Ted Hoffman
September 1, 2003, 09:08 AM
I am starting this thread on three forums because in my opinion, it spans them and I am afraid to post in only one because I could elude the attention of some brains that would otherwise be very helpful in gaining an understanding concerning my area of interest.
My topic spans science, Philosophy and Existence of Gods - so its multidisciplinary. Those are the forums the thread is present and I hope the mods forgive me if they dont agree with my reasons for posting the same thread accross forums.
Now, some of you might have heard of the CTMU (Cognitive Theoretic Model of The Universe). Its whats called a reality theory and it claims to explain the nature of reality.
Its in part mathematical, in part scientific, in part philosophical/ metaphysical, in part religious.
People like William Dembski, who is a prominent ID advocate endorse it as a model that can help overcome the problems of science like the problem of induction, the tower of turtles and infinite regress (dont worry about the validity of those claims yet). It purports to explain causality and claims to provide the correct framework under which biological origins should be studied.
In short, "the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and selfexecution (reflexive read-write functionality). SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism consisting of infocognition, self-transducing information residing in self-recognizing SCSPL elements called syntactic operators. The CTMU identifies itself with the structure of these operators and thus with the distributive syntax of its self-modeling SCSPL universe, including the reflexive grammar by which the universe refines itself from unbound telesis or UBT, a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational onstraint. Under the guidance of a limiting (intrinsic) form of anthropic principle called the Telic Principle, CSPL evolves by telic recursion, jointly configuring syntax and state while maximizing a generalized selfselection parameter and adjusting on the fly to freely-changing internal coconditions. SCSPL relates space, time and object by means of conspansive duality and conspansion, an SCSPL-grammatical process featuring an alternation between dual phases of existence associated with design and actualization and related to the familiar wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics."
Now, lets not waste time trying to understand CTMU (http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdfl), anyone interested can do that later, our main concern is the UBT. The Unbound Telesis.
He first describes it as "a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint."
In other places, he states: "In CTMU cosmogony, “nothingness” is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. "
He also states:
"the most fundamental imperative of reality is such as to force on it a supertautological, conspansive structure. Thus, the universe “selects itself” from unbound telesis or UBT, a realm of zero information and unlimited ontological potential, by means of telic recursion, whereby infocognitive syntax and its informational content are cross-refined through telic (syntax-state) feedback over the entire range of potential syntax-state relationships, up to and including all of spacetime and reality in general."
He also states :
"The ultimate “boundary of the boundary” of the universe is UBT, a realm of zero constraint and infinite possibility where neither boundary nor content exists."
My personal opinion is that this is neoplatonism in disguise because this UBT is reminescent of Platonic aeon.
But of more importance are questions regarding the ontology and teleology of this UBT. It also brings to question the idea of existence.
Langan has been known to state that the UBT is the mind ofGod and Telesis being "what God wants". Just FYI.
My questions are:
1. (a) From the above selected quotations. Can you see any difference between the UBT and nothing?
(b) Does nothing exist?
(c) Is nothing the potential of everything - the way the known is just a facet of what was hitherto unknown? Can we say the unknown represents everything that can be known? And is that a vacuous truth or a meaningful/utile truth - at least in cosmogony/cosmology?
2. Can there be potential where nothing exists - in a closed place (eg "closed" in the thermodynamic sense)?
3. Is it correct to state that potential is contingent on existence (I believe this is an existentialist question - whoever takes a stab at it, please dont confuse me with "existence precedes essence")? The idea being that the UBT, from which reality emerges, cannot have any potential or pure freedom unless it already exists. If it already exists, questions regarding its ontology and origin will arise and this will bring us to the "tower of turtles" problem which Langan claims, the CTMU is not guilty of - as opposed to big bang cosmology.
4. Is it valid to equate the UBT (based on the idea that the UBT is equal to ontological ground state) with the casimir effect, ground state (from Quantum Mechanics) or quantum vacuum?
5. Is it correct to state that reality must come from unreality? If so, shouldnt cosmological models incorporate unreality as an origin? (My guess is, UBT is a euphemism for the big bang - to escape questions of determinacy/indeterminacy or tower of turtles).
6. Is it possible that there are levels of existence? Because the UBT's existence is supposed to be dissimilar in some respects to ours. Those that love geometry and transformations state that the UBT is at right angles to our perceptual universe - what we call orthogonality.
7. For scientists, is the problem of induction real? ie is it a serious problem?
Did Karl Popper demolish it according to you (I believe Hume formulated it and Duhem Quine made it stronger with the Two Dogmas of Empiricism)
All responses shall be appreciated.
My topic spans science, Philosophy and Existence of Gods - so its multidisciplinary. Those are the forums the thread is present and I hope the mods forgive me if they dont agree with my reasons for posting the same thread accross forums.
Now, some of you might have heard of the CTMU (Cognitive Theoretic Model of The Universe). Its whats called a reality theory and it claims to explain the nature of reality.
Its in part mathematical, in part scientific, in part philosophical/ metaphysical, in part religious.
People like William Dembski, who is a prominent ID advocate endorse it as a model that can help overcome the problems of science like the problem of induction, the tower of turtles and infinite regress (dont worry about the validity of those claims yet). It purports to explain causality and claims to provide the correct framework under which biological origins should be studied.
In short, "the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and selfexecution (reflexive read-write functionality). SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism consisting of infocognition, self-transducing information residing in self-recognizing SCSPL elements called syntactic operators. The CTMU identifies itself with the structure of these operators and thus with the distributive syntax of its self-modeling SCSPL universe, including the reflexive grammar by which the universe refines itself from unbound telesis or UBT, a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational onstraint. Under the guidance of a limiting (intrinsic) form of anthropic principle called the Telic Principle, CSPL evolves by telic recursion, jointly configuring syntax and state while maximizing a generalized selfselection parameter and adjusting on the fly to freely-changing internal coconditions. SCSPL relates space, time and object by means of conspansive duality and conspansion, an SCSPL-grammatical process featuring an alternation between dual phases of existence associated with design and actualization and related to the familiar wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics."
Now, lets not waste time trying to understand CTMU (http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdfl), anyone interested can do that later, our main concern is the UBT. The Unbound Telesis.
He first describes it as "a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint."
In other places, he states: "In CTMU cosmogony, “nothingness” is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. "
He also states:
"the most fundamental imperative of reality is such as to force on it a supertautological, conspansive structure. Thus, the universe “selects itself” from unbound telesis or UBT, a realm of zero information and unlimited ontological potential, by means of telic recursion, whereby infocognitive syntax and its informational content are cross-refined through telic (syntax-state) feedback over the entire range of potential syntax-state relationships, up to and including all of spacetime and reality in general."
He also states :
"The ultimate “boundary of the boundary” of the universe is UBT, a realm of zero constraint and infinite possibility where neither boundary nor content exists."
My personal opinion is that this is neoplatonism in disguise because this UBT is reminescent of Platonic aeon.
But of more importance are questions regarding the ontology and teleology of this UBT. It also brings to question the idea of existence.
Langan has been known to state that the UBT is the mind ofGod and Telesis being "what God wants". Just FYI.
My questions are:
1. (a) From the above selected quotations. Can you see any difference between the UBT and nothing?
(b) Does nothing exist?
(c) Is nothing the potential of everything - the way the known is just a facet of what was hitherto unknown? Can we say the unknown represents everything that can be known? And is that a vacuous truth or a meaningful/utile truth - at least in cosmogony/cosmology?
2. Can there be potential where nothing exists - in a closed place (eg "closed" in the thermodynamic sense)?
3. Is it correct to state that potential is contingent on existence (I believe this is an existentialist question - whoever takes a stab at it, please dont confuse me with "existence precedes essence")? The idea being that the UBT, from which reality emerges, cannot have any potential or pure freedom unless it already exists. If it already exists, questions regarding its ontology and origin will arise and this will bring us to the "tower of turtles" problem which Langan claims, the CTMU is not guilty of - as opposed to big bang cosmology.
4. Is it valid to equate the UBT (based on the idea that the UBT is equal to ontological ground state) with the casimir effect, ground state (from Quantum Mechanics) or quantum vacuum?
5. Is it correct to state that reality must come from unreality? If so, shouldnt cosmological models incorporate unreality as an origin? (My guess is, UBT is a euphemism for the big bang - to escape questions of determinacy/indeterminacy or tower of turtles).
6. Is it possible that there are levels of existence? Because the UBT's existence is supposed to be dissimilar in some respects to ours. Those that love geometry and transformations state that the UBT is at right angles to our perceptual universe - what we call orthogonality.
7. For scientists, is the problem of induction real? ie is it a serious problem?
Did Karl Popper demolish it according to you (I believe Hume formulated it and Duhem Quine made it stronger with the Two Dogmas of Empiricism)
All responses shall be appreciated.