2016

IQ 155.753 here
can confirm his IQ is genuine

geniuses of a high enough caliber like us have an innate ability to sense IQ without the need of a scouter or screenshot

>Spinozism

> Throws a bunch of prefixes together with words that don't fit
> self-configuring
> auto-consistent
> self-containing
> Hurr durr look I'm so smart you can't even understand me
Go auto-fellatiate yourself. Self-contain your cum in your auto-consistent mouth.

More people who can't even understand basic sentences. I can tell that trying to grasp the CTMU would destroy you, so why don't you do something else and leave the thread to the smart kids?

>I believe
>But can you prove
>No but I believe
Yeah, real genius.
Claims to be an expert on epistemology but uses fallacies left and right.
He also refuses to take a modern IQ test and has zero degrees.
His wife has a degree in math, but she wasn't at the top of their class.

The guy that gave him the IQ is honest about his extreme bias towards the guy, and has even suggested they didn't follow protocols in the testing and scoring.

Interesting Fact: Chris L. can't even do basic math. If you ask him to he says he doesn't have to prove anything.

He's a huckster and a fraud, nothing more.
Was he tested at a modern university? No.
Has he produced anything or proven his intelligent? No.

He lacks even basic knowledge of science.
FRAUD.

just put a plastic bag over your head already. plz? ok.

In all fairness, the Unabomber did the same thing, and he was a certified genius.
Hyphens show relationships, and when people get to a certain level of thinking they start to understand complex concepts in both relationship terms and layered complexity.

How are they even comparable?

Ted did his undergrad in Mathematics at Harvard by age 16, got his PHD, published a few handfuls of papers that have a fair amount of citations? His thesis is pretty interesting for the most part?

>comparing him to a fraud like Chris Langan

Ted may have been certifiably schizo, but nobody can argue that he wasn't smart, and he has a record of work that backs up how smart he is.

>Prove Christopher Langan's CTMU wrong if you can.

It makes no testable predictions, it isn't science.

This sounds like "religious thinking", you are just talking shit and then saying "FRAUD" in the middle of it. You are even using the word Fraud loosely, what kind of a fraud would he be if doesn't even have a job in academia/politics?

Religious thinking is fraudulent.
>argument from ignorance
>false dilemmas
>personal incredulity
>argument from tradition
>circular logic
>circular reporting
>magical thinking
>false attribution error

>what kind of a fraud would he be if doesn't even have a job in academia/politics?

He tries to make money off his identity as a genius, when he knows that he's not.
He's been paid for interviews and attempts to use his false identity to spread misinformation.
Therefore he is a fraud.

He refuses most interviews, he is spending most of his money to help other people like him stuck in brainlet-feel-good school&system, hell, his books (The Portable Chris Langan contains all of them) are even being sold on amazon for US$0.63 right now, therefore you are wrong. What else?

Right. It's probably best not to use academic credentials as the sole indicator of proof worthiness, but it is a reliable proxy barring any detailed demonstration of a person's claims of competence.

This guy is obviously profiting off the New Age crowd's hunger for fancy and smart-sounding cosmic explanations.

I haven't bothered to look into his writings, although I do get a good kick out of obscure esoteric pet theories. But I bet he is more of an obscurantist than a clear scientific thinker. Most scientific writers are trained to keep the fancy auto-combobulating-meta-system dynamic type terminology to a minimum. Even in chemistry with paragraph long words, each morpheme has a telling role that can be read from it analytically.

CTMU is a truly genius idea. The idea that you can describe the universe as a self-consistent, self-contained auto-syntaxtic language, with a Lorentz invariant inclusion mapping is, quite honestly, genius. The fact he went further and showed that the set of all sets, and the real universe to which it corresponds, take the name (SCSPL) of the required extension of set theory. SCSPL, which stands for Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language, is just a totally intrinsic, i.e. completely self-contained, language that is comprehensively and coherently (self-distributively) self-descriptive.

Like I said Chris is a genius, possibly the greatest genius the world has ever seen.

>tfw brainlets won't understand the above.

If you actually want to learn it though, you can see the work of the physicist David Bohm, which is very similar to Chris'. For fun, also, you could start by reading: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics, something about Berkeley (and Descartes), en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry–Howard_correspondence, something like Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind

same self-fag

Self-faggot

>tfw read and understand enough of the CTMU to have an intuitive understanding of Chris is getting at
>tfw you realize it's brilliant and you arrived at the same conclusions about god and morality independently of Chris
>tfw all the brainlet memebaby cucks haven't addressed a single one of his points ITT
>tfw you've finally realized faggots who always bitch about the verbiage are just blustering poser cunts and don't actually know fucking shit

OP are you googling big words to sound smart? You sound like you are forcing contrived verbiage in your sentences.

Also, CHRIS LANGAN is a joke. Prove me wrong. He isn't taken seriously by any mathematician or mainstream scientist because he is a crackpot just as you are. Also, this entire thread is bait.

Kill yourself you mongoloid faggot it's cunts like you that have made academia a fucking circlejerk

He is a crackpot. He doesn't even understand Godel's Incompleteness Theorem LMAO.

>Still not a single refutation

Ever think that you're just a low IQ plebeian (well we're all low IQ plebeians compared to Chris). I mean he's literally the smartest man alive, he created a theory of everything, and you think he doesn't understand something as trivial as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems?

>Something as trivial as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems

First it isn't trivial.

Second, it is clear he doesn't understand GIT as he misuses the implications of the results. It means something extremely specific and only applies in extremely specific circumstances. Chris doesn't understant this minute detail.

Someone who actually took time to study his theory here.

Here's how his theory goes:
1) The same laws of logic that the human mind concieves also govern the universe
2) In order to compute logical statements, there needs to be a computational device
3) There's nothing outside of the universe, so there's no computational device to compute the universe.
4) This entails that the universe is self-containing.
5) As there's nothing to contain the universe, it has no restraint, and is therefore self-configurable. It has a free will.
6) As only one outcome happens rather than many, the universe clearly makes a choice between its configurations.
7) This choice can be modeled by a utility function, also called telesis, which the universe seeks to maximize.
8) As people have the ability to use logic - the laws of the universe - they can act against the will of the universe - on their own free will. Each individual has their own wills, and it can either correspond or not to that of the universe.

From this model, Chris Langan goes on to say that the universe is a mind, and that this mind is God.
Chris Langan gives a simple example from the Bible which makes a good analogy:
"At first there was word (more precisely, the term logos was used in the Bible, which, back in the times, was synonymous to reason/logic), and the word was with God, and the word was God."

His model isn't really my cup of tea, but maybe it is for those who like interpreting the universe as the mind of God.

And how is this testable?

1. not having autism

It isn't, which is why I said that it isn't my cup of tea. His model is neither applicable, nor falsifiable, which puts it in the realm of useless philosophical masturbation.
It took me about 4-5 months to fully decompose and understand it, and it involved reading hundreds of pages - ranging from his works to interviews (yes, I have a diagnosed Autism Spectrum Disorder).

Judging by his works, he does understand what he's talking about. However, he has a profound lack of education in the both, the scientific methodology and the history of science. He also seems to have close to no experience in the scientific process works.

Had he been more scientifically literate, he could actually make a worthwhile contribution. But due to his scientific illiteracy, he made a model which lies on a set of premises (like dualism) which are in utter disaccordance with the real world as we currently understand it.

>"ad hominem attacks."

>What is a generalisation.

Literal plebeian.

Christopher Langan's CTMU is an interesting and compelling read. It's too bad that people here are stuck in their academia and "testibility" circlejerk.

Have you actually read it and understood what it means?
It took me several months to fully gather all the sources, terms and other things to more or less fully understand it. After having more or less understood it, I would say that it's safe to say that it is not falsifiable, nor applicable, and hence has little relevance.

If you're into the philosophical/art stuff, then it may be a very interesting read for you. It isn't for me, though. I don't like useless fields of study.

All the IQ in the world and no education doesn't really help anything.

>IQ 195
>believes in heaven
youtube.com/watch?v=--Nbz6flw5A&feature=youtu.be&t=109

I think i said enough

The reason is that this truth is too newly-born into the world of consciousness to have any considerable number of people on its
side as yet.

>extremely high IQ
>become carpenter, then a philosopher
What a waste. At least as a carpenter (or construction worker, whatever) he contributed to society.

a philosopher produces ideas

wow he really thinks our free will is something special?
our free will is not part of the universe? Its computational device cant be part of the universe since the universe apparently cant manipulate it.
from what you described this is 3/10 religious trash

His brain is like a Ferrari given cheap gas fumes with the fuel gage set to empty to run off on.

>man with a 200 IQ produces ultimate theory of reality
>HURR he dun have no edumacation

This man is better educated than anyone on this board, and he did it all on his own. I think frankly most of you are just jealous.

Give one example of a misuse of GIT. I can tell that you simply misunderstood the idea, possibly due to an IQ below 140 or so.

1. I think if you look into it, basically everything he writes would probably fall under the category of "not even wrong".

2. Sometimes the difference between a good theory and a bad theory is notation. It's really irrelevant what he has to say if he can't put it into a language that others can understand. This is, in many cases, the point of education - to learn some common language to express your ideas. If he was so educated, why does constantly fail to use words in their conventional meanings? Most of the writing appears to be purposely obtuse.

1. It's really not. Just look around you and SEE the will of the universe. CTMU shows that GOD is in everything.
2. It's not obtuse at all to me, but then I have an IQ of 157. Therein perhaps lies your difficulty.

Non-sequiturs galore!

Okay, I get it. You're a troll. /thread.

I invite you to enlighten us as to the identity of one such non-sequitor and I will explicate its true significance. I'll be sure to dumb it down for you.

Nigga has never even tripped

it's like watching a cat running around trying to get its head out of stuck in a peanut butter jar, hilarious but kind of pathetic at the same time

Okay, I'm the guy you've been arguing with. I'll be honest. I didn't even bother reading his paper. I just skimmed through his section on Godel and didn't find any glazing errors in what little I read (which just summarized basic logical theories). It read more like a book report on problems in logic. Seems interesting but I don't have the time to read any further.

I'm not an autistic worshipper of scientism, so I don't have a heart attack if something isn't falisifiable. Go back to your lab, nobody cares about your thoughts

What's the utility of a model/theory that makes no predictions?

I've got that you're brainwashed. Why are you still posting, lab monkey?

Even if a philosopher doesanage to produce an idea, and this idea isworth anything or is somehow correct, many go to great lengths to not share it (cf. obscurantism).
Most philosophy consists of opinions written down in a convoluted way. There are people who perform that valuable task for free.

>philosophy

GARBAGE

>1) The same laws of logic that the human mind concieves also govern the universe
Baseless assertion.

>3) There's nothing outside of the universe, so there's no computational device to compute the universe.
Baseless assertion.

>5) As there's nothing to contain the universe, it has no restraint, and is therefore self-configurable. It has a free will.
It is at this point that he goes full retard. Both self-configurability and free will implies consciousness.

>6) As only one outcome happens rather than many, the universe clearly makes a choice between its configurations.
This again implies that the universe is conscious. As if that wasn't enough, this statement implies that everything in the universe has free will, including elementary particles, which is clearly retarded.

I think OP's pic left out a comma, it should clearly be 19,5.

SUPERTAUTOLOGICAL

>he's saying atoms are self-aware

lol read the paper dipshit

reactive and following [scientific] laws =/= self-aware
auto =/= alive, just reactive

Chris Langan (IQ ~200) is mathematically 7x to 8x smarter than the average person.

Would you rationally value the opinion of an incoherent tantruming 3 year old that cant comprehend why ice cream isnt for breakfast?

I don't think so.

The difference in raw intellectual potential/caliber between chris langan and you is about two times the difference between you and a three year old child.

Let that soak in, and then ask yourself whether Chris Langan would honestly give even a quantum shit what you think of his theories.

Also if you dont have at least a 24" head circumference, don't even post you microbrainlet.

>tantruming
Lrn2languaging

Philosophy is the parent of the Philosophy of Science.
Science requires Philosophical Ideas, such as consistency, coherency, logic, induction, deduction, etc.

Philosophy is also the parent study of Epistemology, which is the study of knowledge, or more accurately, the study of the differences between knowledge and beliefs.

Not Philosophy: We know nothing
Philosophy: Empiricism is pragmatic

Not Philosophy: Everything is a fallacy
Philosophy: Empirical Sustain is not a fallacy

Not Philosophy: Everything is true/untrue
Philosophy: Empiricism is pragmatic

It's ok to be wrong about Philosophy due to the way it's incorrectly parodies in media, but they're not actually parodying Philosophers but Sophists, people that pretend to be Philosophers.

like, sometimes the average adult overthinks things to the point where they say some retarded shit and a 3 year old can point out what's wrong with it, you know?

>googles tantruming
>doesnt see definition
>doesnt recognize obvious neologism
>inadvertently uses neologism as an attempted insult

autism must be rough

Do you have any evidence at all that Langan's work is "like, retarded shit?" The person you're replying to is being a douche, but have you even read Langan's work at all? It's high intellect AND huge amounts of work that led to his theories. It's just that they are hard to access in the same way that special relativity or quantum mechanics are.

You both misunderstood the paper. Read it again and try harder.

125IQ brainlet here.

phylosophy is a fun but useless activity, like literature.

t. person who read philosophy for fun.

>he can't apply what he reads irl

Sorry about that autism

Kind of reminds me of Marylin vos Savant. Supposedly once held the record high IQ. Now writes a q&a column in the paper. Really idiotic questions. Never authored a paper in her life, or invented anything.

On the other hand you have guys like the Wright bros. or Robert Goddard that were responsible for major innovations, but were probably only a bit above average IQ and not savants by any means.

Reminds me of Buckminster Fullers writing, he was another big-word bullshitter.

>>tfw brainlets won't understand the above.
fucking lmao
damn i love Veeky Forums

Only microbrainlets think that "innovation" is relevant to the question of intelligence. If you had any idea about how important circumstance is when inventing something, you'd stop using this bullshit as a criterion

Didn't this guy say he was close to solving the P versus NP problem?

His theory is literally that if somone or enough people believe something then it becomes real.

Oh wow, I wonder why people think he's a quack?

That means the elephant headed, lobster armed , shit wizards gods of India are real.

>Not realizing that reality is a self-configuring system that is autoconsistent and self-containing
Those words don't really mean anything, but what you've essentially just described string theory, which is a theory with no free parameters, whose only requirement is self-consistency.

Thats the channers religion, the memeism.
and it works.

>tfw Langan is the founder of kekism

>brainlet
>microbrainlet
My sides.

IQ 158.366987 here, can confirm these guys are just trolling

Nice b8 m8

Marylin vos Savant was right when thousands of other leading scientists were wrong, in a problem with a leveled playing field which is now known as the "The Monty Hall problem".

She is in all likelihood an extremely intelligent person.

>autoconsistent

oh buddy

WHOOP DEE DO.
MISTER SMARTY PANTS GOTS HIM AN IQ OF BLAH BLAH BLAH.
WELL, I HAVE A GRADE 6 CERTIFICATE, AND I LEARNED *ALL* MY ALPHABETS.
IQ, ABC, DEFG, Z, X AND Y.
ALL 30 OF EM.
- REDNECK SCI GUY

>Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

>The universe is what we think it is.

WE THINK THE UNIVERSE IS CATGIRLS!

THE KIND OF CATGIRLS THAT END EVERY SENTENCE WITH "~NYAN"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>The universe is whut I nigger-rig it to be.

This should work for you.

>CTMU?
>Looks up acronym.
>"Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe"
>Instantly dismissed.

Catgirls are the solution to the mysteries of physics!

pleb detected

Okay, we heard of him, and we put him on the "MIDGET FORTUNE TELLER ESCAPES FROM PRISON: SMALL MEDIUM AT LARGE!"-pile