Chris Lagan

[Anonymous No.14772182]

I looked up who the smartest guy in the world was, and apparently Chris Lagan is and he’s written a ton of books.
Has anyone read any of his books? Are any of them worth reading? Is he really smart, or is this just a big fraud?

[Anonymous No.14772201]

>>14772182
It's all just nondualist bullshit reminiscent of David Bohm. He even admitted how he just repeated Vedic "wisdom". It lost its charm after Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.14772276]

>>14772182
He's a fraud and a crackpot.

[Anonymous No.14772282]

>>14772201
Bohm was an actual genius. Lagan is just a poseur bullshit artist.

[Anonymous No.14772290]

>>14772282
Well, Bohm did admit his implicate/explicate order project failed.
Mixing ontology with science isn't good. I accept instrumentalism in regards to philosophy of mind.

[Anonymous No.14772295]

>>14772282
Well, Bohm did admit his implicate/explicate order project failed.
Mixing ontology with science isn't good. I accept instrumentalism in regards to philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.14772297]

>>14772182
>Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess. And in this it is not likely that all are mistaken the conviction is rather to be held as testifying that the power of judging aright and of distinguishing truth from error, which is properly what is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men; and that the diversity of our opinions, consequently, does not arise from some being endowed with a larger share of reason than others, but solely from this, that we conduct our thoughts along different ways, and do not fix our attention on the same objects. For to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it. The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest excellences, are open likewise to the greatest aberrations; and those who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep always to the straight road, than those who, while they run, forsake it.

[Anonymous No.14772405]

>>14772297
I can’t look at that without thinking “give her the dick”

[Anonymous No.14772850]

>>14772182
LOL I remember the last thread about this guy in which some fan boy of the ctmu theory threatened legal action for libel.

[Anonymous No.14772856]

>>14772405
based

[Anonymous No.14772862]

>>14772850
That was probably Chris Langan himself actually.

[Anonymous No.14772869]

>>14772862
Yeah probably, still funny though.

[Anonymous No.14772887]

>>14772295
>I accept instrumentalism in regards to philosophy of science.
Well, there you go. You are diametrically opposed to Bohm's whole worldview.

[Anonymous No.14772971]

>>14772182
This fag is nothing but a fraud who's theory consists of nothing more than bullshit semantics and faulty math. https://archive.is/ib28z

[Anonymous No.14773319]

>>14772182
*Langan

[Anonymous No.14773350]

He's the most iamverysmart guy in the world.
Bohm's writings are infinitely better.

[Anonymous No.14773362]

>>14772182
He's a fraud. The most impressive thing about him is how he has managed to convince so many people in his supposed genius.
His main work (CTMU) is completely incoherent. It consists of meaningless jargon which Chris frequently fails to define. The "mathematical" content is jibberish. It's clear that Langan has only a surface level understanding of set/model theory (he conflates the mathematical sense of model with the physical notion). Langan claims that his theory has vast predictive power while also being unfalsifiable "by definition". When pressed he cannot explain how his theory actually predicts anything.

[Anonymous No.14773760]

>the smartest guy in the world
>achieved nothing (0)

[Anonymous No.14773852]

>>14773362
That's because his theory is tautological, like Heidegger in that it is describing the absolute.

I am not defending him, but he's not that bad. His "theory" draws from/or at least parallels an array of various philosophies and religions over history, from Husserl to Hinduism. But he has described the ctmu as a mathematical equation expressed in words, so as to not bog down the average person with numerals and equations. This is a reason why I think so many people have a problem with it, because they think of it in a non-scientific sense. I suppose the question left is: was Hume's distinction between ought and is correct? At least for Langan.

[Anonymous No.14774061]

>>14772182
>IQ

[Anonymous No.14774122]

>>14772405
What is it about Descartes and
>muh diq
Please explain.

[Anonymous No.14774554]

>>14773852
that picture has nothing to do with Langan. That’s Farrell’s topological metaphor...it’s a metaphor