When did you realise that apparently perplexing philosophical problems were a bunch of fluff?

>nothing exists

God exists, there's your problem.

Giant toads that shoot lasers and ride magic carpets exist, there's your problem.

There's a teacup orbiting Jupiter, there's your problem.

In addition to lemons and limes, there exists a purple citrus fruit of nearly identical morphology and it is called the plumple; however, it is only known to an isolated tribe that has not yet made contact with the outside world, there's your problem.

oh. my. gawd. XD

It's a new troll/bot. Don't fall for it.

The question is, "how/why is there anything to even speak of in the first place? what is this?" you fucking autismal goober

Yes, and that is what science is working on.

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!1 roflmao!!

No, because any answer x can be countered with "why/how isn't it y?"

Science cannot answer this question. Science is the study and formulation of behaviors inside the system, which by definition cannot account for the presence of the system itself. You're ignorant of both science and philosophy.

These statements are as logically viable as this one

>Science cannot answer this question

Yes it can.

>Science is the study and formulation of behaviors inside the system, which by definition cannot account for the presence of the system itself.

That depends on what you define as the system.

>You're ignorant of both science and philosophy.

Not even close; I'd say that you seem like an idiot, but we've only just begun chatting.

No, no it cannot. Science cannot pierce to the arational ground of rationality. Empiricism cannot justify itself. Science is the study of states and relations within the system. What conditioned the system in the first place by definition cannot be reducible to these properties. You're an autist.

>Science cannot pierce to the arational ground of rationality.

The illogical ground of logical reasoning?

You mean, why should we accept logical reasoning?

Let's take a look at that in relation to your next comment:

>Empiricism cannot justify itself.

Basic empiricism can indeed justify itself, and is accepted universally in relation to any form of goal pursuit.

Everyone shares the pragmatic desire to achieve all their goals, many of which can only be reliably achieved by predicting the future as effectively as possible (which includes reconstructing 'the past' by applying the same principles retrospectively). Therefore, all evidence that must necessarily be taken as basic in order to develop reliable predictions of the future ought to be adopted by everyone.

We are all basic empiricists and testable logical reasoning best allows us to acheive our goals.

>What conditioned the system in the first place by definition cannot be reducible to these properties

What do you define as the system?

Please clarify that and then I can reply to this statement.

>muh singularity

>Everyone shares the pragmatic desire to achieve all their goals,

This is not empiricism justifying itself. This is a philosophical statement about human nature justifying the utility of empiricism. Next.

The system is Being, the Real, the universe, existence, reality, the cosmos, etc. whatever you want to call it

The hard problem of consciousness.

We have no reason to believe that consciousness exists.

It is justifying basic empiricism as a worldview, which is what I assumed you meant.

If not, what do you mean by 'justifying itself'?

>the universe

Ok, well if I take the universe to be the meaning of 'the system', then the inflation hypothesis has the potential to explain why X exists instead of Y within our system.

The nature of the quantum fluctuation that gave rise to our universe is what determined its form, and if we confirm the nature of said fluctuation then we can state why X exists instead of Y in relation to our system.

If you want to move outside of perceivable reality, then that's fine as science deals solely with perceivable reality.

Consciousness is properly basic, user.

It is impossible to deny that an experience exists when it exists; Such a denial is false by definition, stating that an experience is not present when it is present, thus asserting the contrary of what is.

>This is not empiricism justifying itself.

Experiences in the sensory and cognitive realms are basically empirical by nature.

Basically empirical being defined by this user here So it is self justifying in that case.

Saying science can answer "why is there something instead of nothing" is tantamount to saying "this tool we use to study the nuts and bolts of this something can tell us where the something came from in the first place" which is absurd, akin to expecting biology to tell you what atoms are instead of tangentially referring to/assuming their existence.

>Ok, well if I take the universe to be the meaning of 'the system', then the inflation hypothesis has the potential to explain why X exists instead of Y within our system.

>The nature of the quantum fluctuation that gave rise to our universe is what determined its form, and if we confirm the nature of said fluctuation then we can state why X exists instead of Y in relation to our system.

Then you must explain why (I'm just gonna say why from now on, don't have a heart attack and assume I'm referring to a telos/personal God) the nature of existence is to be the product of initial quantum fluctuations, and what this background state from which reality obviously emerged exactly is.

Science cannot answer this question.

If you got a year for walks in tibet, to explain to you where you are wrong at your idols, I can express you why you dont feel the energy that is passing trought you... Even dolphin doesnt see what spiecie of plankton he eats concretly...

>This is not empiricism justifying itself. This is a philosophical statement about human nature justifying the utility of empiricism.

That user said that humans are basic empiricists by nature, which is tantamount to basic empiricism being self-evident/properly basic.

I'm a p-zombie who does not have any consciousness or internal experience, and you can't prove to me that you do either.

All unscientific nonsense. There is literally no evidence for the existence of consciousness.

Empiricism is the belief the only knowledge there is is what can be derived from sense-data, and to justify itself it would have to refer some set of sense-data that would confirm this proposition as true, which would have to be referred to even more sense-data to ground THAT justification, ad infinitum.

So what? It has its limits when we are speaking of the very origin of what is referred to when we speak of empiricism, sense-experience, knowledge, truth, verifiability, etc. in the first place.

>Saying science can answer "why is there something instead of nothing"

I didn't say that.

I replied to your question of:

>how/why is there anything to even speak of in the first place? what is this?"

Which you offered in place of 'why is there something rather than nothing?' after I stated that we have no reason to believe that 'nothing' exists.

If you want to reintroduce the question of 'why is there something rather than nothing?', then reply to my argument against believing that nothing exists:

>We have no reason to believe that nothing exists

Now...

>I'm just gonna say why from now on, don't have a heart attack and assume I'm referring to a telos/personal God

user, we're discussing philosophy; they'll be no reactionary replies here, from either of us I hope.

>why... the nature of existence is to be the product of initial quantum fluctuations, and what this background state from which reality obviously emerged exactly is.

Well, we didn't understand how the universe began and then we developed the Big Bang theory.

We didn't understand what caused the Big Bang theory and many thought that we wouldn't be able to, often stating that 'there's no point contemplating what happened 'before' the Big Bang' and that 'science can't answer this'.

Yet, now we have the inflation hypothesis and it aims to explain how the Big Bang arose.

So what basis do you have for stating that:

>Science cannot answer this question.

?

What is that statement based on?

>you can't prove to me that you do either.

>All unscientific nonsense.

user, you said:

>We have no reason to believe that consciousness exists.

You said nothing about it being scientific.

We have a reason to believe consciousness exists; therefore, you are wrong.

>We have no reason to believe that 'nothing' exists; it has never been observed.

Aren't you just proving that it is a real question then? The point is that we can conceive of nothing, but we don't observe it.

>which by definition cannot account for the presence of the system itself

Actually it can, the CTMU gives a coherent answer.

The question is still, why is there an existence that is determined by inflation/quantum fluctuations/etc. whatever you want to call it, what determined it to be this way, why these determinations are of this form and nature (why not infinitely large, infinitely dense space becoming more porous? I don't fucking know).

You understand then, that the origin of being cannot be described in terms of being, and that this is paradoxical territory and not under the purview of science.

All that entails is that we are bound by our sensory and cognitive perception, which, science accepts.

Science deals with perceivable reality.

Mah fucking nigga, you're right, I love the CTMU but the properties of the universe can only allude to their origin and are not the origin in and of themselves (though one could argue the logical structures/syntax these properties adhere is sufficient, according to the CTMU).

Really surprised to see that brought up here. Way to go, user.

>why is there an existence that is determined by inflation/quantum fluctuations/etc. whatever you want to call it, what determined it to be this way, why these determinations are of this form and nature (why not infinitely large, infinitely dense space becoming more porous? I don't fucking know).

These are the questions science deals with.

Will we ever have answers to all of them? I have no idea, because we don't know.

However, your statement:

>Science cannot answer this question.

Remains ungrounded.

You have no basis for stating it.

Also...

>that the origin of being cannot be described in terms of being, and that this is paradoxical territory and not under the purview of science.

Again, all that entails is that:

>we are bound by our sensory and cognitive perceptions

Which I stated here

my basis is a philosophical one.

the answer to the question of being cannot be more being, because then we must ask what determined that being, however fundamental

it must be a paradoxical one, the beyond-being of philosophers, the Is, the Tao, whatever you want to call it. it is not perceivable. no you can't take a space ship out and check. you can only speak of it, and even then in an incomplete way. it's simply that which is beyond the nature of being because it is what is responsible for being in the first place.

science can't answer this question because it CAN'T be answered in the traditional, experimental way.

Well, I wouldn't say that something exists unless it can be observed. The majority "knowing they have consciousness" is no better reason for society to believe in the existence of consciousness than is the majority "knowing God exists" reason to believe in God.

The corollary analogy epitomizes the situation. God is to theology as consciousness is to phenomenology.

>the answer to the question of being cannot be more being, because then we must ask what determined that being, however fundamental

This is a perfect refutation of God; however, once again you misunderstand its relevence to science.

All that this entails is that we are bound by our sensory and cognitive perceptions.

We are bound by our being and cannot operate outside of it.

That doesn't just apply to science; it applies to every single living human.

This is true, and the answer is extraordinarily deep, albeit almost inscrutable without long and meticulous study.

>Well, I wouldn't say that something exists unless it can be observed. .

Observed via sensory and cognitive perception.

You're consciousness can be observed the moment you say 'I think' as you think; it is immediately justified.

And no user, God isn't a properly basic phenomenon.

To say something is "properly basic" is to declare that it's something we get to assume without needing a reason to believe it.

your*

Only a refutation of a personal God, not an utterly transcendent source.

If we are bound by our perceptions then you're pretty much agreeing with me. Science, as a tool that heightens our powers of perception, cannot help us see what's behind them any more than glasses can help us see the backs of our eyes.

>tfw you read the CTMU once and understood it what was saying perfectly

>tfw your brain tricked itself into thinking it understood metaphysical gibberish in order to protect itself from the realization that it is stupid

So you claim that consciousness is something that can be observed via sensory and cognitive experience? But consciousness *is* sensory and cognitive experience. Alright, the self-reification is sufficient for me.

To note, I was playing devil's advocate, but this is not to be confused with "pretending to be retarded." I took on the position because I wanted to see what types of refutations there were. So thanks.

It took me six years to understand it.

>Only a refutation of a personal God, not an utterly transcendent source.

In relation to a God existing outside of our sensory/cognitive perception: we have is no basis for believing in such an entity.

We can't argue against one in the same sense that we can't prove a negative in any context:

See >Science, as a tool that heightens our powers of perception, cannot help us see what's behind them any more than glasses can help us see the backs of our eyes.

Yes, but the same is true of anything else.

A much better statement would be:

>X, as a tool that heightens our powers of perception, cannot help us see what's behind them any more than glasses can help us see the backs of our eyes.

Yes and no problem, user.

It was a nice back and forth.

Six years? Not saying I understood every single detail, but the basic premises, his rationale for conceptualizing his system as metalogical, his idea of reality as a self-caused, self-configuring, and self-perfecting system born out of a ground state of infinite potential, etc. is very understandable and extremely intuitive. But then I again had a couple of years of metaphysics and esotericism under my belt so

I understood that part too upon first reading.

However, understanding how hology, topological-descriptive duality, the triune T-SO TS-O and T-OS dualities, conspansion, the duality between ordinary cybernetic feedback and telesis on a distributed reality-theoretic level, etc, all fit together into one big picture.

That is the part that took me six years.

>So you claim that consciousness is something that can be observed via sensory and cognitive experience? But consciousness *is* sensory and cognitive experience. Alright, the self-reification is sufficient for me.

Just to clarify user, the self-reification aspect of this argument essentially translates to the statements made here >we are bound by our sensory and cognitive perceptions.

>we are bound by our being and cannot operate outside of it.

So, we are bound by our consciousness.

This also relates to the classic phrase:

Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am).

We cannot doubt our existence while doubting it.

We are bound by it.

Mind giving me a rundown of what you've learned?

You should write something up about that, I'm sure people would appreciate it.

Yeah don't let the potential memers discourage you, a thread especially would be dope

I (OP) would also be interested in this.

You can use this thread if you like or make a new one.

It was actually a philosopher that led me to realize that there is no 'nothing'. It's not fluff, it's a legitimate philosophical position

user, where did you go?

This is the point we got to:

>we are bound by our sensory and cognitive perceptions; we are bound by our being and cannot operate outside of it.

>Science, as a tool [worldview] that heightens our powers of perception

Now, I will state that science is the only approach that can heighten our powers of perception and as we are bound by our powers of perception, science, based in basic empiricism as described above, is the only viable approach to understanding.

>It was actually a philosopher that led me to realize that there is no 'nothing'

Please elaborate on that, user.

I am very interested.

>there are people in this thread right now that still beleive in outer space
>1 or 2 of these absolute cretins might also have a degree or masters on something that doesn't even exist

Parmenides. He stated in very clear terms that what is can never be what is not and worked through the metaphysical implications of this. Probably the only philosophy I wholeheartedly agree with

>there are people in this thread right now that still beleive in outer space

Go on then, explain yourself.

Would you care to work through the metaphysical implications of this?

Since there is no nothing, there was always something, the universe never came into being, thus there is no becoming, therefore change is an illusion. There is only Being.

Do you realize that accepting the existence of consciousness means that your only answer to The Problem of Other Mind is "there are no other minds"?

I'm glad for the enthusiasm. However, I know it would take me a long time to do it. If I were to do it I would want to create a professional document. I created a fair amount of mathematics to rigorously simulate pieces of his ideas, pairs of which I then realized I had to identify as mutually dual. The core of CTMU is a type of philosophical logic that ultimately identifies dualities.

I'll work on this. Maybe Veeky Forums can provide feedback. I am earning my PhD in mathematical logic, and it is not impossible that after tenure I may attempt to bridge the divide between Langan and academia by introducing "translated" aspects (read: formal mathematics followed by philosophical interpretation) of the CTMU.

This has in fact been a latent goal since I first understood enough of it to understand its brilliance.

I hope I am not insane. A part of me worries if CTMU is some kind of mind-loop unable to be internally recognized as such.

the moon isn't in """"outerspace"""" otherwise you wouldn't see it through the blue sky...

you wouldn't see clouds behind it with your own damn eyes

the stars rotate around the earth every single day with the same constellations for thousands of years with no parallax, but apparently their all really far from each other and moving in completely different directions, and we're also moving really fast

that's like being in a car and telling someone you're nearly at your destination but you're going around the same round about 50 times, who would beleive you?

light takes """"""8 minutes""""""" to reach us from the sun and to us it appears quite small in the sky, now imagine if it was 16 minutes away, and now 32 minutes away how small it would be to your view

apparently some of these stars that we can see with our own eyes are many years away in terms of light, there is no fucking way you'd see them

>inb4 they're really really big

Can you give just a brief overview of how the pieces you mentioned fit into the overall picture?

>your only answer to The Problem of Other Mind is "there are no other minds"?

No it isn't.

If we continue along the lines of basic empiricism and then move into scientific naturalism, then we have explanations for other minds.

It is dependent on a worldview, however.

Oh, I see; you have absolutely no understanding of physics.

No problem, user; you carry on as you are.

;)

...

I am typing something. It will be a few posts long, but hopefully very illuminating.

>If I were to do it I would want to create a professional document

That would be cool.

>I created a fair amount of mathematics to rigorously simulate pieces of his ideas

I have been trying to do the same thing with a theory called socionics. It's about information so it has strong connections with the CTMU and quantum theory. Hopefully Langan himself will publish something more formal soon too.

Awesome; I look forward to reading it.

aesthetic trips confirm incoming enlightenment

Prepare for many perspectives that will be progressively identified through dualities. Each paragraph is an incomplete description; these will be glued together as one progresses. Mathematical analogies are unavoidable.

View space as a continuum.

Every subset of space corresponds to a cognitive-perceptual processor (also called transducer or self-transducing unit of information). Via a sort of philosophical limit of model theory, these "self-transducing units of information" are to be thought of as a self-modelling language -- a language which is its own model and interpretation thereof. It is illuminating to think of this as a sort of limit of model theory in which the model contains the first-order language and its interpretation therein, and the mechanism thereof, ad infinitum, in a comprehensive self-contained loop. Of course, in the process of this, the language becomes much more than first order -- it becomes its own model. Langan describes this as a sort of "directed limit of model theory", the directed limit being taken over higher-order models of successively greater self-simulative capacity. Any mathematical theory requires us to model it in our head, so is not descriptively self-contained, but at that ultimate limit of a perfect self-modelling language there is a singularity of "informational incompressibility" in which the system internally models itself -- i.e. is conscious.

These units of information correspond to conscious beings -- and we will see that in CTMU, every subset of space is ascribed its own consciousness, and these self-transducing units of information (i.e. these self-modelling languages) distribute downward and glue upward, like a sheaf from algebraic geometry.

Continued:

We shall hereafter refer to them as either "transducers" or "units of information". Do not think of a "unit of information" as like a 0 or 1, but as a self-modelling language. The "unit" part comes from the externalization, by which they can be (on one side of a duality) fed into other transducers as the system distributively self-refines.

Each unit of information and their interactions (if any) with each other can be viewed in various incompatible ways which we claim are ultimately isomorphic and identify; through this, various positions can be simultaneously true and false depending on in which side of the duality we phrase the notion. For example, self-determinism and acausality (which scientifically corresponds to "randomness") can be dually identified as the internal and external perspectives. There are also trialities, and various dualities/trialities can interact to form higher-level polyalities. We can view these dualities or trialities as corresponding to automorphisms of a single higher theory. In fact, we can view them as corresponding to identified automorphisms of a unit of information. It is important to note that this implicitly takes the philosophical stance of identification of indiscernibles, which in turn is in fact necessitated by the identification of model and language.

On one side, each transducer can be viewed as a static subset of space deterministically acted upon by its external environment and its own state, like a classical automata-theoretic system cybernetic system.

Continued:

On the other hand, we can view each transducer as completely self-contained, a full reality within itself. We view this self-modelling language as a dual-aspect monad containing, on the one hand, the "syntax" or rules of self-transduction and "state" or configuration. These two are how the system contains itself in a two-part way via topological-descriptive duality. The system topologically, or spatially, contains its own description, which in turn descriptively contains the system. However, these two are "out of phase", with loose descriptors that require antecedents. This is the sort of stress on the system that causes it to progress forward in what we call time. The system fills loose predicates with arguments in the "descriptive containment" phase, resulting in the evolution of the model from one state to another, and this in turn is realized as the language itself in the "topological containment" phase (the model containing the language). It should be noted that both of these happen at once, in some sense in single timeless moment (now), but are teased apart as dual aspects of a self-contained self-modeling language.

Continued:

There is, in addition to the above two, and intermediate perspective that is the most useful -- this perspective combines automata-theoretic transduction with teletic evolution. In this perspective, we return to our view of units of information as being like a sheaf over continuous space endowed with its usual topology (less formally, corresponding to subsets of space). In the course of transduction, each transducer has a certain freedom over its next state. We view the external transducers as not entirely determining its next state, but rather restricting it to a certain set of outcomes from which freely chooses its next state through telesis. This new state is then externally reflected as its new configuration and fed into the restricting mechanism on other transducers. Note that by this view, smaller transducers are more restricted while the universal transducer (the one corresponding to the totality of reality) is completely unbound -- hence why we refer to its telesis as "unbound telesis."

These various perspectives can be identified as all happening to perfectly coincide. In one perspective, there is determinism, in other, the system is perfectly self-deterministic as it freely self-configures through telesis (or equivalently the alternative phases of TD-duality by which the language configures itself (and configures its configuration of itself, and of that, at the limit of which is what we can call "free will" or more accurately self-determinism), and in the third, a hybrid synthesis of the two.

Continued:

The currency of telic is "generalized utility"; it is this which a unit of information seeks to maximize in the course of its teletic evolution. Generalized utility is "autologous", or intrinsically defined within the system. In fact, the system and generalized utility mutually define each other, so generalized utility is autologous on the same level that a self-modeling language is autologous. But if generalized utility is associated with each potential future state of the system, yet is intrinsically defined within the system as it currently is, how can the system be perfectly self-contained if it can quantify over its own potential futures? The answer is that a unit of information contains its own possible futures through a principle called _hology_ (a broad abstraction of the holographic principle) -- and in fact, this is of what it is composed.

Hology emerges at the most basic level from the fact that the predicates "reality" and "unreality" are mutually dual and mutually define each other as mutual negations. They are two sides of the same coin. If we imagine a transducer (in the "hybrid perspective") as the region inside a sphere corresponding to its boundary, the boundary is the boundary between reality and unreality. (Each unit of information is a self-contained reality.) It is this boundary that matters; what is external and what is internal are informationally identical (both contain all the information of reality -- be it as itself or as what it is not). Thus, we identify what is external and internal to the boundary, and can think of what is external to a transducer as holographically projected within the transducer as its own contents. We can imagine this like identifying points in the complex plane with their images under the inversion map that sends x to 1/x, where the unit circle is the boundary.

Continued:

By hology together with the hybrid model, a transducer is composed of its own possible futures. However, its own possible futures are equi-information with the configuration of the external system of transducers -- i.e. of the external universe. Because these two are informationally equivalent (again, swapping the two can ultimately be done through an automorphism of the global structure), it is in this sense that the contents and structure of a transducer are of that external to it. Thus its distributed contents are its environment, and are also its future together with others that it sheds. Within a unit of information, these are like the sentences of its language, which are themselves units of information which can be dually regarded both as substructures of and as external elements of itself.

Through hology, each system is composed of that external to it -- in some sense, the rest of the universe, But this means that telesis maps a system within itself -- an "endormorphism." On the other hand, by that same hology principle, it is teletically mapped to some state external to itself -- an "ectomorphism." On the endorphism side, regions of space and objects are continually being mapped within themselves, resulting in the evacuation of space and their "getting smaller", which amounts to the expansion of space relative to them. (Thus we see that the internal contraction of transducers is dual to the expansion of space). On the ectomorphism side, objects move through space. And both of these are but two dual aspects corresponding ultimately back again to the mechanism of the necessary mechanism of the comprehensive self-containment of some (any) self-modelling language. (This follows more generally from the metalogical "multiplex unity" principle -- which we will get to -- together with the a priori necessity of hology.)

Continued:

When we identify this continual ectomorphism and endomorphism as mutually self-dual, we call the unified principle "conspansion" (Langa's etymology: portmanteau of "material contraction qua spatial expansion"). One can see from the above that conspansion is ultimately equivalent to distributed teletic evolution.

Now, conspansion happens at a single rate -- the rate of exchange of information within/without, which is identical to the rate of the alternating TD self-containment. This rate is necessarily intrinsically defined and constant (and it is always ever relative to itself), and corresponds to the speed of light, i.e. the speed of causation, and being intrinsically defined is necessarily invariant across all reference frames.

Furthermore, this constancy together with the endomorphism phase of hology have an interesting consequence when we consider relative scales of units of information (e.g. a transducer within a much larger transducer). Conspansion is constant, but being intrinsic is relative to size (small and large are obviously relative to each other, but large transducers will conspanse at the same rate *relative to themselves* as small ones do relative to themselves). Thus the scale of expansion is proportional to size, and thus exponential as a function of space. Langan says this is the a priori justification for the positivity of the cosmological constant.

Continued:

When it comes to the telic evolution of systems, it is important to remember that by the sheaf-like nature it is both downward-determined and upward-determined as the "gluing" of the evolving units of information of its subsections. The hological restrictions that the external=subcomponent configuration of the universe place on the state=future configurations of a transduser ensure transducers' distributed coherence as a function of time, i.e. preserves the "gluing axiom". Self-determinism is free up to preservation of this schema.

Remember, view all of these dualities as simultaneous. After all, we are teasing apart a singularity, the dual-aspect monad of a self-contained self-processing language -- of some(any) reality (i.e. conscious experience thereof). There are so many corollaries, including that self-processing units of information are distributively composed of self-processing units of information. This is in fact the multiplex unity principle, which Langan assumes as a priori (but it is no surprise that other aspects of the theory re-imply it.)

This is all only the beginning, I have introduced only a fraction of the contents. We have barely even talked about telesis, though it is at the nucleus of the CTMU. Though self-determinism is a necessary property of reality by virtue of reality having nothing to determine it but itself, we have scarcely seen the (ultimately cyclical, self-defining) nature of telesis by which it operates. And though we have seen some of the dualities imply aspects of general relativity and even the positivity of the cosmological constant, we have not seen the role of or a priori necessity of aspects of quantum mechanics. We have also not seen many other vital duality principles. Most of all, we have not seen the nature of or necessary properties of the universal self-transducer -- what Langan identifies with God.

But I hope this is a starting point.

Fin.

Wow.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Langan mentions that the CTMU also allows for subsystems of the universe that aren't complete, like unconscious entities like rocks or trees. Where would they fit into this framework?

Fucking fascinating, thanks for taking the time, could read shit like this all day

of course nothing hasn't been observed
how are you supposed to observe nothing?

If Langan said that he may have been referring to that many systems do not have consciousness in what we would call a meaningful way. They may be as conscious as someone in a dreamless coma, but they are still units of information. He writes in the CTMU: "Where infocognition equals the distributed generalized self-perception and self-cognition of reality, infocognitive monism implies a stratified form of “panpsychism” in which at least three levels of self-cognition can be distinguished with respect to scope, power and coherence: global, agentive and subordinate."

>we have not seen the role of or a priori necessity of aspects of quantum mechanics

I know exactly what you mean. The unit circle plays a very important role in quantum mechanics, as you surely know. Thank you for posting this.

I liked it, especially the part about the system topologically, or spatially, containing its own description, which in turn descriptively contains the system.

However, is any of this testable?

Does it make any predictions?

It's fantastic philosophy.

Langan also believes in an impersonal God and has made a number of unverified claims, such as:

>In a 2014 radio interview, Langan said that he has worked on the P versus NP problem and thinks he can prove that P does not equal NP

Just throwing that out there.

go to /philosophy/ you cunts

Nah.

I think I understand this but can you hash it out for me?

Another time somebody is getting this picture being applauded for describing something I say without that langluage owerwhelimg the explanation people suck at mathematics...

He said he believes he could, not that he has. He is probably mistaken, and would realize this if he tried to formally write his proof. This is why I would not claim to be able to do something until I've done it.

He probably just means he has some ideas for how to prove it.