Langan's CTMU literally convinced me of the existence of God

This is NOT a science vs religion thread any more than would be a discussion of, e.g., Gödel's ontological proof.

Christopher Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe:
megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

Prefatory post incoming.

Other urls found in this thread:

eoht.info/page/Mega Test IQ
megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory I.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

(1/2)

His delineated "reality theory" is essentially inscrutable; for years, the whole thing was gibberish to me. But his untestable IQ of 200+ corresponds to literally one in a sextillion. So I thought that either there is something very subtle and, relative to us mortals, undiagnosable that can go wrong at that level of hyper-intelligence, or he really does have something, but which is essentially impossible to communicate in any language simpler than his presentation. Yet he truly believes it is as objective as mathematics.

The other day, in a moment of eureka, the whole thing suddenly made sense to me.

It operates in a sort of "coherent logic", dual to classical logic, in which dualities cohere (hence the namesake). The entire web of definitions is essentially circular, a deconstruction of the "autologous", or intrinsically self-defining, reality predicate into a larger autologous web. In this way, dual to mathematics, it is not built from the ground up, but decohered from the top down.

The entire thing really is, to use his words, a "self-resolving paradox", and is a coherent and arguably necessary way of, among other things, thinking about whatever this means in itself. It is impossible to understand even what this means without first understanding the model/language it in its entirety, as is unfortunately necessary by the entire theory's autologous nature, but as an example, unreality is hologically distributed within reality as its own contents, from which reality retroactively self-defines via unbound telesis operating per the autologous generalized utility parameter on its own possible future configurations.

(2/2)

Not unlike mathematics, it utilizes several "obvious, self-evident, and necessary" metalogical principles, in the form of both duality principles and explicit metalogical axioms, none of which can be fully understood outside the web of the others.

Ultimately, both the concepts of God and its necessary properties of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and even omnibenevolence all have formal translates to the reality theory (which operates in its own specialized language). I have gone through the proofs of the concepts' formal translates many times in my head, and it is absolutely convincing.

Both free will and determinism have mutual place in the theory's both fundamental and ultimate concept, [math]self[/math]−[math]determinism[/math], and even paradoxical religious metaphors, doctrines, and parables seem to have perfect translates, and truly make sense to me. It is this investigation of translates of necessary aspects of the reality-theoretic concept loosely corresponding to "God" that Langan calls his "logical theology".

I find it absolutely incredible.

Sure, but can he solve triple barnett integrals in interuniversal banach space?

some """"""genius""""""

>Veeky Forums hails IQ as the absolute marker of intelligence
>Veeky Forums dismisses Christopher Langan as an idiot
You made your bed, you lie in it.

Furthermore, it explains the a priori necessity of such scientific observations as the positivity of the cosmological constant. That scientific observations align perfectly with its philosophical corollaries seems further evidence for it, even if its intrinsically a priori self-evidence (provided its "obvious and necessary" metalogical axioms) weren't enough to mandate it.

>"Veeky Forums hails IQ as the absolute marker of intelligence"
>he can't recognize memes

If you want a board where everyone means what they say perhaps you should check out . I hear autists don't understand joking or sarcasm.

>>Veeky Forums hails IQ as the absolute marker of intelligence
lol

You want proof god doesn't exists? Black people, the dumbest and least advanced race, love god the most. Literally no more than 0.2% of niggers are atheists, and we all know how niggers are. Religious faith comes down to genetics and it's basically just something primitive people came up with to explain things and justify themselves

>tfw CTMU finally clicks and after a lifetime of seeking you finally, truly understand what reality is

>but as an example, unreality is hologically distributed within reality as its own contents, from which reality retroactively self-defines via unbound telesis operating per the autologous generalized utility parameter on its own possible future configurations

no

>Veeky Forums gets given race based evidence backing up their IQ claims
>"See, told you! Niggers are dumb!"
>Veeky Forums gets given evidence showing IQ=/=intelligence
>"W-we was j-just memeing!"

Kek. I love how people think he is serious about what he writes.

>But his untestable IQ of 200+ corresponds to literally one in a sextillion.

citation needed. I mean, where can I see his results? Wikipedia points to nowhere. It is hard to take these claims seriously. Has he ever taken IQ tests and scored consistently high (200+) on them?

>Veeky Forums is one person
>Veeky Forums is not a conglomeration of smart AND stupid people wasting time or getting bored with /pol/ and coming here because they think they're smart
>Veeky Forums is a hivemind and not disagreeing people

he took the mega test, which is basically a big puzzle. He has never taken a proper respected one

His astronomical IQ is the only reason he's famous in the first place.

He has certainly taken respectable, or "standard", ones and the conclusion was that his IQ is so high that it cannot be measured by them. Specialized IQ tests are necessary for distinguishing among those with otherwise untestable IQ.

Is he respected among the scientific community?

I'm still at the citation needed part

is this the one? eoht.info/page/Mega Test IQ

>To answer this question, one must be well-read. In particular, one has to know a popular term used commonly in literature from 1650 to 1850, which is found in 19th century dictionaries of slang, phrase, or fable

this test is skewed for non English speakers for starters

Apparently "Board-certified neuropsychologist Dr. Robert Novelly tested Langan's IQ for 20/20, which reported that Langan broke the ceiling of the test." I cannot find a source, but you can email him and ask. So with, from another source, WAIS* test, Langan's IQ is objectively >155. To test above these levels, experimental IQ tests are requires, such as Ronald Hoeflin's (IQ=164) Mega and Titan Test, among others. You can email Ronald K. Hoeflin and ask him about Langan's IQ.

The statistical manner of deriving IQ from scores of such tests in discussed in the academic citations of the wikipedia claim.

yes that's the one he took.
The guy lives in a trailer and makes 6000 a year. He also only scored that high after taking the Mega Test multiple times

I'll need proof that he scored that high only after taking the Mega test multiple times.

[math] \textbf{This thread is not about Christopher Langan's IQ}! [/math]

>eoht.info/page/Mega Test IQ
Hm, this site is almost as nonsensical as Chris Langan's "work". A good deal more schizophrenic though.

>trailer trash makes a math claim
>no proof needed

>historical claim about said trailer trash
>suddenly a mathematical level of precision is needed

Yes it is.
>Christopher Langan, highest IQ in the land, is a trailer park hick
>Neil DeGrasse Tyson, low IQ black man is an actual scientist.

>this test is skewed for non English speakers for starters
OH SO NOW IQ TESTS CAN BE SKEWED TOWARDS A CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE??? I THOUGHT IQ TESTS WERE PERFECTLY EQUAL FOR A GERMAN BUSINESSMAN AND A MASAI WARRIOR?????

Same can be said of everyone demanding proof of his IQ.

Ask board-certified Robert Novelly and academic Ronald Hoeflin who tested his respectively for verified IQ >160 and verified IQ ~200, and refer to wikipedia's cited academic papers treating the statistical analysis of specialized IQ tests designed for those who break the ceiling of tests like the WAIS.

in other words it is purely anecdotal

also, these names Mega Test and Titan Test make me cringe, however it has nothing on their quality

IQ >160 is objective if one accepts the WAIS as a valid IQ test.

IQ ~200 is objective with respect to experimental high-IQ tests and proper statistical analysis; however, these specialized tests are called experimental for a reason.

my IQ is in the range of 230-234 and I have a list of contacts that will say so

the posted question isn't relevant for non English speakers, I seriously only saw tests where you have to pick a picture that follows a certain pattern etc.

He starts with the abstract and then presumes that there is a relative correction to reality.
Concept of idea doesn't prove the concept is reality.
That's a house of cards fallacy if there every was one.
Does he offer any Scientific Empirical Foundations or any Epistemology Axioms? No? Then it's nonsense and Sophism, not Science or Epistemology.

correlation* [/correction]
sorry, auto-correct

i don't disagree, i just hope that you'd say the same about physics

>IQ >160 is objective if one accepts the WAIS as a valid IQ test.

spoonfeed me, wais+langan returns nothing relevant for me

The patterns you are familiar with depend on your culture.

It's not as if they would publish an academic paper on it. In an interview, Langan provides the explicit name of the board-certified psychologist who administered the WAIS, and that name is provided in this thread. The explicit name of the person who administered the specialized experimental IQ tests is also provided. Literally all you can do is ask them.

It's not any more anecdotal than any other verified IQ: you have to take the word of the board that certifies the IQ and its certified psychologists who administer the IQ test.

It is the board that defines what it means for an IQ to be "verified", and you have to take their word on its reported verified scores.

This is such a stupid conversation.

>This is such a stupid conversation.

no it is not and I completely agree with you. Any claimed IQ without proof, like a couple of tests results with the corresponding confidence, is pure trash

CTMU is meme-tier.

What is "proof"? The best proof we can have is the word of the board that creates the IQ tests and its certified psychologists. "Anecdotal evidence" from a distributively self-accrediting group of psychologists is the best proof we can have. For obvious reasons, it's not as if they would release the answers to the IQ test so we can check ourselves.

Reject the "anecdotal" word of the board of the psychologists, and you reject any IQ score whatsoever unless you happen to be on the board and have access to the correct answers and all the other data yourself.

It sounds like this is exactly what you do. Which is fine. I just hope you also reject the word of physicists claiming to have discovered the quark, alongside any other "anecdotal" claim by a distributively self-accrediting group of academics.

>muh falsification

kill yourself

without going full conspiracy mode I think researchers publish their findings and methods which enables you to repeat their studies

yes, they should release the tests, answers and results. Wait, you don't mean there is only one test which you take once and if you happen to score an outlier you are genius gg ez, do you?

Without Falsificationism, Positivism or Empiricism, it's not Science.
What do you think Science is exactly, if it's not testing?
I'm curious how "wrong people" think.

I took a cursory look at it, and it looks pretty dense. Should you have some sort of formal education in order to understand it? Be well-read in logic?

His ability to say nothing relevant to reality is astonishing.
He would make a great philosopher.

Absolutely.

First of all, sorry but the english is not my native language. Now, the question to me is this: why he and/or all of his supporters don't expose the system in a coherent way? I mean, the only thing I find when trying to understand the theory is a bunch of neologisms that leads to another bunch of neologisms as an explanation. Why, if the theory is so evident, not simply state the correspond axioms, and from them deduce the whole system? If you understand it (and I'm not being sarcastic) can you please expose it in a clear way?

I don't care if it's correct, this is fun as fuck to read. Quasi-theory is entertaining. Don't pretend you guys don't write shit like this but don't show anyone because you know there are gaping holes in your logic and it's not "clean" and "precise" enough for presentation.

Again:
Without Falsificationism, Positivism or Empiricism, it's not Science.
What do you think Science is exactly, if it's not testing?
I'm curious how "wrong people" think.

If he can't set up an experiment to prove something correct or incorrect, then it's Sophism, not Epistemology nor Science.

Langan also believe's the Bible is true, which means he actually believes in talking snakes and that the world is only 6000 years old.
He took 1 IQ 1 time, and it was administered by a mentally unstable gentlemen.
No one takes him seriously.
He's a con artist.

Langan's writing is just so obtuse. Defines his terms with undefined terms. It has the structure of a theory but I have no way of actually parsing anything out of it because of the lack of definitions.

>Don't pretend you guys don't write shit like this but don't show anyone because you know there are gaping holes in your logic and it's not "clean" and "precise" enough for presentation.

I mean, most of my thoughts are initially stupid, but then I quickly apply reason to them and if I do ask a question I have put some thought into it and its not the first thing to come out of my mouth, but that doesn't mean I go out of my way to write pages and pages of convoluted nonsense that cannot be empirically tested.

If you willingly forego the scientific method you are no longer a scientist.

>It has the structure of a theory
If you're talking about
>megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
it clearly doesn't.
For fuck's sake he dedicates multiple paragraphs to Venn diagrams and automata, stuff that even a first-year CS undergrad would find trivial.

Compare that to something like this
>kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory I.pdf
which is similarly incomprehensible to me, but even then I can see why people are taking the latter seriously, but not the former.

I have no reply and I must shitpost

Came to post something similar and I see the rest of this thread is utter meaningless circle anal inter-coursing.

i cant really comprehend what you nerds are saying speak english please