/lit/ - Literature

>>11437317
sup Chris

>>11437317
>The CTMU allows for the exploitation of teleology and the potential for man making peace with man and becoming trans-humanists.


whut

>>11437323
I am NOT Chris. I am barely have a clue abut half this shit

In other regards - interviews which aren't that good for understanding the CTMU, but eh, whatever...

Langan Interviewed in these places: https://peckslip.mingcompany.com/work/conversations/ (password: ming)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbkQ0jgVsbk


Also a shit-ton of other content I can't fit in one post, so I am not going to bother to try!
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/CTMU_sources

>>11437379
I don't have a complete clue myself... Langan apparently believes his CTMU can also derive some form morality. I am not a CTMU-nut or anything. I just want to fucking understand this shit. Also, a related article pinned on their subreddit:
http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/694

>>11437317
Probably the most ridiculous idea ever devised by a human being in world history. And the fact that it is incomprehensible nonsense with no actual claim to either philosophical or scientific veracity allows it to shepherd its popular following of somnambulating sheep with the simplistic and enchanting power of a Jordan Peterson speech. You may as well just read some philosophy of physics if you actually care about issues of foundational import to the special sciences and cease conflating drivel with digestibility.

>>11437317
>>11437385
Fuck off Chris-Chan.

>>11437379
>exploitation of teleology
tbhwy i think they picked that word because it looks like telephone

also if i'm understanding it correctly these wannabe crypto-humans are tryna be high priests in a new theurgy brought to you by Verizon(TM)

>>11437436
>word salad, nonsense, gibberish, pretentious, drivel, nonsense, word salad, gibberish, pretentious, drivel, nonsense...

blah fucking blah dude actually say something next time

>>11437518
Yeah Chris you are a word salad who is gibberish, pretentious, drivel, and nonsense.

>>11437385
Exactly what Chris would say.

>>11437441
>Chris-Chan

I am not even defending his work?

>>11437510
From what I'm reading, his own idea of god seems rather... misleading? Idk

http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/God

>>11437317

It’s AaLl brain baby. All of it. That rock? Brain. Liquid? Brain. Atom? Brain.

Your coffee is actually drinking you. The pool uses you to swim in. The sun gives light so it can feel it’s own warmth through your eyes.

And the best part is your eyes are your eyes’ eyes. That’s right your eyes have a brain and guess what it’s not yours. It’s mine.

>>11437537
See >>11437532

>>11437537
ugh, that entry is a pain to read. so i won't. it reeks of someone high on their own imagination, and low on actual theology.

I wanted to study it but learning a new language just for one theory put me off

>>11437550
I hope he better justifies himself in this massive 57 page article. Rn, the universe being likened to a mind seems more like a metaphor to me.

>>11437569
One issue is the many empty failed universes. Anything but teleological

>>11437572
I mean, the largest pointer to the possibility of many failed universes seems to be the arbitrariness of the Higgs, no? That in itself isn't very teleological, but his use of teleology somewhat avoids that. Part of the reason that reality is the mind of god, according to him, is based on the assumption that nothing can exist outside of reality. Therefore, reality is self creating and changing. The intelligent design is reality, being a mind, reshaping itself? I have NO fucking clue if I got that right - just a piss in the dark. Jesus christ - trying to rationalize some of his shit makes you look like a schizo.

>>11437566
That is one big thing that has put me off as well. For some things, it seems somewhat necessarily, but even then - gross.

>>11437572
teleology only exists internal to a universe, there is no telos to the 0

>Look Chris I posted it again! Can I join your smart people club now that I've done your bidding?

>>>/sci/

>>11437609
delusional. retards mock what they don't understand

>>11437613
Whatever you say Chris, we are all just dumb dumbs!

>>11437615
nah you're dumb when you claim to be absolutely baffled by sentences written in your mother-tongue

>Within each SCSPL system, subsystems sharing critical aspects of global structure will also manifest the self-configuration imperative of their inclusive SCSPL; that is, they exist for the purpose of self-actualization or self-configuration, and in self-configuring, contribute to the Self-configuration of the SCSPL as a whole. Human beings are such subsystems. The "purpose" of their lives, and the "meaning" of their existences, is therefore to self-actualize in a way consistent with global Self-actualization or teleology...i.e., in a way that maximizes global utility, including the utility of their fellow subsystems. Their existential justification is to help the universe, AKA God, express its nature in a positive and Self-beneficial way.

perfectly comprehensible to anyone who isn't being purposefully obtuse

>>11437621
I'm not even talking about his shit dumbass. I'm talking about the people who have been shilling him on /lit/ lately.

>>11437611
CTMU afaik is metaphysical. Also, this is the thread spawning this >>>/sci/9858134 - /sci/ sucking his dick because of his high IQ (lmao)

>>11437609
Wha...? Also, again? There's been other CTMU threads before? I doubt they have as much resources as this has.

Anyways, my eyes rn are really fucking dry, but I will commence hardcore grinding the material tomorrow

>>11437631
>He denies being the shill who kept getting his Chris threads deleted recently

>>11437630
dude just let us talk about writers and thinkers who aren't dosto, pynchon, or peterson

>>11437631
yes 2 of them got deleted, one as soon as discussion was firing up, by /lit/ cunt jannies

>>11437638
I don't understand, why'd they delete it? It could be possibly attributed the lack of actual reading resources to study other than perhaps the text itself.

>>11437637
I think this might be the first time I've even posted on /lit/. I tend to browse boards way more than I post. You might see more of me in the future - maybe. I also think that my writing style is unique enough to notice if I am the one writing the thread or not.

>>11437647
how did you discover CTMU and have you read the main paper yet? it's honestly not that hard, his three (four? it's been awhile) reality principles are extremely clear and concise

>>11437638
>>11437647
>www.4chan.org/rules
>8. Complaining about 4chan (its policies, moderation, etc) on the imageboards may result in post deletion and a ban.

>>11437668
doesn't explain why the first one got deleted retard when twitterbait threads stay up for days

>>11437665
I discovered him first from that meme 200IQ yt documentary. It might not be that hard, but there is an undeniable amount of unique terminology that I am only now cooking the patience to try and understand.

>>11437668
Nice try, but I am not complaining about some threads I was not a part of.

>>11437602
Wrong chris.

>>11437729
read the main paper it's not that bad. basic idea is the self-causation of the universe out of a primordial background void was guaranteed by the consistency of its syntax, and that God/consciousness is essentially witnessing itself into existence

>>11437738
there is no telos in unbound telesis, unless you count the "saturation" of its child-universes with its potential a telos

>>11437592
It's difficult because it's needlessly complex. It's speculation layered on tentative physics

>>11437722
>Other retarded threads stay up for days and aren't deleted
>Therefore Chris's thread shouldn't be deleted.

>>11437743
Well, what do you think? Should they be? I think so.

>>11437743
Also, gotta explain the fucking boring end stage of universes like ours. Boring to the point of losing track of time. Cosmic alzheimers.

>>11437820
should they be out? considered telic? that implies a will in the 0 that it does not have.

>>11437831
Well, we can't tell can we.

>>11437858
but Langan specifically says in order to arrive at the proper conception of unbound telesis, it's necessary to remove any and all constraints of this reality one by one, like peeling an onion, to get to the absolute absence of determination in the center. so what we think of as "will" has to be one of those constraints, because it is something native to this reality

the freedom of consciousness JUST IS the freedom/potentiality of the 0, we are helping to saturate the determinate manifold of reality from the inside with the transcendent potentiality of freedom, ie turning matter into mind, and this process is God's self-actualization

>>11437880
Okay. Where is God's mind here?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

>>11437905
Inb4 he's the 11 dimensional dreamer

>>11437905
I ain't talking about string theory, but leave it to a fedora to try and use a theory that posits the existence of tiny strings that vibrate existence into being like a giant cosmic symphony to go and deflate Langan's pantheism

>>11437880
So he's only actualised while and where matter exists? Is he then caught in a dying universe? Does he get to wake up and re-enter a new one? Preferably with sentient beings.

>>11437940
Cosmic symphony is beautiful and immediately intuitive, is is not? All emergent, from who-the-hell knows as a beginning. Cacophony and symphony is all there is IMHO. If you want to model that into a cognitive model, all the power to you. If entropy declines after big bangs, gods mind isn't having a good time for most of the time.

>>11437964
*increases