Enneagram Movie Board Archive
Re: Chris Langan
[ Boards: Main, Type4, Type5, Movie, Care, Chat ][ Top 10 ] [ HOME ]
Re: Chris Langan
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Jan's Enneagram & Movie Board ]
Posted by jj (68.32.211.30) on December 18, 2002 at 00:37:31:
In Reply to: Chris Langan posted by Jan on September 29, 2001 at 04:52:50:
Below is a message I saw on Chris Langan's TheoryOfEverything.net TOE discussion board - under topic debating his pet theory CTMU. It is a heated debate between Chris, a close female companion, and a user that was censored / deleted from their forum. In the interests of free speech - it is enclosed for others to enjoy. On 12/15/2002 8:26:00 PM, Chris Langan wrote:
>CML: Not on the level of
>reality theory, it’s not.
>That’s why modern science is
>riddled with intractable
>paradoxes, from the dissonance
>between classical and quantum
>mechanics to ex nihilo
>cosmogony and the arrow of
>time. Nothing you have offered in CTMU can verifiably resolve the paradoxes of science
(which is your safety net - by design) >CML: If by “obtuse” you mean
>that I address would-be
>TOEists as though they should
>know something about the logic
>of the enterprise in which
>they’ve involved themselves,
>then I guess you’re right. But
>I have a hunch that’s not what
>you mean. By obtuse - I use your words below...
>CML: Yeah, and I’m going to
>continue to define new words
>wherever and whenever I like,
>especially when it saves me
>from writing a page every time
>I want to reuse the same
>concept. Anybody who doesn’t
>like it can go hop in the
>bowl. but if you don't COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY - what the hell does it matter... >Censored User: Logic is not the only
>requirement for an idea to be
>'scientific' - the
>'correspondence' not only
>needs to be 'logical', but it
>also needs to be shown to be
>relavent AND verifiable in
>order to be 'scientific'.
>
>CML: This is incorrect. It
>seems to incorporate
>instrumentalism and a naïve
>concept of verifiability,
>neither of which can be
>successfully defended.
sorry, my IQ is only approx. that of Einstein @ 138 -
you need to be more explicit, how can verifiability be 'naive' or indefensible ? >But why should anyone find relevance
>in your opinion?
Ditto - ask yourself that question. Without scientific method - everything we think is just BS until verified. >After all, it
>flies directly in the face of
>centuries of intellectual
>progress, going back to the
>debate between Hume and Kant.
intellectual - yes...
but that is PHILOSOPHICAL progress not scientific progress.
therefore OPINION. >(BTW, I’ve seen your own
>efforts, and while I wouldn’t
>have deprecated them without
>provocation, I don’t find them
>to be of any special
>significance either.) At least mine are connected to verifiable physics. >the universe must recognize itself
>in a self-interactive sense,
>and this requires that it
>possess a distributed
>autologous syntax of its own.
>This requirement generates a
>unique mathematical structure
>called SCSPL. SCSPL structure
>belies claims of
>“insignificance” in almost
>every conceivable way; you have in one sentence - redundantly repeated yourself over & over again with recurant autologous self referent confusion can you explain that without resorting to self referent self defined CML syntax ? >without
>it, one can’t even come up
>with a coherent explanation
>for accelerating cosmic
>expansion. I did in my work - didn't you get it ?
Time is the fundamental that defines how all the fundamental universal mechanisms operate and continually expand.
It is the penultimate physics based theory for accelerating cosmic expansion (or conspansion) ! >CML: Wrong again. Human
>intelligence couldn’t possibly
>exist without instantiating an
>existing property of SCSPL
>syntax, That is not a fact - it is an unverified assumption ! >which means that the
>universe is “intelligent” in a
>generalized sense. Therefore,
>our intelligence is just a
>particular form of the
>intelligence of the universe,
>which makes it physically and
>cosmologically significant. based on an unverified assumption. >SCSPL spacetime structure,
>which distributes the
>spatiotemporal identity and
>thereby permits temporal
>feedback, implicates human
>intellectual processes in the
>very self-configuration of the
>universe. And this is a very
>good thing, inasmuch as
>neither you nor anyone else in
>the TOE business has anything
>remotely resembling a coherent
>alternative hypothesis
>regarding the origins of it
>all. Coherent alternatives w/o verifiability are meaningless (IMNHSO). >Remember, the Big Bang
>holds only back to the first
>10^-43 second. But everything
>really started *before* that. possibly yes - in a quantum fluctuation devoid of meaning and purpose... >On the other hand,
>those familiar with the CTMU
>are not so limited in their
>ability to discern what logic
>actually says. ok - I get it - CTMU=a 'no assumption logic' based religion not verified by anything scientific - if you don't believe - then you don't understand 'cause you don't have a CML IQ. >Censored User: You are free to define it
>any way you want - I use the
>idea of a TOE as a basis for
>understanding 'how everything
>works' (based on verifiable
>scientific method). This is
>neither meaningless, atheistic
>or materialistic!
>
>CML: But it is, at least when
>you pronounce other approaches
>“insignificant” without having
>established their true level
>of significance. After all,
>there may be something you
>*need* in there.
Whether I need it (ie. unverified hyperbole) is meaningless unless connected to science. >Censored User: Again (as you do so often
>define / coin words in a
>unique context & syntax), you
>may define it any way you
>wish.
>
>CML: Yeah, and I’m going to
>continue to define new words
>wherever and whenever I like,
>especially when it saves me
>from writing a page every time
>I want to reuse the same
>concept. Anybody who doesn’t
>like it can go hop in the
>bowl.
now your communicating significant ideas effectively ! >CML: But what about
>*Aristotle’s* definition? He
>*invented* the word, and
>according to him, it embraces
>three fields: cosmology,
>ontology and epistemology.
>Pretty important fields for
>those seeking a TOE. cosmology notwithstanding, you are correct, but Aristotle was WRONG - his concepts are important only 'philosophically speaking' >Censored User: Yes ! I am merely
>suggesting the relationship
>between the rational and
>empirical methods is both
>mathematical AND experimental.
>
>CML: But you don’t seem to
>understand the exact
>relationship between them. what ? empirical experimental
how do YOU define empirical ? >CML: Where logic seems to fail
>you, it’s perfectly acceptable
>to fall back on empirical
>methodology *with respect to
>questions that can be
>empirically decided*.
>Unfortunately, cosmology and
>ontology are not among those
>questions.
Ontology YES, Cosmology NO >CML: In fact, little Eric Max
>doesn’t know whether to
>scratch his watch or wind his
>butt. He should stick to his
>main interests, which seem to
>be Sade and interracial sexual
>relationships. WTF did that come from ? >CML: And what would Eric Max,
>who as near as I can tell has
>no institutional affiliation
>or even an advanced degree, be
>so desperate to preserve...his
>hit count? As you are so fond of pointing out - institutional affiliation is meaningless (and even a negative). He's just trying (from his POV) to keep the sanity in the machine... >CML: Sometimes. The rest of
>the time, the question seems
>to be whether a given subject
>is in substantive agreement
>with Eric Max, has failed to
>communicate anything to Eric
>Max’s pet chimp, or simply
>happens to be too much smarter
>than "science authority" Eric
>Max for his personal comfort. Look - if you have something to say that is significant - you can say it to pet chimps - such that they understand it - if you can't, then you don't understand what your saying enough to communicate it effectively ! >CML: It’s immediately
>self-evident. The structure of
>the universe is abstract and
>regular, existing in the form
>of mathematical and physical
>law.
YES ! >These laws must relate to
>material reality in the form
>of a distributed syntax;
>otherwise, different parts of
>the universe would have no
>template by which to remain
>consistent with each other. I don't think I disagree...
Sounds like basic physics of relativity - in order for the universe to be consistent - it needs to have at one time been within a single relativistic light cone ! >Because standard physical
>theory fails to deal with the
>logical (SCSPL) requirements
>of producing and distributing
>this syntax, it errs on the
>side of materialism. It’s as
>simple as that. It is NOT err - it is being a little more conservative about declaring what is SIGNIFICANT !
Just because science doesn't support SCSPL doesn't mean science is wrong - it just means you have a little more work to do to make it relavent.
On 12/16/2002 12:44:00 AM, Gina LoSasso, PhD wrote:
>(If it makes you feel
>any better, I don't think
>you're terribly special.)
I'm glad - this would imply that you & Chris aren't either
>>I am NOT an atheist - I am an agnostic deist. You can no more be an atheist or religious w/o making metaphysical assumptions about the universe which can in NO WAY be verified to any level of confidence - thereby making either POV suspect (and IMO - useless) - with the real significance not being in the logic of the premise, but whether you need 'comfort' (ie. religion) or 'independence' (ie. athiesm)
>***I don't care what you are.
>I am not at all a religious
>person. I'm not sure why it is
>such a big issue for you, but
>you must learn to examine
>science apart from religious
>implication and not be afraid
>of where it may lead you (or
>not).
LOL! - I am not the one who brought that subject up - YOU said I must be an athiest / materialist
How soon you forget ! >***So mathematical facts are
>mere imaginings? not meaningless -just devoid of relavence to our physical world >And of
>course, logic is meaningless
>to a "scientist" like you (I
>mean, if you were a scientist.
No - I am not - but then - neither are you w/a Phd in the pseudo science of psychology >I don't actually think you
>have any special
>qualification, ability or
>credentialling in that area.
>Excuse me if I'm wrong.
Nope - were both right on that one. >>>And do you understand what "metaphysics is?
>>yes, it is anything anyone wants it to be - given the fact that it requires no verification and that any number of false logically self-consistent POVs can be generated.
>
>***LOL! No comment (your
>definition speaks for itself
>:) not mine - Webster & American Heritage
>>1) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. >>Only those that are supported / verified using the scientific method are worth much further discussion relative to 'reality', TOEs, cosmology, etc.
>
>***Then you may not realize
>that the scientific method is
>only about gathering
>information and verifying
>empirical observation.
>Theorization, of which you
>seem to be almost totally
>ignorant, uses other tools
>(like math and logic). Of
>course, empirical science is
>important but the goals are
>quite different (the rational
>and empirical methods
>complement each other, in case
>you didn't realize). Wrong Again - theory is good - verified theory is TRUTH ! >Dare I say that you've been
>brainwashed? (As impossible as
>that my be to accomplish under
>the circumstances.) Ouch !
We're all being brain(less) washed ;-) >***Let's see...productive =
>verifiable (by the scientific
>method).
>
>Well, you seem to be extremely
>concrete and very
>close-minded. Translate - I don't think a CML /CTMU zealot - such as yourself. >This is probably
>not the board, or at least not
>the conference for you.
That was what I said in the previous post. >You might be better off
>sticking to more concrete
>topics and allow others to
>discuss reality theory and
>metaphysics. Your right. >In any case, please try not to
>be so disruptive.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Genie
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|