/sci/ - Science & Math

God exists because I fucking said so, /sci/, deal with it

Sincerely Yours,
the highest IQ man in the world

>>12133697
>Blocks your path

>>12001853
You can but it takes a lot of work and dedication. If a worm like myself can do it then anyone can.

He is so often mocked but after actually reading his Cognitive-Theoretical Model of the Universe, it makes a lot of sense to me. Essentially the universe is meta-darwinian, constantly evolving and learning more about itself, self-determining its course.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/537a/c9c6066f20039491a72b361a4009a3d5623f.pdf

>But there is another possibility after all: self-determinacy.

>The CTMU has a meta-Darwinian message: the universe evolves by hological self-replication and
self-selection. Furthermore, because the universe is natural, its self-selection amounts to a
cosmic form of natural selection. But by the nature of this selection process, it also bears
description as intelligent self-design (the universe is “intelligent” because this is precisely what it
must be in order to solve the problem of self-selection, the master-problem in terms of which lesser problems are necessarily formulated). This is unsurprising, for intelligence itself is a natural phenomenon that could never have emerged in humans and animals were it not already a latent property of the medium of emergence. An object does not displace its medium, but
embodies it and thus serves as an expression of its underlying syntactic properties. What is far more surprising, and far more disappointing, is the ideological conflict to which this has led. It seems that one group likes the term “intelligent” but is indifferent or hostile to the term “natural”, while the other likes “natural” but abhors “intelligent”. In some strange way, the whole controversy seems to hinge on terminology.

>talking about your iq in any capacity other than how you'd treat your astrological sign
SHIGGY

>>11532776
And?

>>11525885
He sounds a lot like Chris Langan

>>11482045
>*blocks you're path*

The reason that physics cannot pay explanatory debts generated by various causal hypotheses is that it does not itself possess an adequate understanding of causality. This is evident from the fact that in physics, events are assumed to be either deterministic or nondeterministic in origin. Given an object, event, set or process, it is usually assumed to have come about in one of just two possible ways: either it was brought about by something prior and external to it, or it sprang forth spontaneously as if by magic. The prevalence of this dichotomy, determinacy versus randomness, amounts to an unspoken scientific axiom asserting that everything in the universe is ultimately either a function of causes external to the determined entity (up to and including the universe itself), or no function of anything whatsoever. In the former case there is a known or unknown explanation, albeit external; in the latter case, there is no explanation at all. In neither case can the universe be regarded as causally self-contained.

In a self-deterministic system, causal regression leads to a completely intrinsic self-generative process. In any system that is not ultimately self-deterministic, including any system that is either random or deterministic in the standard extrinsic sense, causal regression terminates at null causality or does not terminate. In either of the latter two cases, science can fully explain nothing; in the absence of a final cause, even material and efficient causes are subject to causal regression toward ever more basic (prior and embedding) substances and processes, or if random in origin, toward primitive acausality. So given that explanation is largely what science is all about, science would seem to have no choice but to treat the universe as a self-deterministic, causally self-contained system.

>>11481396
This has been solved by Christopher Langan. The universe isn't expanding, it's contents are shrinking. The universe only appears to be expanding from a local perspective.

Why? Because the universe is self-contained; if there were any external entity or influence that were sufficiently real to affect the real universe, then by virtue of its reality, it would by definition be internal to the real universe. So, nothing to expand into, no expansion. (Q.E.D.)

>"Intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then it has to be expanding *with respect to* a fixed referent, and if it is, then it has to be extending into an external medium with respect to which the fixity of the referent has been established. On the other hand, saying that something is shrinking relative to that which contains it presents no such problem, for in that case, nothing is really "expanding". An inclusive relationship, like that whereby the universe includes its contents, can change intrinsically only if its total extent does not change; where its total extent is just that of the inclusive entity, this means that the extent of the *inclusive entity* cannot change. Ergo, no expansion; it's logically analytic. Reason in any other fashion, and the term "expansion" becomes meaningless.

Do you think Girard has read CTMU?
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8548/a157279b27de84d1effd772b683c7b9d7701.pdf

>>11317163
From reading this thread I've gather everyone but the highest IQs are simply bothered by how other people inconvenience them. Hardly apt to solve problems, the 'greatest minds' of 4chan are relinquished to complainers. Some great 4chan and Facebook posts, awesome IQ scores, and lots to complain about. No high IQ anons solving any legitimate issue.

imagine not believing in God when the smartest man in the history of humankind himself knows God for a fact

>IQ of 190

Not bad. Not great, but not bad either. I mean after all there's always bigger fish.


>>11260894
I see he went for quantity over quality.

http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Langan_CTMU_0929021-1.pdf

The smartest person in the world came up with a theory of everything that proves god using binary logic and set theory but the leftist wikimedia people keep removing it.

help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe

>>11212496
Villani would have at his disposal several wacky villain tactics, Tao being unable to account for his eight folded method and spider drones in a fair fight, but Tao would win inevitably as he has the plot armor and the gonads to be first to draw his nippon steelu folded 1000x. The battle now would be drawn down to a fight between a studious Italian Long-sword and an educated Japanese Katana.

However, Villanis psyche would be weighed down by his forefathers disapproval at having used this instead of a Gladius broadsword.
This multiplied by his IUT quantum immortality would be enough to knock Villani off balance before dropping the sword and unleashing "The Ultimate Delicate Half Lotus Transformation Technique" the overlapping universes collapsing on Villani into a single condensed singularity.

As he stands victorious, looking out into sakura fields, the only other man he must defeat would remain in his mind, sun setting in the distance, as his feint outline titans over the twilight evening glow.
"Langan..."
He would whisper, as he sheathes his blade slow.

>>11055018
Exactly, weed out the good stuff and fill society with Brainlets. Men are the engine of this world, women are only good at ruining everything.

>yfw you find out god really exists

Let's see if we can cut to the chase here.

Suppose you're wearing blue-tinted glasses. At first, you think that the world you see
through them is blue. Then it occurs to you that this need not be true; maybe it's the
glasses. Given this possibility, you realize that you really have no business thinking that the
world is blue at all; indeed, due to Occam's razor, you must assume that the world is
chromatically neutral (i.e., not blue) until proven otherwise! Finally, managing to remove
your glasses, you see that you were right; the world is not blue. This, you conclude, proves
that you can't assume that what is true on your end of perception (the blue tint of your
lenses) is really true of reality.

Fresh from this victory of reason, you turn to the controversial hypothesis that mind is the
essence of reality...that reality is not only material, but mental in character. An obvious
argument for this hypothesis is that since reality is known to us strictly in the form of ideas
and sensations - these, after all, are all that can be directly "known" - reality must be ideic.
But then it naturally occurs to you that the predicate "mental" is like the predicate "blue"; it
may be something that exists solely on your end of the process of perception. And so it
does, you reflect, for the predicate "mental" indeed refers to the mind! Therefore, by
Occam's razor, it must be assumed that reality is not mental until proven otherwise.

>>10884232

is he legit?

>>10880981
it's spelt langanian

>>10790505
This one went from bar bouncer to farmer/redditor

>>10783862
>I have the only fully viable ontological proof of the existence of God. The ontological proofs of (e.g.) Anselm and Godel can be interpreted within it, thus filling in their gaps with hard, cold, rock-solid, inarguable CTMU structure.