Where were you when Chris Langan solved the Great Mystery?
>UBT - a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. 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.
Jung:
>Harken: I begin with nothingness. Nothingness is the same as fullness. In infinity full is no better than empty. Nothingness is both empty and full.
Kabbalah:
>Ein-sof is both the fullness of being and absolute nothingness, but is not complete in its essence until He is made real through the spiritualizing and redemptive activity of mankind. Ein-sof is mirrored in the heart and soul of man, but, more importantly, He is actualized in man's deeds.
There is not, has not been, and never will be, "nothing".
Adrian Roberts
>listening to some kook because of some IQ score
Leo Watson
Plotinus:
>This Universe is good not when the individual is a stone, but when everyone throws in his own voice towards a total harmony, singing out a life- thin, harsh, imperfect, though it be. The Syrinx does not utter merely one pure note; there is a thin obscure sound which blends in to make the harmony of Syrinx music: the harmony is made up from tones of various grades, all the tones differing, but the resultant of all forming one sound.
Langan, again:
> The "purpose" of their lives, and the "meaning" of their existences, is therefore to self-actualize in a way consistent with global Self-actualization or teleology...i.e., in a way that maximizes global utility, including the utility of their fellow subsystems. Their existential justification is to help the universe, AKA God, express its nature in a positive and Self-beneficial way.
Hegel:
>Reality is:
>1. Process: its a system in motion
>2. Contradiction (the dialectic) is the motor
>3. Reality is constructed by the mind; only the mind doesn't know this at first (understanding). Mind thinks reality is "out there." Mind is therefore alienated from itself. Recognizing that reality is its own creatin reconciles mind with itself.
Eli Moore
Taoism:
>Without a name, it is the Beginning of Heaven and Earth; with a name, it is the Mother of all things. Only one who is eternally free from earthly passions can apprehend its spiritual essence; he who is ever clogged by passions can see no more than its outer form. These two things, the spiritual and the material, though we call them by different names, in their origin are one and the same. This sameness is a mystery,--the mystery of mysteries. It is the gate of all spirituality.
Buddhism:
>The state of nirvana is also described in Buddhism as cessation of all afflictions, cessation of all actions, cessation of rebirths and suffering that are a consequence of afflictions and actions.[40] It is also described as identical to anatta (anatman, non-self, lack of any self),[47][48] or sunyata (emptiness or nothingness).[49][50][51]
Juan Perez
Hinduism:
>Reality experienced at the transcendental level is called BRAHMAN. This term denotes the non-dual PURE CONSCIOUSNESS which pervades the universe yet remains outside it.(Just as the sun pervades all life on earth yet remains outside it). Brahman is described as the first principle; from it all things are derived, by it all are supported, and into it all finally disappear. In Brahman alone the apparent differences of the phenomenal world are unified. Brahman is identical with the self of man, known as atman.
Plotinus:
>Plotinus offers an alternative to the orthodox Christian notion of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), which attributes to God the deliberation of mind and action of a will, although Plotinus never mentions Christianity in any of his works. Emanation ex deo (out of God), confirms the absolute transcendence of the One, making the unfolding of the cosmos purely a consequence of its existence; the One is in no way affected or diminished by these emanations. Plotinus uses the analogy of the Sun which emanates light indiscriminately without thereby diminishing itself, or reflection in a mirror which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected.
How can fedoras compete?
Cooper Gutierrez
Langan:
>“Saying two things are different implies that they are reductively the same”
>"Reality is everywhere the same to itself [despite superficial difference]"
Hinduism:
The "difference", Becoming/Samsara:
>SHAKTI (or Prakriti) means energy, power, movement, change, nature. It is the maternal principle – the provider, abundance.
The "sameness", Being:
>The "sameness", Being
>SHIVA (or Purusha), on the other hand, is pure consciousness – the unchanging, unlimited and unswayable observer. Purusha has no desires whatsoever; these are inherent only in Prakriti. Purusha is the empty, clear screen onto which Prakriti projects her colourful film
HOW CAN FEDORAS COMPETE?
Brayden Butler
No I'm listening to him because his ideas are supported by thousand-year old+ philosophies
Ian Torres
Where is original text, I can't understand his point without proper formating.
the rest is just me pasting bits from other philosophical and esoteric systems that support his points
Liam Adams
Nice. Time to check his theory.
Chase Morgan
HOW CAN FEDORAS
COMPETE O M P E T E
Leo Price
go to bed chris you rat
Nolan Rogers
ITT: fedoras unable to compete
Nicholas Myers
I did, it's nothing but bullshit semantics
Joseph Thompson
The stock riposte of every nu male hipster who doesn't have an argument
Blake Reed
In that case, please tell me how the veracity of the CTMU can be distinguished from its falsity and what practical applications we can derive from it that vastly improve on the current models of the universe we have
Benjamin Wilson
>muh falsification >muh practical applications
If you read the paper he specifically says he's not trying to peddle another scientific cosmological model you dip
As for real-world benefits, his model is amply supported by thousands of years of esoteric thought. How to better yourself as a human being follows quite easily from this philosophical foundation. But I'm sure you think if the benefit isn't material it's useless
Luke Long
>>muh falsification You are stupid and so is this theory or whatever the fuck it is.
Parker Adams
>what do you mean attempting to falsify the perceptual stability of existence is retarded and completely misses the point le epin science man didn't prepare me for this what do I do what do I do reeeeeeeeee reeeeeeeeee
Fuck off brainlet
Grayson Rivera
>If you read the paper he specifically says he's not trying to peddle another scientific cosmological model you dip
The thing were talking about is called the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, you fucking moron. I have to look no further than the name to see that this is exactly what this conman fucktard tries to do. And you were played like the sucker you are
Adrian Young
"Let me see if I can clarify why no intelligent, educated people can think of Chris Langan as anything except a fool, a charlatan, or, possibly, a prankster with a somewhat eccentric sense of humor.
The problem is not his polysyllabic jargon per se. The various sciences and mathematics all have a lot of jargon. But the jargon serves a legitimate purpose there: it is easier for a topologist to refer to “homologous cycles” than repeat each time the hundreds (or thousands) of words encapsulated in that phrase of jargon. Most importantly, other practitioners in the field know what the jargon is shorthand for, and newcomers to the field can find out what the jargon means from standard textbooks. If someone in the field finds it necessary to introduce new jargon, he has an obligation to explain to everyone what it means, and he should not introduce new jargon unless it is really needed.
That’s Langan’s problem: his CTMU masterpiece consists largely of undefined jargon, not known to real experts and not explained by Langan himself.
That is the sure sign of a crackpot.
The other problem is that those of us who have some real expertise in some of the fields about which he pontificates find his musings to be nonsense.
I have a Ph.D. from Stanford in elementary particle theory: I know a great deal about quantum mechanics. I also am co-patentholder on several patents that apply information theory to various problems in computer and communication systems.
Cont.
Carson Wright
Quantum physics and information theory are two of the subjects Langan appeals to in his CTMU work. Part of the point is to make it sound as if you would recognize the profundity of his writing if only you understood all of the technical background as he does. Well, in those two fields, I do understand the technical background, and his use of those subjects is a sham: it only seems impressive to people who are as ignorant of those subjects as Langan is.
Personally, my guess is that it is all a big joke, like Mencken’s bathtub hoax: Langan is running an experiment to see how many gullible fools there really are in the country (answer: hundreds of millions – just watch the election!).
The only interesting question is whether there is any truth to Langan’s claims of extra-high scores on real IQ tests. If he really has scored that high, it is one more sign of the very real limits to the usefulness of IQ. I recommend James Flynn’s recent book, “What Is Intelligence?” to anyone interested in the meaning and limits of IQ tests (they are not completely meaningless, but their value is somewhat limited).
Dave Miller
Carter Nelson
>>fuck off brainlet Top-tier response sir, you are truly an intellectual giant amongst us mere peons.
Unfortunately, my pitiful brain is far too fond of this thing called evidence for assertions to ever consider your particular brand of pretentious horsesh---er I mean enlightened philosophy, of course! :^)
Jaxon Bell
Yeah, you didn't read the paper.
lol all these words and not a single, specific argument.
>he needs evidence for self-evident principles
How fucking daft are you
Zachary Morgan
Looks like rubbish to me senpai
Alexander Cox
Wow epic XD
Samuel Kelly
Why are you so mad that it looks like garbage to everyone else?
Jayden Jones
>>self-evident principles You can just say "stuff that I made up because it makes me sound clever and sophisticated" you know. No need to beat around the bush here. I mean, I gave your mother's bush some serious pounding last night.
Daniel Mitchell
lol why do you shit on a paper you haven't even read?
You're seriously contesting "reality is defined as everything which is considered real"?
Because every time I post something a bit unorthodox on this shit board to try and get some interesting discussion going it's just memes and pseud faggots trying way too hard
Joseph Green
idk man, whenever I post a thread about my interests (not typical on this board), I get pretty good responses. But that's maybe because I post long, informative posts in complete paragraphs rather than insults, memes and sound bytes.
You're just a shitposter with shit interests who no one cares about.
Anthony Reyes
>Hegel
All this sounds like some very obtusely worded idealism
Alexander Brooks
>"reality is defined as everything which is considered real"? This sounds tautological, never the less, the real problem is stuff like >>The "purpose" of their lives, and the "meaning" of their existences, is therefore to self-actualize in a way consistent with global Self-actualization or teleology...i.e., in a way that maximizes global utility, including the utility of their fellow subsystems. Their existential justification is to help the universe, AKA God, express its nature in a positive and Self-beneficial way.
This is unverifiable nonsense that this clown is making up to make himself seem smart and sophisticated.
Joshua Morgan
>a haven for pedophiles, schizophrenics, and weebs considers my interests pedestrian
don't make me laugh nigga
Nathan Thomas
Yes, his system is based on tautology.
>unverifiable nonsense
lol pleb
He's describing concepts from Kierkegaard ("not movement from the spot, but movement at the spot", teleological suspension of the ethical, letting the Absolute dictate your relationship with the world rather than the other way around), Taoism (Wu wei), Hinduism (action without tortuosity or analysis), Aristotelian conceptions of what constitutes a pure act (the purest act of a being is what proceeds from the being's center, unadulterated by passions), Stoicism ("act according to nature"), and Evola's concept of solar masculinity (realizing the only true Good is not being beholden to some external divine authority but the full development and actualization of one's unique being)
Do you not know how to read and understand words?
Jordan Russell
Do you not know that all this stuff is just idiotic gibberish and mental masturbation?
>>universe = god lol not this shit again. Srsly?
Landon Ortiz
>his model is amply supported by thousands of years of esoteric thought. So it is fucking nothing?
Ian Rivera
lol
This board is ass
Zachary Bailey
No, you're just a sucker for obvious con artists, and when confronted with it, you get defensive, while exposing very clearly how much of con artist Langan is and how much a sucker you really are
Jaxon Cruz
Nah not really bruh I'm just not a fucking pleb
Hunter Mitchell
So being a pleb is not falling for con artists and their obvious games of meaningless semantics?
Sebastian Miller
bruh, if Langan's ideas had significant amounts of merit, it's more likely than not he would have an honorary degree in something, his scholarship would have citations and his work would be published in actual scholarly journals.
I mean, it's not very hard to find him, all you have to do is google "high IQ man" and his wiki page shows up as the second result, so it's not crazy to believe that many academics have actually found him, read his work, then realized that his theories are absolute crackpot nonsense and moved on with their lives. This is not some fringe coffeeshop philosopher we're talking about, this is a guy with multiple documentaries about him, game show appearances and a website where you can read his writing for free.
Just realize that you've swallowed the kool-aid and continue with your life.
William Rivera
Pretty impressive work actually. Not without some minor problems of course, but he done better job on the subject than most people who preaching about God, fedora-tier atheists and surely than most memers here.
Henry Gomez
I can read his work and except for where the verbiage gets a little autistically dense, his foundational principles are absolutely sound, his idea of what reality actually is (a self-configuring ontological "language" that exists because it can exist in the background medium of infinite potential that "birthed" it) is elegant and intuitively satisfying, and its ramifications have been amply backed up by the works of other philosophers who aren't memelord-tier.
Why can't you clowns ever just engage with an idea on its own merits?
So the parrot house that is academia doesn't support it so it's automatically invalidated? Have you published a paper in a reputable journal to back up this claim?
Give me a break with this shit.
Asher Rogers
>everyone saying this this is meandering nonsense is wrong or incapable of engaging with new ideas
nice 1
Nolan Bennett
They are though? At least being incapable of engaging with anything instead of loudly dismissing it like a memetard.
Jonathan Perry
a bunch of dudes say nothing and everything are the same, and that a point is infinite and empty. deep shit, thanks.
Jacob Miller
you want me to shake it too for ya faggot
Charles Allen
Are you incapable of understanding arguments, not all claims need to be published in academic journals to face legitimacy, but Langan seems to make claims that are academic in nature (using big words to mimic academic jargon), appeals to academic ideas (i.e., model theory, lorentz invariance), and claims to contribute new knowledge to humanity (see: any of his interviews). These are his claims, not mine.
I can state as a fact that anyone who contributes to any of the fields that he claims his theories contribute to, strong AI, set theory, model theory, quantum physics, information theory are academics, and publish in journals. He doesn't because he's a crackpot. Now stop posting.
Logan Fisher
>he doesn't choose to publish in academia so he's wrong
do you have a link to a paper to back up this claim?
is literally anyone in this thread gonna actually respond to the man's ideas or is this the caliber of discourse that happens in your oh-so-precious academia?
Ayden Mitchell
oh, and
>academia has a monopoly on: multisyllabic words, concepts in physics, knowledge
