/sci/ - Science & Math

Hey, if you want to waste your time sucking schizo dick, go right ahead.

>>11212339

>>11212335
Make sure to tell your mom

>>11212343
>>11212343

>>11212346
Forgot pic of you

>>11212342
>>11212347
haha le funneh reddit man... get it? I post this meme called "Wojack" which I found on Discord to express my disdain of other people's posts which in turn allows me to avoid having to post anything qualitative!

>>11212347
>>11212343

>>11212351
>Hey, if you want to waste your time sucking schizo dick, go right ahead.
>tell your mom
These are qualitative to you?

>>11212354
No, but that blogpost thread wasn't that qualitative to begin with either.

>>11212354
>I'm thinking about dropping everything in life but the study of the CTMU
is this to you?

>>11212357
>>11212364

>>11212367
Based

>>11212335
>I'm thinking about dropping everything in life but the study of actual nonsense
you are free to waste your life

Langan is a pussy.

>>11212420
Is it actually nonsense?

>>11212335
Don't forget to doubt!

>>11212979
Yes

>>11212335
Where are you going to get the resources to live from? Are you going to work?
I think not working and just studying all life is not optimal.
What is the optimal way of working and studying?

So if I understand it correctly, Langan says that reality is language. Seems like a pretty interesting perspective but where do we go from there?

>>11213047
https://youtu.be/qlfnAhkL4gw

>>11213049
wut

>>11212335
Not like you'll do anything worthwhile in life anyways, might as well make it easy for everyone to tell you're a joke.

>>11212979
Have you even read a single sentence from it? It's pseud garbage. The only reason he's gained any traction is because his psychometrician wife gave him a +200 IQ, which is not even close to being reasonable, statistically speaking. (probability of 1 out of every 120,000,000,000 peoplr)

>>11213084
Tell me what was the first thing you read that told you it was garbage.

>>11213088
It is incomprehensible word salad.

>>11213099
lol. argument from ignorance. It's definitely not "incomprehensible word salad"

>>11213099
Fair point but I could say the same of Newton's Principia Mathematica. But just because it is hard to understand does not mean there is nothing of value there and not worth further inspection.

>>11213112
So what is the central thesis of CTMU? In 1000 words or less, please. Remember to be quantitative.

>>11213121
Newton's principia is written in old fashion language with archaic notation. Even then it is a absolutely NOT incomprehensible.

>>11212335
My IQ was 180 before the bar was moved and I suffered brain damage. It is a noble pursuit. This guy; Lang??? Rings bells in my memory of, once, having intelligence. There is a simple and beautiful grand unified theory under our nose. We are a couple ideas away from having the variables to step up and down. The impossible is just out of reach.

>>11212335
That's maybe the only thing even more pathetic than being Chris Langan.

>>11213047
>where do we go from there?
Clearly nowhere. Have you seen this guy accomplishing anything after all these years?

>>11212335
my opinion on this: it's based on reasoning about existence itself. which i've thought about myself but it's the one thought I've had that's too profound or crazy to really think about further for me.
now since i don't have a 200 iq, only 140, i don't know whether or not his logic makes sense or not in the real world but it seems plausible. then again he could be way off as this is more of a philosophy of logic itself than a scientific theory.

>>11212335
>secular monk
You do not study CTMU and become a monk.
You will either become a wizard, or a God...or something in between that mess if you even get close to comprehending it in its entirety.

>>11213123
I have only listened to interviews and have only glanced at the paper, so I could be wrong here. The biggest point I've gleaned from Langan is that EVERYTHING is language/syntax.

>>11213146
What did Socrates achieve in his lifetime? Perhaps you would consider his endeavors useless as well but I would disagree. The CTMU is clearly philosophical in nature, where philosophy is the foundation for any world-view.

>>11213190
So what's the big deal with CETMU? does it actually let you do anything new or useful? is this like a CHIM thing? was the 2016 election the result of Langan testing his new powers?

>>11213190
>The biggest point I've gleaned from Langan is that EVERYTHING is language/syntax.
Potential energy is not language/syntax
Damping ratios are not language/syntax
The area of a circular cross section is not language/syntax

This is trivial to disprove.

>>11213199
Not sure what CHIM is lol.
The point of it is to understand reality in a coherent fashion. For example, the Multiverse is a retarded word/concept. There can't be this Universe and other Universes outside of ours. If it's outside of this Universe then it doesn't exist. If does exist then it is part of the Universe.

So CTMU is less of a "theory" unto itself but more of a metaphysical foundation for understanding truth.

>>11213209
Take a long, deep look at your post.

>>11213237
Name one concept or physical thing which understanding the fundamental nature of it doesn't allow for new possibilities. If it's true unlocking the fundamental nature of reality should allow us to do things which would seem incomprehensible previously. Something similar to how Newtonian mechanics unlocked the macroscopic world, and quantum mechanics unlocked new technologies below the microscopic level. What does CTMU allow?

>>11213237
>For example, the Multiverse is a retarded word/concept. There can't be this Universe and other Universes outside of ours. If it's outside of this Universe then it doesn't exist. If does exist then it is part of the Universe.
This is actually how retarded Langan fags are.

>>11213253
First of all, I don't claim to understand the fundamental nature of anything other than that there is a fundamental nature. But we can take the concept of 3 X 3 tic-tac-toe if you wish. We know that the game will always result in a draw if played perfectly and perhaps that is all there is to it. What does understanding the fundamental nature of 3 X 3 tic-tac-toe give us?

Also you have to understand that CTMU is still a framework in its infancy. Only time will tell if anything substantial will come out of it. Newton didn't publish his work and start building rocket ships the next day.

>>11213244
Okay. Now what?

>>11213283
Wow. You just dismantled CTMU in one sentence. How will Langan recover?

>>11213237
>There can't be this Universe and other Universes outside of ours. If it's outside of this Universe then it doesn't exist. If does exist then it is part of the Universe.
Meanings of words always change over time you idiot. They also mean different things depending on context. If you want consistent and locked down definitions then you shouldn't be using common written / spoken language in the first place. That's exactly what formal languages are for.
Anyway you accomplish nothing by crying about universe not always meaning what you want it to. The fact remains there is a concept where our observable universe is one territory and other territories like our observable universe exist in addition to it. You don't make this concept stop existing by being autistic about what you wish universe was limited to meaning.

>>11213303
It was already crippled to anyone with working eyes and and a location of the autism spectrum a little higher functioning than chrischan.

>>11213302
Well, you can either realize the contradiction you've made or deny that there is one.

>>11213315
Point to my contradiction. And no, using language to refer to a thing doesn't make the thing to which I am referring language

>>11213305
That's really the whole point. The CTMU aims to be a more formal language (than English) with more flexibility than standard formal languages.

>>11213329
Doesn't sound very useful if 1 person in the entire world knows it.

>>11213299
if you understand tic tac toe you will never lose to someone who doesn't. Can the same be said for understanding reality?

>>11213299
Newton published his work and was immediately able to make predictions which were considered beyond impossible previously. You'd think Newtonian mechanics would be trivial compared to what you could do by understanding the fundamental nature of reality.

>>11213299
CTMU is not a framework. Rambling for 100000 words is not philosophy. It is also definitely not science or math.

>>11213329
Formal languages already work. And unlike CTMU you can use them and not get laughed at or be forced to build every single tool you need to work with it from scratch yourself.

>>11213318
If you want to make that claim then what exactly is it? There would be no way for you to tell me what a square is without using some sort of syntax.
But then the question arises, is the syntax itself the actual thing? Langan argues that at some level it has to be. When you look at a square, the light hits your eyes, gets transformed into signals where your brain then recognizes it is a square. There has to be some sort of syntax (some machine code in the brain) that allows you to recognize that it's a square. Otherwise you wouldn't recognize it as a square.

>>11213334
True.

>>11213368
>what is potential energy
a function for which the gradient is a conservative force field
>what is a damping ratio
not going to explain ODEs to you
>what is area
not deserving of a response

>>11213368
>When you look at a square, the light hits your eyes, gets transformed into signals where your brain then recognizes it is a square.
That's a description of an organism's method for taking in information about the world. That's not the only way the world can be interacted with though. You also have non-biological machines which respond consistently to the same shapes they interact with regardless of if an organism is looking at it too or not. And you have abstract mathematical models which have demonstrated reliable predictions for objects or events no one at the time had yet interacted with personally.
All this consistency across multiple media with humans, animals, machines, abstract models, and ordinary cause and effect that happens out of any one person's sight but which determines subsequent events and how they take place points to a world independent of our own senses or our own language about it.

>>11213379
2smart4me

>>11213368
The meaning of "square" has nothing to do with light hitting our eyes you absolute pseud.

>>11213389
this is undergrad fucking shit anon. langan is a retard.

>>11213390
Wasn't that exactly what he said you fucking mong?

>>11213393
Yeah I know. You are clearly levels above him with your areas of cross sections and your diffyq's. Not sure what you are doing wasting your time here with such intellect.

CTMU fags come back to us when you solve quantum gravity

>>11213388
i think what langan is arguing is that what even those non-biological machines or even an electron being hit by a photon are doing is all a part of the universe applying some kind of transistor like logic to itself and this all comes together to make up a consciousness as well as the necessarily logic to form a non-collapsing reality.

>>11213426
an absurd thing to argue

>>11213340
Understanding reality might take a little more work than understanding tic-tac-toe. Just a little.

>>11213429
how so?

>>11213434
no evidence
no predictive power

>>11213430
He claims to have done it though yet can show nothing for his work, I'm not the one claiming to understand the fundamental nature of reality.

>>11213461
its an answer to the fundamental question of philosophy; what the fuck is going on?

>>11213461
>no evidence
it's philosophy on the nature of logic and reality, if it has evidence it's self contained.
dismissing it simply because of a feeling you have is not a valid argument.

>>11213480
>the evidence is self contained
what the actual fuck does this mean
>>11213475
im glad you concede it is not science or math

>>11213475
>>11213480
philosophy unlike CTMU is actually occasionally useful

>>11213484
>what the actual fuck does this mean
evidence is stemming from logical necessities and reasoning. like if i put you in a closed room with a cookie in it and i leave and come back and the cookie is gone then i know you ate it despite not "seeing the evidence"

>>11213485
so ctmu is not philosophy then? is it a science? inb4 some retard answer like "nah it's just poopoo"

>>11213495
You cannot logically deduce natural phenomena, anon. You must perform experiments. This is the essence of science. Langan is literally ancient-greek tier.

>>11213485
it is useful, it reconciles science, religion and philosophy and explains the role of the perceptual mechanism.
and it answers that fundamental question; wtf's habbenin? until you have a satisfying answer to that you can't really relax properly, so that's useful

>>11213500
>You cannot logically deduce natural phenomena
That's a bold statement, anon. First of all this is exactly what I'm skeptical of myself. But what do you base this claim on?
When we're talking about the origin of reality it also seems like it's the only way. How would you even perform any experiment that would make you reach similar conclusions?

>>11213404
anon here is at least actively pursuing education, which puts him miles ahead of look-at-me-I’m-smart lazyboy

>>11213532
>That's a bold statement, anon
Not really. Have you ever hear of Kant?

>>11213545
Yeah, but not well enough to know what you're referring to.

>>11213556
Okay. I am referring to the idea that science is necessarily an empirical field. Langan is not empirical. He is a bullshitter.

>>11213562
first of all, ctmu isn't science. that doesn't automatically mean it's bullshit. what you're saying seems little thought out to me and non sequitur.

>>11213592
>that doesn't automatically mean it's bullshit
sorry sweaty, but yes it does :)

>>11213540
Good. You should give him a cookie.

>>11213426
>i think what langan is arguing is that what even those non-biological machines or even an electron being hit by a photon are doing is all a part of the universe applying some kind of transistor like logic to itself and this all comes together to make up a consciousness as well as the necessarily logic to form a non-collapsing reality.
Seems like a faulty way to look at it to me. You can't even really speak meaningfully of all these different ways to interact with an object and to get information out of it unless you have something independent of any one of these methods that allows for all of them to be consistent with each other.
We have a good example of phenomena more purely symbolic without a literal underlying object of reality mapping to it with the dreams you have each night. And in all the wildly inconsistent and wacky ways the typical dream plays out vs. how sober waking reality plays out and maintains logical consistency with itself no matter which angle you or other parties or machines or abstract models approach it from you can approach what this distinct and independent object is that goes beyond mere references to it or language about it.

>>11213635
Wrong. And I'm not your "sweaty".

From my interpretation CTMU is just advaita vedanta with some other stuff thrown in

>>11212335
There isn't really anything to study with CMTU, the guy literally described everything in his paper. If you mean contribute to our understanding of reality, then sure. Just become a STEM researcher. CMTU seems to make sense from our naive perspective, but I believe it needs to be (heavily) elaborated because most of what that paper says is just some very obvious observations about what we already know. The only thing I liked about the paper is that it draws our attention to the idea that reality is a language and that is interesting because languages have properties to be exploited and further researched.

>>11213112
>definitely not "incomprehensible word salad"
>>11213190
>I have only listened to interviews and have only glanced at the paper
>definitely not word salad
>definitely

Langan is a schizo and his entire theory is based on naive set theory (which has no mathematical rigor whatsoever). Anyone can use lots of big words (incorrectly) to obfuscate their "theory." If people don't understand your literal garbage, you can always fall back on the galileo gambit and claim an argument from ignorance. It's an easy win, if you don't count all the logical fallacies involved. No one has the time to decipher his shit, we have actual science to contemplate.

If Langan were such a genius, he would have found a way to express his theory more clearly, more elegantly, instead of relying on a thesaurus. He has no credentials. He has never written anything of value to the understanding of mankind. He has no evidence whatsoever. Even if he were right, what good is a ground-breaking new hypothesis, if nobody understands it?

But if you have nothing better to do, please enlighten us on the meaning of pic related. I wouldn't recommend it, since it is most certainly a huge waste of time. Honestly, you might have better luck decoding a paper from https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/.. Looking forward to hearing from you.

>>11215158
>"the self-inclusion process is known as conspansion"
>conspansion
HAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>11212335
>it's word salad
>no it's not, you just don't understand it
OK so why are there literally zero philosophers, logicians, mathematicians studying this or even commenting on it? Are you just smarter than all of them that you can understand it but they can't? It's gibberish, plain and simple.

>>11215158
>Langan is a schizo and his entire theory is based on naive set theory
For the umpteenth time, 'set' does not equal 'set theory' (any version), and the property 'being a set' isn’t something one can slap onto the universe, or not, at whim. It is synonymous with 'being a collection of distinct objects', which accurately reflects the observed structure of the universe. This makes it an actual property of the universe.

>>11215664
Nobody ever argued the universe can't be described in terms of sets. That's retarded and irrelevant to what anyone was discussing, Chris.

>>11215158
>But if you have nothing better to do, please enlighten us on the meaning of pic related. I wouldn't recommend it, since it is most certainly a huge waste of time.

Physical space – the medium of spacetime in modern physics – has topological structure and can thus be topologically described as a set of points. (If not, then forget about referring to anything as having a definite location associated with one or more 'points of space'.) In topology, there is a distinction between the boundary points and the interior points of a set. If you’re at a boundary point, then you necessarily have a neighborhood including points not in the set, i.e., so-called 'exterior points'. But where the set is 'reality', points not in the set are 'nonreality', in which case they aren’t real 'points', and neither is any kind of point defined on them (including boundary points)."

Expansion of the universe and contraction of its contents are empirically equivalent effects. There is no external background against which to distinguish one from the other; each occurs relative to the other with no variation in the absolute size of the cosmos OR its contents (these dimensions are externally undefined due to background-freedom). This process is called 'conspansion'. The rate of conspansion ('speed of light in vacuo') can be regarded as fixed, scaling with content due to local space-time covariance. (That’ll have to do it for now.)

>>11215668
Again, while I am employing the basic 'set' concept in my reasoning, I am not employing 'naive set theory'. Nor am I employing any more advanced version of set theory; such versions improve on naive set theory only by adjoining extra distinctions and restrictions that do nothing to expand the expressive capacity of the 'set' concept, or any other concept general enough to suffice as an ultimate reductive entity.

>>11213032
If you're creative, software dev & cash out after about 5/10 years. Spend rest of life doing whatever

>>11215669
>uses topological set theory
>>11215687
>claims to not use set theory

OK Chris, time for bed.

>>11215669
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this reeks of fallacies. You're mixing up spacetime (or as you put it, physical space) and the entire universe, which encompasses spacetime. That's a fallacy of composition. You then go on to say that, since space can be described topologically, the universe is a topological set, where everything inside the boundary exists in reality and everything outside doesn't. A weak analogy fallacy. But you're mixing up different meanings of set. When you're talking about all the elements inside the set you claim is the universe, topology is redundant, thus eliminating your entire argument. This is an equivocation fallacy. I'd also like you to elaborate on "conspansion," since the combination of the expansion of the universe and the contraction of its contents doesn't make any sense to me, regardless of the frame of reference.

>>11215806
It's just gibberish that sounds meaningful to gullible people. Even if it made sense, it's not even concluding anything substantive.

>>11215158
Nice job on tacking on someone else's quote to mince schizo. As some one else already mentioned, the CTMU has nothing to do with naive set theory.

But I agree that is the CTMU stands, it needs a LOT of clarification.

>>11215158
source?

>>11216468
If you're talking about the image, it's an excerpt from "Introduction to the CTMU": http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/papers-and-essays/introduction-to-the-ctmu/

(password = ctmu-kb)

>>11216498
>http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/papers-and-essays/introduction-to-the-ctmu/
You know, I already read this before, but the scary thing is how it QEDs at the end like nothing ever fucking happened.

>>11216498
Thanks man. I'm sorry about calling you a schizo but you did mix my words with someone else's.
You are right though. I don't see this being tough in the classroom anytime soon.

If I understand correctly, what Langan is trying to do here is resolve the apparent paradox of self-containment aka the set of all sets. He likes to use this phrase interchangeably with "universe" and I can see why math people would talk issue with that. So in a nutshell, all that rambling says that the universe must be contained within itself. If it were not, and there were to be something outside of the universe then: a)that itself is part of the universe or b) that thing does not actually exist and is therefore not part of the universe by definition,

>>11215158
>implying those posts are both me
lol dumbass

>>11213592
If ctmu isn't science, then why the fuck is OP posting his thread here?

>>11216543
>So in a nutshell, all that rambling

That's all there really is

>>11212335
he thinks if an electron moves from one energy state to another, that it has processed data.
and that this is on the same level as arranging groups of electrons in such a way so as to process mental constructs like, say, addition (pic related).
seems like pure semantics to me. it's like claiming that an abacus performs addition, when actually it doesn't do anything without a mind to control it and interpret its outputs

>>11216728
but all a mind consists of is electrons, atoms and so forth. so in a way you're mystifying the mind claiming it is a separate entity.

>>11216728
if the building blocks of matter themselves process data and is in a way part of the universe mind like he's claiming then it starts to explain how consciousness forms. how there are separate consciousnesses if it's all connected by some quantum entanglement type stuff I don't understand though

>>11216795
>But all a microprocessor consists of is transistors, conductive tracks and so forth. So in a way you're mystifying computers claiming they are a separate entity.

Could we get maybe two posts without a fallacy of composition?

>>11216815
What does a microprocessor have to with anything? Doesn't sound like you understand.

a microprocessor is a purely "mechanical" object carrying out calculations through transistors and electricity, at least as far as we know, while a mind has consciousness.

>>11216837
Why would you assume consciousness to be immaterial? We know that your personality changes when your brain physiology is altered. Look at cases like Phineas Gage. Consciousness is entirely dependent on brain structure. You probably don't even have a rigorous definition of consciousness. Are animals conscious? They can't talk, you can't evaluate their sense of self without doubt. What about invertebrates and animals without a nervous system? Show me one example of something immaterial being involved in consciousness.

>>11216881
>assume consciousness to be immaterial
i'm not assuming that. holy hell. you just proved you have no idea what i'm talking about.
of course animals have consciousness, assuming anyone except for me is conscious.

>>11216908
No, you don't understand. Electrons don't "process" data the same way neuron clusters (which are in part composed of electrons) do. I offered an analogy to >>11216795, which demonstrates their flawed reasoning. You then proceeded to ask what the analogy has to do with the subject at hand, since microprocessors are clearly "mechanical," while minds have consciousness. This implies, whether you meant it that way or not, that you don't believe that a mind can have a "mechanical" structure (i.e. constituent parts like neurons), because consciousness couldn't arise from such structures. Also, how did you determine animals have consciousness? How do you determine if anything other than yourself is conscious? You can't, this is the problem of hard solipsism. I seriously don't know whether you're trolling or not.

>>11216908
>assuming anyone except for me is conscious

And here we have the problem.

>>11216946
>No, you don't understand. Electrons don't "process" data the same way neuron clusters (which are in part composed of electrons) do
what? lmao. you don't fucking say?
>which demonstrates their flawed reasoning.
you don't even understand what i'm saying hence you are unable to determine whether my reasoning is flawed or not, mr. dunning-kruger.
>Also, how did you determine animals have consciousness?
based on their likeness to myself.
>other than yourself is conscious? You can't
you are mentally ill if you don't make this assumption.

>>11216987
>based on their likeness to myself
argument from false analogy.

>you are mentally ill if you don't make this assumption.
I'm talking about facts we know about reality. You're talking about making assumptions for convenience. It's called methodological solipsism and doesn't prove anything. If you disagree, maybe start by actually proving agents other than yourself being conscious, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.

>you don't even understand what i'm saying
Then for fucks sake please elaborate on your incoherent world view instead of just saying "you don't understand me." Clearly you are not interested in meaningful conversation.

>>11217007
>argument from false analogy.
retard. if one brain experiences consciousness then it's only natural a similar brain also does.

>of resorting to ad hominem attacks.
something i haven't done. holy shit, i'm done talking with you, you are an absolute fucking retard as well as having a bad case of dunning kruger.

>>11217025
It seems you don't understand the problem at hand. To yourself, you may very well be the only conscious agent in the universe. You can't prove that I'm conscious and you can't prove that rocks are not. You may only assume it. That's my objection. I agree that the vastly more likely possibility is that people have consciousness. But you can't be certain. If you then go on to say "animals are like me, hence they possess consciousness," you have only made an assertion you can't back up with solid evidence. Not only can you not prove animals are conscious, you cannot even prove that other human beings are conscious. Your position is utterly invalid.

>something i haven't done
You literally started your argument with "retard." You have also mentioned that I have a "bad case" of Dunning-Kruger effect, and you said I was "mentally ill" for claiming that assumptions are not necessarily true. But I guess this is all a very important argument to you.

I know you are done talking with me. You don't have any substantial arguments and you display a complete lack of understanding of sound argumentation. Evidently, you don't even understand my objections while criticising me for the same. I recommend you to start actually thinking your arguments through before sharing them with the world.

>>11213084
>>11213099
... and so on
CTMU have been proven to be at least valuable but not as innovative as one might think. it was commented on by scholars and they mostly concluded that Langan rediscovers by himself many fact known in the community. this is obviously impressive and proves he's not a retard. however, there is a huge reason to believe it's not as perfect as some of us may think.
the main problem with CTMU is that it should be carefully studied but there is no reason to do so really. Langan's problem is that he failed to make a longer review of his own work and convey it properly so people won't have to risk losing huge amount of time to understand what he means.

>>11217145
Well from what I've heard it claims to prove a god and the afterlife. After the first few paragraphs I just found it too tedious to read. Mostly fallacies and tiresome word games (such as the interchangable use of different word meanings). I doubt many people actually understand what he was going for (provided he even was actually trying to say something substantial). Which of his conclusions would you deem as valuable to the scientific community? Genuinely asking.

>>11217231
>Well from what I've heard it claims to prove a god and the afterlife.
it tackles philosophy and metaphysics, so the topics are appropriate
> I just found it too tedious to read
no denying that. that's the main problem with it.
Langan reinvented some things and created his own framework and this is why it's difficult to process. doesn't mean it's worthless, it's just overly tiresome to read because you have to understand what Langan means by specific words.
> Which of his conclusions would you deem as valuable to the scientific community? Genuinely asking.
honestly, I'm not a specialist in that matter. but it's quite easy to answer just by the subject of his thesis. it tackles metaphysics and philosophy of science so for scientific community it can provide the basis of science.
nowadays we have plenty of 'science people' who actually have no idea what they are doing except 'the math checks out'. it's important to ask questions like: how do we build models, what can we actually know from the experiments and can we even find the underlying laws of nature. those were not really issues in the past were everyone could build their own setup and run experiments, but now we are talking about such setups that you can't just look at things from every angle - you have one setup which you have to trust and the conclusions you make are the final conclusions. you have much, much less flexibility. and we see very often now that there are multiple problems with current models, with assumptions we make and we colliding results from different super-complex setups.
So you should treat CTMU as the basis of knowing, reasoning, science.

>>11216806
Time to stop posting.

>>11213393
b-but his IQ is 200 :(

>>11217261
Well, the null hypothesis is that his paper is meaningless until we determine its precise reasonings and conclusions as well as their validity and soundness.

The problem I have with your statement is that I explicitly asked you which profound truths have been discovered by CTMU, only to receive an explanation of metaphysics. Imagine there was an incomprehensible physics paper that proves a gauge theory and when asked about the details, they give you a rundown of particle physics. Does that seem convincing? It does not suffice.

How would you even go about definitively proving that there is a god / afterlife using philosophy? Or set theory? It's very dissatisfying to see so many people talking about the profound implications of a hypothesis that nobody understands.

>>11212339
>>11212343
Amazing how jealous the pseuds on this board are. Sad really.

>>11217304
Okay Chris. Btw your Wikipedia page needs some more editing.

>>11217145
>it was commented on by scholars and they mostly concluded that Langan rediscovers by himself many fact known in the community.
Which scholars said this?

>>11217304
Jealous of writing 56 pages of incoherent blathering? You bet. How else would one spend lonely saturday nights.

Since you're evidently not a pseud, please provide the key insight of the CTMU as well as its reasoning in 2000 characters or less.