CTMU - is it any good? [Archive I]

excreationist

August 24, 2003, 04:29 AM

Chimp/Russell E. Rierson:
Thanks for your reply.

In a nutshell, and my interpretation, The CTMU says reality creates itself as a self binding process, refining itself from the ontological ground-state, the UBT(unbound telesis).
That is a bit like this quote (on page 47) from the 56 page paper:
"How come existence? is answered by the fact that the universe is a global SCSPL operator amounting to one vast, self-selective, self-expressive act of reflexive observer-participation"
(I see that SCSPL is summarized here as well (http://www.iomas.com/gina/ultrahiq/mega-society/Teleologic/main.htm))
So as far as what I just quoted goes, how does that explain why our supposedly CTMU-type world exists? I mean how does that make it absolutely necessary for our alledged CTMU-type world to exist at all? (Including the existence of UBT, which is different from pure nothingness)

Basically, anything that can exist DOES exist if it can logically sustain its own existence.
But how did everything come into existence in the first place? If it just always existed then that is just the same as many theories about the universe (in that regard).

The UBT is something that can only be logically inferred, much like the Schrodinger wave function.

Newtonian science basically deals with organized simplicity, where the followers of Newton's classical reality, sought to reduce the objective world to a few simple laws and components. A reality broken down to its ostensible individual parts like some jewelers watch. Reductionism.

The universe is a structure that defies the simplistic "reductive" approach where the reality in question is more than the sum of its parts. Holism.

So, we must approach the world from the viewpoint of organized complexity.
Newtonian science makes predictions about future observations that can then be tested though... does CTMU make any testable predictions about the world?

The exiled Chimp, :eek:
Where/what are you exiled from?

BTW, apparently in the CTMU, conscious people affect the universe - possibly even ensuring the existence of the universe in the first place or something. How does that work? And can people's thoughts lead to other things happening like their dreams coming true, etc?

Chimp

August 24, 2003, 10:57 PM

The mind = Reality principle basically means that a self aware mind, and the reality that contains the self aware beings, share the same rules of syntactic processing. The general contains the specific.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58430&highlight=john+archibald+wheeler

John Archibald Wheeler has some very interesting ideas with feedback:

http://www.discover.com/june_02/featuniverse.html

In his delayed-choice thought experiment, Wheeler suggests that a single photon emitted from a distant quasar (far right) can simultaneously follow two paths to Earth, even if those paths are separated by many light-years. Here one photon travels past two different galaxies, with both routes deflected by the gravitational pull of the galaxies. Stranger still, Wheeler theorizes, the observations astronomers make on Earth today decide the path the photon took billions of years ago.

Chimp

August 24, 2003, 10:57 PM

Ted Hoffman

August 25, 2003, 03:44 AM

The CTMU says reality creates itself as a self binding process, refining itself from the ontological ground-state, the UBT(unbound telesis).

Are you aware Russel that the UBT is an euphemism for "Gods mind" - the groundstate? And the UBT is at a different level than reality?

This is similar to platonic aeon from where the syzigies emanated and even CTMU has levels of reality like the platonic universe where the gnostic aeons travelled down from the Monad (god) down to earth - the lowest of the 365 layers of the universe according to gnostic thought.

And are you aware that telic principle is an euphemism for "what God wants"?

For those who aren't aware of this, read Holotheism (http://www.iomas.com/gina/ultrahiq/mega-society/TOE/TOE.htm) and
this megafoundation link (http://www.megafoundation.org/UltraHIQ/Experts/Archives.html) .

Langan states:
Holotheism is the theological system implied by logical theology. Its fundamental premise is that the Mind of God is the ultimate reality�that is, reality in its most basic and most general form. It is thus related to panentheism, but in addition to being more refined, is more compatible with monotheism in that its "mental" characterization of God implies that divine nature is more in keeping with established theological traditions.
I would be very interested in knowing whether Langan believes the demuigre/demons/satan exists and how they came to be.

Methinks this is neoplatonism. Except nobody expected it to come like a thief in the night.

He is springing a surprise on everyone - way too "logical" and technical with all the maths and high-sounding neologisms. Our bloodhounds can't smell platonism. Way too tautological.

But scratch away the thick mask of logic and set theory and behold the ghastly devil that lurks behind it: neoplatonism.

Where are postmodernists when you need them? Perharps they could deconstruct the telic structure of CTMU and lay bare the dual aspect monism.

excreationist

August 25, 2003, 04:42 AM

Chimp:
In your quote from a Wheeler article (http://www.discover.com/june_02/featuniverse.html
), it seems that our present actions could possibly affect the distant past of other parts of the universe... i.e. instead of the other parts being in an indeterminate state, the wave function collapses into a definite state (or something).
But this doesn't seem to involve a feedback loop, which I think the CTMU is all about... I mean the observers aren't rewriting their own pasts (like in the Back to the Future movies). Also, according to the article, Wheeler doesn't think conscious observers are necessary to "observe" things...
e.g.
...Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles. Wheeler likes to use the example of a high-energy particle released by a radioactive element like radium in Earth's crust. The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the mica by the high-energy particle becomes part of the real world....

....Wheeler suspects that most of the universe consists of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter. He sees the universe as a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed.

Also, during this hypothetical experiment where people are fixing the past of other areas of the universe, it doesn't seem like intelligence is really involved... (the observer's choices as to what to observe out there would be more or less random, and so would its effect) and I thought telesis is about intelligence/progress...

Ted Hoffman

August 25, 2003, 07:48 AM

Perharps chimp could play devils advocate and answer the questions I asked Langan in this link (http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000395-p-5.html) ?

excreationist

August 25, 2003, 09:02 AM

Jacob Aliet:
About that link:
Chris Langan's response was quite disappointing. He doesn't really answer your main questions but comments on what you were saying about the ARN board not being neutral.
You were a little rude yourself in that post, though not as like Langan's response to you. Langan's response to Parallel was better - I guess you just annoy him a lot or something. Then the thread ends because it got closed for some reason...
Maybe you could start a topic based on what you wrote - but try and restrict it a bit rather than just have lots of things - otherwise Langan might answer one bit and ignore the rest. Unfortunately I don't really have a grasp of the basics of what he is going on about and so I would just look bad. If you started a new topic you should try and anticipate his possible responses and perhaps explain that in the opening post and what your counter-arguments would be.

As far as "How is syndiffeonesis useful in our understanding of reality?" goes... perhaps the answer is it apparently has something to do with why reality exists in the first place...

It's a pity he is such a poorly-mannered debater.... maybe it would be better to argue with other CTMU supporters... although if you somehow "beat" one it probably doesn't count since Langan is the one who really understands what CTMU is about...

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000076.html
Note: you mightn't even be able to create a critical new topic... they only like open-minded skepticism and not people who have already made up their mind... BTW, Langan saying that CTMU is a tautology might break that rule - except that the forums are pro-CTMU.
Some of their rules are pretty dumb IMO.
e.g.
1. Length of post: quick pithy comments will be deleted or merged with other posts.
Maybe that's the reason why Langan sometimes just goes on and on about stuff without properly responding to everything.

Anyway, my advice is to be well-mannered to make it more obvious that Langan is being rude - and not to state that he is being rude or making personal attacks, etc... (pretend those sentences didn't exist) just criticize his answers or lack of answers. And you're supposed to encourage him a bit too.

Chimp

August 25, 2003, 01:25 PM

Thanks for the questions Jacob and excreationist. Yes, the UBT{unbound telesis} is the metaphysical straw that breaks the logical Lincoln log construction of the SCSPL ;)

The ultimate unreachable, yet logically inferrable, basis of the basis of perceptual reality.

Syndiffeonesis is basically a symmetry principle which holds for both UBT and BT. So the principle of
UBT<--->BT symmetry is independent of the concepts intrinsic or extrinsic.

According to CML, UBT gets around the tower of turtles argument in that it is logically exterior, not temporally prior to our perceptual universe.

At last CML admitted that UBT is analogous to quantum superposition-eigenstates. If that is so, then why is there a need for a Zeus-like entity tossing thunderbolts at all of the infidelity?

P.S. My computer is operating extremely slowly these days. My apologies for the short replies.

Chimp

Chimp

August 26, 2003, 02:43 AM

Interesting... I must agree with Langan:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the general mathematical relationship of syntax to language does not presuppose the exhaustive enumeration of syntactic rules, but treats them in the aggregate. If Jacob finds this to be a problem, then the problem exists solely in the minds of Jacob and other wide-eyed neophytes uneducated in linguistic and grammatical algebra. And whether Jacob likes it or not, this is as cold, hard and irreversible as a fact can be.

EddieInThePool

August 26, 2003, 02:59 AM

I've studied much of the available CTMU material on the web. As someone that's also spent some time studying western philosophy, I found much of it to be greatly satisfying extensions of my comparatively simplistic personal philsophy. The theory, whether right or wrong, when at least partially understood is perhaps the most intricate and sophisticated metaphyics I've ever come across. I do not believe this makes me some mindless sycophant, acolyte, or cult member any more than it makes a mainstream academic a mindless cog of years of force-swallowed indoctrination.

Yes it does get into God and other typically religious areas. First, let me point out that philosophy has traditionally overlapped with religions though usually with some sort of reasoned foundation not found in many religions. Second, though I can respect much of traditional religions, I've long ago found no use for blind faith, New Age, or strict adherence to holy books. At the same time, I've remained open to the possibility of some form of an existent God. Over the years, I decided that I would do my best to follow philosophy, logic, math, science, and truth on whatever path it lead me whether I liked my destination or not. Maybe this is too risky for some, but I believe all those that are capable should keep an open mind and live an examined life. Afterall, one can't be sure if one's beliefs are consistent unless they are willing to test them all they way down to their foundations.

If you've already made up your mind that a theory that makes bold claims simply can't be true, then all I can suggest is reading the actual justifications of its arguments rather than its results. At the end of the day, that's really all that counts.

As for the claim that UBT is really a euphemism for the mind of God, this is not correct (though, of course, I do not pretend to speak for its author). UBT lacks the distributed constraints and mechanisms required for recognition; where mind is recognition of self, UBT is "pre-mental" in my interpretation. It's the global level of constrained reality that's shown to be the universal mind. Or in other words, reality is ultimately self-contained information processed and recognized by itself.

Zach

Ted Hoffman

August 26, 2003, 03:34 AM

I don't think it matters what the theory states. Its good reading for those interested in Philosophy, mathematics and mysticism.

Its as good as Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching.

It's impractical and wholly irrelevant to science. Thats the problem. He cant explain its applicability to science - in tracing biological origins, in tracing cosmic origins, it is incapable of making any predictions, doesnt solve the puported problem of induction, lacks any empirical support cant even explain causality, or the arrow of time.

Its what Vork would call mental masturbation. Its a mind job.

Ted Hoffman

August 26, 2003, 03:46 AM

Eddie,

UBT lacks the distributed constraints and mechanisms required for recognition;
Just a few questions:
1. Where is the UBT? ie is it in the universe, outside the universe etc.

2. Is the UBT exhaustible - since reality self-refines from the UBT?

3. How do we detect the UBT - since it lacks whats required for recognition? Is there empirical evidence for its existence? Is it a logical construction or a natural phenomena?

4. Why does it lack distributed constraints? Is it something Langan decided or is that characteristic contingent on something else?

5. From where did the UBT emerge? Or is it eternal?

6. What would happen if there were no UBT?

where mind is recognition of self, UBT is "pre-mental" in my interpretation. It's the global level of constrained reality that's shown to be the universal mind.
1. What is the evidence that there is a universal mind present?
2. How do we detect this mind?
3. How do we test this mind - for intelligence?
4. How do we know its a mind?
5. What would we observe in reality in case there was no mind at all?

Or in other words, reality is ultimately self-contained information processed and recognized by itself.

What do you mean by self-contained - what lies outside reality?

When water flows downstream (and not upstream) - is that an instance of reality processing information?

Ted Hoffman

August 26, 2003, 04:10 AM

One last question for Zach,

And this concerns reality recognizing itself.

Consider this:
We have a brick house. There is nobody in it. Just one rat. Lets say that.
This "system" above is self-contained and also closed in the thermodynamic sense.

rat+house = rheality.
Based on M=R and rheality being a syndiffeonic relation.

And the rat becomes the infocognitive part of rheality.

1. Is it correct to state that the rheality recognizes itself based on the example above?

2. Does the rheality above exhibit syndiffeonesis (difference in sameness)?

3. How can we detect conspansion from the above rheality?

4. What charactesistics will guide us into knowing that the rheality arose from the UBT?

5. Comparing this rheality example and the reality we know of, would you say the analogy is fitting - the finiteness excluded? If not, please explain.

6. How can we detect the presence of SCSPL in the example above - if rheality were to be self-configuring and self-processing - what would we expect to see? And what would we expect to see if the converse were the case?

7. Is the Rheality above linguistically reducible?
If so, how would we proceed in reducing it?

8. If the house explodes (or implodes) then collapses back to itself (now rubble) with a dead rat and some micro-organisms, can we still say that it has self-selected and self-determinate?

Can we say it self-selected from the cubical structure to rubble via Telic recursion? If not, why not?

And can we say its self-cognizant and cybernetic?

Will appreciate your answers.

Ted Hoffman

August 26, 2003, 04:13 AM

excreationist

August 26, 2003, 06:49 AM

Jacob Aliet:
Reality usually doesn't have an "h" in it... maybe you're talking about a special kind of reality though - a rat-house-type reality aka "rheality"....

Chimp:
...the general mathematical relationship of syntax to language does not presuppose the exhaustive enumeration of syntactic rules, but treats them in the aggregate...
Could you or anyone else please explain what that means?
....According to CML, UBT gets around the tower of turtles argument in that it is logically exterior, not temporally prior to our perceptual universe....
Have you heard about Julian Barbour's Platonia (http://www.platonia.com/)? His theory is that there is no time. I think it is a kind of MWI except that the branching out of alternate histories has already happened - all of the possible histories exist as an eternal static entity called Platonia. And it just exists - it would be a brute fact. Like for Christians how the eternal existence of God is just a brute fact - he had no beginning or cause.
At last CML admitted that UBT is analogous to quantum superposition-eigenstates. If that is so, then why is there a need for a Zeus-like entity tossing thunderbolts at all of the infidelity?
I'm not sure what either of those sentences mean... eigenstates? And what infidelity are you talking about? His critics, and he is Zeus?

EddieInThePool:
...The theory, whether right or wrong, when at least partially understood is perhaps the most intricate and sophisticated metaphyics I've ever come across....
No wonder it is so hard for me to try and understand. Though Occam's Razor is against things that add unnecessary complexity to things (or something like that).

...It's the global level of constrained reality that's shown to be the universal mind. Or in other words, reality is ultimately self-contained information processed and recognized by itself.
Does this mind (a singular mind?) learn about the world and develop plans and goals and think about possible outcomes then work out which outcome it likes best and work towards that outcome? All of the minds that I know of do that. Is the "universal mind" capable of having universal beliefs about things? I mean it makes sense to say our whole brain believes in the existence of fairies, or demons, or materialism... but I don't think it makes sense to say that the entire universe believes those things. Parts of the universe (certain brains) have those beliefs though. To have a coherent mind it shouldn't have contradictory beliefs - it shouldn't simultaneously believe that cats are the best things in the world and also the worst, and also be apathetic about it... it shouldn't simultaneously think the love of money is healthy and think it is very evil, etc.
Does this universal mind have non-contradictory likes and dislikes? (the Christian God apparently does) Does it even have any likes and dislikes? Maybe it is seeking improvement and the emergence of consciousness, so that is kind of a like (or desire). Does it have non-contradictory beliefs? Does it have beliefs at all?

Bebbo

August 26, 2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Chimp
Interesting... I must agree with Langan:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the general mathematical relationship of syntax to language does not presuppose the exhaustive enumeration of syntactic rules, but treats them in the aggregate. If Jacob finds this to be a problem, then the problem exists solely in the minds of Jacob and other wide-eyed neophytes uneducated in linguistic and grammatical algebra. And whether Jacob likes it or not, this is as cold, hard and irreversible as a fact can be.

On the ISCID post he made a comparison in this context to natural numbers, real numbers, and PI. Though it isn't possible to enumerate all the natural/real numbers or all of PI it is possible to enumerate a damn lot of them. It's suspiciously convenient that Langan won't or can't show us any of the SCSPL syntax. I suspect it's because he can't; as long as he evades detail the CTMU cannot be tested against the real world.

--
Dene

ilvangelo

August 26, 2003, 07:54 AM

It is very easy to say that the CTMU is a grand-system tautology, since it advocates self-reference and a symmetric relationship between reality and language, but I sincerely doubt that anybody here has the ability to poke a hole at Langan's theory.
The principle of syndiffeonesis for the world (in the sense of Wittgenstein) is undeniable and emerges from basic premises in Hume's empiricism.
As for the criticism that his theory can't be put to test in the real world, it is a characteristic of theories of reality. They present an interpretation for the functioning of the world. The main problem is that theories of reality can be easily created but if well done can hardly be disproved. I could create a theory of reality simply based on linear algebra and vector spaces, as anybody who has studied it knows. This would be a deterministic world. I could also make the case for a non-deterministic world by using random walk.This would not be understood as the way the universe itself evolves but the character it acquires when the non-deterministic variables apply and the chaotic behavior applies. It is simply what happens when there�s a modification in Schr�dinger�s wavefunction.
The random �walk� in the fractal evolution of the universe can very well be put mathematicaly if, in a plane,we consider a sum of N two-dimensional vectors with random orientations. Use phasor notation, and let the phase of each vector be random. Assume N unit steps are taken in an arbitrary direction (i.e., with the angle x uniformly distributed in Z and not on a lattice). The position z in the complex plane after N steps is then given by the sum from j=1 to N of e^i*xj, where the absolute square would be N + the sum from j,k=1 to N of e^i*(xj-xk). Each step is equally likely to be in any direction, so both and xj and xk are random variables with identical means of zero, and their difference is also a random variable.

-IlVangelo

copyright 2003 Rodrigo Malizia Alves Ferreira

Ted Hoffman

August 26, 2003, 08:09 AM

Reality usually doesn't have an "h" in it... maybe you're talking about a special kind of reality though - a rat-house-type reality aka "rheality"....
Dont get me started. I can get into a spell of neologisms that will make the world look crazy.

Rheality = rat+house.

Its not to be confused with reality.

"Brute fact" is used synonumously with "don't know how it came to be"?

Brute fact is not an answer nor an explanation. Long ago, humanity could have decided that the existence of the earth is a brute fact.

And where would we be now in terms of knowledge about the earths origins? I am not fond of brute-fact cop outs.

excreationist

August 26, 2003, 09:34 AM

Bebbo:
....Though it isn't possible to enumerate all the natural/real numbers or all of PI it is possible to enumerate a damn lot of them. It's suspiciously convenient that Langan won't or can't show us any of the SCSPL syntax. I suspect it's because he can't; as long as he evades detail the CTMU cannot be tested against the real world.
I thought using maths and logical he'd be able to derive a few dozen rules of the SCSPL syntax... after I think over ten years of research he's only come with 56 pages and none of the syntax... maybe he spends too much time insulting people on the board.
Maybe his example about the syntax in some numbers is flawed... syntax is supposed to be in relation to a language... the digits of pi isn't really a language... it is a deterministic series of numbers. Lanuages are supposed to have more flexibility than that.

ilvangelo:
.....I sincerely doubt that anybody here has the ability to poke a hole at Langan's theory.
...The main problem is that theories of reality can be easily created but if well done can hardly be disproved....
So maybe it is conceiveable that there could be another theory of reality that is incompatible with CTMU yet it is difficult or impossible to disprove... only one of the theories would be able to be correct so therefore there would be the possibility that CTMU is incorrect.
...As for the criticism that his theory can't be put to test in the real world, it is a characteristic of theories of reality.
What do you mean? Aren't things like materialism theories of reality? It makes predictions. Materialism would predict that things like out of body experiences, telepathy, universal memory, clairvoyance, ghosts, demon possession, magical swapping of souls/personalities, angels, god, etc, aren't real unless they have a materialistic basis and naturalistically evolved, etc.

Jacob Aliet:
......"Brute fact" is used synonumously with "don't know how it came to be"?

Brute fact is not an answer nor an explanation. Long ago, humanity could have decided that the existence of the earth is a brute fact.

And where would we be now in terms of knowledge about the earths origins? I am not fond of brute-fact cop outs.
I'm talking about the "brute fact" of anything existing at all. As far as existence goes, there is either endless turtles upon turtles, or it ends at a brute fact (like an axiom) or it is a tautology that our system of reality must exist at all and exist in this form. I tend to think that for any explanation as to why things exist, you could ask WHY? to the explanation... and WHY? to that explanation (like little kids do) then WHY?.... until they say "because that's just how it is". CTMU seems to rely on mathematical and logical principles... those kinds of principles can be seen in our world, but I would ask WHY do they exist? The answer might be so that to avoid contradictions... I'd ask why must contradictions be avoided... the answer might be "that's just what happens in our universe". That is kind of a "brute fact".

Ted Hoffman

August 26, 2003, 10:50 AM

Ilvangelo
The main problem is that theories of reality can be easily created but if well done can hardly be disproved
Please provide one example of a reality theory besides CTMU. Or perharps a reality model.

Aren't things like materialism theories of reality?
What?
A worldview is a reality theory?
Langan calls CTMU "a new kind of reality theory" and juxtaposes it with dualism - in his words CTMU is a conceptual framework which..
"..not only permits the completion of the gradual ongoing dissolution of the Cartesian mind-matter divider, but the construction of a footworthy logical bridge across the resulting explanatory gap."

I'm talking about the "brute fact" of anything existing at all.
That may well be but the manner in which you used it meant stating something is a "brute fact" negates the necessity of explaining its purpose, causes and nature.

And it just exists - it would be a brute fact. Like for Christians how the eternal existence of God is just a brute fact - he had no beginning or cause.

ilvangelo

August 26, 2003, 04:13 PM

A new reality theory ? How about arithmetics ? Eveything being represented by an aggregate of laws that can't be disproved, but can't be rationalized either. I told you one can even make up a TOE based on vector spaces and linear algebra. Two versions need not mutually exclude each other.

The problem with disproving Langan's theory is that it is self-referential and creates its own means to an end. Does not mean it would be wrong, as G�del would rush to claim, but let's leave good old Kurt to rest since he's being far over-stretched over the intellectual landscape already.

Yours,
IlVangelo

Chimp

August 27, 2003, 01:57 AM

If my interpretation is correct, the UBT{unbound telesis} is "pure unrefined potential" a type of quantity that has no defining characteristics ...except from within perceptual reality, from which, the UBT itself can only be "inferred". It has no negation, no complement. It forms the groundstate of perceptual reality similarly to the way a pool of water forms the groundstate of a chunk of ice floating in it ;) Perceptual reality inherits its self configurative freedom from its ontological groundstate, the UBT. Since UBT is logically exterior, not temporally prior, to perceptual reality, it has no temporal existence in and of itself. So the infinite tower of turtles is no more ;)

Being the curious George that I am, I continually question the so called UBT groundstate. UBT and its bound form "BT" are both the same, yet different. This means that the symmetry principle "syndiffeonesis" must apply to both UBT and BT. This principle must be independent of any intrinsic or an extrinsic, inside or outside, considerations.

The total reality is a self percieving mind with generalized cognition. Since the general contains the specific, The universal mind contains the specific localized mind(s).

The thermodynamic arrow of time is a filtrative process of adding definitive constraints analogous to a logical process, where the forward direction of time is deductive in character and the reverse direction of time is an inductive limit.

Curiosity killed the Chimp eh?

PS, the above is only my interpretation but I consider the UBT to be the weakest link in the CTMU logical chain. Yet it remains logically irrefutable. A logically irrefutable theory must still make some sort of verifiable prediction, yes??? Its irrefutability is its high degree of generality and its tautological construction. Yes, the Transfinite algebra of Georg Cantor must be part of the SCSPL.

Ted Hoffman

August 27, 2003, 02:47 AM

Ilvangelo,

I had a problem when you stated ..."The main problem is that theories of reality can be easily created but if well done can hardly be disproved.."

TOEs are not supposed to be reality theories from what I know - they are supposed to UNIFY or explain theories like Quantum Physics, (general) Relativity and generally explain stuff from the subatomic level to the classical level. And resolve the "disharmony" between QM (or quantum theory) and GR, resolve symmetry questions etc. Superstring theories are supposed to "harness" all (11) dimensions.

Thats my understanding. And I am not a scientist, so feel free to correct me.

Ensemble theories, like Max Tegmark's Parallel Universes (about which I have debated Langan as well), are similar to TOEs but wider in scope because they encompass formal systems, abstract geometries, GR, QM, algebra, tensor spaces, real manifolds, complex manifolds, hilbert spaces, distributions, differential opetarors, Lorentz groups, Banach spaces etc etc.

Their only postulate of ensemble theories is that all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically and by physical, it means they must be complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (now, please dont ask me what that means).
But most importantly:

Their predictions take the form of probability distributions for the outcome of experiments, which makes them testable. In addition, it may be possible to rule them out by comparing their a priori predictions for the observable attributes of nature (the particle masses, the dimensionality of spacetime, etc) with what is observed

So, they are not solely axiomatic. Langans CTMU is not axiomatic (I remember him being pressed at ARN to be clear on that - he ducked as expected) - its an admixture of philosophy, religion, set theory, theoretical physics and long, outlandish words. Add arrogance and impertinence to that list.

Now, a reality theory, as opposed to TOEs and ensemble theories (which are basically in the realm of theoretical physics and are concerned with the "structure" of the universe), according to Langan, is supposed to solve problems of qualia (for materialism), paradoxes arising from the divide of cartesian dualism, make sense of the anthropic principle and improve it, incorporate intelligent design theories (thats why Dembski is going ga ga about CTMU), explain causality, solve science's problem of induction and infinite regress, explain biological origins, explain the origin of the universe and of course explain God using logical theology - which is part of the CTMU. It goes beyond structure and explains the functioning of the universe. It could explain Brownian motion in very interesting details.

He revises Anslems ontological argument with a huge dose of Teleologic, revises the anthropic principle (to telic principle), revises Kantian ideas, Humes ideas, Cartesian ideas, Wheelers participatory universe etc etc.

End of rambling.

Now, I had a problem with "reality theories" because I have never heard of one except CTMU.

I would not consider (Cartesian) Dualism as a reality theory, or physicalism for that matter. Within CTMU, we have dual aspect monism (is it called Hology?) - so it subsumes even worldviews. It also subsumes religions. It also subsumes parallel universes.

Beat that ;) .
Check Karl D. Stephan Tegmarks Parallel Universes - a Challenge to Intelligent Design? (http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000351.html) for more on ID, CTMU and parallel universes.

Has anyone noticed, all threads that touch on CTMU at ISCID, almost inexorably, get closed.

excreationist

August 27, 2003, 04:55 AM

It seems CTMU may make some predictions about the universe:
Q: Does the CTMU allow for the existence of souls and reincarnation? (http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Q&A/Archive.html#Souls)
...since the universe is a self-refining entity, that which is teleologically valid in the informational construct called "you" may be locally re-injected or redistributed in spacetime. In principle, this could be a recombinative process, with the essences of many people combining in a set of local injections or "reincarnations" (this could lead to strange effects...e.g., a single person remembering simultaneous "past lifetimes").
It seems that Langan is saying that some people could have memories of past lifetimes...

In addition, an individual human sublanguage might be vectored into an alternate domain dynamically connected to its existence in spacetime. In this scenario, the entity would emerge into an alternate reality based on the interaction between her local level of consciousness and the global level embedding it...i.e., based on the state of her "soul" as just defined. This may be the origin of beliefs regarding heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo and other spiritual realms....
I wonder if Langan thinks that people's consciousness can sometimes also travel to alternate realities while they're dreaming (like ancient peoples did).

================================
Langan also talks about the origin of existence here... what do other people think about it?
Q: If I have interpreted you correctly, you maintain that the universe created itself. How did this come about? What existed before the Universe and when did the Universe create itself or come into being? (http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Q&A/Archive.html#Self-Creation)
A: You're asking three distinct but related questions about cosmology: how, when and as what did the universe self-create?

The universe can be described as a cybernetic system in which freedom and constraint are counterbalanced. The constraints function as structure; thus, the laws of physics are constraints which define the structure of spacetime, whereas freedom is that which is bound or logically quantified by the constraints in question. Now, since there is no real time scale external to reality, there is no extrinsic point in time at which the moment of creation can be located, and this invalidates phrases like "before reality existed" and "when reality created itself". So rather than asking "when" the universe came to be, or what existed "before" the universe was born, we must instead ask "what would remain if the structural constraints defining the real universe were regressively suspended?" First, time would gradually disappear, eliminating the "when" question entirely. And once time disappears completely, what remains is the answer to the "what" question: a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint. In other words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply.
That potential would be the UBT I guess... but it seems like an assumption rather than being the only logical possibility.

....Now let's attend to your "how" question. Within a realm of unbound potential like the one from which the universe emerges, everything is possible, and this implies that "everything exists" in the sense of possibility. Some possibilities are self-inconsistent and therefore ontological dead ends; they extinguish themselves in the very attempt to emerge into actuality. But other possibilities are self-consistent and potentially self-configuring by internally defined evolutionary processes. That is, they predicate their own emergence according to their own internal logics, providing their own means and answering their own "hows". These possibilities, which are completely self-contained not only with respect to how, what, and when, but why, have a common structure called SCSPL (Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language). An SCSPL answers its own "why?" question with something called teleology; where SCSPL is "God" to whatever exists within it, teleology amounts to the "Will of God".
That just says that the universe emerged from UBT, but it didn't explain the existence of the UBT...
Chimp:
If my interpretation is correct, the UBT{unbound telesis} is "pure unrefined potential" a type of quantity that has no defining characteristics
I thought UBT would be an infinite set of everything - basically meaningless information with no interesting structure. With constraints it can give rise to biological systems, etc. Or it could be like energy - except that it has no defining characteristics like position, quantity, etc.

Ted Hoffman

August 27, 2003, 05:14 AM

Russel/Chimp,

Please answer the following questions. I'd really appreciate your answers.

1. Whats the difference between the UBT and nothing?

(especially considering it has no defining characteristics)

Perceptual reality inherits its self configurative freedom from its ontological groundstate, the UBT

Assuming we agree, we must first understand.

2. (a) This so-called ontological ground state (there is no such word as groundstate). Does this ontological ground state have any teleologic purpose or is it fortuitous?
(b) Can we use the word "nothing" to refer to absence of any ontological properties? (consider this with respect to question [1] above)
(c) What does "ontological ground-state" mean? How can we identify/measure/detect it?
(d) If its a purely logical construction, how different is it from invisible pink elephants that exist in every loaf of bread?

Since UBT is logically exterior, not temporally prior, to perceptual reality, it has no temporal existence in and of itself.

3. How do we know that the "UBT is logically exterior"

4. Why does it lack temporal existence? Does reality have temporal existence? If so, and reality (or shall I use BT) evolved from the UBT, what prompted this evolution?
How can we know that the UBT lacks temporal existence?
Or do we just have to rely on Christopher Michael Langan?

This means that the symmetry principle "syndiffeonesis" must apply to both UBT and BT

5. Symmetry principle?
I understand syndifference to mean "difference in sameness" - whatever that means - and if we use an example of a donkey and a Nokia phone, they are the same (in the same syntactic medium - reality) while at the same time, they are different in syntax. I remember the annoying way in which Langan uses the word "distribute" sometimes it means "spread" (evocative of conspansion) and sometimes it seems to mean distribution proper.

Same concept can be applied to you and a stone in constructing and infocognitive reality - you have perception/cognition and the stone is info and both of you make up (a participatory) reality. You are made of matter (thinking matter and James Barham would put it) and reality is made of matter hence M=R (mind =reality). Dual aspect monism.

Or some crap like that. But I got no indication that it (syndifference) should be interpreted in terms of proton and electron, +ve and -ve (symmetry/parity) etc. Of course, one strength of Langan is avoiding actual examples - he uses intangible, ambiguous words when describing what he means.

Now as for symmetry, I remember Langan mentioning something about CPT invariance (I dont have his paper with me right now) but I dont recall syndifference being about symmetry. Unless you mean something else by "symmetry" - maybe translation goemetry - specifically transformation - but even that seems contrived when applied to syndifference. Perhaps you can explain? - he lost me when he forayed into bijections etc.

I understand symmetry in terms of physics CPT invariance - particle interactions...or two things being alike but not being the same...but then there is the math aspect...or it could be as far as conservation laws are concerned...I recall him describing the real universe (as if there is an unreal universe!) as a cybernetic system...

You can help me with the questions. Curisosity transformed the chimp to homo sapiens.

Chimp

August 27, 2003, 06:22 AM

Yes, "groundstate" exists.

No more implied ad-homenems towards CML please. To win the argument is to stick to the facts, and not get all riled up ;)

:boohoo:

Ground-state:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state

Ground state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The ground states of a system are its lowest-energy quantum mechanical states.

If more than one lowest-energy state exists, they are said to be degenerate. Many systems have degenerate ground states, for example, the hydrogen atom. It turns out that degeneracy occurs whenever a nontrivial unitary operator commutes with the Hamiltonian of the system.

According to the third law of thermodynamics, a system at absolute zero temperature exists in its ground state; thus, its entropy is determined by the degeneracy of the ground state. Many systems, such as crystal lattices, have a unique ground state and therefore have zero entropy at at absolute zero (because ln(1) = 0).

Be back later, :eek:

Chimp

Ted Hoffman

August 27, 2003, 08:33 AM

Of course ground state exists. Groundstate does not.

Ok, if slighting Langan offends you, no more of that.

Now, my UBT answers...

Whatup?

August 27, 2003, 09:26 AM

What do Chris Langan's fans here think of Langan's taking the Mega Test a second time under the pseudonym "Eric Hart"? His first score was 42 (IQ of 174) and his second invalid score was 47 (IQ of 190)�.

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch

It's my understanding that Langan's first score of 42 was below the level for admission into the Mega Society, then known as the Noetic Society. But Langan managed to attain admission surreptitiously by way of his second "Eric Hart" test. Later the head of the Mega Society, Dr. Ron Hoeflin, lowered the bar thereby allowing Langan in with his first low score.

And what do Langan fans think about Langan's subsequent hijacking of the Mega Society and its journal Noesis and, along with his partner Gina LoSasso, creating an online empire dedicated to persuading the public that they are the Mega Society and/or some branch thereof such as the Mega Society East? What kind of people would do that?

Here's a letter from the real Mega Society lawyers with a case history and the court's judgment against Langan....

http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/noes151/cease&de.html

http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/judgme1.gif

http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/judgment.html

Is this intellectual piracy compatible with the CTMU? Is this behavior acceptable? Is it ethical?

Ted Hoffman

August 27, 2003, 09:55 AM

Which tests did Langan do? I want to try them out even if they mean jack.
Anyone knows where I can get some respectable IQ tests?

excreationist

August 27, 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
Which tests did Langan do? I want to try them out even if they mean jack.
Anyone knows where I can get some respectable IQ tests?
Whatup? gave a good link:
http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/
It seems the Mega Test was the one that you did to get into the Mega Society. It costs $25 to get a copy of the test though....
Many of their tests there don't have the answers online - you have to pay to get it marked. On the other hand, there are also tests there and links to other sites where you can test yourself.

Chimp

August 27, 2003, 01:41 PM

Interesting...

In the above posts, it appears that all is not well with the intelligencia...

Yes, groundstate or ground state both exist...

http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9808051

"Groundstate properties of the BCS-Bose Einstein crossover in a $d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}$ wave superconductor"
Interesting... "groundstate" :eek:

John Archibald Wheeler has some very interesting ideas with feedback:

http://www.discover.com/june_02/featuniverse.html

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his delayed-choice thought experiment, Wheeler suggests that a
single photon emitted from a distant quasar (far right) can
simultaneously follow two paths to Earth, even if those paths are
separated by many light-years. Here one photon travels past two
different galaxies, with both routes deflected by the gravitational
pull of the galaxies. Stranger still, Wheeler theorizes, the
observations astronomers make on Earth today decide the path the
photon took billions of years ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CTMU(conspansive duality-telic recursion) of Chris Langan also
explains this type of possible "feedback".

If the locality principle is not going to be thrown into the trash
heap, then a viable option is that space is something analogous to
homogeneously distributed probability density functions(a perfect
fluid?) i.e. increasing density gradients, giving the observed
thermodynamic arrow of time. The observed cosmic expansion is a
"relative" one! A "perspective effect" from our local vantage point. A
shrinking object gives the illusion of receding motion. Increasing
*refractive* density gradients give the appearence of a
doppler-red-shift. Space increases density as matter is re-sized.

Spacetime then "remembers" the input! A quantum measurement is made,
the action principle demands the shortest distance between two points
be taken, whatever that may be. There is no instantaneous action at a
distance!

Interesting... Either a creator with infinite god-like intelligence
created this universe as a clockworks mechanism, or the creator and
the mechanism are one and the same.

A universal quantum computer?

It seems that in order to continue with the idea of a physically
infinite "multiverse" instantaneous communication at a distance must
be accepted as an absurd axiom. But we must remember, Newtons
classical reality was superceded by Albert Einstein's relativity!
There is no action at a distance!

Instantaneous action at a distance was shown to be unecessary, by
Einstein's theories of special and general relativity. How can an
infinite multiverse be in accordance with probability theory if all of
the separate universes are not in a type of corrspondence with each
other? Who observes the entire multiverse?

So it can be shown that the multiverse DOES carry to much
metaphysical, and heavy conceptual baggage. Goodbye multiverse. It
appears that the best solution is that our universe is self contained.
The locality principle is not violated.

Stephen Hawking explains how particles can travel faster than light
and backwards in time for brief periods below the Planck time.
10^(-43) sec.

The closed loop histories explanation of quantum fluctuations.
Particles travelling forward, then backwards in time, annihilate one
another. Hawking explains that these closed loop histories are
confirmed by one interpretation of the Casmir effect.

This is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for brief
periods smaller than the Planck time.

http://clinton4.nara.gov/Initiative...m/shawking.html

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The possible particle histories have to include paths that travel
faster than light and even paths that go back in time. Before anyone
rushes out to patent a time machine let me say that in normal
circumstances at least, one can not use this for time travel. However
paths that go back in time are not just like angels dancing on a pin.
They have real observational consequences. Even what we think of as
empty space is full of particles moving in closed loops in space and
time. That is they move forward in time on one side of the loop and
backwards in time on the other side. These closed loops are said to be
virtual particles because they can not be measured directly with a
particle detector. However their effects can be measured indirectly.
One way is to have a pair of metal plates close together. The effect
of the plates is to reduce slightly the number of closed loops in the
region between the plates relative to the number outside. There are
thus more closed loops hitting the outside edges of the plates and
bouncing off than there are hitting the inside edges. One would
therefore expect there to be a small force pushing the plates
together. This force, which was first predicted by the Turkish
physicist Hendrick Casimir, has been observed experimentally. So we
can be confident that closed particle loops really exist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting...

THE UNREASONABLE EFFECTIVENSS OF MATHEMATICS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES

Eugene Wigner

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/leve...ner/Wigner.html

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~hi...ons/Wigner.html

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is
something bordering on the mysterious

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does mathematics correspond to the real world?

It appears that some type of instantaneous correlation or
communication between regions of spacetime is happening, or it could
be that spacetime has a type of "memory" analogous to a computer
hardware

Perhaps there is a type of residual imaging going on at the
sub-microscopic quantum level? What if the so called "compactified
dimensions" are fractal in nature?

A holographic 3+1 space-time?

Russell E. Rierson
analog57@yahoo.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

demoninho

August 27, 2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Chimp
This force, which was first predicted by the Turkish
physicist Hendrick Casimir, has been observed experimentally Ok for a bit of nitpicky nationalism: Hendrik Casimir was Dutch:p

Ted Hoffman

August 28, 2003, 11:38 AM

I don't know if there is anybody here willing to handle my questions regarding CTMU - I have plenty of questions and I would like to understand it better.

Anybody willing to play Devils Advocate?

Chimp

August 28, 2003, 01:33 PM

I would gladly be devils advocate but I am not an expert in the CTMU. Plus the devil kicked me out of hell some time ago ;)

I have my own theory though, which agrees with the CTMU Mind = Reality principle.

Perhaps we can have a "debate"? The universe is a gigantic computer. Yes? or No?

Bebbo

August 28, 2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Whatup?
[B]What do Chris Langan's fans here think of Langan's taking the Mega Test a second time under the pseudonym "Eric Hart"? His first score was 42 (IQ of 174) and his second invalid score was 47 (IQ of 190)�.

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch

It's my understanding that Langan's first score of 42 was below the level for admission into the Mega Society, then known as the Noetic Society. But Langan managed to attain admission surreptitiously by way of his second "Eric Hart" test. Later the head of the Mega Society, Dr. Ron Hoeflin, lowered the bar thereby allowing Langan in with his first low score.
[...]

If you read the page at the URL you gave you'll see that 42 was the minimum score needed to get into the Mega Society. Amusingly, Langan argues that his second attempt should count because on the first he only spent enough time to get a score of 42. Elsewhere he also says that for all practical purposes his score of 47 out 48 was a perfect score:

http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/noes153/muscle.html

--
Dene

Whatup?

August 28, 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Bebbo
If you read the page at the URL you gave you'll see that 42 was the minimum score needed to get into the Mega Society.
42 was "mega-level". Initially the required score for Mega Society admission was 43. Quoting the original Omni magazine article, that page states "43 right, or an estimated I.Q. of 177, is the cutoff for joining the Mega Society." The Smartest Conman in the World scored too low to be admitted before the bar was lowered. http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch

Amusingly, Langan argues that his second attempt should count because on the first he only spent enough time to get a score of 42. Elsewhere he also says that for all practical purposes his score of 47 out 48 was a perfect score:

http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/noes153/muscle.html

Yah, that�s hilarious! Who would fall for that? When does this guy stop bullshittin? There's a lot of interesting things at that site. Seems Langan's been going on about the CTMU for a decade or more. Nobody bought it until Dembski came along, who will feature this pathological phony in his upcoming book.

This is the home page of the real Mega Society that Langan and his partner ripped off. There are Langan articles scattered in back issues of the real Noesis, including some by his alter-ego Eric Hart in issue 41....

http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/megasoc.html

http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/judgment.html

Whatup?

August 28, 2003, 10:31 PM

My bad, Bebbo is correct. Confusingly that site quotes a "modified" version of the Omni article, then later quotes the original with 42 as the score. But I'm also right, as I knew for a fact, that the admission level had changed; albeit upward to 43. That change prevented Langan's 42 score from gaining admission into the real Mega Society.

Hi-IQ society insider Jim Ferry explains....

C. M. Langan was proffered by the November 1999 issue of Esquire
as The Smartest Man in America. On what basis? There is a self-
administered IQ test called "The Mega Test" on which the highest
score (47 out of 48) was achieved by . . . Eric Hart. C. M. Langan
scored 42, which is pretty good. Good enough for admittance into
the "Mega Society", except that they then raised their standard to 43.
It would seem that C. M. would have to try another test to get in:
IQs were based on first-attempt scores, and C. M. had already
attempted. But Eric Hart hadn't. Eric achieved a first-attempt
score of 47, and because "Eric Hart" is a pseudonym for C. M. Langan....
There were other second-attempt scores of 47, but Eric Hart's
first attempt of 47 is the unique, highest first attempt, and because
"Eric Hart" = "C. M. Langan", Langan is the smartest man in America.http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/a/m/279605/279606

But since taking the same IQ test twice is cheating, Langan's second 190 IQ score is bogus.

Here's a page about the score change....

http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/noes140/admstds1.html

Eurodele

September 4, 2003, 12:13 PM

Hello, all. Interesting links, but they aren't without gaps. Since this is my first post, and since I see some naivete here, I'll take the liberty of going on at length.

First of all, I don't know whether whatup and bebbo are members of the so-called "high IQ community" - I hope not, it's full of do-nothings and egomaniacs. But maybe somebody should mention that the fellow who runs the polymath site is probably its most despised and distrusted member, bar none? I used to be involved in a couple of high IQ societies myself, at the middle (~150) level I'm ashamed to say, and one of the first things I learned was that this person, his name is Kevin Langdon, rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Very wrong. During my stay, and I was around for a considerable time before I got sick and tired of this person and dropped out, he was grudgingly tolerated by just enough members not to get the boot. (If a mere majority were required to get rid of him, he'd have been sent packing long ago.) They seemed to feel sorry for him in some strange way - I seem to remember somebody once mentioning that he's a cripple or has some debilitating injury that makes him mean and nasty. It seems that he was previously ejected from the ISPE and a couple of other groups for being a blowhard and a constant center of turmoil - by all accounts, a fool and a troublemaker. To tell the truth, I shared that perception.

Interestingly, Kevin Langdon himself is known to have never qualified for any of the high-level (164 or 176) groups he belongs to. Seems to have been involved in founding (and burying) several of them and claims to have been the recipient of some kind of "founder's exemption". Always sounded like lame excuse making to me. He's supposedly a diminutive little man, but it never stopped him from trying to throw his weight around like a silverback under the influence of methamphetamine. Since he appears to consider himself a mortal enemy of Langan's and has a pile of rusty battleaxes he enjoys grinding, I don't know how valid it is to be touting him as some kind of impartial high IQ authority figure. Too much like the dirty old cast-iron pot calling the stainless steel kettle black, if you ask me. (But did it ever strike anyone else funny how similar his and Langan's names are?)

As far as Langan taking the mega test twice goes, I don't know how big a thing you can reasonably make of it. The person who wrote the test intially allowed multiple attempts, and Langan seems to have made the published mega cutoff on both of his trials. It looks like the reason he took it a second time was that somebody changed the cutoff without notification (which means essentially that test subjects were lied to, intentionally or not, in light of which I suppose you'd have to say they were cheat-ees rather than cheat-ers). The pseudonym was beside the point, and he owned up to the alternate identity years ago. It was ancient history by the time he made it into Esquire, etc. Nobody seemed to care, including the reporters. (Actually, nobody still seems to care, about either Kevin Langdon or his constant complaining. I think that may be a large part of his problem with Langan.) Anyway, they had Langan tested under clinical conditions and he topped out the tests. Good enough for the networks, and good enough for me.

By the way, the scuttlebut is that Langdon is one of the plaintiffs who sued Langan in California to get the judgment posted in this thread - he was always fussing and fuming and threatening Langan and others with lawsuits. Since the publicity on Langan says that he lives on the east coast and is of limited income, maybe he never got a legitimate chance to respond? Civil law can be a little bit screwy - in many cases, all you need to do to successfully sue someone's spleen out is choose a victim who can't afford to hire a lawyer and lives too far away to represent himself in your local kangaroo court. (It seems that the Mega Foundation and its "Noesis" are still in operation, so perhaps the judgment is worthless or impossible to enforce.) Oh, yes - and speaking of the law, Langdon was ordered to desist from hawking what he claimed were "IQ tests" by the Medical Board of California a few years ago, and in a separate incident was sued by Omni magazine for taking money to score thousands of answer sheets for one of them and then not doing the scoring. He reportedly cheated his victims out of about thirty thousand dollars, which I heard was what Omni magazine and the California judicial system subsequently squeezed back out of him. (I think he claims it was because of computer problems he was having, but I know some people who got stiffed for years...plenty of time for him to spend some of his ill-gotten gains on a shiny new computer.)

Whatever happened to Omni, anyway? I think it came from the publisher of Penthouse. Penthouse is still around, but I don't think I've seen Omni on a newstand in perhaps a decade. Oh well, no great loss. The occasional intriguing article, but it surely wasn't Nature or Science.

Whatup?

September 4, 2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Eurodele As far as Langan taking the mega test twice goes, I don't know how big a thing you can reasonably make of it. The person who wrote the test intially allowed multiple attempts, and Langan seems to have made the published mega cutoff on both of his trials.
Did Chris Langan use a pseudonym on the second test because he thought a second test was valid?

The pseudonym was beside the point, and he owned up to the alternate identity years ago. It was ancient history by the time he made it into Esquire, etc. Nobody seemed to care, including the reporters.
Do you know that the reporters were informed that Langan's score was based on a second taking of the same test? If they were so informed but didn't care anyway, does that make the second score valid?

Anyway, they had Langan tested under clinical conditions and he topped out the tests. Good enough for the networks, and good enough for me.
But the ceiling of standard IQ tests like the one used by 20/20 are too low to determine the smartest person or even to discriminate at the one-per-million (mega) level. Didn't you know that?

By the way, the scuttlebut is that Langdon is one of the plaintiffs who sued Langan in California to get the judgment posted in this thread - he was always fussing and fuming and threatening Langan and others with lawsuits. Since the publicity on Langan says that he lives on the east coast and is of limited income, maybe he never got a legitimate chance to respond? Civil law can be a little bit screwy - in many cases, all you need to do to successfully sue someone's spleen out is choose a victim who can't afford to hire a lawyer and lives too far away to represent himself in your local kangaroo court. (It seems that the Mega Foundation and its "Noesis" are still in operation, so perhaps the judgment is worthless or impossible to enforce.)
The truth remains that Chris Langan and his partner Gina LoSasso hijacked and are still hijacking and the Mega Society's name and journal Noesis (even in contempt of court), and just because rare people like you and them do not care about intellectual property rights does not make IP theft legal or ethical.

With a world full of original names they could have used, that these two people chose to go to such lengths to violate the rights of the members and founders of the real Mega Society is truly bizarre. Even their "original" group name, the "Mega Foundation" is an obvious rip off of the "Mega" in "Mega Society" that serves to confuse the public. It's only too odd that these self-proclaimed geniuses can't even come up with an original group name.

Eurodele

September 5, 2003, 12:39 AM

Hello, whatup.

Many people use pseudonyms. In fact, the word was that many people took the mega test using pseudonyms. (There was even a story floating around about a bunch of MIT students who got together to take the mega test and made the cutoff under a single absurd-sounding group pseudonym - tetazoo?) Since national publications and network news shows use fact-checkers, and since the first trial-second trial controversy had been on the web for years when Langan hit the news, and since nearly everyone in the high IQ world knew about it thanks to the amount of noise generated by Kevin Langdon, and since it seems that a lot of these people were questioned in preparation for the Esquire article, including the fellow who wrote the test, it's a safe bet that the reporters knew about it too.

As far as the validity of Langan's second score goes, I'd say that it can't be much less valid than the first. The mega test wasn't multiple choice and the items were sufficiently complex that there were many possible answers for each, so you couldn't really use the process of elimination to better your score on it. That's apparently why its author accepted second attempts on it (and maybe third, and maybe even fourth and fifth attempts in some cases). Those who know something about the IQ concept know that this is a paradox of sorts; you're not supposed to be able to pump up your score on an IQ test simply by spending more time on it. On the other hand, if you can't, then the items are incomputable - if they were computable, then you could simply use the method of exhaustion on them, and the extra time spent would buy you some improvement. That's what they call a "contradiction".

Of course I acknowledge that the ceiling of standard IQ tests are too low to determine the smartest person or even to discriminate at the one-per-million (mega) level. All you can do is guess about that. My impression was that the press was searching for the most interesting and credible candidate given the well-known limitations on IQ measurement, and rightly or wrongly, they decided that Langan was it. The fact that Langan was willing to be clinically tested couldn't have hurt, and neither could the fact that he had a new and weird-sounding theory of reality. A new theory is just something that the public expects a genius to have, and most of what passes for theorization in some of the high IQ clubs is awful (at least in my opinion). You might argue that the ctmu is awful too, but that's evidently not the feedback the reporters got about it, either from Langan or the others to whom they spoke. From what I've seen, Langan is quite good at defending it.

As far as intellectual property rights are concerned, the whole issue is really sort of ridiculous. "Mega" is an ancient Greek word that has a generic usage. Nothing new about "society". And anyone who can use a search engine can find plenty of journals and newsletters called "noesis", which is also a generic word. There's nothing especially original about combining "mega" and "society", and there's nothing very original about calling a journal "Noesis". So why pretend that we're talking about warp drive patents here? I might be wrong, but I have a pretty good hunch that a judgment like that wouldn't last two minutes if it were seriously contested. Maybe Langdon and company smuggled it past the judge by having a big-breasted blonde in a bikini walk back and forth outside the courtroom window? Anyway, I've read what both sides have had to say about their conflict on the web, and the plaintiffs are no angels. Not by rather a long shot.

You suggest that Langan is "confusing the public". Possibly, but it looks to me like the public cares more about Langan than it does about the mega society, especially the California branch. So if you mean that Langan is trying to hitch a ride on the "real" mega society, I'd say you might just have it backwards at this point. I'd count it considerably more likely that they're trying to hitch a ride on Langan and all of that publicity he got. You know, "Hey! Look at us! We're the REAL world's greatest geniuses!" (Perhaps. But then why aren't they proving it by doing something useful and brilliant instead of making a mountain out of what looks very much like a molehill?)

As I mentioned, I see the high IQ community as largely a waste of time. Once it was viewed as having the potential to change the world. What it actually became is quite another matter - a hodgepodge of narcissistic self-styled in-crowds torn by internal strife and lacking any desire for meaningful accomplishment or mutual cooperation. I know, I was there. The judgment you posted is just this trend taken to its logical but absurd conclusion. If this sort of thing is all that the high IQ world has to give, then what's the point, and who in his right mind could possibly care? Say what you want to about Langan and his theory, but at least he chooses intellectually meaningful battles.

Whatup?

September 8, 2003, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by Eurodele
Many people use pseudonyms. In fact, the word was that many people took the mega test using pseudonyms. (There was even a story floating around about a bunch of MIT students who got together to take the mega test and made the cutoff under a single absurd-sounding group pseudonym - tetazoo?)
You avoid the issue. It's not just that Langan used a pseudonym, it's that he used it to make an invalid second attempt look like a valid first attempt.

That's apparently why its author accepted second attempts on it (and maybe third, and maybe even fourth and fifth attempts in some cases).
The author of the Mega Test, Ron Hoeflin, allowed but did not count second attempts as valid scores. Miyaguchi states (http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html), "About 3 people have scored 47, but only on a second attempt. This includes Eric Hart." Under the false impression that Hart's score was a first attempt it was the only 47 score that Hoeflin counted (http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/meganorm.html) until Hart was revealed to be Langan, who already took the test.

My impression was that the press was searching for the most interesting and credible candidate given the well-known limitations on IQ measurement, and rightly or wrongly, they decided that Langan was it.
Obviously Langan was wrongly chosen. Here's the first-attempt score count from 1989 (excluding Langan/Hart's invalid 47 score). Langan scored at the bottom of the disputed mega level, not exactly the most credible or the "Smartest Man in America":

48/48: 0 persons (IQ +190)
47/48: 0 persons (IQ 190)
46/48: 1 person (IQ 186) (Marilyn vos Savant's score)
45/48: 2 people (IQ 183)
44/48: 3 people (IQ 180) (John H. Sununu's score)
43/48: 6 people (IQ 177)
42/48: 12 people (IQ 174) (Chris Langan's score)

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/meganorm.html

As far as intellectual property rights are concerned, the whole issue is really sort of ridiculous. "Mega" is an ancient Greek word that has a generic usage. Nothing new about "society". And anyone who can use a search engine can find plenty of journals and newsletters called "noesis", which is also a generic word. There's nothing especially original about combining "mega" and "society", and there's nothing very original about calling a journal "Noesis". So why pretend that we're talking about warp drive patents here?
If that was a valid argument there would be no legal protection for most trade names. I could start my own high IQ group called "Mensa International" since "mensa" is an old word meaning "the top surface of an altar" and "international" is also an old word.

Clutch

September 8, 2003, 06:19 AM

Whatup and co.,

Why is any of this relevant?

If a theory is coherent, explanatorily fecund, and predictively useful, then it succeeds on its own merits.

And if it isn't, then whether it was formulated by John Sununu or George W. Bush doesn't matter one whit. Uses of the IQ issue from either direction are illegitimate:

(A) Langan's not as smart as he's claimed, therefore we should expect his claims to fail.

(B) Langan is as smart as he claims, therefore we should expect his claims to be correct.

I don't see anything wrong with having a thread on Langan's modus operandi if you want it. But this one was a request for clarification about the putative theory itself. Personally, I'd like to see answers to Jacob's questions rather than a continuation of the present tangent.

excreationist

September 8, 2003, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Eurodele
...As far as Langan taking the mega test twice goes, I don't know how big a thing you can reasonably make of it. The person who wrote the test intially allowed multiple attempts,....
Then Langan should have said his real name in the second attempt... He did say his real name in the first attempt after all...
"Eric Hart" also wrote many articles in Noesis issue 41 (http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/noes41/index.html). I guess Langan got into the Mega Society ok, maybe even on his first attempt, but it is weird that he used a fake name on the second attempt of that test (but his real name on the first attempt...).

By the way, the scuttlebut is that Langdon is one of the plaintiffs who sued Langan in California to get the judgment posted in this thread - he was always fussing and fuming and threatening Langan and others with lawsuits. Since the publicity on Langan says that he lives on the east coast and is of limited income, maybe he never got a legitimate chance to respond? Civil law can be a little bit screwy - in many cases, all you need to do to successfully sue someone's spleen out is choose a victim who can't afford to hire a lawyer and lives too far away to represent himself in your local kangaroo court.
Yeah they sure "sued his spleen out"...
http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/megasoc/judgment.html
says: "Plaintiff shall recover its costs of suit against Defendant in the amount of $199.00."

(It seems that the Mega Foundation and its "Noesis" are still in operation, so perhaps the judgment is worthless or impossible to enforce.)
That previous link doesn't say anything against "Mega Foundation".
But it says the megasociety.net site can no longer be used. But it still looks like it's being used, and it says it is the "Mega Society East" website.
http://www.megasociety.net/SiteMapText.html
It looks like their newsletter is no longer called Noesis-E though - it's now called "Noeon".
http://www.iomas.com/gina/ultrahiq/mega-society/NoesisArchive/PI.html
http://www.noeon.net/

Whatup?

September 8, 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Clutch
Whatup and co.,

Why is any of this relevant?

If a theory is coherent, explanatorily fecund, and predictively useful, then it succeeds on its own merits.
Right, and his theory will rise or fall on its merits. And one of its major alleged merits promoted by William Dembski (http://www.iscid.org/christopherlangan.php) and others is Langan's alleged 195 IQ. Notice that Dembski links to an article that claims it. Dembski even credits Langan with founding the Mega Society East, which Langan is in fact currently opperating in violation of a court order to cease and desist. Even having founded the "Mega Foundation" is an obvious rip off of "Mega" just as founding the "Mensa Foundation" as a group for gifted people would be an obvious rip off of "Mensa".

Because the Langan camp has inserted the issue of Langan's IQ and "founding" IQ groups into the mix (which is intended to and does influence the assesment of his theory by the public ("it's probably right since he's so smart")), the debunking of these matters is on topic.

Eurodele

September 8, 2003, 10:17 AM

Hello, whatup, excreationist and clutch.

Whatup continues to beat his anti-Langan, anti-ctmu drum, claiming to know what should and should not be counted as a fair trial on what may or may not be an IQ test. Personally, I see no reason to think that whatup knows what he's talking about, or that he even knows the difference between an IQ test and an achievement test or for that matter a urine test. (I wonder what whatup's score on the mega test was? I'll gladly accept a second-trial score. I've already explained why it's as valid as the score from a first trial, and no qualified psychologist who knows anything about cognitive testing would argue otherwise.)

Whatup, with back-up from excreationist, also claims that somehow, pseudonym + second trial = hanky-panky, relying on this deadly equation to bolster his case. However, once you've been cheated, the way mega test subjects were cheated when the cutoff score was changed without notice and without explanation, it's probably advisable to use an alternate identity just to avoid being cheated again. Once you've been cheated under your real name, whoever cheated you (in this case, some combo of the test's author and the "real" mega society) is likely to rationalize further cheating by standing pat on the initial bait-and-switch. Given that fact, you'd be a fool to lay yourself open to being rooked twice in a row. Having been cheated, I'd have to say that Langan was justified to employ safeguards against being cheated again. Whatup and his California friends might not like that, but the press evidently agrees with Langan, and nobody about whom anybody cares disagrees. For all practical purposes, it's a closed case.

You know, it's pretty common knowledge in mondo hiq-o that a sizable percentage of the people who took the mega test did so under pseudonyms, or made repeat attempts, or even took it under suspicious circumstances. The author had no way of screening them out. As an example, one testee mentioned in Omni, who later took two eye-popping nosedives in a row on the TV show "Do You Want to Be A Millionaire?" (he swore the show was rigged against him), took it at least once, maybe more, under a pseudonym (he spent hundreds of hours on what he claimed was his first attempt). And the two mathematicians mentioned in the same article just happened to have offices right next to each other at the university where they both taught - no, absolutely no possibility of collusion there! Again, the mega test wasn't multiple-choice and couldn't be attacked by a simple process of elimination, and again, the strange fact that a lot of people still managed to improve their scores by spending more time on it casts appreciable doubt on it being a real IQ test.

After the first year or two of its existence, the mega test was shot to ribbons by the answers getting passed around. Because this applies to all of the tests used for admission by what whatup calls the "real" mega society, there were only narrow windows of opportunity for legitimate qualification (if there were any at all). Sorry to say, this makes the qualifications of many of its members even more suspect than Langan's. If anybody besides langan ever took the mega test and scored a 47, it was probably after most of the answers had made their way onto the Internet. If the truth be told, I could probably have scored in that range myself just by making good use of the high IQ underground at any time in the last fifteen years. Even if the test was accurate during the first year or two of its existence (back when Langan/Hart took it), it long outlived its rightful expiration date.

Chris Langan has been arguing for the ctmu on open boards for years, and if any of the disgruntled geniuses on this thread ever took the opportunity to argue with him directly, they got their bottoms kicked fair and square just like everybody else who's argued with him. On the other hand, if they didn't take the opportunity when it was available, it's their problem now. No amount of post-game psychometrizing can change that. One thing I notice about Langan is that he doesn't really carry on about his IQ - others do that for him, maybe rightly so. The only language he speaks in public seems to be "SCSPL". So if you want to beat him, take my advice and go after the ctmu. Try to work with the ideas even if they're hard for you to grasp. Do anything else, and dollars to doughnuts he'll keep on kicking butt till his foot gets sore (indeed, he might just do that inspite of everyone's best efforts). Remember what they said about Schwarzeneggar's Terminator - "That's what he does. That's all he does." Consider it a tip from somebody who's been watching him for a number of years.

Clutch

September 8, 2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Whatup?
Because the Langan camp has inserted the issue of Langan's IQ and "founding" IQ groups into the mix (which is intended to and does influence the assesment of his theory by the public ("it's probably right since he's so smart")), the debunking of these matters is on topic. It may or may not be worthwhile, but it is not on topic, since it does not bear on the content -- if any -- of the "CTMU".

I'd rather see somebody answer Jacob's questions by way of defending the utility and insights of the CTMU. If there are none, then the question of whose schwartz is bigger than whose is doubly pointless.

Wyz_sub10

September 8, 2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Whatup?
Because the Langan camp has inserted the issue of Langan's IQ and "founding" IQ groups into the mix (which is intended to and does influence the assesment of his theory by the public ("it's probably right since he's so smart")), the debunking of these matters is on topic.

I'm going to disagree. I can understand the relevance of bringing up such an event if it is critical to promotion of a theory, but the theory seems to be addressed on its own without bringing up Langan's alleged exploits.

There is good discussion material here re: IQ tests or "genius societies", but I think it's taking the thread off topic to continue to discuss the issue surrounding the IQ tests.

If you'd like to continue that discussion, please start a thread in the appropriate forum.

Wyz_sub,
S&S Moderator

excreationist

September 8, 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Eurodele
....Chris Langan has been arguing for the ctmu on open boards for years, and if any of the disgruntled geniuses on this thread ever took the opportunity to argue with him directly, they got their bottoms kicked fair and square just like everybody else who's argued with him. On the other hand, if they didn't take the opportunity when it was available, it's their problem now....
Chris Langan still does debate others about the CTMU... the Banned at ISCID over CTMU (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61178&perpage=25&pagenumber=1) thread, which is also in the Science & Skepticism forum talks about this. Though the infidels thread isn't very good, the ISCID discussion it is referring to is interesting...
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000395-p-5.html
Here (In it, Chris Langan is replying quite a lot.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61178&perpage=25&pagenumber=2) is Parallel's reply to it.
Could you comment on what Parallel wrote? It seems that it would be difficult for Parallel to continue that discussion with Chris Langan since that thread was locked and that forum has very restrictive rules (http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000076
).

if any of the disgruntled geniuses on this thread ever took the opportunity to argue with him directly, they got their bottoms kicked fair and square just like everybody else who's argued with him
It sounds like you're saying that no-one has ever successfully found a hole in CTMU... and you're implying you've been exposed to a lot of CTMU discussions (all of them in fact - otherwise you wouldn't be sure that Langan has never been beaten).... so maybe you could help defend it here against some people here who find some problems with it.

One thing I notice about Langan is that he doesn't really carry on about his IQ - others do that for him, maybe rightly so.
At http://www.ctmu.org/ which says at the bottom "All material � 1989-2003 by Christopher Michael Langan.", there is a Press (http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Press/index.html) section.
The Erroll Morris - First Person (http://www.megasociety.net/PopularScience/FirstPerson/Langan.htm) link only talks about Langan's IQ - and it says "By his own account, somewhere in the 190-210 range."
I didn't check every link there, due to my slow connection, but they seem to be mostly about Langan's IQ... and remember that it seems that Langan was the one who created the site.

Eurodele

September 8, 2003, 02:27 PM

Hello, excreationist.

I'm not sure that I could fill in for Chris Langan when it comes to responding to specific criticisms of his theory. But I might be willing to take a shot at more general criticisms (provided they were presented in an appropriate way, without all the irrelevant bickering about his IQ). Unfortunately, your link to whatever you want a reply for is nonfunctional. I don't know about the errol morris piece - perhaps langan was asked what his IQ was said to be or was estimated to be on the basis of the mega test or childhood precocity or something else? I don't know and I don't care - it's irrelevant. Even if Langan's IQ is lower than 190, I don't think I've seen anyone who can make a credible case for being smarter than he. It seems to me that anyone who makes that claim needs to present something with a lot of sweep and originality to back it up, and I don't see anyone else doing that in the way that langan seems to have done/be doing it. At any rate, I'd prefer to think that the highest IQ belongs to langan rather than some goldbrick who got all the lucky breaks and never did an honest day's physical labor in his entire life. Maybe it's just me, but I suspect that a lot of other honest, hard-working, unsheltered people feel the same way.

Whatup?

September 8, 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
I'm going to disagree. I can understand the relevance of bringing up such an event if it is critical to promotion of a theory, but the theory seems to be addressed on its own without bringing up Langan's alleged exploits.
Respectfully, I'd like to state my disagreement. Dembski's site (http://www.iscid.org/christopherlangan.php) demonstrates that Langan's alleged IQ score along with his alleged founding of high IQ groups is critical to promoting his theory. In Dembski's upcomming book (http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf) he says Langan "came to the attention of the media in 1999 for combining one of the world�s highest IQs" (combining?) and that Langan "is the co-founder and President of a nonprofit organization, the Mega Foundation". The implication is that these are facts that establish the credibility of the author and by default of his theory.

To prohibit discussion of this matter alongside Langan's theory gives Dembski & Co. the unilateral advantage of promoting Langan's "intelligent design" theory under misleading promotive pretenses without the other side being able to inform the public in this forum about the dubious nature of said promotions. Surely critics of Dembski-Langan should not be denied equal rights in this matter, especially in a forum favorable to such critique. Of course I leave this matter to the wise consideration of the moderators.

Wyz_sub10

September 8, 2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Whatup?
Respectfully, I'd like to state my disagreement. Dembski's site (http://www.iscid.org/christopherlangan.php) demonstrates that Langan's alleged IQ score along with his alleged founding of high IQ groups is critical to promoting his theory. In Dembski's upcomming book (http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf) he says Langan "came to the attention of the media in 1999 for combining one of the world�s highest IQs" (combining?) and that Langan "is the co-founder and President of a nonprofit organization, the Mega Foundation". The implication is that these are facts that establish the credibility of the author and by default of his theory.

I took a look at those sites. It seems that the accounts of his intelligence are used to fill his bio, rather than being linked to the theory directly.

In any case, if there is a direct connection made, by all means discuss it. It appeared, though, that there were two distinct conversations going on at the same time, and I just want to make sure that separate issues have separate threads.

To prohibit discussion of this matter alongside Langan's theory gives Dembski & Co. the unilateral advantage of promoting Langan's "intelligent design" theory under misleading promotive pretenses without the other side being able to inform the public in this forum about the dubious nature of said promotions.

Nothing prohibited - Langan's credentials can be scrutinized, but I tend to side with Talk Origins' position on these things - look at the theory separate from the individual.

If, however, someone claims to be an expert in biology, and they have zero background in biology, then it should be an issue.

Surely critics of Dembski-Langan should not be denied equal rights in this matter, especially in a forum favorable to such critique. Of course I leave this matter to the wise consideration of the moderators.

Of course not. As I said, feel free to apply scrutiny to Demski's claims or Langan's claims.

I'm only saying that The Theory of General Relativity and Einstein as an atheist or theist, are two separate topics.

If you want to posit a third - that the two or related, then that's certainly fair game.

The bottom line is that if one relates to the other, feel free to discuss. But if it becomes its own animal, then it's better off as a new thread for clarity purposes.

excreationist

September 9, 2003, 12:00 AM

I'm not sure that I could fill in for Chris Langan when it comes to responding to specific criticisms of his theory. But I might be willing to take a shot at more general criticisms (provided they were presented in an appropriate way, without all the irrelevant bickering about his IQ).
Good... though Parallel's post unfortunately talks about his IQ a bit... just ignore that. Maybe Parallel's post and others like Jacob's would count as "specific criticisms"... I'm not sure.

Unfortunately, your link to whatever you want a reply for is nonfunctional.
Hopefully that should work now:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61178&perpage=25&pagenumber=2
The other link was
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000395-p-5.html
(If that second link doesn't work, you might need to go to http://www.iscid.org then "brainstorms" then "On Progress, Readdressing Reality Theory, & Information in the Holographic Universe")

I don't know about the errol morris piece - perhaps langan was asked what his IQ was said to be or was estimated to be on the basis of the mega test or childhood precocity or something else? I don't know and I don't care - it's irrelevant.
It was in response to what you wrote about Langan never carrying on about his IQ - he was links to press sites that do, though... but I guess it doesn't matter.

Eurodele

September 9, 2003, 11:05 AM

Hello, excreationist. Many of the posts to which you link you give seem to be chock full of bile against Langan. But although they're 9/10 irrelevant ad hominemization, I'll try to be constructive and write it off as history.

One poster seems to be criticizing langan for "failing to distinguish between [SCSPL] syntax...and elements of a set," assuming that by the word syntax, Langan is refering to "a set of rules that define the organization of the cosmic language he has in mind. So...how can we know and evaluate an infinite set of rules, not elements, that are only assumed to exist?"

I suppose that if Langan were to give an answer, it might possibly look something like this. The object of reality theory is not to exhaustively list all the rules of SCSPL syntax, but to construct a framework with enough expressive power to let more of these rules be consistently (non-paradoxically) derived and validated, even when they can't be found by empirical means alone. So we don't need to know all the rules initially, only those required to construct the framework. The most important rules that we need to know are those of logic, which generically relate the language of reality to the rules comprising its distributed structure (not merely as "assumed to exist", but as established through what Langan calls "syndiffeonesis"). This generic relationship is called a "supertautology" because it is universal and self-descriptive (like a logical tautology). This relationship implies that reality has a "conspansive" structure. Conspansive spacetime is a generative medium that (unlike the usual picture of reality) has a meaningful place for volition and volitive entities, supporting a "telonic" level of invariance which tends to directly optimize the relationship between syntax and state and maximize the (localized) intrinsic utility of the universe. This yields a single comprehensive explanation for cosmic and biological evolution (instead of explaining biological evolution in terms of physical evolution, which is futile without an explanation for physical evolution itself). At no point is there any need to explicitly articulate all the rules of SCSPL syntax - problems like undecidability make this impossible under the best of circumstances. It is sufficient to work from the rules and properties of logic alone, as applied in the perfectly self-contained setting of SCSPL.

By the by, langan does definitely seem to distinguish SCSPL syntax from the elements of a set. He seems in fact to have a new approach to set theory. In recent times, it has occurred to some mathematicians that set theory doesn't provide an adequate foundation for mathematics - it's just too full of paradoxes, for example the set of all sets paradox. This has caused them to suggest that it be replaced by category theory, which wraps sets and functions up together in one mathematical package. But this doesn't really get rid of all the paradoxes. Langan seems to be going yet farther by advocating a replacement or updating of the category concept with SCSPL, which from a certain perspective is analogous to the set of all sets but without the associated paradox. SCSPL adds certain attributes and ingredients to the category of reality, thus circumventing or resolving various mathematical and cosmological difficulties. (This just about exhausts my knowledge of Langan's alternative to standard set theory. If you want anything more specific than that, you can try his on-line article "Introduction to the CTMU" for more on how the universe differs from a set. It's one of the first ctmu things I read.)

Ted Hoffman

September 11, 2003, 12:28 AM

Jacob, please remember as per IIDB rules:

(3) You will not violate a person's privacy by publishing against someone's will information that is private and personal.

Members who wish to reveal their identify do so solely at their own discretion.

Thank you,

Wyz_sub10,
S&S Moderator

Ted Hoffman

September 11, 2003, 12:53 AM

When you see a word like (ad) hominemization, you know who you are dealing with: the king of neologisms himself.

I have found a polite, iron-fist-in-velvet-glove, methodical, systematic, relentless, indefatigable and iron-clad method of taking apart Eurodele's minions at ISCID. And I have two scientists as my allies - so far.

I have come to be in control of my impatience with the word-games and hand waving.

Attention to detail. Putting them to task all the way.

Ted Hoffman

September 11, 2003, 08:56 AM

You know, I've always taken the phrase "silence so thick enough you can lean on it" to mean something dramatic. The phrase is apropos in describing some deep, palpable tension, or suspense in a particular situation.

Todays loud silence has given a new meaning to that phrase.

Eurodele

September 11, 2003, 02:17 PM

I just stopped by here and noticed that somebody may have been addressing me, and that the person who may have addressed me has been warned by the mod about publishing private or personal information. I see that the offender calls himself or herself "jacob aliet". Just to clarify, Mr. or Ms. Aliet has no access to any personal information of any kind about me, except what I put in my iidb profile (which, as far as he or she can tell, may or may not be true). I see that as a very good thing - on the basis of what I've seen of his-her caustic and opinionated posts in the iidb threads to which I've managed to expose myself, I'm fairly sure that protecting personal information from him-her would be high up on just about anyone's list of priorities. It will certainly remain high on mine. Many at iidb have internet handles, perhaps including jacob, and I doubt that any of them would feel comfortable being subjected to unwanted snooping. I do know that I didn't come here to have strangers speculate wildly on my identity, and would appreciate it if Mr.-Ms. Aliet will try to remember this in the future. (Thanks to the moderator.)

By the by, I don't know if we can consider "ad hominemization" to be a full-scale neologism. It was merely intended as a play on the word "hominization", the evolutionary process leading to the development of human characteristics that distinguish hominids from other primates. The intended implication was that anyone who relies too thoroughly on ad hom as a debate tactic has not yet gotten to the end of this process. (While I concede that my poor attempt at humor may seem a bit oblique and off-color, I doubt that too many people would disagree with it. Sorry for any offense.)

Ted Hoffman

September 12, 2003, 01:11 AM

I deeply apologize for posting information that could help reveal the actual name of one poster or alert people to the possible identity of that poster.

It was because I did not know "actual name" is private and personal.

Forgive my impertinence.

Eurodele

September 12, 2003, 05:43 AM

jacob aliet: I deeply apologize for posting information that could help reveal the actual name of one poster or alert people to the possible identity of that poster.

As I've already requested - if you want to speculate on my identity, or the identity of any other poster, please keep it to yourself. Do it on your own time, in your own space. That's what it takes to comply with forum guidelines about which you've already been warned, at least as I read them, and that's what it would take to make your apology anything but another [deleted by moderator]. When I tell you that I find your insinuations both asinine and annoying, please take it seriously - [deleted by moderator]. (On the other hand, if you want to relinquish your own right of privacy, go ahead - [deleted by moderator])

Much obliged for your consideration.

[edited for inappropriate personal comments --Jesse]

Ted Hoffman

September 12, 2003, 06:50 AM

I apologise in advance for allowing myself to be dragged into this.

Ted Hoffman

September 12, 2003, 06:52 AM

[edited for inappropriate remarks about another poster --Jesse]

Clutch

September 12, 2003, 08:38 AM

Back to the thread topic: Is the "CTMU" any good?

Is there any sign of the "CTMU" actually being worth something? Explaining something? Clarifying something? Illuminating or advancing actual scientific, mathematical, logical or philosophical practice?

I'm just taking as read the drearily familiar Langanite apologetic: If you have to ask the above questions, it can only be because you are stupid, dishonest, lazy, or otherwise unqualified to comment. Yes, yes, of course. But are there any actual defenses of the "CTMU", that proceed by clearly demonstrating any actual applications or virtues it might possess?

Tom Ames

September 12, 2003, 08:39 AM

While I think it essential that the anonymity of all posters be respected, I wonder if those operating under such anonymity ought not to do so more responsibly.

For example, suppose someone's theory is being discussed. It might be considered an abuse of the posting guidelines for that person to show up under a handle and claim to be an objective third party, while defending aspects of his or her own theory.

There is no way to uncover the duplicity (nor should there be, perhaps). But it is still dishonest.

The Socrates/Safarti saga comes to mind as an example of this.

[Edit: apologies if this post is possibly off-topic. Maybe there's somewhere else this could be discussed.]

Clutch

September 12, 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Tom Ames
While I think it essential that the anonymity of all posters be respected, I wonder if those operating under such anonymity ought not to do so more responsibly.

For example, suppose someone's theory is being discussed. It might be considered an abuse of the posting guidelines for that person to show up under a handle and claim to be an objective third party, while defending aspects of his or her own theory.

There is no way to uncover the duplicity (nor should there be, perhaps). But it is still dishonest.

The Socrates/Safarti saga comes to mind as an example of this.

[Edit: apologies if this post is possibly off-topic. Maybe there's somewhere else this could be discussed.] At most this is a question about the sociology of online debate. I don't think it's relevant. I don't care who calls whomself which way what, nor what their score was on which IQ test, where they went to school, whether they were "born with a silver spoon", or what their favourite album is. Are there coherent and substantive arguments supporting the utility of the "CTMU"? That was, I thought, the question posed by this thread. The answer, so far... bupkis.

Jesse

September 12, 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Eurodele
By the by, langan does definitely seem to distinguish SCSPL syntax from the elements of a set. He seems in fact to have a new approach to set theory. In recent times, it has occurred to some mathematicians that set theory doesn't provide an adequate foundation for mathematics - it's just too full of paradoxes, for example the set of all sets paradox. This has caused them to suggest that it be replaced by category theory, which wraps sets and functions up together in one mathematical package. But this doesn't really get rid of all the paradoxes. Langan seems to be going yet farther by advocating a replacement or updating of the category concept with SCSPL, which from a certain perspective is analogous to the set of all sets but without the associated paradox. SCSPL adds certain attributes and ingredients to the category of reality, thus circumventing or resolving various mathematical and cosmological difficulties.

But is there actually any mathematical content to this "SCSPL"? Can some version of it be formalized into an axiomatic system? Everything I've seen in Langan's papers just looks to be verbal philosophical arguments. Unless SCSPL can be formalized mathematically it cannot possibly provide an alternative to set theory or category theory as a foundation for mathematics.

Eurodele

September 12, 2003, 11:07 AM

Hello, clutch. I can't speak to the immediate utility of the ctmu, M theory, Tegmark's theory or any other strain of cosmology or "reality theory". (Cosmology has never been about immediate utility.) However, I surmise that insofar as langan seems to be talking about the nature of causality, his work may have bearing on the validity of expansive hypotheses (like Darwinism) which make overly broad assumptions about causality, for example that it is random or uncoordinated or disconnects mutation and selection. There are plenty of other things on which it seems to bear as well. If you want to argue about that, don't argue with me - go argue with langan if you can find him. (Perhaps it would help to read some his papers and articles on the web beforehand?)

Jesse, any theory that can be verbally explained can be translated into formal notation provided the explanation hangs together. It seems to me that this wouldn't be at all hard to do given the background provided in that .pdf paper floating around by langan. It seems to me that if langan had initially presented a formalized version of his theory, it would have been ignored for sheer inaccessibility. In fact, some people seem to believe that it is inaccessible even when presented in English (I don't agree). Again, if you want to argue about that, I'm probably not the person you want to do it with.

Tom Ames, please read my above reply to jacob aliet. IIDB has a forum guideline against assaulting the privacy of its participants. There is, however, no guideline whatsoever about "showing up under a handle and claiming to be an objective third party while defending aspects of one's own theory," and whether or not this applies to me (it didn't the last time I checked), it's dishonest to maintain that such a guideline exists just to help your venomous little friend jacob in a pinch. I've read some of the stuff posted on langan here on iidb - perhaps 95% of it is pure behind-the-back character assassination. The same applies to unfortunates like Dembski, Behe and others who have publicly taken non-materialist philosophical positions. Combine that sort of thing with special screwed-if-you-do, screwed-if-you-don't restrictions on people who defend their own theories, and you destroy any possibility or pretense of having an objective discussion around here. And if that's the house game, then who in his right mind would want to waste time playing it? (By the by, I've heard of sarfati, but notwithstanding an appearance in the American film epic "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure", Socrates is widely thought to have OD'd on hemlock a few millennia ago. When last I checked, anyway.)