contradictory? You should use words because of their actual meaning, not because they sound intelligent. Especially when you're using them in contradictory ways.

Because I am almost certain that implicit, a word defined as "understood though not clearly or directly stated", cannot be used along with the word "clear" to describe the same thing.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 10:49:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 10:35:57 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/22/2014 10:32:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/22/2014 9:25:33 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Translation: I can't because I'm a fraud and only think it makes any sense because I'm too stupid to understand it, leaving me only able to be impressed by all the technical terms and the fact the guy who wrote it claims to be the smartest guy on the planet.

I don't know if it's possible to die from shame, but I'm hoping you're still on this site in about 5 years time so I can hang around and see if you do.

Yet another predictable response from the indefatigable graincruncher. You're about as mysterious as a one-sided die, you know.

I wasn't aware that it was a requirement of the forum to be mysterious. I'll stop making the same accusations when you either address them or abandon this imbecilic posturing that you're so keen to drown the forum in.

It was just an observation.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 10:55:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 10:48:59 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Wow. You've got the stupid cranked all the way up to 11 today.

I must be right on the mark, then.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 11:01:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sargon, would you please explain how I could win a debate entitled "The CTMU is sound" without addressing every aspect of the CTMU? You said that such a standard would be unnecessary for reasons that did not apply.

You might as well play dead.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 11:14:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 3:57:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:30:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/21/2014 7:21:07 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Why is a supposed genius so incapable of describing his ideas in understandable terms, when analysing the descriptions he does give show the ideas to be incredibly simple ones?

Langan's explanations are very precise, but they are all very navigable. Most people give up trying to understand them as soon as they've started. This is evidenced by the blatant errors made in regard to them...errors that have absolutely no excuse.

As I've shown repeatedly, his explanations are a mess of tautological restatement of obvious facts, mixed with some undefined gibberish and outright falsehood. Simply saying "but he's a great writer!" or "you haven't understood!" without presenting a cogent response is yet more evidence that neither you nor he can actually defend it. It's horsesh*t of the most galling kind and no-one with any expertise in the fields of philosophy, mathematics or physics takes it seriously. Mostly because it is totally devoid of any meaningful content in these areas. Or any other areas, for that matter.

Claiming he's anything other than a terrible communicator is just going a step further and outright taking the p*ss. You might as well claim he's actually Zombie Einstein travelling back in time from the future, it's that absurd a claim. But then, like most other things, I suspect you don't actually understand what "clear communication" actually means.

You have done nothing of the sort. I even asked you to post a paragraph of his and show why it is meaningless, but you didn't. You just wave your hands in the air and act hysterical.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 11:23:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 9:30:28 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 5/21/2014 10:04:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


That's an absurd conclusion.

That's interesting; I consider it rational to conclude that there are no good arguments for a position when none are presented.

Especially considering that, you know, the CTMU has already been written. You conclude a theory is false because I won't debate it with you. That is ad hom i.e. an argument based on MY actions.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 11:32:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 11:14:11 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/22/2014 3:57:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:30:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/21/2014 7:21:07 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Why is a supposed genius so incapable of describing his ideas in understandable terms, when analysing the descriptions he does give show the ideas to be incredibly simple ones?

Langan's explanations are very precise, but they are all very navigable. Most people give up trying to understand them as soon as they've started. This is evidenced by the blatant errors made in regard to them...errors that have absolutely no excuse.

As I've shown repeatedly, his explanations are a mess of tautological restatement of obvious facts, mixed with some undefined gibberish and outright falsehood. Simply saying "but he's a great writer!" or "you haven't understood!" without presenting a cogent response is yet more evidence that neither you nor he can actually defend it. It's horsesh*t of the most galling kind and no-one with any expertise in the fields of philosophy, mathematics or physics takes it seriously. Mostly because it is totally devoid of any meaningful content in these areas. Or any other areas, for that matter.

Claiming he's anything other than a terrible communicator is just going a step further and outright taking the p*ss. You might as well claim he's actually Zombie Einstein travelling back in time from the future, it's that absurd a claim. But then, like most other things, I suspect you don't actually understand what "clear communication" actually means.

You have done nothing of the sort. I even asked you to post a paragraph of his and show why it is meaningless, but you didn't. You just wave your hands in the air and act hysterical.

Are you f*cking kidding me? I've taken apart multiple quoted paragraphs from it. You've never, ever responded with anything other than more plagiarised gibberish and complaints that you're soooo misunderstood. Poor baby Dylan, such an outsider. Idiot.

I've shown PRECISELY that it's drivel AND why. As I said, you've never acknowledged that and it's pretty clearly because you're an intellectual fraud and coward. The closest you ever get to responding to objections - which is rare, to say the least - is to just go "nuh-uh" and repost more of Langan's drivel as if that proves it really makes sense. I've looked into it, I've dismantled it, I've shown you where the terminology is wrong, I've analysed the semantic content of entire paragraphs and you STILL claim that I just "wave my hands in the air and act hysterical".

I don't really care that you're a moron, Dylan. I don't really care that you're wrong, a hypocrite, a pretentious, arrogant, narcissistic child. But now you're just telling bare-faced lies and frankly if that's where you've got to, you should probably be locked up before your mental health issues wreck the life of someone other than yourself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 11:37:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 11:32:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/22/2014 11:14:11 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/22/2014 3:57:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:30:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/21/2014 7:21:07 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Why is a supposed genius so incapable of describing his ideas in understandable terms, when analysing the descriptions he does give show the ideas to be incredibly simple ones?

Langan's explanations are very precise, but they are all very navigable. Most people give up trying to understand them as soon as they've started. This is evidenced by the blatant errors made in regard to them...errors that have absolutely no excuse.

As I've shown repeatedly, his explanations are a mess of tautological restatement of obvious facts, mixed with some undefined gibberish and outright falsehood. Simply saying "but he's a great writer!" or "you haven't understood!" without presenting a cogent response is yet more evidence that neither you nor he can actually defend it. It's horsesh*t of the most galling kind and no-one with any expertise in the fields of philosophy, mathematics or physics takes it seriously. Mostly because it is totally devoid of any meaningful content in these areas. Or any other areas, for that matter.

Claiming he's anything other than a terrible communicator is just going a step further and outright taking the p*ss. You might as well claim he's actually Zombie Einstein travelling back in time from the future, it's that absurd a claim. But then, like most other things, I suspect you don't actually understand what "clear communication" actually means.

You have done nothing of the sort. I even asked you to post a paragraph of his and show why it is meaningless, but you didn't. You just wave your hands in the air and act hysterical.

Are you f*cking kidding me? I've taken apart multiple quoted paragraphs from it. You've never, ever responded with anything other than more plagiarised gibberish and complaints that you're soooo misunderstood. Poor baby Dylan, such an outsider. Idiot.

I've shown PRECISELY that it's drivel AND why. As I said, you've never acknowledged that and it's pretty clearly because you're an intellectual fraud and coward. The closest you ever get to responding to objections - which is rare, to say the least - is to just go "nuh-uh" and repost more of Langan's drivel as if that proves it really makes sense. I've looked into it, I've dismantled it, I've shown you where the terminology is wrong, I've analysed the semantic content of entire paragraphs and you STILL claim that I just "wave my hands in the air and act hysterical".

I don't really care that you're a moron, Dylan. I don't really care that you're wrong, a hypocrite, a pretentious, arrogant, narcissistic child. But now you're just telling bare-faced lies and frankly if that's where you've got to, you should probably be locked up before your mental health issues wreck the life of someone other than yourself.

If by dismantle you mean mistake your own incomprehension for incomprehensibility, then yes. You just assert that things are nonsense even after I've explained what they mean. Stop being so sensitive please.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 11:43:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 11:37:39 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/22/2014 11:32:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/22/2014 11:14:11 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/22/2014 3:57:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/21/2014 8:30:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/21/2014 7:21:07 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Why is a supposed genius so incapable of describing his ideas in understandable terms, when analysing the descriptions he does give show the ideas to be incredibly simple ones?

Langan's explanations are very precise, but they are all very navigable. Most people give up trying to understand them as soon as they've started. This is evidenced by the blatant errors made in regard to them...errors that have absolutely no excuse.

As I've shown repeatedly, his explanations are a mess of tautological restatement of obvious facts, mixed with some undefined gibberish and outright falsehood. Simply saying "but he's a great writer!" or "you haven't understood!" without presenting a cogent response is yet more evidence that neither you nor he can actually defend it. It's horsesh*t of the most galling kind and no-one with any expertise in the fields of philosophy, mathematics or physics takes it seriously. Mostly because it is totally devoid of any meaningful content in these areas. Or any other areas, for that matter.

Claiming he's anything other than a terrible communicator is just going a step further and outright taking the p*ss. You might as well claim he's actually Zombie Einstein travelling back in time from the future, it's that absurd a claim. But then, like most other things, I suspect you don't actually understand what "clear communication" actually means.

You have done nothing of the sort. I even asked you to post a paragraph of his and show why it is meaningless, but you didn't. You just wave your hands in the air and act hysterical.

Are you f*cking kidding me? I've taken apart multiple quoted paragraphs from it. You've never, ever responded with anything other than more plagiarised gibberish and complaints that you're soooo misunderstood. Poor baby Dylan, such an outsider. Idiot.

I've shown PRECISELY that it's drivel AND why. As I said, you've never acknowledged that and it's pretty clearly because you're an intellectual fraud and coward. The closest you ever get to responding to objections - which is rare, to say the least - is to just go "nuh-uh" and repost more of Langan's drivel as if that proves it really makes sense. I've looked into it, I've dismantled it, I've shown you where the terminology is wrong, I've analysed the semantic content of entire paragraphs and you STILL claim that I just "wave my hands in the air and act hysterical".

I don't really care that you're a moron, Dylan. I don't really care that you're wrong, a hypocrite, a pretentious, arrogant, narcissistic child. But now you're just telling bare-faced lies and frankly if that's where you've got to, you should probably be locked up before your mental health issues wreck the life of someone other than yourself.

If by dismantle you mean mistake your own incomprehension for incomprehensibility, then yes. You just assert that things are nonsense even after I've explained what they mean. Stop being so sensitive please.

You've never explained what they mean, you f*cking moron. When you're not some presumptuous little wazzock who thinks they know better, you're going to look back on this and feel like a prize arse. I'm not being sensitive, I'm just fed up with your endless evasion, plagiarism, delusion and lies.

But no, Dylan & Langan know better than all the experts. Those experts are thick. They don't know what they're talking about, despite having studied it for years and having passed through rigorous peer-review processes to make sure they understand what they're talking about.

What you've just claimed is literally the complete opposite of what has happened; I've shown you what happens when you take apart paragraphs of the CTMU and you've then not responded to the examples, instead just saying "it makes sense". That is not an argument. You never, ever present an argument for it, just more quotes and waffle. You aren't merely stupid, you're spectacularly dishonest and thoroughly deluded.