/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10189756]

Christopher Langan
Is he really the smartest man alive?

[Anonymous No.10189764]

>>10189756
No.

[Anonymous No.10189768]

>>10189764
[math] \mathcal{No.}[/math].

[Anonymous No.10189785]

>>10189756
[math] \mathbb{Y}\mathcal{E}\mathtt{S}! [/math]

[Anonymous No.10189823]

[math]\mathfrak{Maybe}\mathscr{?}[/math]

[Anonymous No.10189827]

[math]\mathfrak{Maybe}[/math]

[Anonymous No.10189835]

He probably does have a very high IQ. But he never accomplished anything worthwhile, none the less. Not all smart people do smart things.

[Anonymous No.10190916]

He unironically supports Trump.
Liberals confirmed for brainlets.

[Anonymous No.10190918]

>>10189756
I like the dude.

[Anonymous No.10191135]

>>10189835
he's gonna solve p vs np

[Anonymous No.10191145]

>>10189835
t. seething low IQ person to want to feel better about doing "smart" things because he hates the idea that there is someone smarter and better than him and isn't going through the motions of all the fuckin bullshit that he did

[Anonymous No.10191334]

>>10189756
Intelligence is defined a posteriori.
A person who does nothing is never intelligent.
A person who accomplishes a lot is very intelligent.
Langan hasn't done anything

[Anonymous No.10191349]

>>10189756
Yes, but his knowledge is too wide and chaotic.

[Anonymous No.10191403]

>>10189756
read the CTMU. The only reason why it is genius because Langnan, having never been a part of Academic circles, is unfamiliar with the terminology used for certain subfields of various topics on which his CTMU draws and therefore invented his own, which can be confusing for someone who has spent decades using a certain linguistic paradigm. Furthermore, most physicists who read it do not have the philosophical, linguistic, or metaphysical background; philosophers who read do not have the physics, linguistic, and metaphysical background, etc.

[Anonymous No.10191434]

>>10191403
How do we know it's not just word salad? Does it have any practical application or testable hypothesis? If it's just useless untestable smarty pants fart sniffing we already have string theory for that.

[M No.10191459]

>>10189756
High IQ only means you understand faster and relate shit better often leading to creative ideas, but it doesn't mean you are some guy who will definitely make some big discovery, experience and upbringing is a large part of what makes normal above average people amazing scientists who changed their fields.

[Anonymous No.10191465]

>>10191434
String theory can literally be applied to anything. CTMU is like an attempt to provide a unifed application for everything on a case by case basis. In short, somewhere, perhaps not in the beginning, of the theory, something HAS to be wrong.
Good luck finding out what. Here is a grossly simplified version: "We are inside a giant brain, here is why."

[Anonymous No.10191756]

"I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible. "

Dude is a fake af retard, iirc all his intelligence bs is claimed by him and not really verified

[Anonymous No.10192956]

>>10191756
reminds me of jordan peterson

[Anonymous No.10194295]

>>10189756
YES