Lets have fun with C. M. Langan

[Ted Hoffman]

For those interested, come have fun with me at ISCID - the mod seems quite lax since my post hasnt been deleted.

In this thread: On Progress, Readdressing Reality Theory, & Information in the Holographic Universe (http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000395&p=3#000032), Langan argues that:
standard scientific methodology is inadequate for the verification of inferred scientific truth; one needs logicomathematical methodology for that. On the other hand, if all you're looking for is empirical confirmation, then you're not looking for truth, and in that case, you're not looking for the truth about biological origins. All you're looking for is another fallible exercise in causal induction from limited observations, and given the philosophical intransigence displayed on a daily basis by both sides of this debate, that won't solve anything.

It might sound strange to hear someone say that the scientific method is not about verification (as opposed to imperfect confirmation), but that's how it is. To understand why, you need a bit of advanced logic, and specifically model theory. The scientific method, being empirical, is based on an observational model of reality subject to weaknesses like the problem of induction and the Duhem-Quine thesis, due to which certainty cannot be inductively attained. How, then, is scientific truth to be ascertained? Logic provides the answer: by deduction from tautologically self-evident certainties. In fact, aside from direct apprehension, this is the only way there has ever been to "know" anything at all.

Unfortunately for those excessively enamored of the scientific method, deduction does not appeal to an observational model, but to another kind of model entirely...a substitutive model, or what a mathematical linguist would call a generative model in which the truth property is grammatically inherited from "origins" which are themselves either axiomatic or deduced. To know the truth about the origin of something (a theorem, the first organism, the universe), two conditions must be satisfied: (1) one must be able to deduce or directly apprehend the original event or terminal antecedent, and (2) truth must be heritable along the pathway from antecedent to consequent, cause to effect...

The CTMU is the theory that allows the discovery of "scientific truth" because, when science is defined strictly on the scientific method, there is no such thing as a "scientific truth". There are only directly apprehended truths, logically derived truths, and in contradistinction to these, tentatively-confirmed scientific hypotheses. This is why my answer "implies that science has discovered no (certified) scientific truths."

Some truths can be deduced by pure thought; others, particularly those involving some degree of freedom or self-determinacy, cannot. The new methodology will be designed to distinguish deterministic processes governed by distributed syntax from processes involving freedom and intelligence, which involve the spot-synthesis of "localized syntax". The trick is to distinguish localized from distributed syntax. The CTMU is the sole framework in which this distinction can be made.

Incidentally, what RBH might call "truth with a small t" is clearly of potential value, particularly in the absence of deduction. Instances of "truth", broadly including the products of scientific empiricism, are generally developed with respect to restricted contexts. Without contextual limitations, very little of a material nature can be even tentatively decided. Unfortunately, many proponents of neo-Darwinism recognize no such restrictions. In response to what seem to be extremely low probabilities for certain (irreducibly and specifiedly-complex) compound events, they invariably set out to de-restrict the context in order to multiply probabilistic resources and thereby raise the probabilities, even to the point of endorsing bizarre cosmologies in which realities proliferate beyond infinity (we've seen that maneuver on this very board). When it comes to explosively or implosively enlarging the sample space in order to provide themselves with probabilistic resources, they dwarf any nuclear blast!

This maneuver is neither logically nor scientifically supportable, particularly in answering questions about origins and ultimate causation. By definition, an origin is something that can be accessed by (logically-fortified) causal regression; interminably delaying access by contextual expansion and outright combinatorial explosion is flatly inconsistent with answering the question. Foiling this endless-delay tactic in any final sense requires a generative-deductive theory of reality (the CTMU). In the CTMU, reality is deductively identified as its own origin (as explained above), which in turn implies that causality is generative. Working from these realizations, we can restrict the context in such a way as to meaningfully address the source and means of evolution. To avoid an open causal regress in which nothing is ever decided, we need CTMU-style logico-algebraic closure, and - here's the kicker - because this kind of closure is implicit in naturalism, the CTMU locks metaphysical and methodological naturalism into compliance using pure logic.

Thought you might have wanted to know since you guys are the evolution proponents. He is challenging Methodological naturalism and biological evolution.

RBH is way too "friendly" with this egomaniac.

[Ted Hoffman]

Actually, I just realized a huge chunk of my post has been deleted :mad: :confused: :mad:

[KC]

Many of us endured Langan over on ARN. He landed in a swirl of self-generated hype, accompanied by a girlfriend/handler and a cloud of sycophants from wherever they roost. The ID crowd was intially wowed by Langan's proletarian background and formidably dense language. They couldn't understand him, and believed it when he told them they were all mental midgets for not being able to understand him, and therefore should just accept what he said as being self-evidently true. Those that actually attempted to read his magnum opus and pointed out problems were dismissed as intellectual lightweights who just didn't get it.

The discussions degenerated into creepy but often comical exchanges between Langan, his girlfriend and the sycophants. Some sycophants, it seemed, did not pay enough homage to the CTMU, and were savaged in public. The girlfriend, in one memorably despicable post, publically revealed humiliating personal information she had on one sycophant, whose only crime was to claim credit for some minor aspect of the CTMU.

Eventually, even the ID crowd grew tired of the intellectual bullying going on, and Langan and company pretty much left the scene after being banned temporarily.

The Superbrains are a waste of time.

KC

[theyeti]

I think you're better off just ignoring Langan.

While I strongly disagree with the pro-ID people at ISCID, the moderators do a decent job of keeping everything civil and on-topic. They're pretty quick to delete posts, but IMO they're fair about it. Not surprisingly, most of the pro-ID ARNies have been warned or had their posts deleted. Langan has thus far managed not to sling about the childish insults that got him banned from ARN, which means that his posts are now totally vacuous. :p

theyeti

[Xixax]

I wasted valuable time reading through his posts that in the end amount to nothing whatsoever. His posts are nearly the equivalent of the "gibberish" generators you can find on the internet.

It isn't his writing that is incomprehensible, or that his ideas are too lofty to be understood by the masses. It's just that his ideas are too nebulous to hold a discussion on. His ego gets in the way, as it's easily aroused and seems to constantly move to the front of discussion when anyone dares question the explanatory power of his "CTMU".

I've worked with people like him before. Great vocabulary, moderately intelligent, but ultimately too arrogant and uninformed to carry on a decent conversation with.

When I was finished reading, I was left saying, "so what?" I was also left with the impression that he fails to give the proper respect for expirimentation and knowledge acquired through experience. It's the very basis of his ability to use reason and logic to determine truth. Anyway, I'm not going to bother registering there just to engage in endless circular threads with him. I'd rather read through the forums here and use it as a springboard to learn about things that fascinate me.

[RBH]

Jacob wroteRBH is way too "friendly" with this egomaniac."Friendly" and "civil" are not synonyms.

RBH

[Whatup?]

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
Actually, I just realized a huge chunk of my post has been deleted :mad: :confused: :mad:
Do you have a copy of the part they deleted? If you do, post it here.

[Clutch]

I said my piece about Langan's word-salad here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39811&highlight=Langan+worth)

The guy's mediocre in every respect save his delusion of grandeur, which knows only the most bombastically vast limits.

[Ted Hoffman]

Originally posted by RBH
Jacob wrote"Friendly" and "civil" are not synonyms.

RBH
I agree :D .

You were civil. Am I correct to state you let him walk around your question and entertained him still?

Anyway, you've been on this game for way too long for a rookie like me to tell you how to play your cards in a debate. But it would have been nice to see you apply your formidable knowledge on his vacuous word salad.

Think of me as a footbal fan watching Ronaldo and exclaiming: "Aaarrgh, he wasted that chance!"

[excreationist]

According to Muscle and Fitness magazine (http://www.megasociety.net/NoesisMarch/MrUniverse/Title.asp), he's the world's smartest man!

Though according to ABC's 20/20 (http://www.megafoundation.org/Ubiquity/2020.html), his IQ has been measured to be as high as 195, which would be the case for 1 in 100 million people...

Maybe part of the reason for his theory and his promised book about it is to try and be more famous than he already is... the most famous geniuses in history are often people involved in maths and physics - e.g. Newton, Einstein, etc... his theory is supposed to also explain and prove a lot of things about God, the afterlife, consciousness, the origin of the universe, etc. If he can solve those mysteries then he would be very famous in history. I have a lot of problems with his theory though. Maybe most of the reason he's so attached to his theory is because he needs to believe in the afterlife and an intelligent designer, etc, due to emotional reasons.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Well, from the posted article, it's pretty obvious that Langan is a shallow thinker.

First he tells us that science doesn't deal in absolute truths, as if this was some sort of new revelation. Heck, if we're all just brains in jars being fed false sensory information, everything we know could be wrong! (slaps forehead in amazement).

Next he goes on to say that, unlike empirical evidence, logic is absolutely 100% reliable. In saying that, he's utterly failed to follow through his original line of thought! What if logic, too, is unreliable? How can we know?

The rest is just pompous fluff which pads out this fallacious "reasoning".

I suppose it's too much to hope for that Langan will ever come here?

[pmurray]

Originally posted by excreationist
According to Muscle and Fitness magazine (http://www.megasociety.net/NoesisMarch/MrUniverse/Title.asp), he's the world's smartest man!

Though according to ABC's 20/20 (http://www.megafoundation.org/Ubiquity/2020.html), his IQ has been measured to be as high as 195, which would be the case for 1 in 100 million people...

Oh! He's that guy!

IQ tests, IMO, measure the mechanics of raw intelligence - memory, word association, reasoning. I doubt that these things nessesarily sum up to being good with ideas.

[RufusAtticus]

Just another example of why IQ scores are BS.

[Worldtraveller]

Originally posted by excreationist
According to Muscle and Fitness magazine (http://www.megasociety.net/NoesisMarch/MrUniverse/Title.asp), he's the world's smartest man!

Though according to ABC's 20/20 (http://www.megafoundation.org/Ubiquity/2020.html), his IQ has been measured to be as high as 195, which would be the case for 1 in 100 million people...

<snip>

Well, 20/20, in particular has also shown itself to be one of the worst 'news' shows for sensationalizing stories (remember the Satanist D&D players in the late 70's?) , falsifying data (the rigged tests on the pickup side impact tests), etc.

I gave up watching that show a loooong time ago. At least 60 minutes still seems to have some journalistic integrity, although it's been a long time since I watched that one too.

Cheers,
Lane

[Xixax]

I have to admit I find the hype surrounding this guy amusing. He may be extremely intelligent, but his ego is making that very difficult to see if that is the case.

[RufusAtticus]

From reading the 20/20 piece and knowledge of his behavior on ARN, it appears that he is just one big failure in life. He was probably a smart child, and his parents, among others, gave him a big ego about it. Because of this he can't stand his ideas being challenged, doing so adversely affects his over-inflated ego. No wonder he dropped out of college. He couldn't take all those professors, who "aren't as smart as him," correcting his mistakes. His behavior defending CTMU is no different.

[RBH]

Jacob,

Langan danced around that same question, put differently, several times in other threads, and I have neither the patience nor the time to spend on yet another iteration. One central question for me is how he proposes to establish correspondences between the syntax (terms and operators) of his logic scheme and observed phenomena (more correctly, classes of phenomena) in the world, so as to provide interpretations of the terms and operators of his logical construction. A purely syntactical scheme - pushing symbols around according to formal rules - explains nothing unless and until those symbols and the formal operators that push them around on the basis of their shapes are associated with observables - objects, events, and processes in the observational world. A whole lot of formal models have run aground on the issue of correspondence (or lack thereof) between the terms and operators of the model and the entities, processes, and relationships observed in the world.

RBH

[Bebbo]

Originally posted by RBH
Jacob,

Langan danced around that same question, put differently, several times in other threads, and I have neither the patience nor the time to spend on yet another iteration. One central question for me is how he proposes to establish correspondences between the syntax (terms and operators) of his logic scheme and observed phenomena (more correctly, classes of phenomena) in the world, so as to provide interpretations of the terms and operators of his logical construction. A purely syntactical scheme - pushing symbols around according to formal rules - explains nothing unless and until those symbols and the formal operators that push them around on the basis of their shapes are associated with observables - objects, events, and processes in the observational world. A whole lot of formal models have run aground on the issue of correspondence (or lack thereof) between the terms and operators of the model and the entities, processes, and relationships observed in the world.

RBH

One has to wonder who Langan is aiming his CTMU at as he has contempt for academics, and shows his arrogance quickly when people criticise it or say they don't understand it.

Am I the only one to find his responses to everything to be so glib that his having an answer to everything is suspicious? At any rate, most of his CTMU related writings make assertions without demonstrating them to be correct. Just look in his CTMU paper for any syntax of the SCSPL language and you won't find it.

--
Dene

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Bebbo
At any rate, most of his CTMU related writings make assertions without demonstrating them to be correct.

He doesn't have too. After all, he is the Smartest Man in America (TM), why would he be so stupid as saying something that is not true?

[Ted Hoffman]

Thanks RBH.

Do you think he actually knows he is dancing around the questions? Maybe he is so caught up in his house of words that if he is challenged, he just pushes in more words.

Perharps he's lost perspective. Or is in some form of pathological denial.

[Ted Hoffman]

Originally posted by Whatup?
Do you have a copy of the part they deleted? If you do, post it here.
Sorry, I dint keep a copy.

[Bebbo]

Over at ISCID superego wrote:

"But if Jacob has some super-logician, some twinkling star in the academic sky, who in his sheer bureaucratic competence can put the brakes to the CTMU (or just to my "bad argumentation"), then bring him on. Of course, in my personal opinion, one might as well stick an apple in his mouth and hand over plenty of salt, pepper, and a bag of charcoal briquets while one is at it, since by the time I'm finished with him, he'll probably feel like everyone at the luau has had a piece, so to speak. For this, he'll have only himself and Jacob to thank."

And also:

"Those whom Jacob considers to be his behind-the-scenes supporters, those shadowy knights of the intellect, simply don't want to be humiliated in public, and they know or strongly suspect that it would happen just like clockwork. They'd rather watch Jacob be humiliated instead. I advise Jacob not to get sucked into the very trap they've learned, by means of hard knocks, to avoid. Remember, even if I were nothing but a big dummy myself, the CTMU is tautological, and that means I couldn't lose an argument over it if I tried."

With this obnoxious attitude I bet that even the academic ID supporters who belong to ISCID are beginning to wonder about Langan being a crackpot.

Amusingly the Megafoundation -- that Langan helped found -- states its common purpose as:

"moving our planet and its inhabitants into the next Millenium, there to realise our boundless hopes and dreams for the future of our species."

With Langan at the Vanguard of MF they're more likely to simply piss people off.

--
Dene

[Clutch]

Langan wrote, on ISCID: I almost get the impression that Jacob may have heard some of my braver and more tireless critics refer to the CTMU as "bafflegab" and "word salad", Quotes from Clutch on IIDB:I said my piece about Langan's word-salad here.

[Langan uses] a barfalgab technical term to lend [his idea] some cachetIt was "barfalgab", Chris, not "bafflegab". A little neologism to spice things up. Please try to read more carefully.

Langan again:...claiming that it contains elementary mistakes in logic and/or set theory Me on IIDB: Nobody thinks that sets themselves are spatio-temporal. I mean, think of the transfinite hierarchy!wade-w as well:This guy doesn't know much about set theory or pure mathematicians.More from Langan:However, Jacob should probably exercise a certain amount of caution in the weight he ascribes to such critiques and their authors. You see, I've already met a number of those people on this or that Internet bulletin board, and if the truth be told, they didn't fare quite as well as they pretend they did, nor I so badly.Must have been wade-w? Or not? Are Langan's delusions of grandeur causing him to confabulate memories? If Jacob doubts this, then he's free to get one of the "really smart" ones, the most capable thinker and debater, to challenge me under his real name in a neutral forum. I predict that Jacob will have trouble finding any takers. I concur with this prediction. Really smart people tend not to waste time trying to nail jelly to the wall. Especially jelly that's gone rancid, so that being around it makes one feel ill.
Although the stated excuse will probably run something like "superbrains is a waste of time," "nobody listens to that crap!"Hey, suddenly Langan's making sense! This is plausible and impressive stuff! ..."the guy's ideas are nebulous and vapid," "he reminds me of my five-year-old", Wait, that sounds familiar too! Me on IIDB:No joke, my six year-old suggested [what Langan calls "conspansion"] last year when we were reading the Space section of the atlas together. From her, at age five, I thought it showed a sound grasp of the relativity of some concepts. From Langan, with a barfalgab technical term to lend it some cachet, ...it just reminds me of my daughter when she was five.But back to the delusions... ...the real reason - a simple fear of defeat - will shed no glory at all on the reputation or self-image of the excusemaker. Those whom Jacob considers to be his behind-the-scenes supporters, those shadowy knights of the intellect, simply don't want to be humiliated in public, and they know or strongly suspect that it would happen just like clockwork.So, the Smartest Man in Chris Langan's Mind knows how to operate a web browser, and peeks in on us. Wonder if he'll show up to put his ego on the line?

[Principia]

LOL. Yet more evidence that IDiots lurk amongst us. But why do they torture themselves thus? ;)

Superbrains: If Jacob doubts this, then he's free to get one of the "really smart" ones, the most capable thinker and debater, to challenge me under his real name in a neutral forum. I predict that Jacob will have trouble finding any takers.

This is known simply as desperation for attention. It is the pitfall of "intellectual" Internet discussions, whereby the actual trained and knowledgeable get sucked into an endless wordgame of nonsense with a self-proclaimed know-it-all and his kooky theories. The only person who stands to gain in these discussions is, you guessed it, the "theorist" with his agendae and crafty words and high self-importance, who nevertheless has trouble finding an audience in real life.

mturner has tried it. Dembski has tried. John Bracht has tried it. Mike Gene has tried it.

And now the supremely unoriginal Supes is trying it. [EDIT: Well, he actually tried it at ARN, before he was summarily banned for his baiting techniques. Let's see if I can find those posts.... :D]

None of them matter a whit except for the entertainment they provide.

[Principia]

Superbrains: Remember, even if I were nothing but a big dummy myself, the CTMU is tautological, and that means I couldn't lose an argument over it if I tried. :D

[excreationist]

To those who can comprehend CTMU -
I've started a thread called CTMU - is it any good? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61067)

[RufusAtticus]

An odd thing happened today, I was sitting outside the Law School on North Campus and a couple of guys walked by talking about Lagan. Weird.