Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Is There Any Evidence for CMTU?

tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 9:32:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CMTU) proposes that the universe itself is a conscious, cognitive entity that evolves mentally by the process of telic recursion, formulated by Christopher Langan.

To advocates of CMTU: What are any arguments for CMTU? Is there any evidence for CMTU?
"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
AdithyaShark
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:20:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 9:32:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CMTU) proposes that the universe itself is a conscious, cognitive entity that evolves mentally by the process of telic recursion, formulated by Christopher Langan.

To advocates of CMTU: What are any arguments for CMTU? Is there any evidence for CMTU?

I think a variation of Aquinas' unmoved mover argument fits.

1. The universe is the totality of existence
2. "Nothing," as a concept, is incoherent

Also:

I. Everything in the universe is in "motion" via the universe's expansion
II. Motion requires a force pushing it
III. An infinite regression of forces is impossible
IV. An unmoved mover must exist
V. Cannot exist sans the universe
VI. Because of (I), the unmoved mover has to be the universe itself [from (1) and (2)]

From these facts, we can infer that the universe controls itself (apply argument to other properties), and is under a system of telic recursion.

Additionally, a position of idealism would give this strength, and there are good reasons to believe idealism is true.
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:22:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:20:46 AM, AdithyaShark wrote:
At 7/13/2015 9:32:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CMTU) proposes that the universe itself is a conscious, cognitive entity that evolves mentally by the process of telic recursion, formulated by Christopher Langan.

To advocates of CMTU: What are any arguments for CMTU? Is there any evidence for CMTU?

I think a variation of Aquinas' unmoved mover argument fits.

1. The universe is the totality of existence
2. "Nothing," as a concept, is incoherent

Also:

I. Everything in the universe is in "motion" via the universe's expansion
II. Motion requires a force pushing it
III. An infinite regression of forces is impossible
IV. An unmoved mover must exist
V. Cannot exist sans the universe
VI. Because of (I), the unmoved mover has to be the universe itself [from (1) and (2)]

From these facts, we can infer that the universe controls itself (apply argument to other properties), and is under a system of telic recursion.

The argument doesn't necessitate sentience or conscience, nor does it justify that an infinite regression is impossible.


Additionally, a position of idealism would give this strength, and there are good reasons to believe idealism is true.

I would like to see what reasons those are.
"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
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:23:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 9:32:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CMTU) proposes that the universe itself is a conscious, cognitive entity that evolves mentally by the process of telic recursion, formulated by Christopher Langan.

To advocates of CMTU: What are any arguments for CMTU? Is there any evidence for CMTU?

I'm not a proponent, but you might want to know that it's not a scientific theory (I'm not even sure it's considered a coherent philosophical theory either) and it has no scientific backing. I doubt many scientists have even heard of it.

On their website, they point out that the theory was published in a scientific journal, Progress, Complexity, Information and Design. The one problem is that this isn't a scientific journal. It's a journal without a proper peer-review system set up by the ID movement (Behe, Dembsky, Craig, etc.) in order to publish creation-supporting work that might pass as science to laypeople and perhaps a minority of scientists.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:24:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:23:10 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/13/2015 9:32:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CMTU) proposes that the universe itself is a conscious, cognitive entity that evolves mentally by the process of telic recursion, formulated by Christopher Langan.

To advocates of CMTU: What are any arguments for CMTU? Is there any evidence for CMTU?

I'm not a proponent, but you might want to know that it's not a scientific theory (I'm not even sure it's considered a coherent philosophical theory either) and it has no scientific backing. I doubt many scientists have even heard of it.

If you are questioning why this is in the Science forum, it is because it is meant to be a scientific proposition, not a philosophical one.


On their website, they point out that the theory was published in a scientific journal, Progress, Complexity, Information and Design. The one problem is that this isn't a scientific journal. It's a journal without a proper peer-review system set up by the ID movement (Behe, Dembsky, Craig, etc.) in order to publish creation-supporting work that might pass as science to laypeople and perhaps a minority of scientists.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
"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
AdithyaShark
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 6:47:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:22:03 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:20:46 AM, AdithyaShark wrote:
At 7/13/2015 9:32:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CMTU) proposes that the universe itself is a conscious, cognitive entity that evolves mentally by the process of telic recursion, formulated by Christopher Langan.

To advocates of CMTU: What are any arguments for CMTU? Is there any evidence for CMTU?

I think a variation of Aquinas' unmoved mover argument fits.

1. The universe is the totality of existence
2. "Nothing," as a concept, is incoherent

Also:

I. Everything in the universe is in "motion" via the universe's expansion
II. Motion requires a force pushing it
III. An infinite regression of forces is impossible
IV. An unmoved mover must exist
V. Cannot exist sans the universe
VI. Because of (I), the unmoved mover has to be the universe itself [from (1) and (2)]

From these facts, we can infer that the universe controls itself (apply argument to other properties), and is under a system of telic recursion.

The argument doesn't necessitate sentience or conscience, nor does it justify that an infinite regression is impossible.

The universe is a protocomputational system, thus a mover is required to force its processes of telic recursion and teleology. Hilbert's Hotel and related paradoxes justify the impossibility (metaphysically) of an actual infinite.



Additionally, a position of idealism would give this strength, and there are good reasons to believe idealism is true.

I would like to see what reasons those are.

Idealism posits a sole assumption -- mentality. Thus, it fulfills Occam's razor best. Additionally, all "reality" has some grounds in human perception, so idealism is the default position unless physicalism/dualism is justified.
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 11:38:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 6:47:10 AM, AdithyaShark wrote:
At 7/13/2015 11:22:03 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:20:46 AM, AdithyaShark wrote:
At 7/13/2015 9:32:29 AM, tejretics wrote:
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CMTU) proposes that the universe itself is a conscious, cognitive entity that evolves mentally by the process of telic recursion, formulated by Christopher Langan.

To advocates of CMTU: What are any arguments for CMTU? Is there any evidence for CMTU?

I think a variation of Aquinas' unmoved mover argument fits.

1. The universe is the totality of existence
2. "Nothing," as a concept, is incoherent

Also:

I. Everything in the universe is in "motion" via the universe's expansion
II. Motion requires a force pushing it
III. An infinite regression of forces is impossible
IV. An unmoved mover must exist
V. Cannot exist sans the universe
VI. Because of (I), the unmoved mover has to be the universe itself [from (1) and (2)]

From these facts, we can infer that the universe controls itself (apply argument to other properties), and is under a system of telic recursion.

The argument doesn't necessitate sentience or conscience, nor does it justify that an infinite regression is impossible.

The universe is a protocomputational system, thus a mover is required to force its processes of telic recursion and teleology.

The word "protocomputational" is non-existent outside of CMTU sites, and is undefined. Care to define it> Citations needed.

Hilbert's Hotel and related paradoxes justify the impossibility (metaphysically) of an actual infinite.

Hilbert's Hotel, as the late Michael Martin notes, only justifies that actual infinities have unusual properties.




Additionally, a position of idealism would give this strength, and there are good reasons to believe idealism is true.

I would like to see what reasons those are.

Idealism posits a sole assumption -- mentality. Thus, it fulfills Occam's razor best. Additionally, all "reality" has some grounds in human perception, so idealism is the default position unless physicalism/dualism is justified.

Physicalism posits a sole assumption -- physicality. Thus, it fulfills Occam's razor. Additionally, all reality is perceived as "objective," so is the default position. We have no reason to trust our sensory experience.
"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: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 11:39:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just learned it's a straightforward acronym -- CTMU.
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 3:26:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The evidence is primarily logical, but it's empirically confirmed as well. I'm pretty sure it predicated that the universe would appear to be accelerating in its "expansion" before it was empirically confirmed.

It also makes dozens of accurate "retrodictions" i.e., it explains a lot of observed phenomena (often very counterintuitive ones) without having to go outs of its way. For instance, the it says that on logical grounds, the Plank length must exist, light must be a finite speed, there's a general relativity between space and time, quantum entanglement exists.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 7:17:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 3:26:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The evidence is primarily logical, but it's empirically confirmed as well. I'm pretty sure it predicated that the universe would appear to be accelerating in its "expansion" before it was empirically confirmed.

It also makes dozens of accurate "retrodictions" i.e., it explains a lot of observed phenomena (often very counterintuitive ones) without having to go outs of its way. For instance, the it says that on logical grounds, the Plank length must exist, light must be a finite speed, there's a general relativity between space and time, quantum entanglement exists.

I can't find reference to the CTMU anywhere in the scientific literature. Can you link me sources outlining the evidence you mentioned? As far as I'm aware, the CTMU has no relevance or support in science.

Logical evidence might have some weight in philosophy, where whether something is true in reality may not be of primary concern, but logical evidence generally only amounts to a conjecture in science.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 11:26:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 7:17:19 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/26/2015 3:26:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The evidence is primarily logical, but it's empirically confirmed as well. I'm pretty sure it predicated that the universe would appear to be accelerating in its "expansion" before it was empirically confirmed.

It also makes dozens of accurate "retrodictions" i.e., it explains a lot of observed phenomena (often very counterintuitive ones) without having to go outs of its way. For instance, the it says that on logical grounds, the Plank length must exist, light must be a finite speed, there's a general relativity between space and time, quantum entanglement exists.

I can't find reference to the CTMU anywhere in the scientific literature. Can you link me sources outlining the evidence you mentioned? As far as I'm aware, the CTMU has no relevance or support in science.

Logical evidence might have some weight in philosophy, where whether something is true in reality may not be of primary concern, but logical evidence generally only amounts to a conjecture in science.

The CTMU is not a scientific theory. It's a philosophical theory with scientific implications. It has not received much attention from academia because, as Langan puts it, "The CTMU is a profound departure from other theories of reality. To a typical academic snob, my status as a working man with only a year or so of college no doubt suggests that it cannot withstand expert analysis; given its unique structure, any flaws should be readily apparent to some qualified expert who can be attached by name to his arguments and thus held to reasonable standards of analysis and debate. But despite occasional incoherent sniping by anonymous Internet gadflies, no qualified individual has ever found fault with it. This is not only because it is (as some claim) "incomprehensible" or philosophically and theologically loaded, but because it is substantially correct."

The fact that the CTMU is able to painlessly absorb strange phenomena like quantum entanglement and the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe is, to my mind, a strong tribute to its soundness. By painlessly absorb, I mean that it does not have to go out of its way to explain them. They follow quite inevitably from basic CTMU principles.

Langan is actually working on a number of books which deal with his theories, one of which is due for release very soon. Hopefully then people will begin to recognize his work for the profound breakthrough that it is.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 2:36:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 11:39:31 AM, tejretics wrote:
I just learned it's a straightforward acronym -- CTMU.

Yeah, that was bugging me lol.