Where information is the abstract currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality. This extension is associated with a limiting formulation of model theory identifying mental and physical reality, resulting in a reflexively self-generating, self-modeling theory of reality identical to its universe on the syntactic level. By the nature of its derivation, this theory, the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic. Uniting the theory of reality with an advanced form of computational language theory, 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 constraint. Under the guidance of a limiting (intrinsic) form of anthropic principle called the Telic Principle,
SCSPL evolves by telic recursion, jointly configuring syntax and state while maximizing a generalized selfselection parameter and adjusting on the fly to freely-changing internal conditions.
t. smartest man in the world
youtube.com
Your thoughts on the cognitive-theoretic model of the universe?
Word salad.
Egg salad.
yummy yummy
>being surprised that the thoughts of the worlds smartest man sound like word salad to you
Cristopher Langan believes in Kurt Godel's Incompleteness, in Turing's Halting Problem and in Einstein's Relativity which are all things I don't believe in. He barely mentions Berkeley's work in his books, he refuses to participate in online dialectics and as far as I know he stopped his intellectual work. No, I don't think Cristopher Langan is right, I have his books here and I'm very disappointed so far.
>Cristopher Langan believes in Kurt Godel's Incompleteness, in Turing's Halting Problem and in Einstein's Relativity which are all things I don't believe in.
May I ask what exactly you believe?
Huh? What a weird question
If you don't believe Godel's incompleteness theorem holds, for which there have been many proofs, what are your reasons for this and what is your alternative view. Do you disagree with basic assumptions made in the proofs? If so, which ones? Likewise for the Halting Problem. Also, if you disagree with special and general relativity, what physical theory do you expound? What are your reasons for disagreeing with Einstein's view? What advantages does the theory you support have over it?
Oh okay, thanks for rephrasing the question, I will start with how the Halting Problem was not proved after I take a screenshot of the flawed proof.
imagine a function both_one(f,x,y) for f(a) either 1 or 0
if f(x) = f(y) = 1 then both_one(f,x,y) = 1
you can create now another function called paradox:
function paradox(x):
if (both_one(x,x,x)==1) return 0;
else return 1;
end paradox
Here is the problem for paradox(paradox): if both_one(paradox,paradox,paradox) is 1 then paradox(paradox) returns 0, thus paradox(paradox) and paradox(paradox) can't be both 1. And if both_one(paradox,paradox,paradox) is 0, then paradox(paradox) returns 1, then both_one(paradox,paradox,paradox) must be 1. This is a contradiction, but the function both_one(f,x,y) exists, and is easy to create unlike the function halt(function,input), so this proves that this kind of recursion is wrong
A good way of creating consistent recursion is using algebraic technique i.e:
x = 10
2x = 10 + x
x = 5 + x/2
I believe that there are axiomatic systems that can prove their own consistency, which is the example of inner undecidable statement Godel used on Peano axioms, which is not even a good set of axioms. For proving its own consistency however implies the set of axioms must be big enough to define consistency, which is not true for the Peano axioms. However Godel hasn't put forward another statement that is undecidable in this set of axioms that only accounts for its own arithmetical class, which is what everyone was interested in and what was accepted without evidence nor rigour. Take Godel's further works and you will see he worked on Einstein's Relativity later on leading himself and a bunch of other to the now unpopular theory of time travel, included Future-to-Past time travel. Godel had a bad health from childhood, was a known schizophrenic, and finally killed himself by starvation from the paranoia about getting poisoned.
...
I'm not going to bother to read your drivel. If you can't understand the Halting proof you're literally retarded.
As for what I have to replace Einstein's Relativity, an explanation for gravitational lensing and a relation between gravity and electromagnetism. Quantum Physics does not allow black holes, you understand that? The mistakes on modern science are as simple as miscalculating the mass of stars. We take that one the biggest stars has less than 20 times the mass of the sun, yet here is a scaled size comparison of Canis Major and our star the Sun. We take such numbers as the truth because otherwise Canis Major would have become a black hole since a mass that really corresponds to this volume necessary becomes a black hole in Relativity. Also the fact that even though black holes are popularly pushed as something that explains the spiral format of some galaxies, the model of black holes is based on regular orbital movement, meaning planets orbit it like they would orbit a star of same mass, which leads to the idea that our galaxy is full of black holes, not at all exclusive nor defining to its center. There is also the false idea that the sun could from its gravitational force somehow generate heat enough to initiate a fusion reaction, as if it could generate heat even without fuel simply by some sort of particle friction in its center. "Hurray we just found free heat everyone!". Being that not the case, there must be dark star sized objects in space that can't be seen through a telescope due to the lack of fusion that create gravitation effects explaining what we think are blackholes today. These big balls of gas, either lit or not, will have a big atmosphere the refracts light passing through it creating exactly what we observe as gravitational lensing today. As for the unification of EM and gravity, it is better for you to see this frontier work yourself: youtube.com
I was willing to consider your ideas and even played around with your contradictions on my own for a bit, but then you posted junk science and I became disheartened...
My conclusions though: your complaint with the Halting problem has been answered again and again and alternate proofs have come forward which avoid the oracle entirely; your relativity questions posed too much of a challenge for me, but I tossed them to my physics friend and was told that they weren't unheard of scenarios and relativity was still our best approach at the moment (see GPS); and lastly, your alternative hypothesis has fewer predictions than the letters in alphabet soup.
I'm all for saying that mathematical physics has gone too far, hell, my doctorate was almost in it before I decided it was shit. The answer though, is not what you've suggested.
As for a necessary relation between the works of George Berkeley and Christopher Langan, you can read Berkeley's:
earlymoderntexts.com
or even just listen to an audio version of this currently on youtube:
youtube.com
George Berkeley, unlike Christopher Langan, builds an understandable argument that starts from absolute Empiricism and concludes absolute Idealism, effectively destroying the idea of Mind-Matter Dualism in favor of Monism. It is unbelievable how much one would expect this stuff on Christopher Langan's CTMU word salad and how little you get of it when you actually take the pleasure of reading Langan's works.
Please go ahead and help me understand the Halting Problem then, never mind the other stuff for now.
I remember looking through this guy's stuff
It was nonsense.
Also it's pretty common to get people to believe nonsense. Just look at the social sciences. You have to keep your mind clear of this type of dead-end mentality. I think the problem arises because of people trying to "construct" things instead of derive from observable patterns.
The whole point of intelligence is to derive things that help predict/understand real world situations. Abstraction is absolutely pointless unless it has ties to reality.
>GPS proves relativity
NavCom is the organization which designed and controls the whole GPS system and in the video below, the Technical Director of NavCom, Ronald Hatch, explains how the GPS system every second of every day disproves the relativistic idea that time slows down with the velocity of satellites or the rotation/gravity of the earth. The video below begins by listing the many prestigious publications and awards given to Ron Hatch so his scientific credentials and expertise are formally recognized. Quote anything said by the Technical Director of NavCom and then state your reason which supports your claim that you know more than the Technical Director of NavCom.
Ron Hatch: Using GPS to Refute the Equivalence Principle - Part 1
youtube.com
RON HATCH: Relativity in the Light of GPS | EU 2013
youtube.com
You can take a look at him listed in the GPS official website yourself gps.gov
What I personally expect the GPS system to use is an equation(Lorentz equation, formulated before Relativity) to correct for the aberration of light, which is a non-relativistic simple geometry problem you can understand from my pic
This has to be some of the worst crackpottery ever posted here. Kill yourself.
am I on /x/ jfc...
Also regarding Langan, when I first saw this many years back I just figured I didn't know enough philosophy (I still don't know much on it, not my thing), but the more I've seen expert responses to his work the more I'm convinced the guy just bastardizes technical jargon for a theory that has the bare minimum of cohesiveness to be given the time of day. I also hear he pulls that "if you don't get it you're not smart enough" shit in a super condescending way. And ya, I get it, I'm never gonna understand Inter-universal Teichmüller theory but I can somewhat confidently say it's not a load of shit if the world's best mathematicians say it isn't. Experts say this is shit.
I feel like we've all argued with people like him in our lives. They say a lot, provide very little, and will basically run you off course with bullshit arguments on semantics to the point where you find yourselves 50 miles away from the original point.
>Your thoughts on the cognitive-theoretic model of the universe?
it doesn't appear to actually mean anything.
Eerily similar to some of my own thoughts. I call it the cybernetic universe model.
>Zen Buddhism rephrased with word salad
fixed
Honestly it's like he's trying to make it difficult to read.
Translation attempt :
>Where information is the abstract currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality.
The theory has to explain how information can self-process to be self contained.
If we put our minds to it I bet we can translate this word salad and see what the fuck it means. Probably nothing though and we should all be worrying about AI safety instead.
The world does not move. Human persons move around the world, with human bodies, that carry human minds. Hi, I am a human person, how are you?
wow user, i didn't understand your post at all, that must mean you're really smart.
I do not move. The entire universe moves around me. Hi, I am the protagonist. Please give me unconditional love. And all your money.
Stop pretending you understand any of those theories at all (until you explain why you reject them), you fucking relentless faggot. Also, why should he mention Berkeley's work? He mentions John Wheeler's work because those ideas lay the basis for the concept of an intrinsic language, faggot.
"Refused to participate in online dialectics". Yo, retarded faggot, he even debates people on facebook. Another know it all SJW-cuck atheist. Pathetic trash.
God, you idiot, you gloriously depleted idiot, you haven't studied meta-mathematics in your entire life, so allow me to enlighten you.
The first function makes a reference to its arguments, whereas the second function, paradox, makes reference to the output of the first function. Your argument assuming that Halting only deals with one level of proof, fucking moron. If you lack the mental power to understand this, no one can help you. Go into sociology or something, make us sandwiches.
If it's nonsense then show us a contradiction, retard. Reminder: the CTMU is gold and you're too dense to see it. Enjoy being another leftist post-modernist cuck, you filthy pathetic worm.
Not an argument, faggot. Also the author of the CTMU thinks Buddhism is nihilistic trash just like you and the other heathen cucks.
OP, do me a favor and don't try to feed pearls to swine. This website is only good for making sexually confused sperglord losers feel as badly about themselves as they deserve while I take breaks from studying higher mathematics. Don't let me catch you bringing up the glory of the CTMU here again.