/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13172992]

Anyone here read the CTMU? What is the gist of it?

[Anonymous No.13173029]

>>13172992
It is a fantastic example of how a charlatan tries to manipulate and lie their way to respect and authority.

[Anonymous No.13173096]

>>13173029
>charlatan charlatan charlatan

update your algorithms.

OP Langan is a genius. read the CTMU faq on the wiki, it's very lucid and clear.

[Anonymous No.13173140]

Quick Rundown

[Anonymous No.13173145]

[Anonymous No.13173151]

>>13173096
thanks for the 96

[Anonymous No.13173182]

>>13172992
Let me see if I can clarify why no intelligent, educated people can think of Chris Langan as anything except a fool, a charlatan, or, possibly, a prankster with a somewhat eccentric sense of humor.

The problem is not his polysyllabic jargon per se. The various sciences and mathematics all have a lot of jargon. But the jargon serves a legitimate purpose there: it is easier for a topologist to refer to “homologous cycles” than repeat each time the hundreds (or thousands) of words encapsulated in that phrase of jargon. Most importantly, other practitioners in the field know what the jargon is shorthand for, and newcomers to the field can find out what the jargon means from standard textbooks. If someone in the field finds it necessary to introduce new jargon, he has an obligation to explain to everyone what it means, and he should not introduce new jargon unless it is really needed.

That’s Langan’s problem: his CTMU masterpiece consists largely of undefined jargon, not known to real experts and not explained by Langan himself. That is the sure sign of a crackpot.

The other problem is that those of us who have some real expertise in some of the fields about which he pontificates find his musings to be nonsense.

I have a Ph.D. from Stanford in elementary particle theory: I know a great deal about quantum mechanics. I also am co-patentholder on several patents that apply information theory to various problems in computer and communication systems.

Quantum physics and information theory are two of the subjects Langan appeals to in his CTMU work. Part of the point is to make it sound as if you would recognize the profundity of his writing if only you understood all of the technical background as he does. Well, in those two fields, I do understand the technical background, and his use of those subjects is a sham: it only seems impressive to people who are as ignorant of those subjects as Langan is.

The only interesting question is whether there is any truth to Langan’s claims of extra-high scores on real IQ tests. If he really has scored that high, it is one more sign of the very real limits to the usefulness of IQ. I recommend James Flynn’s recent book, “What Is Intelligence?” to anyone interested in the meaning and limits of IQ tests (they are not completely meaningless, but their value is somewhat limited).

[Anonymous No.13173190]

>>13173182
>That’s Langan’s problem: his CTMU masterpiece consists largely of undefined jargon, not known to real experts and not explained by Langan himself. That is the sure sign of a crackpot.


he literally defines every one of his terms in the first 15 pages of his work, stop shitting up the board with your uninformed pseud opinions

[Anonymous No.13173195]

>>13173190
>>13173096
>>13173140
>>13173145
you are too dumb to take seriously

[Anonymous No.13173205]

>>13173195
day 785 of anti-langan pseuds never having anything of substance to say

[Anonymous No.13173221]

>>13173205
what have you said?

[Anonymous No.13173280]

>>13172992
its more or less panpsychism/non-dualism involving a Deity but cloaked in fancy language