CTMU

[Anonymous No.21957087]

Discuss

[Anonymous No.21957206]

>>21957087
>make this thread every few days
>get BTFO in 50 arguments and resort to spamming walls of text
>wait for it to get removed
>try again
why do you subject yourself to this humiliation. this word salad might fool lead-poisoned boomers but anyone with google can immediately realize that all this shit is the ramblings of a FOOL

[Anonymous No.21957210]

>>21957087

the dude who wrote this is a literal retard

[Anonymous No.21957259]

>>21957206
please post the argument in which i or anyone else who argued in favor of the CTMU got "BTFO"
>>21957210
this is a thread about the CTMU

[Anonymous No.21957392]

>>21957259
>i or anyone else
>anyone else
lol who are you fooling? im not posting shit for you but surely you can remember one of the million times this shit has been mocked here or anywhere else

[Anonymous No.21957404]

Great, now, how do we test this?

[Anonymous No.21957414]

Like Campbell's MBT, the CTMU is just another New Age Boomer variation of "We're all in a simulation broooooooo" - it has no practical dimension or predictive power.

[Anonymous No.21957421]

>>21957414
>it has no practical dimension or predictive power.
That's a good thing. If it had predictive power it would be falsifiable, and therefore false.

[Anonymous No.21957423]

>>21957414

[Anonymous No.21957428]

>>21957421
You really don't know how science works, do you?

[Anonymous No.21957430]

>>21957428
Who said anything about science?

[Anonymous No.21957437]

>>21957430
You admit this is pseudo science, then?

[Anonymous No.21957439]

>>21957414
this motherfucker raised like half a milli to do his retarded experiments and never did shit with it hahahah i love boomers so much what a hoot. i wonder how much money Langan has made off rubes with his bs

[Anonymous No.21957440]

>>21957437
Pseudo-science is something that pretends to be scientific. CTMU is metaphysical, and therefore non-scientific, not pseudoscientific. You wouldn't call mathematics a pseudoscience, would you?

[Anonymous No.21957455]

>>21957392
you still haven't pointed out where CTMU argumentation got "BTFO", yet supposedly there have been "one million" instances of it happening

[Anonymous No.21957488]

>>21957440
if it can't be used to create the new iphone or ps6 it's pseudoscience. that's how these people's brains work. they literally do not care about philosophical questions. they are happy too satisfied with their external affairs to care.

[Anonymous No.21957685]

>>21957488
>they literally do not care about philosophical questions
Yeah I literally do not care about the New Age ramblings of spaced out LSD and weed-fried Boomers. CTMU (and MBT) are not "philosophy"

[Anonymous No.21957707]

>>21957685
you are more than welcome to point out a flaw in the CTMU's reasoning, or if you claim it's unintelligible you are more than welcome to point out which words are unintelligible

[Anonymous No.21957709]

>>21957707
there's no reasoning it's gibberish

[Anonymous No.21957727]

>>21957709
so you can't even point to one thing that is wrong with the actual words on the paper, i'm so surprised. thanks for letting everyone know

[Anonymous No.21957799]

>>21957440
>therefore non-scientific, not pseudoscientific. You wouldn't call mathematics a pseudoscience, would you?
(nta) no, but not non-scientific either. Mathematicians pose conjectures that can certainly be falsified. Definitions can be shown to exclude important examples, eg in the old understanding of functions etc etc., that moves the theory forward without any need for practical applications.
The ctmu does not advance understanding of anything. At the very best it can be called a restatement of certain certain gnostic speculations in Langans private language. There have been dozens such restatements, and their philosophical added value is exactly zero.

[Anonymous No.21957917]

>>21957727
and neither can you point to one thing right. that's the problem with silly nonsense! it's neither right nor wrong, it's only funny when someone tries to defend it against criticisms by posting walls of text

I remember now that last time someone claimed CTMU solved the Newcomb problem, but couldn't actually explain what the proposed solution was or which interpretation it favored. And the linked essay was complete gibberish that showed 0 understanding of the problem. That's funny. Maybe you could try and defend the solution to the Newcomb problem. I'm a 1 boxer btw

[Anonymous No.21958767]

>>21957917
Essentially langan reduces the problem to proving the validity of the concept of a godly predictive intelligence, and he does this by arguing it is possible that the demon is in control of the simulation in which the world in which newcombs paradox is happening, and his body in the simulation is just an instantiation. This demonstrates the applicability of the concept of a godly predictive intelligence, hence the arbitrarily long line of successes of the demon can be taken as non-accidential, hence you shouldn’t try to trick the demon.
This method of looking at the problem is actually pretty standard (demonstrating the feasability of there possibly being a godly predictive intelligence). Even my professor tackled the issue in this way, though more through a cognitive science type solution.

[Anonymous No.21958783]

>>21957440
>Pseudo-science is something that pretends to be scientific. CTMU is metaphysical, and therefore non-scientific, not pseudoscientific.

What's the difference?

[Anonymous No.21958798]

>>21958783
Metaphysics doesn’t aim at being a science since it doesn’t want to be falsibiable by empirical inquiry. It wants a stronger and more fixed ground by which it can support it’s judgments, and this ground is usually either axiomatic (mathematical), critical (starts from some practically necessary to recognize experiences), or common sensist (starts from judgments convincing and seemingly undoubtable).

[Anonymous No.21958808]

>>21958798
Spinoza is an example of the first, Kant of the second, Reid or Schopenhauer the third (yes I am claiming Schopenhauer is a common sense realist, this is evident from Schopenhauer’s characterization of the fourfold root as an induced set of types of inferences which we seem to always use and and it seems we cannot doubt)

[Anonymous No.21958813]

>>21958808
Common sensist* schopenhauer isnt a realist

[Anonymous No.21958855]

>>21958798
And how do you know that ground is solid, if you can't test it? You're just going to assume that?

[Anonymous No.21958923]

>>21958798
List the axioms of ctmu please

[Anonymous No.21959514]

>>21958855
Ideally it would be logically necessitated by all the judgements which fall within it. And it’s contrary would be absurd.

[Anonymous No.21959722]

>>21958923
There are 3 main axioms in the CTMU from which the entire theory is more-or-less derived. These 3 axioms correspond neatly to the 3 properties a true TOE must exhibit and must nowhere violate within its structure.

These 3 axioms are:
>The Reality Principle
Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance).
>The Principle of Syndiffeonesis
Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or difference-in-sameness. Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality.
>The Principle of Linguistic Reducibility
Reality is a self-contained form of language. This is true for at least two reasons. First, although it is in some respects material and concrete, reality conforms to the algebraic definition of a language. That is, it incorporates (1) representations of (object-like) individuals, (space-like) relations and attributes, and (time-like) functions and operations; (2) a set of "expressions" or perceptual states; and (3) a syntax consisting of (a) logical and geometric rules of structure, and (b) an inductive-deductive generative grammar identifiable with the laws of state transition. Second, because perception and cognition are languages, and reality is cognitive and perceptual in nature, reality is a language as well.

Which respectively correspond to the 3 properties of:
>Closure
Concisely, closure equals self-containment with respect to a relation or predicate, and this equates to self-reference. E.g., the self-consistency of a system ultimately equates to the closure of that system with respect to consistency, and this describes a scenario in which every part of the system refers consistently to other parts of the system (and only thereto).
>Consistency
Freedom from irresolvable paradox.
>Comprehensiveness
Nonexclusion of true statements regarding the universe (as opposed to the deterministic generation of all true statements about the universe – that would be completeness).

[Anonymous No.21960125]

>>21957087
It's total cowardice and deeply Christian.

[Anonymous No.21960136]

>>21959722
"The huger the mob, and the greater the apparent anarchy, the more perfect is its sway. It is the supreme law of Unreason. Whenever a large sample of chaotic elements are taken in hand and marshalled in the order of their magnitude, an unsuspected and most beautiful form of regularity proves to have been latent all along."

[Anonymous No.21960144]

>>21957087
stale spam

[Anonymous No.21960196]

>>21960136
nice, but you didn't explain how this relates to that post

[Anonymous No.21960263]

>>21959722
I mean this is basically a sciency-sounding mashup of Wittgenstein with Deleuze and Gödel / Wheeler / Witten pop-sci neuroscience sprinkled on top. Sounds rather tame for a supposedly world-breaking new metaphysics. What am I missing?

[Anonymous No.21960365]

>>21960263
>What am I missing?
it looks like you're missing the entire theory because you just wrote a bunch of names and said it's a "mashup" and then used the words pop-sci and neuroscience to describe it when the CTMU is primarily a metaphysical and metamathematical theory and has almost nothing to do with pop-sci or neuroscience except insofar as the general theoretical constraints of the CTMU apply to the empirical sciences so maybe try reading the actual theory before you drop a couple of names and buzzwords thinking the shit you just dropped encapsulates the entire theory

[Anonymous No.21961486]

bump

[Anonymous No.21961527]

>>21959514
Yes, and how would you assert that this is actually so?

[Anonymous No.21961535]

>>21961527
logical and mathematical consistency? question mark?

[Anonymous No.21961542]

>>21961535
That would only test if parts of your model are consistent with themselves. This is supposed to be a model of reality, how are you going to test whether this is also consistent with the reality you're trying to describe?

[Anonymous No.21961552]

>>21961542
By providing a model which accounts for the relationship between the abstract and the concrete? That's kind of the point of the theory?

[Anonymous No.21961559]

>>21961552
And how are you going to test whether this relationship between your abstract theory and the concrete reality is consistent? How does this model try to do this?

[Anonymous No.21961565]

>>21961559
You do this by formulating statements that are in accordance with perceptual reality?

[Anonymous No.21961573]

>>21961565
And how do you test whether those are consistent with reality? You doing literally nothing now but running in circles. I asked you over and over again how you test this model of reality, and all you produce is sophistry and semantic bullshit. This tells me that this model is complete dogshit

[Anonymous No.21961587]

>>21961573
You test whether statements are consistent with perceptual reality by seeing if they are consistent with perceptual reality dumbass, one of the criteria by which this consistency can be evaluated is called "logic", maybe you have heard of it? Then again, maybe not

[Anonymous No.21961589]

>>21961587
Absolute sophist drivel. No wonder no one takes this shitty model seriously

[Anonymous No.21961592]

>>21961589
nice argument, the only problem with it is that it is not in any of your posts

[Anonymous No.21961597]

>>21961587
You both are having a dialectic that is essentially unrelated to CTMU (which, cards on the table, I regard as worse than gibberish).

The CTMU proponent here is arguing: you see whether the statements are consistent with "perceptual reality." But the whole fucking point of metaphysics is that every claim in metaphysics is going to be consistent with observation. Metaphysics goes beyond observation.

The CTMU opponent is arguing that, since metaphysics goes beyond observation, no consideration can ever bear on the truth or falsity of a metaphysical claim. Which, fair enough, but that attaches to the entire inquiry of metaphysics, not CTMU specifically.

[Anonymous No.21961600]

>>21961597
Absolute sophist drivel. No wonder no one takes this shitty post seriously

[Anonymous No.21961607]

>>21961600
Nice try, but it's absolutely so. If not, explain why. Moron.

[Anonymous No.21961611]

>>21961607
explain why what you said refutes CTMU

[Anonymous No.21961615]

>>21961611
I didn't claim to refute CMTU. I claimed to give a diagnosis about the dispute between the two parties to the dispute.

I literally have to ask: do you even know how to read? Are you brain-damaged? (It's ok if you are)

[Anonymous No.21961619]

>>21961615
ok just checking if maybe you had something interesting to say and if maybe I could prod an argument out of you because there are no arguments here

[Anonymous No.21961631]

>>21961619
Once again, I never claimed to give arguments against or for CTMU. Fucking idiot.

Every time a CTMU topic comes up, I start to try effortposting in response to it, but then I give up, because it is so obviously and utterly crank nonsense that it's not worth my time.

You talk about "arguments" but if you're a proponent of CTMU, I must laugh in your face.

If you're looking for bait, let's start with this: give me a simple explanation of what a "syndiffeonic" relation is, with examples, without resorting to other jargon from CTMU (or, if you must resort to other jargon, you must explain that in simple terms without jargon and with examples)

[Anonymous No.21961690]

>>21958855
I literally listed the three ways of assuring this in the two sentence comment you are responding to.

[Anonymous No.21961732]

Aquinas + science autism. Who cares.

[Anonymous No.21961735]

>>21957087
>>21957206
>>21957210
>>21957259
>>21957392
>>21957404
>>21957414
>>21957421
>>21957423
>>21957428
>>21957430
>>21957437
>>21957439
>>21957440
>>21957455
>>21957488
>>21957685
>>21957707
>>21957709
>>21957727
>>21957917
>>21958767
>>21958767
>>21958783
>>21958798
>>21958808
>>21958813
>>21958855
>>21958923
>>21959514
>>21959722
>>21960125
>>21960136
>>21960144
>>21960196
>>21960263
>>21960365
>>21961486
>>21961527
>>21961535
>>21961542
>>21961552
>>21961559
>>21961565
>>21961573
>>21961587
>>21961589
>>21961592
>>21961597
>>21961600
>>21961607
>>21961611
>>21961615
>>21961619
>>21961631
>>21961690
do you fellas fart?

[Anonymous No.21961743]

>>21961631
A syndiffeonic relation is a mathematical way to express difference within sameness. It ultimately demonstrates that all things are interconnected and conform to the same rules of structure or syntax, making it essential to any truly self-contained theory of everything. It is associated with an operation in the CTMU called unisection, whereby common elements of perceptual or mathematical objects can regress inductively to lay bare those which are most general. This relation is capable of being expressed in numerous ways, whether in a more visual manner as is seen in the 2002 paper, or in the expression "s(d1, d2, d3,...)". This latter expression and syndiffeonesis in general is further described in "An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics" as follows:

"The diffeonic extension of the relation, being just a set of things that are simultaneously recognized as different instances of the property or syntax s which describes them, is inside the parentheses; the synetic intension which describes or distributes over the extension is to the left. This notation is designed to resemble an arithmetical expression like n(a1 + a2 + a3 + ...) = na1 + na2 + na3 + ..., in which multiplication distributes over addition. The di inside the parentheses are the “diffeonic relands”, arbitrary things that are observed or conceived to differ from each other, while s is just the synetic intension or syntax which describes or defines them."

[Anonymous No.21961754]

>>21961631
A syndiffeonic relation is a mathematical way to express difference within sameness. It ultimately demonstrates that all things are interconnected and conform to the same rules of structure or syntax, making it essential to any truly self-contained theory of everything. It is associated with an operation in the CTMU called unisection, whereby common elements of perceptual or mathematical objects can regress inductively to lay bare those which are most general. This relation is capable of being expressed in numerous ways, whether in a more visual manner as is seen in the 2002 paper, or in the expression "s(d1, d2, d3,...)". This latter expression and syndiffeonesis in general are further described in "An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics" as follows:
>The diffeonic extension of the relation, being just a set of things that are simultaneously recognized as different instances of the property or syntax s which describes them, is inside the parentheses; the synetic intension which describes or distributes over the extension is to the left. This notation is designed to resemble an arithmetical expression like n(a1 + a2 + a3 + ...) = na1 + na2 + na3 + ..., in which multiplication distributes over addition. The di inside the parentheses are the “diffeonic relands”, arbitrary things that are observed or conceived to differ from each other, while s is just the synetic intension or syntax which describes or defines them.

[Anonymous No.21961947]

>>21957087
>rephrases parts of the Tractatus poorly but in a way that makes it marginally more accessible to pleboids
>NEW KIND OF REALITY THEORY
epic

[Anonymous No.21962065]

>>21961754
Someone tell Mr Langan about abstract algebra. The highly advanced idea of isomorphism might interest him, for instance.

[Anonymous No.21962098]

To be real, though, nobody who got roped in by German Idealism, with similar "deep" abstractions(self-positing! difference and sameness going round and round weewoo!), has any right to criticize CTMU. Hegel is just as bad, if not worse.

[Anonymous No.21962727]

>>21962065
Someone should tell you about Langan's work. Have you heard of it? Because I'm looking at it right now and morphisms are mentioned all the fucking time. Next time say something meaningful bitch.

[Anonymous No.21962807]

>>21957087
I don't know much about the ctmu, but it seems to sounds a lot like objective idealism, where reality objectively exists as information and the fundament substance is mind, does that sound like fair comparison?

Also what is CTMU trying to accomplish or prove? There's a lot of lingo that gives the impression it's trying to be very precise, but what advancement is it trying to make that warrants all that?

[Anonymous No.21962859]

>>21962807
>it seems to sounds a lot like objective idealism, where reality objectively exists as information and the fundament substance is mind, does that sound like fair comparison?
Wrong, the CTMU expounds a dual-aspect monism of information and cognition.
>Also what is CTMU trying to accomplish or prove?
https://archive.is/8FaNA#selection-613.0-613.48

[Anonymous No.21962863]

stop fucking spamming this shit

[Anonymous No.21962869]

>>21962727
Uh-huh. Then why invent a term like syndiffeonic relation to describe a perfectly well-known algebra101 concept? Leads me to suspect he uses the term morphism only to sound fancy, too.
Anyway, can you give an example of an applied syndiffeonic relation? Maybe I'm just not seeing the brilliant innovation there

[Anonymous No.21962928]

>>21962859
>https://archive.is/8FaNA#selection-613.0-613.48
So it wants to unify the terminology of some sciences and theology, citing quantum gravity. That sounds really stupid, uniting relativity with QM isn't a matter of physicists lacking the ability to communicate across their fields, it's simply another step to make in science. And wanting to "unite" theology and science is just bizarre, unless CTMU is trying to found a religion of its own, which seems to be the case. These fields exist for organizational purposes, "uniting" them would be a detriment.

[Anonymous No.21963064]

>>21957087
>inasmuch is first word
based retard

[Anonymous No.21963209]

>>21962869
>Then why invent a term like syndiffeonic relation to describe a perfectly well-known algebra101 concept?
Except this isn't actually what a syndiffeonic relation is, because the morphism concept is not sufficiently general to establish the existence of a distributed "sameness" over any arbitrary "difference", because it does not tell you what kind of morphisms you are or are not allowed to posit. That's why the concept is called "syndiffeonesis" and not "morphism". An applied syndiffeonic relation is when you attach a truth value to any two statements and try to dualistically "separate" them by excluding information represented by one statement from the universe of discourse of the other. Syndiffeonesis disallows you to do this because it is a metamorphistic concept and therefore has metaphysical implications. Saying "X has Y relation to Z" has comparatively fewer metaphysical implications.

[Anonymous No.21963219]

Chris you fucking nigger stop posting your old bullshit.

[Anonymous No.21963230]

>>21962928
>So it wants to unify the terminology of some sciences and theology
No dumbass, he never said anything about unifying "some sciences". A theory of everything is about everything, not "some" things. This is why it is called a theory of everything.

[Anonymous No.21963248]

>>21963209
>An applied syndiffeonic relation is when you attach a truth value to any two statements and try to dualistically "separate" them by excluding information represented by one statement from the universe of discourse of the other.
I asked for an EXAMPLE. Is it fucking impossible to give one literal, concrete example? Because that's the impression one gets reading Langans papers, the lack of application to anything while insisting it applies to everything, because.... it just does, ok?

[Anonymous No.21963282]

>>21963248
A concrete example is when you perceive some distinguishable X in opposition to not-X. Syndiffeonesis tells you that the X you perceived cannot ultimately be separated from not-X due to shared rules of structure. In this case, the shared rule is "perception".

[Anonymous No.21963319]

>>21963230
No "theory of everything" needs to put theology and science together, ctmu is clearly a cult, thanks for making this clear to me... Lmao

[Anonymous No.21963352]

>>21963319
a theory of everything needs to provide sufficient theoretical room for the inclusion of every true statement from any and all intellectual disciplines you stupid fucking nigger

[Anonymous No.21963777]

>>21963352
>the inclusion of every true statement
so no theology lol

[Anonymous No.21963782]

>>21963777
phahhah XDXDXD L*NGAN BTFO ETRENALLY XDXD CTMUSISTER WE LOST OHNONOONNONO

[Anonymous No.21963825]

Having a high IQ is a curse, isn't it.

[Anonymous No.21964206]

bump

[Anonymous No.21964398]

>>21957087

>Inasmuch

Stopped reading right there.

[Anonymous No.21964464]

>>21963064
>>21964398

[Anonymous No.21965433]

[Anonymous No.21965466]

>>21957421
>If it had predictive power it would be falsifiable, and therefore false
Thread should’ve ended here desu, anyone arguing with you beyond this point is gonna catch retardation by proxy

[Anonymous No.21965471]

>>21965466
there are obviously two different people in this thread who support the CTMU and the one who is making the longer posts obviously did not post that. this gif you just posted proves you are at least 90 times more retarded than the person who posted that anyhow

[Anonymous No.21965546]

>>21963282
>All is One
That's deep bro, never heard it before

[Anonymous No.21966656]

>>21965546
Asserting something is true and explaining why it must be true by deriving it or inducing it from other truths are two different things, this is why there is something called "mathematics" and also "science", wherein people usually do not simply repeat the exact same sentences as those before them but attempt to add new confirming information. This may be the reason why whenever someone claims they've solved an important mathematical problem, they will usually be asked to present something called a "proof" or a "disproof", rather than asked to repeat the claim they've just made.

[Anonymous No.21966686]

>>21966656
Satanic trips and retarded pedantry delivered with unwitty snarkiness.
All opinions discarded.

[Anonymous No.21966748]

>>21962065
Honestly internet geniuses are fantastic lolcows for this reason

[Anonymous No.21966751]

>>21961486
lmao

[Anonymous No.21966767]

What life without faith in Jesus does to a nigga.

[Anonymous No.21966773]

>>21963209
Do you know what an isomorphism is? An isomorphism between (structured) sets A and B means A and B are "the same" with respect to the structure, while being potentially different sets. Isomorphisms allow you to generate equivalence classes w.r.t. structure and literally study how different things obey the same rules.

Please explain how a "syndiffeonic relation" innovates on this elementary mathematical concept.

[Anonymous No.21967190]

>>21966773
If a syndiffeonic relation is merely an "isomorphism", then you need to show that the isomorphism concept self-referentially places a categorical restriction on all mappings and structures by restricting valid mappings and structures to all and only those mappings and structures which are isomorphic to some particular X. This means that a valid isomorphism must somehow not merely mean that "Y is isomorphic to Z". It must mean that "Y is isomorphic to Z iff Y, Z, and the isomorphism itself are isomorphic to X". But since no morphism of any sort places this type of restriction on itself or on the objects to which it refers, while a syndiffeonic relation does, neither an isomorphism nor any kind of morphism equate to a "syndiffeonic relation". A syndiffeonic relation is obviously a specific type of relation which employs the isomorphism concept, but is not encompassed by it. Similarly, an isomorphism employs the concept of a "mapping", but this employment does not permit you to say that an isomorphism is "just any kind of mapping" or "does not innovate on the concept of a mapping".

[Anonymous No.21968023]

bump

[Anonymous No.21968151]

Angry shilling only makes me want to slowly read Langan in greater depth myself and see what the fuss is about. Such vicious, furious, largely emotionally-motivated reactions to something so interesting, only prove there must be something deeper there than the shills who try to wave it away or offer half-baked illogical arguments (such as ad hominem about his academic reputation and worldly success) against would have you believe.

[Anonymous No.21968248]

>>219627277
Source of this PDF?

[Anonymous No.21968276]

>>21968248
what PDF

[Anonymous No.21968498]

>>21968248
https://files.catbox.moe/wkgrgy.pdf

[Anonymous No.21968504]

>>21968151
Do it. It's also good to read Guenon for the same reason. There is one Italian autist and a few other (probably Indian) anons who can barely speak English that keep insulting him with items that are not even relevant to his work, and they flood every thread that is even vaguely related to him trying to promote "Western philosophy" at his expense. You end up noticing that there is far more too him than is let on.

[Anonymous No.21968563]

>>21965466
Anything which is falsifiable is contingent (because it can be false). By virtue of the necessities contained within modal logic, anything falsifiable is thereby also false in some possible worlds. Therefore falsifiability as a criterion is actually falsehood as a criterion, or at the very least something that is neither absolutely true nor false, and therefore worthless from the point of view of real knowledge, rather than predictive power, which is not knowledge. Yes, modal logic invalidates the epistemic value of science so far as falsifiability goes.

[Anonymous No.21968570]

>>21965546
If you'd never heard it before, it probably wouldn't be true.

[Anonymous No.21968581]

>>21968151
There are a lot of alarmbells that he is a complete charlatan. It's seems likely he's a bullshit artist using manipulation tactics to trick people into thinking he has something to say and that those who fall for it react negatively and reflexively otherize those who point such out (i.e. "I'm smart for understanding Chris is special and detractors are just [insert negative qualities]"). There's an emotional root within those who take him seriously, things get very heated when people forward suspicions about him, and that in itself is a warning bell.

It's very cult like and it needs to be made clear that the onus is on his fans to lucidly delineate his ideas and demonstrate why they're worthwhile. If we're being honest it seems to me like he hides behind a lot of jargon, which is common with social engineering actors of which he seems to be a sort, and the idea that "you're just not smart enough to understand it" fails when one can simply state, perhaps being overly generous in giving him the benefit of doubt, he's not talented enough to clearly explain it.

[Anonymous No.21968617]

>>21968563
CTMU is 2VL my man
>>21968581
Your entire post is literally comprised of ad hominem and you saying you don't understand the topic of discussion. When you admit you don't understand the first thing about a work, then go on to insult the work itself along with everyone who has a favorable opinion of it, people usually reciprocate with insults of their own. Maybe that's why things can get "heated". Keep in mind that at least one poster in this thread has stated something to the effect that the CTMU is "gibberish", but when invited to justify this claim by specifically pointing to which words of the CTMU actually constituted "gibberish", could not do so. Repeatedly shitting up threads with the same baseless accusation over and over again combined with ad hominem isn't a way to generate healthy discussion.

[Anonymous No.21968626]

>>21968617
>CTMU is 2VL my man
Which would mean that scientific truths, under CTMU, are actually falsehoods, because they have no theoretical truth maker, not even the CTMU itself, which only grounds statements which are already true to begin with. The CTMU cannot justify scientific hypotheses.

[Anonymous No.21968637]

>>21968626
>scientific truths, under CTMU, are actually falsehoods
i don't have time to argue with 70IQ people who equate falsifiability to falsehood right now man i'm sorry. if you put a little more effort in and try to actually explain how any of this patently dumb bullshit is true maybe i will respond

[Anonymous No.21968659]

>>21968637
You stated yourself that CTMU is 2VL. This means there is only true or false. Because any hypothesis which is falsifiable, and thereby never "absolutely true" per the definition of falsifiable, the only remaining truth value for it to possess is "absolutely false", at least in accordance with 2VL logical systems. This implies that falsifiability as an attribute describing a logical statement or hypothesis necessitates falsehood as a corollary attribute describing the same thing, which means that falsehood and falsifiability are almost equated (it is a unidirectional relationship, therefore not necessarily the same thing). Therefore falsifiability is equivalent to falsehood. This is because, as you just said, CTMU seems to reject 3VL logical systems, which allow for statements which are neither true nor false (modalities of necessary and possible making allowance for that additional truth value). If you can't understand this, then there is not much more I can do to help. It requires you to read about modal logic, at least.

[Anonymous No.21968700]

>>21968659
You're using big words like unidirectional but I'm afraid you're not actually explaining how is it even slightly reasonable to classify every statement which is amenable to falsification (virtually every empirical statement) as false. This isn't really an interesting topic to debate just like whether or not truth is true isn't an interesting topic to debate and so I must spend my time on things I consider more worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.21968701]

This entire thread is basically 115 - 130 IQ university tier people, sperging out because some 160+ IQ guy created his own hobby-philosophy system, which may be bullshit, but if it is, it will be way out of anyone's league if they wish to refute it. Now CTMU what I have read and watched on YouTube is completely out of my league, no way I am going to refute it when I barely understand most of the concepts used. So in staid of people making off-hand remarks, either get on his level and refute the guy on his level and then not get understood yourself by almost everyone here, or just stay silent.

[Anonymous No.21968704]

>>21968700
>You're using big words
It's fine to admit you don't understand sometimes. Unidirectional is not a big word. It means that A -> B but not B -> A. It's basic logic.

[Anonymous No.21968718]

Plato debunked philosophy 2400 years ago by calling it sophistry, but promoted his own ideas and rhetoric and called it "love for wisdom".

You guys don't understand what philosophy is. If you haven't read Kant and the rest of the German Idealists, you don't know what philosophy actually does. Philosophy is not a map of the world as is.

[Anonymous No.21968748]

>>21968704
>It's fine to admit you don't understand sometimes.
I'm afraid I do in fact understand what the word unidirectional means it's just that you have zero coherent argument to the effect that things like Newton's laws of motion and statements like "human beings cannot physically survive while missing all of their organs" are false simply because they are falsifiable. Good day.

[Anonymous No.21969049]

>>21968581
Many simply "want" to believe him because he embodies/validates certain /pol/ beliefs, so there's an emotional element in that as well. He affirms that the red pill is the highest IQ take on things and then demonstrates his high verbal iq in putting those thoughts together - I've seen many of his facebook posts which read almost verbatim like /pol/ screencaps. Whether or not he actually holds them is another matter, and I actually think he does. I don't even oppose some of these things he(/pol/) says says, but to claim it's because you see the "Truth" is to be disingenuous about the reactionary attitude it establishes(and reactionary is always emotional, never purely factual).
I can't know if what I managed to gather about him online is true, how much of his life story is a grift, but his growing up, abuse and other such stuff are actually true, then I think he is a really high IQ guy who had to delude himself extremely profoundly to preserve his psyche and is simply out-arguing every retard around him. Never truly losing an argument he can rationalise away whatever personal demons he keeps under control because it's never really challenged. Reminds me of a high IQ female friend I had(tested 140+), suffering from depression, who slit her wrists a couple years back. Whatever therapist, friend, mentor she talked to, she could, and quite powerfully, rationalise and align with her worldview and thus couldn't be helped. Of course I could be reading too much into a retarded bible belt ameritard who simply lied about stuff online and managed to grift his sub90iq countrymen, but it's fun either way. Generally his posts do read like he actually has a high iq, the way he weaves and presents his arguments is not stupid, even if their content generally is.
Life often needs to humble people for them to accept help(or to accept that they need to help themselves), some grow too thick a skin and can't be humbled - or are too smart/too deluded, perhaps I worded that too charitably, then proceed into delusions.

[Anonymous No.21969757]

>>21968617
>reacts as predicted
I gave reasons as to why one should be suspicious of him and his supporters. One of these was his propensity to hide behind jargon instead of expressing himself clearly (which I noted is a social engineering tactic used within cults). When challenged with this, instead of expressing his ideas with greater clarity, you became defensive and attempted to shift the onus onto my own lack of understanding. This is the exact deflection that was predicted.

It seems supporters believe their intelligence is annointed by Chris and thusly become emotionally reactive when he is called into question. The credability that they possess this desired quality (intelligence) becomes linked to defending Chris's own claims regarding such. Hence attacking anyone who calls him into question or presents suspicion as to his claims.

Since you'll probably ignore the above and deflect again I'll add that another marker for suspicion is overly generalizable excuses he presents as to why he isn't taken seriously. Markers for these are reliance on vague truisms and that they serve to frame an in-group/out-group dynamic. An example would be emphasizing the notion that his primary learned detractors comprise a closed-shop when it comes to intellectual ideas, thusly it's their motivation to stop him and not that his ideas are bunk. If you pay attention to this closely you notice that it doesn't actually defend his ideas in any specific way and simply resituates his own behavior and that of his group onto those who are qualified to call him out.

So that's it. Chris displays the markers of a social engineering charlatan and the group dynamic surrounding him is very cult like. This is why people are turned off from the outset and you have to refrain from being disingenuous in order to meet these criticisms. Simply otherizing critics and projecting an in-group/out-group dynamic (e.g. pretending it's somehow in my interest to diminish him instead of it being in your interest to inflate him) isn't going to cut it--it emphasizes the exact dynamic that has been presented in this post and the one to which you responded.

[Anonymous No.21969799]

>>21969049
>Many simply "want" to believe him because he embodies/validates certain /pol/ beliefs, so there's an emotional element in that as well.
Exactly. Installing an emotional root into followers and linking it to the defense of ideas associated with a leader is a key element in cults. You notice it when it comes to things like Randianism as well. This doesn't mean Chris/Rand are on the same level of nefariousness as someone like Charles Manson or Jim Jones--but they display the same methods of thought/group control when it comes to initiating followers.

Also note that this doesn't mean all of the ideas they present are automatically fallacious and without merit (such comes down to a varying degrees overall). However, a key point is that they want to assert a hegemony for their thought and will frequently answer specific criticism by retreating to generalities and attempting to assert linguistic monopolies on discussion (be it through general truisms carrying the weight of argument instead of the specifics of their points or trying to force detractors to accept pre-loaded terminology that can never be used to criticise the ideology).

[Anonymous No.21969816]

>>21957087
Insightful.

[Anonymous No.21969961]

>>21969757
>When challenged with this, instead of expressing his ideas with greater clarity, you became defensive and attempted to shift the onus onto my own lack of understanding. This is the exact deflection that was predicted.
You still have not explained or pointed to what was incomprehensible about the paper. That is, you made
(a) a blanket statement and said it applies to his paper, but
(b) have made zero attempt to actually justify this statement.
When people do things like this, yes, the responses they receive will usually be "predictable". For example, you can't go into a thread dedicated to serious discussion of an author's work, pronounce the author's work "incomprehensible" and refuse to elaborate, then generously receive a 3000-word summary of said author's work explaining why it's not incomprehensible. Whenever one makes a statement about a work, one will usually be expected to justify the statement with something in order to garner a serious or lengthy response. This phenomenon did not come into existence with the introduction of the CTMU. Just like how I'm "predictably" not going to get a summary of Hegel's work by barging into a Hegel thread and saying "shit's gibberish bro", you can indeed "predict" that no one is going to explain or attempt to explain the entire theory to you when you state that the words on the paper fulfill the criteria of being "unclear", "incomprehensible", or some synonym thereof, but repeatedly fail to point out the words in question.

Several excerpts have literally been posted right here in the thread you yourself are posting in. If something is unclear, point it out, period.

[Anonymous No.21969998]

>>21969961
>does not directly address specific criticisms of how Chris operates
>[literally absolutely no addressing of this issue at all--if he replies now notice that it will be simple flat out denial without addressing specifics given in a direct manner]
>once again shifts onus onto my understanding instead of Chris
>[the idea is that I have some reason to be a detractor and not that he has reason to inflate his claims]
>disconnects specifics and makes a strawman out of the idea such responses are predictable/were predicted
>[unironically compares Chris with Hegal as an excuse not to reformulate his ideas or address the suspicions clearly presented in previous posts]
Yeah, I'm fairly certain this is a cult now. The thing is you're mentally incapable of realizing this because you've become indoctrinated--you won't even realize you're being disingenuous because the level of projection you're capable of will simply reflect that onto me.

[Anonymous No.21970020]

>>21969998
>does not directly address specific criticisms of how Chris operates
This is a thread about, wait for it... the CTMU. That's why I'm not responding to what is literal ad hominem. Also, you still have not quoted the paper.

[Anonymous No.21970032]

Science and Atheism are utterly retarded and super easy to debunk like a trumpian-russian fake news: you have atheists who claim that immaterial math formulas they themselves invented run the material universe every millisecond across billions of light years, since 13 billions years ago LOL. how is this not retarded.
Oh and by the way, when they are asked to say where do those immaterial formulas live and where they come from and how they act on matter, they can't fucking answer, can they?
If the universe is uncaused then why does it have physical laws that it must follow? Clearly those laws are actually imposed on the universe.
Ask an atheist how a photon, stemming from the annihilation of an electrons and a positron , knows that it has to follow Maxwell's rules, as soon as the photon comes into existence whereas what they call ''physical laws'' are not found inside their tiny particles (inside particles there are just other particles lmao who scripted this crap).... Just ask him. And I can tell you what you will observe, because it's true cause and effect: the atheist will be in his most vulnerable state, drymouthed, sweating profusely, hands trembling, in a state of intense anguish, because he knows he has no comeback. Zero. Jack shit. At this point in time, the atheist is consumed by a fear that is darker than the terror of death, which will never leave him until he dies.
You know how atheists say a bunch of deformed illiterate inbreds rolling in shit, beating their children and women anthropomorphized Nature when they said gods were an amalgamation of the base fears of early humans. Well since the day a few atheist bugmen created computers, they are saying the universe is like their high-school calculators too, but bigger lol. That's their big brain idea and that's how dumb atheists are lol.

[Anonymous No.21970083]

>>21970020
>hides behind informal fallacies again
I've given reasons to be suspicious of Chris and his followers. I invited you to address these but you have refrained from doing so and fallen into the exact behavior predicted in those posts. This is the reason he (and by proxy, again as explained previously, yourself) isn't taken seriously by others and won't be (until you are able to come to terms with the above and address it without disingenuousness; that is, in a way that isn't qualified via the fallacious manner I've previously laid out). The point is that you can't think/act outside the behaviours that have been laid out above and this is enough reason to dismiss the phenomena of Chris as a whole (albeit not necessarily individual ideas he presents as even social engineers like Charles Manson are capable of saying thought provoking things that may be of interest).

Basically, it's not only that you don't want to have a conversation about the above but rather you're incapable of doing so. This is a sign of indoctrination wherein you've internalized the idea that acceptance of Chris's persona and claims reflects positively on yourself. Any criticism of him is thus a criticism of the positive qualities you yourself feel via an association with his "work;" having become annointed you don't want to consider the assumed positive reflection it benefits you is false.

[Anonymous No.21970096]

>>21969049
>>21969757
Note that these are ad hominem attacks (attacks on the moral or psychological integrity of the creator of this theory or its self-labeled followers), not on anything in the theory itself that was brought up. You may very well be right and Langan “like a cult-leader”, but it doesn’t have any bearing on the CTMU at all. I myself haven’t read on the CTMU in any detail and hence can’t claim to support it nor to deny it without knowing enough about it, but even as an outsider I can see how obviously irrelevant this is.

Langan could be a Madame-Blavatsky-cum-Charles-Manson in his own life and have all these failings you psychoanalytically attribute to him, but it wouldn’t have a jot of any bearing on his theory’s validity. (Likewise, it also wouldn’t have any bearing on the theory’s validity that it has no empirical applicability or practical utility, as if continental philosophers like Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger aren’t discussed here despite their “uselessness” in terms of a technologically-informed/materialistic utilitarian worldview.)

[Anonymous No.21970120]

>>21970083

[Anonymous No.21970169]

>>21970096
>point out how his behaviour and that of his followers is suspiciously similar to that seen in social engineering
>AD HOM!
I never said individual ideas he presents are automatically wrong due to the above (I actually said the opposite because, again, this is a predictable deflection I expected to see) and the fact is his supporter's behavior has been directly in line with that which was predicted. I've been discussing his phenomena and invite any of his supporters to directly confront the criticisms I've laid out (albeit in a fair way and not according to the predictable behavior and deflection that really only serve to unintentionally confirm what I've said). Not only being unwilling but also being completely unable to do so, outside of the predicted behavors, is further confirmation that what I suspect is true. Simple as.
>>21970120
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.21970190]

>>21970169
I'm pretty sure you're responding to the same guy pretending to be 2-3 anons. His writing has the same structure, he explains things in a similar way betraying, even goes to use the exact same interpunction. Either it's a cultist as you say or Chris himself refining bullshitting skills here to use elsewhere.
Regardless, it's a timewaste, anyone not dumb enough to fall for sophistry deduced that many posts ago, that's why there's little not too many posters falling for this thread. You obviously won't get a concession out of him.

[Anonymous No.21970216]

>>21970190
betraying* a similar stream of consciousness*

[Anonymous No.21970229]

>>21970190
>wasted effort
As I've described above his supporters will be unable to respond to direct criticism and assume specific patterns of behavior and deflection. I don't expect their minds will be changed by pointing such out to them but it's interesting to do so and see it in action nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.21970242]

>>21970229
>his supporters will be unable to respond to direct criticism
because it's not about the CTMU and this is a CTMU thread

[Anonymous No.21970254]

>>21970242
Again, if you want his ideas to be taken seriously you have to address the fact his entire phenomena is indicative of social engineering. Your emperor is naked and you fail to clothe him.

[Anonymous No.21971007]

it's ogre, langanbros

[Anonymous No.21971022]

>>21971007
>guy posts over 9000 words of ad hominem
>OH NOHONO IT'S OVER CTMU IS GARBAGE ITS FINISHED WE LOST LANGANNIGGERFAGGOTSISSIES
lol

[Anonymous No.21971044]

>>21971022
Checked. It's over langanbros. lol.

[Anonymous No.21971125]

>>21957087
Does Langan go into quantum mechanics at all or the role of observers in physics?

[Anonymous No.21971138]

>>21968151
>ad hominem
>>21968617
>ad hominem
>ad hominem
>>21970096
>ad hominem
>>21970020
>ad hominem
>>21970120
>ad hominem
>>21971022
>ad hominem
Absolute meltdown. Also, specifically discussing suspicions raised by Chris's behavior and the behavior of his followers isn't an ad hom (again, it was afforded several times that even the worst exemplars of social engineering cults can still forward interesting and even insightful ideas). However, the fact you can't honestly address those things, clearly and specifically laid out in previous posts, and continuously lapse into the predicted behavior doesn't bode well for his project and the overall phenomena related to him. I've already offered you the opportunity to explain why a specific example of social engineering tactics (i.e. use of technical jargon as a means to inflate and shield ideas from direct criticism) isn't such and that there are clear ideas that can be presented through a more honest and open language. (Aside, the Nation of Islam uses similar jargon if anyone is interested in such). Again, I have no demonstrable investment in his work leading me to be a detractor whereas you have displayed a significant emotionally laden investment when it comes to any and all criticism directed to his person--you've internalised the idea of him and his intelligence to such an extreme you experience emotional negativity and reflexively retreat into the behaviors previously discussed.

Also, the fallacy you're thinking of is the genetic fallacy, retard. Just because Chris is manipulative and his overall phenomena carries marked and obvious characteristics of social engineering doesn't mean that his work is false. However, this is not to say that such techniques are not commonly the bread and butter of intellectual charlatans, bloviating ideologues, and cult leaders. Anyone presenting such behavior alongside the claim they have some unique and fundemental understanding (not to even mention the whole "highest IQ in the world" cover I didn't even have to get into thus far) raises alarm bells that they be shouldn't be afforded social investment from others. That's how you end up in a cult, anon.

[Anonymous No.21971402]

>>21971125
sure
https://files.catbox.moe/te26re.pdf
https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/788/1422

[Anonymous No.21972477]

bump

[Anonymous No.21972901]

>21957087
Attempting to create a unified theory of science by system is doomed to fail the same reason Hegel's dialectical process doesn't ultimately reach absolute metaphysical knowledge. Because human reason is limited in that it can only discern abstract causality by way of relation to sensible reality, and therefore can't reach universal abstraction because it can't touch universal causalities that aren't corporeally manifested into reality. Not only this, but a huge limit of reason is that it reduces causal abstractions to external static concepts with no unified theory of relation to other abstractions. Meaning that it can never truly grasp the essence of nature of the causal, because it only knows it by relation.

[Anonymous No.21973271]

>>21959722
>mathematically formalized non-dual infinite absolutism
im thinking langan is based and guenon-pilled

[Anonymous No.21973290]

>>21968748
>it's just that you have zero coherent argument
There's no need for an argument beyond what I've provided, which is merely an explanation of how things are using logical propositions and modalities. The burden of proof is always on the person who posits. Newton's laws, and the other example you gave, do not have proofs for their universal validity. In fact, they are foreseeably false because they are contingent and not necessarily true. Both are merely hypotheses and do not possess a truth value in a 3VL logical system.

[Anonymous No.21973824]

>>21972901
you didn't explain what was wrong with the CTMU

[Anonymous No.21973878]

>>21957440
Mathematics is literally a formal science you moron

[Anonymous No.21973883]

>>21973878
>reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.21973890]

>>21973883
The implication is that you could rightfully call misapplications of math pseudoscientific. I've dealt with Langan retards on /lit/ years ago, the entire thing is just built on very subtle logical fallacies, it's snake oil.

[Anonymous No.21973899]

>>21973890
No. The implication is that maths is not a science, in that it has no predictive power.

[Anonymous No.21973910]

>>21973890
>the entire thing is just built on very subtle logical fallacies
Point them out right fucking now

[Anonymous No.21973926]

>>21973899
It literally does have predictive power, if a mathematical theorem didn't have predictive power it would be...wrong. What you're meaning to say is that math isn't empirical, which is correct and why it's considered a formal science and not a natural science.

>>21973910
As far as I can see nobody has actually posted any excerpts from his actual theory in this thread?

[Anonymous No.21973969]

>>21973926
YOU SAID THE WHOLE THING IS BUILT ON LOGICAL FALLACIES. WHAT THE FUCK DOES THE PAPER BEING BASED ON LOGICAL FALLACIES HAVE TO DO WITH "excerpts from his actual theory in this thread"? POINT OUT THE FUCKING FALLACIES DUMBASS NIGGER. THE CTMU IS A PAPER, NOT A COLLECTION OF 4CHAN POSTS. POINT. OUT. THE. FUCKING. FALLACIES. BITCH. I DARE YOU YOU FUCKING NIGGER

[Anonymous No.21974001]

>>21973969
>why won't you point out the fallacies in a paper I refuse to even talk about or post

[Anonymous No.21974007]

Holy shit how is this thread about this shitty scam still alive

[Anonymous No.21974019]

>>21973926
>It literally does have predictive power
What does a mathematical theorem predict? What predictions can I make that are based upon a mathematical theorem that has introduced no extraneous data from, say, physics? You're confusing proofs with predictions.
>why it's considered a formal science
Maths is not unilaterally considered a science.

[Anonymous No.21974029]

>>21974001
DON'T FUCKING SAY IT'S BASED ON LOGICAL FALLACIES WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE PAPER THEN BITCH.

[Anonymous No.21974072]

>>21974007
Kek, it's been worth it. One anon laid out how Langan operates like a confidence trick through social engineering and Langanfags went into bot-mode proving his point for him. Now another anon has reduced them to unironically writing in ALL CAPS by pointing out they didn't know the difference between formal and empirical science.

[Anonymous No.21974086]

>>21973890
>literally says "the entire thing is built on very subtle logical fallacies"
>>21974001
>same poster indirectly admits he has not even seen the paper

This is the actual, literal power of CTMU critics.

[Anonymous No.21974096]

>>21973890
>literally says "the entire thing is just built on very subtle logical fallacies"
>>21974001
>same poster indirectly admits he has not even seen the paper

This is the actual, literal power of CTMU critics.

[Anonymous No.21974105]

>>21974096
NTA but it's clear Langan is a conman so not wasting one's time reading his bullshit is a perfectly defensible position to take.

[Anonymous No.21974141]

>>21974105
He won't post any excerpts because any excerpt you could take from his paper has problems in it.

[Anonymous No.21974145]

>>21974029
Say there's this guy named Piss Fagman who is known for pissing in people's drinks. He offers you a cup of lukewarm liquid:
>No thanks, Piss.
>WHY WON'T YOU TAKE A DRINK?!
>You're Piss Fagman, you piss in people's drinks.
>AD HOM!
>It's a pattern of behavior, Piss. No thank you.
>IF YOU HAVEN'T EVEN TASTED THE DRINK HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE'S PISS IN IT?!
>No.
>YOU'RE JUST TOO STUPID TOO UNDERSTAND!
>Enjoy your beverage.

[Anonymous No.21974169]

>>21974141
See >>21974145. Fuck off, Piss. Everyone here knows you're a retard. Congratulations on getting a moron like Malcolm Gladwell to use you as filler in one of his hot takes for midwits books.

[Anonymous No.21974240]

>>21974169
What you're describing here is Langan's paper. Everyone knows it's a glass full of piss, that's why nobody is going out of their way to look for it. And you refuse to bring Langan's glass of piss into this thread because as soon as you do, everyone can just point to it and say "see look we told you it's just piss, retard".

[Anonymous No.21974300]

>>21974240
FYI: Something con men do is fall silent when someone is getting too close to describing their behavior. It somehow works to lower the heat and let the situation flow by until they can pick back up again. If you ever see one of them do it in person and are able to pick up on it at the time it's really impressive and it's amazing that it actually works.

[Anonymous No.21974326]

>>21969757
>An example would be emphasizing the notion that his primary learned detractors comprise a closed-shop when it comes to intellectual ideas, thusly it's their motivation to stop him and not that his ideas are bunk. If you pay attention to this closely you notice that it doesn't actually defend his ideas in any specific way and simply resituates his own behavior and that of his group onto those who are qualified to call him out.
>>21972477
>pic-related
Is an example of what was described. He even compares it to a "trade union" while that post predicted he'd use the idea of "closed shop."

[Anonymous No.21974568]

[Anonymous No.21974654]

>>21974568
You want to fuck around with creating memes, Chris?

[Anonymous No.21974685]

>>21974568

[sage No.21974714]

>>21968563
>anything falsifiable is thereby also false in some possible worlds
that's not true lmfao you fucking retard
how about learn some actual modal logic first

all fields btw

[Anonymous No.21974724]

>>21961587
>logic
>having anything to do with perception
apparently it is you who has not heard of logic lmoa

[Anonymous No.21974735]

>>21961754
>It ultimately demonstrates that all things are interconnected
hahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

there must be something like Godwin's Law for cranks and "everything is connected"
maybe "Retarded Faggot's Law"?

[Anonymous No.21974743]

>>21963209
>morphism is not general enough [...]
>[...] because it does not tell you what kind of morphism you are allowed to posit
so morphisms aren't general enough because they aren't restrictive enough?

jesus christ man seek a psychiatrist

[Anonymous No.21974753]

>>21967190
>But since no morphism of any sort places this type of restriction on itself or on the objects to which it refers
How do you know? Minus 10 points, please see me after class.

(i am implying you would fail my introductory discrete math course for remedial first-year undergraduate retards, in case it wasn't clear)

[Anonymous No.21974758]

>>21974568

[Anonymous No.21975127]

>>21974300
How long do you think Chris will wait until he comes back? Or will he take the L on this thread to let it die so he can start fresh in another one?

[Anonymous No.21975240]

>>21975127
He should just let go this insistence on proving his genius and superiority to all mainstream academia. Very weird that one can grow old and harbor such enormous resentment. Thousands of people around the world grow up and realize they haven't made much of their gifts, and settle down to a normal life. It's the most common story ever.
Chris seems to have a good thing going with his wife and his ranch. Why embarrass himself by shilling this "theory" that can be picked apart by any undergrad? Then again he also insists on making a fool of himself with literal /pol/-takes of the most retarded kind, so it all seems like a failure to outgrow a particular type of adolescent psychology...

[Anonymous No.21975361]

>>21975240
I think it's fairly obvious he's narcissistic and such precludes him from just going away. He simply can't live without attention and insists everyong acknowledge his supposed genius when the fact is he operates like a confidence trick.

[Anonymous No.21975795]

>>21975240
>can be picked apart by any undergrad
we're waiting, pick it apart

[Anonymous No.21975874]

>>21975795
Go drink your own piss, Chris. We told you we aren't interested in your bullshit and the social engineering conman stuff you don't want to talk about is far more interesting than your pseudery no matter how much jargon you attempt to fluff it up with and hide behind.

[Anonymous No.21976973]

>>21975874
> jargon you attempt to fluff it up with
You still have not pointed out which words or which statements in the CTMU are undefined or unintelligible. (If you claim you did, you're welcome to go ahead and quote the post.) This is because as soon as you attempted to do so, you would be corrected immediately. Instead, you opt to go the safe route, casually dropping the word "jargon" without ever pointing to which words actually constitute jargon.

[Anonymous No.21977328]

>>21976973
Way back itt you or some other shill were asked to define syndiffeonic relation *precisely* to which the response was the most obvious clueless babbling, with a lot of """quotation marks""", handwaving and esotericism.
Overall it's a clear case of "not even wrong". Imagine thinking that statements like "reality is all that exists, and nothing besides that" or "different things are actually the same because they have being-a-thing in common" constitute theoretical insights. It's not even on the level of babby's first foray into philosophy, it's really a caricature of sophistry.

[Anonymous No.21977878]

>>21977328
based

[Anonymous No.21978286]

>>21977328
The exact request was actually to "give me a simple explanation of what a 'syndiffeonic' relation is" not to "define syndiffeonic relation precisely".

If you're referring to another post which did ask for a "precise" definition, go ahead and quote it. (You won't, because such a request doesn't exist.) If any response to a request to define syndiffeonesis in this thread contains words or statements which are undefined or unintelligible, go ahead and quote it. (You won't, because you'd be corrected immediately.)

And again, if anything contained in the CTMU is undefined or unintelligible, quote it. (You won't because you'd be corrected immediately.)

[Anonymous No.21978344]

>>21977328
The exact request was actually to "give me a simple explanation of what a 'syndiffeonic' relation is", not to "define syndiffeonic relation precisely".

If you're referring to another post which did ask for a "precise" definition, go ahead and quote it. (You won't, because such a request doesn't exist.) If any response to a request to define or explain syndiffeonesis in this thread contains words or statements which are undefined or unintelligible, go ahead and quote it. (You won't, because you'd be corrected immediately.)

And again, if anything contained in the CTMU is undefined or unintelligible, quote it. (You won't, because you'd be corrected immediately.)

[Anonymous No.21978418]

>>21978286
>>21978344
It's a confidence trick, anon. Langan hides behind obfuscation in order to make his work seem intellectually profound with the added benefit that it allows him to retreat to the idea "you just don't understand" when he's challenged on it. When he gets called out on this directly he spergs about ad homs in an attempt to deflect the conversation away from his behavior. If someone insists he or his followers demonstrate good faith and address this issue they always parry the request; first through aggression and then by going silent before eventually shifting back to the base pattern of "you just don't understand" when the heat has died down. This is standard social engineering behavior that anyone with training can recognize (i.e. you don't even have to have a background in advanced math like the other anon ITT in order to see through his bullshit--that anon simply confirmed the fact obfuscation exists by being more familiar with how the jargon relates to the concepts Langan is using to falsely raise his intellectual credability). I'll add that I don't wish to discuss this anon's post--I know this is the only part of this you'll address because it allows for deflection from the topic of Langan's social engineering and a retreat back to affirming his credability by flat denial of what that anon demonstrated.

>Just because Chris is manipulative and his overall phenomena carries marked and obvious characteristics of social engineering doesn't mean that his work is false. However, this is not to say that such techniques are not commonly the bread and butter of intellectual charlatans, bloviating ideologues, and cult leaders. Anyone presenting such behavior alongside the claim they have some unique and fundemental understanding (not to even mention the whole "highest IQ in the world" cover I didn't even have to get into thus far) raises alarm bells that they be shouldn't be afforded social investment from others. That's how you end up in a cult, anon. (>>21971138)
Simple as. ITT there was a description of how Langan's followers are drawn into linking their own sense of intelligence to his and thereby react defensively on his behalf. There was even a brief outline on how detractors are defined and characterized in order to deflect from fault in Langan and his ideas (i.e. presenting academia as a "closed shop" before one of his proponents posted an excerpt from Langdon doing exactly this right down to the language (i.e. "trade union")). All indicators point to this man being a massive fraud.

[Anonymous No.21979150]

Re: >>21978418
Notice the silence? Once such behavior has been pointed out and the manner of response laid bare, all they can do stonewall until an excuse to change the subject and move back into their cycle arrises. This is their final defense/step after:

>initial hostility in an attempt to silence
Sometimes this will take the form of overt aggression toward whoever broaches the unwanted subject matter (e.g. signaling their anger in and attempt to control emotional space and intimidate the critic into silence) and sometimes it will be playing victim (e.g. muh "ad hom"); usually it's a mix of both as we've seen ITT.
>diminishment of detractors
They will freqently try to project their behavior according to an in-group/out-group dynamic. In so doing, they will define the out-group through generalities/truisms in an attempt to diminish any objector's credability via vague association (e.g. if an academic has a problem with the CTMU it's because he's part of academia which is hostile to new ideas and wants to protect its own interests). Notice that the burden of proof shifts from defending against criticism to attacking the reasons for criticism.
>insistance that conversation be carried out based upon only what they define as meritable
They do not want to cede any control which could potentially lead them into unwanted territory where they must operate without the advantage of their social engineering behaviors. Their insistance is such that you must treat the ideas they promote with the utmost respect no matter how disingenuous their behavior has been. Also note that in their mind the subject is perfect and can never be disproven--this is a comfort zone they want to retreat into instead of allowing detractors to voice suspicion let alone raise unwanted questions. One may only offer criticism in a manner that isn't really criticism.
>silence/stonewalling
This is the last step when all other actions have failed and the critic has not gave in to their bully tactics and/or made them plain to others. In person this works differently than it does on a message board where ignoring has the potential to simply prevent further unwanted conversation. As I said in another post, it's quite interesting to see it go down live and face-to-face. It's basically a form of gaslighting wherein the person trying to have the conversation will become confused and overly focused on themselves (e.g. "am I making sense while explaining this? what am I trying to explain?"--having to re-explain things and present them in a different way increases cognitive load and this combined with the emotional atmosphere of the discussion makes silence/stonewalling very effective).

It's become obvious that Chris Langan is a charlatan who uses these methods to service his own narcissism. He likes to assert he's a general genius but his real talent lay within social IQ and manipulation. Some have a natural predisposition to this--they're called psychopaths.

[Anonymous No.21979289]

>>21979150
>It's become obvious that Chris Langan is a charlatan who uses these methods to service his own narcissism.
Based and correct effortpost, but there is something tragic about the guy. I am willing to believe that he is high IQ and had exceptional gifts, but squandered them by a) being socially disadvantaged with no easy access to the academic/intellectual mileu, b) being too arrogant to actually do the legwork and integrate into said mileu when he had the chance. He apparently did go to college but found it too trivial and below him, quit and struck out on his own. The dilettantism and half-assed erudition screams through everything he writes, it's a very recognizable intellectually immature style. He really is interesting as a "case", not as a thinker, and a warning to overconfident autodidacts.

[Anonymous No.21979910]

le signs someone is in an evil death cult:
1. not agreeing with people who disagree with them
2. not replying to my posts
3. insistence that conversation be related to thread topic (irrefutable proof of cult)

[Anonymous No.21980413]

>le strawman hyperbole
>1. disingenuous refusal to address behavior
>2. deflection/silence in leiu of answering to criticism
>3. demands respect for ideas instead of demonstration of merit (irrefutable proof of a charlatan)

[Anonymous No.21980437]

>>21957087
I don't see any glaring problems with it, it's vague enough. If I read the full text I might find some problems