Total Posts:80|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

CTMU Refuted

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 1:36:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't have time to be lengthy, but I want to put out a concept that I think debunks the CTMU.

To begin with, I'd like to refute the notion of self-containment in an atmosphere which is sufficient to the evolution and persistence of life, be it vegatative or animalistic. The problem with this position is that it is inferior in explanatory ability to the ascertained concept of a mind. Minds are incapable of self-containment. Minds always strive for connections to other minds. Thus, it's utterly impossible for the universe to be a mind, since the metaphysical proposition includes an assumption which is diametrically opposed to the hentic nature of the rational faculties which Aristotle outlined in his De Anima. I hold by Aristotle's view that Platonism, even in Langan's twisted and precarious deviation, always refutes the concept of friendship in the sense of going beyond what has already been known by the knower, whether he realizes it or not.

Furthermore, an integrated system of information is unable to deviate right behavior from wrong behavior. Nonetheless, the MD5# has demonstrated the necessity of a sufficient reason for explaining the presence of morality, regardless of it's subjectivity of objectivity.

Now onto the objection.

Let us assume, for the sake of brevity, that reality is nothing more than an illusion, and a figment of our imagination.

If this is the case, then particles which have come into being from the sheer will of the mind will demonstrably be incapable of shedding light upon the true nature of the world. While some may argue that metaphysics cannot follow from epistemology, I hold to the position that a random self-generating algorithm made up of anti-derivatives and triple integrals, can, in some cases, derive an explanation and a real basis for the presence of particles. Therefore, Langan's theory cannot be correct. A randomly computing self-actualizing algorithm suffers from the same flaws as the former example. I input these algorithms into MATLAB, and was able to simulate a very basic AI. However, the AI was randomly self-destructive, due to the very nature of its being. It therefore seems that self-containment in the Langan sense would also fall prey to the same self-destructive nature, and in such, the universe would cease to exist at any and every moment, in accord with the superposition principle.

I am just curious though... what do you guys think of this objection?
"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."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 1:37:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 1:36:01 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
I don't have time to be lengthy, but I want to put out a concept that I think debunks the CTMU.

To begin with, I'd like to refute the notion of self-containment in an atmosphere which is sufficient to the evolution and persistence of life, be it vegatative or animalistic. The problem with this position is that it is inferior in explanatory ability to the ascertained concept of a mind. Minds are incapable of self-containment. Minds always strive for connections to other minds. Thus, it's utterly impossible for the universe to be a mind, since the metaphysical proposition includes an assumption which is diametrically opposed to the hentic nature of the rational faculties which Aristotle outlined in his De Anima. I hold by Aristotle's view that Platonism, even in Langan's twisted and precarious deviation, always refutes the concept of friendship in the sense of going beyond what has already been known by the knower, whether he realizes it or not.

Furthermore, an integrated system of information is unable to deviate right behavior from wrong behavior. Nonetheless, the MD5# has demonstrated the necessity of a sufficient reason for explaining the presence of morality, regardless of it's subjectivity of objectivity.

Now onto the objection.

Let us assume, for the sake of brevity, that reality is nothing more than an illusion, and a figment of our imagination.

If this is the case, then particles which have come into being from the sheer will of the mind will demonstrably be incapable of shedding light upon the true nature of the world. While some may argue that metaphysics cannot follow from epistemology, I hold to the position that a random self-generating algorithm made up of anti-derivatives and triple integrals, can, in some cases, derive an explanation and a real basis for the presence of particles. Therefore, Langan's theory cannot be correct. A randomly computing self-actualizing algorithm suffers from the same flaws as the former example. I input these algorithms into MATLAB, and was able to simulate a very basic AI. However, the AI was randomly self-destructive, due to the very nature of its being. It therefore seems that self-containment in the Langan sense would also fall prey to the same self-destructive nature, and in such, the universe would cease to exist at any and every moment, in accord with the superposition principle.

The universe would both cease and not cease to exist at any and not any moment I should say.


I am just curious though... what do you guys think of this objection?
"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."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 1:38:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here it is in a symbolic logical form:

Self-containment = 8=D
8=D = ~8!
.'. ~Self-constrainment pi!8==D
"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."
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 3:20:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
- what?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 3:39:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The CTMU rejects randomness in all its forms, as anyone who's read the CTMU would know. It does so explicitly and more than once. Your pathetic little "experiment" is therefore even less relevant than it would have been.

On the second page of the CTMU, it says that "reality should [not] be regarded as a machine language running in some kind of vast computer." Here, Langan is claiming that reality is not like an ordinary algorithm. Issues relating to algorithms thus don't apply to the CTMU.

Your argument against idealism is not sensible, so I'll skip it.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 4:14:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 1:36:01 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
I don't have time to be lengthy, but I want to put out a concept that I think debunks the CTMU.

To begin with, I'd like to refute the notion of self-containment in an atmosphere which is sufficient to the evolution and persistence of life, be it vegatative or animalistic. The problem with this position is that it is inferior in explanatory ability to the ascertained concept of a mind. Minds are incapable of self-containment. Minds always strive for connections to other minds. Thus, it's utterly impossible for the universe to be a mind, since the metaphysical proposition includes an assumption which is diametrically opposed to the hentic nature of the rational faculties which Aristotle outlined in his De Anima. I hold by Aristotle's view that Platonism, even in Langan's twisted and precarious deviation, always refutes the concept of friendship in the sense of going beyond what has already been known by the knower, whether he realizes it or not.

Furthermore, an integrated system of information is unable to deviate right behavior from wrong behavior. Nonetheless, the MD5# has demonstrated the necessity of a sufficient reason for explaining the presence of morality, regardless of it's subjectivity of objectivity.

Now onto the objection.

Let us assume, for the sake of brevity, that reality is nothing more than an illusion, and a figment of our imagination.

If this is the case, then particles which have come into being from the sheer will of the mind will demonstrably be incapable of shedding light upon the true nature of the world. While some may argue that metaphysics cannot follow from epistemology, I hold to the position that a random self-generating algorithm made up of anti-derivatives and triple integrals, can, in some cases, derive an explanation and a real basis for the presence of particles. Therefore, Langan's theory cannot be correct. A randomly computing self-actualizing algorithm suffers from the same flaws as the former example. I input these algorithms into MATLAB, and was able to simulate a very basic AI. However, the AI was randomly self-destructive, due to the very nature of its being. It therefore seems that self-containment in the Langan sense would also fall prey to the same self-destructive nature, and in such, the universe would cease to exist at any and every moment, in accord with the superposition principle.

I am just curious though... what do you guys think of this objection?

That's actually really interesting! I might add, however, that if the telic recursion sequence tends towards the zero lower-bound, then it automatically reverts into an infinite series of boolean loops. And really, that's just absurd considering the widespread consensus that the local polydromy theorem is false. Moreover, if we input the self-actualization coefficient into MATLAB, the resulting equation has an implicit variable whose anti-derivative is *greater* than its complex conjugate, which, as we all know, is mathematically impossible. This presents a bit of a metaphysical conundrum for the CTMU-defender -- it's a double-bind of sorts. Either they're forced to say that Reiman-solvable manifolds can be negated via the law of substitution (which is epistemically incoherent), or they have to posit the existence of a neo-laurentzian aether which violates the binary law of composition. Any way you look at it, the CTMU is complete bullsh!t. Honestly, I'm surprised that someone of Langan's caliber didn't think to try computerizing his multiple-potentiality conjecture before publishing his model. Maybe if had done that, he could have caught how blatantly fallacious his pre-ontological and meta-cognitive assumptions are.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 4:15:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 3:20:56 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
- what?

I mean, it's pretty straightforward... which part of it do you not understand?
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 4:22:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 4:15:06 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 11/19/2015 3:20:56 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
- what?

I mean, it's pretty straightforward... which part of it do you not understand?

Oh, nevermind - I see what he means now. I forgot to consider the ontological impacts of neo-lorentzian aethers on the self-actualizational potential of unbound quad-reflexive metavariables.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 4:30:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 4:22:23 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 11/19/2015 4:15:06 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 11/19/2015 3:20:56 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
- what?

I mean, it's pretty straightforward... which part of it do you not understand?

Oh, nevermind - I see what he means now. I forgot to consider the ontological impacts of neo-lorentzian aethers on the self-actualizational potential of unbound quad-reflexive metavariables.

I'd say it's more of an epistemic issue in relation to the unwarranted meta-cognitive conjectures which Langan's model relies on, but yes that's important too. I don't see how he can possibly maintain the non-multiplicity of quad-reflexive metavariables, given recent developments regarding the Tangential Cauchy Reimann Complex.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 4:40:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 3:39:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The CTMU rejects randomness in all its forms, as anyone who's read the CTMU would know. It does so explicitly and more than once. Your pathetic little "experiment" is therefore even less relevant than it would have been.

That's circular reasoning. It doesn't matter if CTMU rejects it. Bell's inequalities, in conjunction with the epsilon-delta proofs taught in literally any Intermediate Calculus class, *require* that randomness exist in some form, even if it's only at holomorphic anomalies.


On the second page of the CTMU, it says that "reality should [not] be regarded as a machine language running in some kind of vast computer." Here, Langan is claiming that reality is not like an ordinary algorithm. Issues relating to algorithms thus don't apply to the CTMU.

Lol you completely missed the point of his objection. Re-read this part of what Zmike said: "a random self-generating algorithm made up of anti-derivatives and triple integrals, can, in some cases, derive an explanation and a real basis for the presence of particles". This clearly shows that algorithmic issues are intrinsically tied to objective reality *regardless* of artificial lingual distinctions between the two. Really, it makes no sense to distinguish reality from mathemetical abstractions, considering that the spacetime fabric IS -- properly understood -- a geometric abstraction.


Your argument against idealism is not sensible, so I'll skip it.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't invalidate it. What part of it doesn't make sense to you? Perhaps I can simplify it.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 4:58:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 3:39:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The CTMU rejects randomness in all its forms, as anyone who's read the CTMU would know. It does so explicitly and more than once. Your pathetic little "experiment" is therefore even less relevant than it would have been.

On the second page of the CTMU, it says that "reality should [not] be regarded as a machine language running in some kind of vast computer." Here, Langan is claiming that reality is not like an ordinary algorithm. Issues relating to algorithms thus don't apply to the CTMU.

Your argument against idealism is not sensible, so I'll skip it.

Dylan,

If you're going to comment on this thread, I'd appreciate it if you would keep in mind that the majority of the users who are posting here have far higher IQs and standardized test scores than you do. I'm not trying to down talk you, just reminding you to keep in mind that many of us are more intelligent than you are. Thank you
"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."
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 5:11:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 4:58:38 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/19/2015 3:39:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The CTMU rejects randomness in all its forms, as anyone who's read the CTMU would know. It does so explicitly and more than once. Your pathetic little "experiment" is therefore even less relevant than it would have been.

On the second page of the CTMU, it says that "reality should [not] be regarded as a machine language running in some kind of vast computer." Here, Langan is claiming that reality is not like an ordinary algorithm. Issues relating to algorithms thus don't apply to the CTMU.

Your argument against idealism is not sensible, so I'll skip it.

Dylan,

If you're going to comment on this thread, I'd appreciate it if you would keep in mind that the majority of the users who are posting here have far higher IQs and standardized test scores than you do. I'm not trying to down talk you, just reminding you to keep in mind that many of us are more intelligent than you are. Thank you

I mean, Dylan isn't a unique case in any way. I've been ostracized throughout my childhood for making my peers feel bad with my vastly superior intelligence. It's been calculated that my IQ is approximately 2.67 x 10^93 standard deviations above the mean. Doctors and physicists alike have confounded themselves in attempting to figure out how it's physically possible for my brain to maintain its neural density without collapsing into a singularity. My brain is literally so big, that one day I got my head stuck in the doorway, and my mother beat me half to death for breaking the trim.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 5:25:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 4:40:10 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 11/19/2015 3:39:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The CTMU rejects randomness in all its forms, as anyone who's read the CTMU would know. It does so explicitly and more than once. Your pathetic little "experiment" is therefore even less relevant than it would have been.

That's circular reasoning. It doesn't matter if CTMU rejects it. Bell's inequalities, in conjunction with the epsilon-delta proofs taught in literally any Intermediate Calculus class, *require* that randomness exist in some form, even if it's only at holomorphic anomalies.


It does matter, because it means he's attacking a strawman. The CTMU doesn't say that reality is a "random self-generating algorithm", so showing that a random self-generating algorithm would self-destruct proves nothing about the CTMU. I've addressed Bell's theorem before as has Langan. Bell's inequalities do not prove randomness, if by randomness you mean "the absence of any causation whatsoever". At best, it disproves Laplacian determinism, the notion that every state of the universe can be explained in terms of its prior state (which the CTMU also rejects).


On the second page of the CTMU, it says that "reality should [not] be regarded as a machine language running in some kind of vast computer." Here, Langan is claiming that reality is not like an ordinary algorithm. Issues relating to algorithms thus don't apply to the CTMU.

Lol you completely missed the point of his objection. Re-read this part of what Zmike said: "a random self-generating algorithm made up of anti-derivatives and triple integrals, can, in some cases, derive an explanation and a real basis for the presence of particles". This clearly shows that algorithmic issues are intrinsically tied to objective reality *regardless* of artificial lingual distinctions between the two. Really, it makes no sense to distinguish reality from mathemetical abstractions, considering that the spacetime fabric IS -- properly understood -- a geometric abstraction.


Let me see if I have this right. Because algorithms can sometimes predict features of the physical world (I honestly don't understand in what sense they do), reality is an algorithm and therefore the CTMU is false because it says reality is a random algorithm (despite the fact that it doesn't), and since random algorithms self-destruct that can't be true and therefore the CTMU is false.

Your argument against idealism is not sensible, so I'll skip it.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't invalidate it. What part of it doesn't make sense to you? Perhaps I can simplify it.

I understand his words, but it doesn't make sense as an argument. Hence, not sensible.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 5:37:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 4:58:38 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/19/2015 3:39:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The CTMU rejects randomness in all its forms, as anyone who's read the CTMU would know. It does so explicitly and more than once. Your pathetic little "experiment" is therefore even less relevant than it would have been.

On the second page of the CTMU, it says that "reality should [not] be regarded as a machine language running in some kind of vast computer." Here, Langan is claiming that reality is not like an ordinary algorithm. Issues relating to algorithms thus don't apply to the CTMU.

Your argument against idealism is not sensible, so I'll skip it.

Dylan,

If you're going to comment on this thread, I'd appreciate it if you would keep in mind that the majority of the users who are posting here have far higher IQs and standardized test scores than you do. I'm not trying to down talk you, just reminding you to keep in mind that many of us are more intelligent than you are. Thank you

Interesting to see that you have nothing of substance to say. I wonder what that suggests?
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 6:02:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 5:25:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/19/2015 4:40:10 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 11/19/2015 3:39:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The CTMU rejects randomness in all its forms, as anyone who's read the CTMU would know. It does so explicitly and more than once. Your pathetic little "experiment" is therefore even less relevant than it would have been.

That's circular reasoning. It doesn't matter if CTMU rejects it. Bell's inequalities, in conjunction with the epsilon-delta proofs taught in literally any Intermediate Calculus class, *require* that randomness exist in some form, even if it's only at holomorphic anomalies.


It does matter, because it means he's attacking a strawman. The CTMU doesn't say that reality is a "random self-generating algorithm", so showing that a random self-generating algorithm would self-destruct proves nothing about the CTMU. I've addressed Bell's theorem before as has Langan. Bell's inequalities do not prove randomness, if by randomness you mean "the absence of any causation whatsoever". At best, it disproves Laplacian determinism, the notion that every state of the universe can be explained in terms of its prior state (which the CTMU also rejects).

This leads me to believe that you don't know that much about calculus or physics. Allow me to explain -- the positive energy density of empty space produces a non-existent vacuum in which entropy is the only non-retroactive physical factor. Any basic Bolzano-Weierstrass simulation -- assuming that it takes into account the Reimann manifolds which dominate the cauchy surface of spacetime at the Planck scopic nano-level -- reveals that Casmirian virtual particles intermittently pop in and out of non-existence, and it is *completely* entropic (i.e. an anti-thesis to causality). This is integral thermodynamics 101, bro. Randomness obviously exists.



On the second page of the CTMU, it says that "reality should [not] be regarded as a machine language running in some kind of vast computer." Here, Langan is claiming that reality is not like an ordinary algorithm. Issues relating to algorithms thus don't apply to the CTMU.

Lol you completely missed the point of his objection. Re-read this part of what Zmike said: "a random self-generating algorithm made up of anti-derivatives and triple integrals, can, in some cases, derive an explanation and a real basis for the presence of particles". This clearly shows that algorithmic issues are intrinsically tied to objective reality *regardless* of artificial lingual distinctions between the two. Really, it makes no sense to distinguish reality from mathemetical abstractions, considering that the spacetime fabric IS -- properly understood -- a geometric abstraction.


Let me see if I have this right. Because algorithms can sometimes predict features of the physical world (I honestly don't understand in what sense they do), reality is an algorithm and therefore the CTMU is false because it says reality is a random algorithm (despite the fact that it doesn't), and since random algorithms self-destruct that can't be true and therefore the CTMU is false.

Precisely. What you continue to overlook, however, is that the predictive capacity of that infinite boolean sequence has ontological significance via the self-actualization of mathematical abstraction as a derivative of the spacetime fabric's geometric foundation. Like ShabShoral pointed out, given the correct differential context, quad-reflexive metavariables *can* enter a feedback loop in relation to the universe's objective being, and therefore algorithms *do* have the capability to refute the CTMU by exposing epistemic incoherency.


Your argument against idealism is not sensible, so I'll skip it.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't invalidate it. What part of it doesn't make sense to you? Perhaps I can simplify it.

I understand his words, but it doesn't make sense as an argument. Hence, not sensible.

But it does, if you truly understand it. Again, I ask that you tell me what part of it did not make sense to you.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 6:03:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 5:37:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/19/2015 4:58:38 AM, zmikecuber wrote:

Dylan,

If you're going to comment on this thread, I'd appreciate it if you would keep in mind that the majority of the users who are posting here have far higher IQs and standardized test scores than you do. I'm not trying to down talk you, just reminding you to keep in mind that many of us are more intelligent than you are. Thank you

Interesting to see that you have nothing of substance to say. I wonder what that suggests?

Zmike is just a bit lazy. He knows just as much on the subject as I do. I'm sure that he'll address the substance of your post later.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 6:37:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also, Dylan, I would recommend that you read up on the Local Polydromy Theorem before responding any further, because you can't really expect to be able to intelligently continue this discussion without having an in-depth knowledge of its various flaws and nuances.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 12:11:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 5:37:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/19/2015 4:58:38 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/19/2015 3:39:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The CTMU rejects randomness in all its forms, as anyone who's read the CTMU would know. It does so explicitly and more than once. Your pathetic little "experiment" is therefore even less relevant than it would have been.

On the second page of the CTMU, it says that "reality should [not] be regarded as a machine language running in some kind of vast computer." Here, Langan is claiming that reality is not like an ordinary algorithm. Issues relating to algorithms thus don't apply to the CTMU.

Your argument against idealism is not sensible, so I'll skip it.

Dylan,

If you're going to comment on this thread, I'd appreciate it if you would keep in mind that the majority of the users who are posting here have far higher IQs and standardized test scores than you do. I'm not trying to down talk you, just reminding you to keep in mind that many of us are more intelligent than you are. Thank you

Interesting to see that you have nothing of substance to say. I wonder what that suggests?

Sorry, man, it's finals week. In any case, Romanii is doing a pretty good job.
"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."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 6:36:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Romanii, I hope your responses are intended to be sarcastic (pretty sure they are).

Bell's theorem merely proves that the spin of entangles particles is not determined prior to their collapse. That does NOT prove that randomness exists, unless you subscribe to the determinism/randomness dichotomy, which the CTMU doesn't.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 7:00:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 6:36:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Romanii, I hope your responses are intended to be sarcastic (pretty sure they are).

How dare you imply such a thing!


Bell's theorem merely proves that the spin of entangles particles is not determined prior to their collapse. That does NOT prove that randomness exists, unless you subscribe to the determinism/randomness dichotomy, which the CTMU doesn't.

Well yeah, but like I said, when the kripkean modal multiplier is applied to the self-actualization coefficient, it *clearly* generates random anti-integer series at holomorphic anomalies. The entropic configuration of the Reimannian manifold's quantum dynamic has long been accepted to definitively negate what you're saying here. Seriously man, this stuff is pretty simple -- it can easily be simulated on the MATLAB supercomputers which are available at virtually any respectable academic institution.
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 1:11:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Zmike, you're presuming an innate dichotomy between noncompatibilistic causal overdeterminism and random action, but each random action is intrinsically deterministic due to telic recursion, per which a protocomputational universe's syntax naturally rejects such a dichotomy...A better refutation might involve demonstrating such a dichotomy by dismissing compatibilism, such that there is more than one set of syntax (e.g. Piaget's schema epistemology).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 1:13:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 7:00:33 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 11/19/2015 6:36:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Romanii, I hope your responses are intended to be sarcastic (pretty sure they are).

How dare you imply such a thing!


Bell's theorem merely proves that the spin of entangles particles is not determined prior to their collapse. That does NOT prove that randomness exists, unless you subscribe to the determinism/randomness dichotomy, which the CTMU doesn't.

Well yeah, but like I said, when the kripkean modal multiplier is applied to the self-actualization coefficient, it *clearly* generates random anti-integer series at holomorphic anomalies. The entropic configuration of the Reimannian manifold's quantum dynamic has long been accepted to definitively negate what you're saying here. Seriously man, this stuff is pretty simple -- it can easily be simulated on the MATLAB supercomputers which are available at virtually any respectable academic institution.

I mean, it's metaphysically possible for a temporal-obeying Hamiltonian within a non-entropic universe that emerges ex nihilo, wherein there is no quantum indeterminacy, resulting in some form of rejection of the determinism/randomness dichotomy due to telic recursion's intrinsic fatalism. This seems a bit circular to me. A sounder refutation would be what I presented in my response to Zmike.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 4:53:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 7:00:33 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 11/19/2015 6:36:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Romanii, I hope your responses are intended to be sarcastic (pretty sure they are).

How dare you imply such a thing!


Bell's theorem merely proves that the spin of entangles particles is not determined prior to their collapse. That does NOT prove that randomness exists, unless you subscribe to the determinism/randomness dichotomy, which the CTMU doesn't.

Well yeah, but like I said, when the kripkean modal multiplier is applied to the self-actualization coefficient, it *clearly* generates random anti-integer series at holomorphic anomalies. The entropic configuration of the Reimannian manifold's quantum dynamic has long been accepted to definitively negate what you're saying here. Seriously man, this stuff is pretty simple -- it can easily be simulated on the MATLAB supercomputers which are available at virtually any respectable academic institution.

Kripke's reaction: http://cdn.makeagif.com...
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 3:09:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 1:36:01 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
I don't have time to be lengthy, but I want to put out a concept that I think debunks the CTMU.

To begin with, I'd like to refute the notion of self-containment in an atmosphere which is sufficient to the evolution and persistence of life, be it vegatative or animalistic. The problem with this position is that it is inferior in explanatory ability to the ascertained concept of a mind. Minds are incapable of self-containment. Minds always strive for connections to other minds. Thus, it's utterly impossible for the universe to be a mind, since the metaphysical proposition includes an assumption which is diametrically opposed to the hentic nature of the rational faculties which Aristotle outlined in his De Anima. I hold by Aristotle's view that Platonism, even in Langan's twisted and precarious deviation, always refutes the concept of friendship in the sense of going beyond what has already been known by the knower, whether he realizes it or not.

Furthermore, an integrated system of information is unable to deviate right behavior from wrong behavior. Nonetheless, the MD5# has demonstrated the necessity of a sufficient reason for explaining the presence of morality, regardless of it's subjectivity of objectivity.

Now onto the objection.

Let us assume, for the sake of brevity, that reality is nothing more than an illusion, and a figment of our imagination.

If this is the case, then particles which have come into being from the sheer will of the mind will demonstrably be incapable of shedding light upon the true nature of the world. While some may argue that metaphysics cannot follow from epistemology, I hold to the position that a random self-generating algorithm made up of anti-derivatives and triple integrals, can, in some cases, derive an explanation and a real basis for the presence of particles. Therefore, Langan's theory cannot be correct. A randomly computing self-actualizing algorithm suffers from the same flaws as the former example. I input these algorithms into MATLAB, and was able to simulate a very basic AI. However, the AI was randomly self-destructive, due to the very nature of its being. It therefore seems that self-containment in the Langan sense would also fall prey to the same self-destructive nature, and in such, the universe would cease to exist at any and every moment, in accord with the superposition principle.

I am just curious though... what do you guys think of this objection?

It doesn"t need to be refuted, it is self-refuting.

Think about it, the dual-aspected infocognitional syntacticistic polyautology consists essentially of a dual monic holomanifold entity with internetalogical ascendancy over the ultratransductive syndiffidiotic superautotautology. Given the self-actualizatively holotelon invariant with respect to the transductively conspansitive algebraic geometry of its primary syntactic polyinconsistency, the entire theory suffers from nonintelligentic-regression until it"s jargonistically dystillusional.

In the end its primary nonsensicalistic polystupidomorphical incoherentalism clearly demonstrates that the CTMU is self-refutingistically syndiomoronic and polyphilosophmoric leaving us with nothing but its deep nonintelligental internethoaxicalism.
"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
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 12:26:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think it down to me to learn the jargon of CTMU - I think it's down to the CTMU commuity to communicate their ideas in accessible language. There are many excellent expositions of, say, relativity and qm in plain language, so why is there no 'CTMU for Dummies'?

The suspicion is that the impenertable jargon of CTMU is there only to disguise something that either vacuous, trivial or nonsense.
cdipoce
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 6:24:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/21/2015 12:26:28 PM, kp98 wrote:
I don't think it down to me to learn the jargon of CTMU - I think it's down to the CTMU commuity to communicate their ideas in accessible language.

I believe you're conflating the burden of proof with the burden of comprehensibility. The latter is a shared burden. If I want to discuss the merits of (e.g.,) string theory, the onus isn't on the theorists to "communicate their ideas in [an] accessible language", where 'accessibility' is determined by its intelligibility to anyone and everyone. It only needs to be accessible to specialists in the relevant subfields of physics (or subfields from which it effects its departure). The onus is then on me to understand the (formal) language underlying the theory and thereby rendering the theory intelligible to my own mind. This is a form of 'learning'-- it often requires effort on the part of the 'learner'.

At 11/21/2015 12:26:28 PM, kp98 wrote:
There are many excellent expositions of, say, relativity and qm in plain language, so why is there no 'CTMU for Dummies'?

If there were genuinely "excellent expositions" of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in 'plain language', there would be no need for the mathematical formalism associated with each theory. Why would GR and QM courses be taught at the upper-undergraduate/graduate level as opposed to being taught in grade school? Why would the interpretation of Quantum Theory be mired in ongoing and intense debate for nearly a century? Why would the ontological status of a spacetime manifold still be ambiguous?

If by "exposition" you mean a brief survey of the main ideas comprising the theory, then help yourself to the Wiki dedicated entirely to Langan's theory: ctmucommunity.org

At 11/21/2015 12:26:28 PM, kp98 wrote:
The suspicion is that the impenertable jargon of CTMU is there only to disguise something that either vacuous, trivial or nonsense.

What's suspicious is broad-sweeping assertions of a theory unrestrained by content-specific references.
cdipoce
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 6:50:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd also like to point out that zmikecuber promised to unequivocally refute the CTMU weeks ago, but I guess he grew tired of being Socrates when that failed and now fancies himself Jonathan Swift defeating the CTMU with mockery.

Just out of curiosity, how was the CTMU coherent enough to permit you to formulate a logical refutation of it last month, but has since become a vapid word salad?
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 8:27:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I believe you're conflating the burden of proof with the burden of comprehensibility. The latter is a shared burden.

Granted on the latter point - but clearly the CTMU community has got the balance wrong. A lot of very intelligent people have tried and failed to comprehend what Langan is saying. If the CTMU community wants to be taken seriously they need to find a better way of putting their ideas across. I don't mean just for me. The general consensus amongst 'CTMU outsiders' is that the CTMU is meaningless nonsense. People have other calls on their time than to spend a weeks untangling Langans impentrable jargon when there is no clear benefit to be gained

A good clear expostion would encourage people to make the effort - just as simplified expositions of relativity and qm encourage people to go deeper. How would you sum up the ctmu in a few jargon-free sentences?
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 1:58:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 6:50:50 PM, cdipoce wrote:
I'd also like to point out that zmikecuber promised to unequivocally refute the CTMU weeks ago, but I guess he grew tired of being Socrates when that failed and now fancies himself Jonathan Swift defeating the CTMU with mockery.

Just out of curiosity, how was the CTMU coherent enough to permit you to formulate a logical refutation of it last month, but has since become a vapid word salad?

And indeed, the CTMU has been refuted in this thread.
"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."