megafoundation.org
What's Veeky Forums's take on CTMU? Written by a guy with a 210 IQ.
megafoundation.org
What's Veeky Forums's take on CTMU? Written by a guy with a 210 IQ.
>CTMU
not science or math
I guess you must have an IQ of [math]211[/math] if you typeset in LaTeX
>have a IQ of 190
>doesn't do much with it
What the fuck? What this guy background?
Isn't peer reviewed and also seems written with intentionally convoluted language.
I'm sure he's smart, but I don't think he's done anything groundbreaking or even just useful with his intelligence.
When Wronski had other mathematicians peer review his crackpot philosophical ideas he was ridiculed, shunned by the academic communities of Poland and France, and died, crazy and in poverty. I can't understand why people take this guy seriously simply based on his "eye kyew" when they can't even parse all the scientific and philosophical jargon this dude goes out of his way to use, much less his strange writing style. Theory of everything, sure but his ideas have yet to be presented in a comprehensible format that "even a lay person could understand".
> all the scientific and philosophical jargon
Just an excuse. Its not like Math, where if you don't know the terms you're fucked. Anyone can figure it out with a thesaurus.
The point is he didn't have to use intentionally convoluted language in the first place. It's pretty clear he didn't make an honest effort to be understood by anyone. He doesn't want to be understood because there isn't any substance to his ideas and he cares more about pretending he's the guy who figured out the theory of everything than he does about the actual topic of how everything works.
Hardly anybody understood General Relativity at first. The fact that you don't understand something doesn't automatically make it crackpot
yeah but einstein made it as simple as possible and as complex an necessary.
This guy makes it as komplex and unclear as possible.
GR was peer reviewed and had actual mathematical statements that made falsifiable predictions about observable reality. Not even close.
Even inter-universal Teichmüller theory is more legitimate than this deliberately obfuscated utility and substance devoid pseud-babble trash.
I haven't read this thing (and I sure as shit don't intend to). Have you? How else can you be sure it doesn't make falsifiable statements?
>This guy makes it as komplex and unclear as possible.
You couldn't possibly know that unless you understood his theory. You would have to read and absorb at least some of what he wrote to know it was unnecessarily complex.
>deliberately obfuscated utility and substance devoid pseud-babble trash.
it certainly looks like this at first glance, but have you read and understood it all of it?
this is the "crackpot problem". It can take a lot of work to show an idea is unsound, and so most prefer to take a heuristic approach and discriminate based on language or style. But revolutionary work is frequently accompanied by revolutionary style, so it would often get lumped in and discarded.
yeah i did.
He writes some shit about the set of whole sets containing itself and super tautologys which say nothing and tries to make it sound profound with different names for god and a logical chain of arguments that is completely useless
its basically like this
>i define god like this
>circlejerk logic
>therefore god exists
Its like this:
A car is blue (Axiom)
If a car is blue, i can see it on the street.
Since I can see it, there is a car.
The car is not another color as blue
therefore the car is blue q.e.d.
its not super tautology, its super retardation. Maybe hes just trolling though
Make falsifiable predictions and submit for peer review or shut the fuck up, Chris. Not complicated.
oh so it's like the ontological proof? lol
thanks for throwing yourself on the crackpot altar
rude
also a great many peer-reviewed research papers don't make falsifiable predictions, you seem to have an unrealistically high opinion of the mainstream
thanks for writing your bullshit theory with a choice of words that sounds like a cult from 3000 years ago, chris
>B-But other people publish bullshit...
Make falsifiable predictions and submit for peer review or shut the fuck up, Chris. Not complicated.
are you fucked in the head? I didn't write this garbage and I made that pretty clear
Why r u defending it though
I was explaining that with a long, obfuscated paper like this the problem is it's impossible to be sure that it's bullshit without actually reading it
but dont you agree that its circle jerk logic ?
he proving his own axiom by already asuming its true as far as i can tell. Thats what i was trying to say.
>but dont you agree that its circle jerk logic ?
oh you're the same guy? I don't agree, I haven't read it. I trust you, and I was thanking you for taking the time to read some of this crap and figure out if there's anything to it.
I picked up the joke from one guy but there was another one conversing with you. And no problem for reading parts of it, it was an act of procrastination.