/sci/ - Science & Math

no

His CTMU theory is incomprehensible pseudoscience and there is no actually evidence his IQ is as high as he claims

He's a smart man, no doubt, but if he was as smart as he claimed he would know that what he's doing isn't actual meaningful research or scientific commentary

>>10028525
He was born to early. People are too stupid and ignorant to understand the CTMU. The more one learns about the universe, the more the CTMU makes sense.

>>10028525
No, ask me anything about it if you have questions.

>>10028525
Hes trolling. The mega troll. Hes claiming his theory is a super tautology. in fact, it doesnt say a single thing. It doesnt have a single prediction. I read it. It basically says, if god exists, then he exists, therefore he exists. q.e.d.

>>10028711
>if god exists, then he exists, therefore he exists
This makes sense actually. God is a concept that lives within our mind. If we die, our mind dies, which means God dies.

>>10028525
No, IQ is a 100% correct predictor of academic success, that means he is always right

>>10028715
Firstly, youre not OP.

Secondly, thats fucking trivial and useless. Its like saying "if the idea of something exists then it exists in the real world" which is not true since out minds are only an interpretation of the outside world and some interpretations may be wrong in a given context because they lead to a contradiction, some may be utterly useless. Like the idea of the tooth fairy. Such a thing doesnt exist, only in your mind. Thats not the common meaning of the word existance since we mean that there is a physical reality in which the actual thing exists, not just the idea. also the idea doesnt contain all the information about something.

>>10028717
Fact.
There ain't no way all these low IQ edgelords think they're actually this based and original with their unbased sperger ramblings.

>>10028525
Read his posts on Quora.

>>10028657
>what he's doing isn't actual meaningful research or scientific commentary
>implying you can do anything outside academia
basically you no longer can just do anything outside academia. unless you have 'titles' and you are a part of a 'university', you are not taken seriously. this happens with all kinds of freethinkers and inventors.
>oh, he hasn't finished a degree! he's a fake most certainly cause he didn't get the courses done!

>>10028793
Thats no argument. Read his fucking bullcrap and come back then.

>>10028795
well, too bad people with degrees who actually took him a bit seriously say it's not bullshit. at worst it's a reformulation or a concoction of already known concepts.

>>10028525
what else could be in his intestines?

>>10028804
<<<people with degrees>>>[citation needed]
>at worst it's a reformulation or a concoction of already known concepts.
let me correct that
>at best it's useless crap which uses science to make itself look somehow rigurous to people without a brain, while it steals shit from somewhere to make it sound cool, whereas it just tries to "prove" god.

>>10028810
>muh low IQ NPC hipster shares talking points from local subterranean youtube morlock instead of thinking for self

>>10028810
>at best it's useless crap which uses science to make itself look somehow rigurous to people without a brain, while it steals shit from somewhere to make it sound cool, whereas it just tries to "prove" god.
you are actually wrong. God was never the goal of Langan's theory, it's just a consequence.
Also, his theory is not really science. It deals with more fundamental, metaphysical aspects of reality. You have to be retarded to think he tries to reinvent physics.

>>10028817
nice try faggot, only that I have had undergrad phys and read his bullshit theory and read opinions of <<people with degrees>> who say hes a pseud.

So yeah, go somewhere else with your bait.

>>10028821
>to think he tries to reinvent physics.
I never said he tries to reinvent physics. I said he uses technical language out of context to sound cool.

>>10028823
well, again too bad, cause I also have a physics degree. His theory has nothing to do with physical models. As I posted above.

>>10028821
>Also, his theory is not really science.
Exactly, which means its by definition not a theory.

>It deals with more fundamental, metaphysical aspects of reality.
So its bullshit

>>10028826
as of today, you can label yourself as a retard.
metaphysics have more to do with the idea of a law of nature than you can probably comprehend. also the nature of reality - whether we can know the laws - is a mystery. there are plenty of topics in physics and math which touch metaphysics. however, since you are against everything which is not 'science', there is no reason to argue with you

>>10028830
I see you like to label me as a retard. But in reality, there is just no substance to this shit.
>have more to do with the idea of a law of nature than you can probably comprehend.
Then tell me. What is his theory about ? explain it. Does he have a single theorem or corollary ? Does he have a single conclusion ? Just one ?

>>10028793
Its a really good way to ensure brainlets dont get jewed by witchdoctors into raping infant todlers to cure aids

>>10028525
lmao this guy is 200 years too late to the philosophical systematizing game.

>>10028675
are you trolling or do you legitimately study the ctmu, because i have actual questions

>>10028833
his theory is a meta language of how humans minds interact with abstraction, in other words all world views can be formulated within the language of ctmu

>>10029494
I legit study it. Go ahead.

>>10029506
what paradox does conspansive duality resolve?

>>10029547
It resolves the paradox of space expanding into that which has no volume, non-space, by modeling the expansion as a contraction of its contents with respect to it. Pretty easy one.

Any more?

>>10029555
why is it not ontologically possible to claim that space can just inherently expand. he seems to claim if you frame it in the context of a duality something is mitigated but i dont know what.

>>10029560
Imagine blowing into a ballon. The air in the balloon causes it to expand, which push air molecules on the outside away.

Now imagine space expanding. What does it expand into? It can’t be more space because the Universe is everything there is and it can’t be making more space because matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

Instead look at expansion as the contraction of everything inside it. Boom.

>>10029560
Duality here simply means the quality or condition of being dual. Space can be observed or represented from within or from outside of it. Outside of it, like the how a machine builds a video game realm; and inside of it, like a video game character sees it. Most people learn the word "duality" without its general meaning. Classical mechanics has a duality of at least two observers, for example. From an ontological frame, you logically can't define space as expanding into that which isn't space. Expansion always implies an outer space, by definition.

>>10029583
> It can’t be more space because the Universe is everything there is and it can’t be making more space because matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Wrong

>>10029583
So his "metaphysics" is bullshit, thanks for clarifying.

>>10029608
Not me.

>>10029590
So his "metaphysics" is bullshit, thanks for clarifying.

>>10028525
No idea.

I hear stories about he's a smart guy but what snippets from him I've read come off as really obtuse. I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he has some intellectual ability, maybe even superb ability, but his writing style just comes off as someone full of shit. I wouldn't accuse him of being dishonest, because I don't know; I just mean his writing style is like that of a middleschooler who LARPS as an 18th century philosopher. Like his presentation just reeks of someone who has this ideal of How Smart People Must Converse and also seems to have a case of "why won't anybody take me seriously?!" I've heard he's got a beef with academia and doesn't like how he's excluded; I think he should maybe try pulling his head out of his ass.

>>10028715
So my waifu exists.

>>10029619

>>10028525
When I have glanced at the things Langan has written, the prose style, to me, seems like perhaps it is that of a angsty teenager who has taken LSD and it has worn off but they still haven't been able to fall asleep.

>>10029583
>it can’t be making more space because matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

This statement requires you to first confuse space with matter, then to confuse mass/energy permanence with just mass permanence

>>10028525
100%. The man's "theory" is an embarrassing mess.

>>10029504
>Does he have a single theorem or corollary ? Does he have a single conclusion ?

>>10028823
Appeals to authority and popularity.

>>10030304
nope. he said
>well, too bad people with degrees who actually took him a bit seriously say it's not bullshit.

before, thats why i brought that up, also making fun of him. Nice try though, mr. bait

>>10028823
>>10030310

There actually have been notable people with degrees that have allegedly reached out to Chris Langan in support of him. One such person is John Wheeler (of whom Chris Langan draws his motivations for making the work from). There's other scientists in the field that have drawn inspiration from Wheeler too. One such group are the folks behind emergence theory. They not only have formulated reality as thought it is a self-processing self-selecting language, but they also:
1) rid themselves of the dichotomy between determinism and randomness
2) necessitate that there is a consciousness transducing this information
3) end up formulating a "god" that is essentially holotheistic in that it is basically the entire universe

They see this consciousness as an emergent property in the same way our consciousness is emergent from our brains. There are others as well. Also, I am afraid that undergrad physics students aren't fit to read it properly - you need expertise in many other fields like philosophy, cybernetics, etc

>>10028525
His grand unified theory is nothing more than a G.U.T feeling.


;D