[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 25 KB, 220x325, Christopher Langan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13192568 No.13192568 [Reply] [Original]

Can you refute CTMU?

>> No.13192584

>>13192568
CCRU already did.

>> No.13192589

>>13192568
tl;dr from a guy with no background and not accepted in any academic community.

>> No.13192669

>>13192589
http://hology.org/

Full paper there and some key concepts explained.

The theory is actually clever. He does use some dense terminology but you can get used to it. I haven't gone all through it in detail, but to me it seems like an interesting cross-disciplinary formulation of universe as a logical necessity. I'm not sure it's "provable" in any sense, I'm not even sure the category of "true/false" can even apply to it, but it's a clever model.

The guy has supposedly a huge IQ and hasn't gone the academia route for various reasons. I think CTMU is an example of what you get from a self-taught high IQ person who rather than specializing in one academic field, has probably studied several disjointed fields on his own terms. I'd say it's something like a Hegel made computational.

>> No.13192692

>>13192669
All the initial signs of fraud are there.

The guy gets upset at people talking shit about his theory.

The theory itself has an extremely dense and even newly invented terminology.

From the little I've read, the best possible criticism I can think of it myself is that it's not even in the domain of true/false. But I haven't seen any outright errors there.

Interestingly enough as I've watched people holding math, physics PhDs etc. throw monumental hissy fits over CTMU, Langan is actually right here in that I've yet to see anyone refute it. For some reason it triggers mathematicians and physicists really badly, they will insist that it is false and bullshit and crap but then fail to provide one instance of error, which is funny enough to watch.