/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10192737]

Chris Langan and his entire cult following btfo by 19 year old tf2 player Solomon Nelson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5YUEuVkdU

[Anonymous No.10192738]

[Anonymous No.10193083]

>>10192738
lol

Chris Langan is awesome! :)

[Anonymous No.10194216]

>>10192737
Wtf? I believe CTMU now?!)

[Anonymous No.10194237]

Imagine being 50 years old and talking like that. This is why IQ is a meme.

[Anonymous No.10195488]

>>10194237
What's wrong with the way he talks?

[Anonymous No.10195506]

>>10194237
He's just like Mochizuki

[Anonymous No.10195515]

>>10195506
Mochizuki said something like this about Scholze and Stix's objections, that they "were met with a remarkably unanimous response of utter astonishment and even disbelief (at times accompanied by bouts of laughter!) that such manifestly erroneous misunderstandings could have occurred"

[Anonymous No.10195534]

Chad Lagan vs the Virgin Nelson (fag name btw)

[Anonymous No.10195851]

>>10192737
The CTMU is basically just a claim that all of reality is perception and in order for it to exist, there must be a being doing the perceiving (God). This is hard for most people to grasp because he hides this in incredibly convoluted language where he invents and uses dozens of new terms that are designed only to obfuscate his sophistry.

[Anonymous No.10195910]

>>10195851
Saying the universe is just perception is exactly the same as saying the sun orbits the earth, Langan is just a dunning-kruger, the way he responds to criticism in the OP screencap is evidence he is a broken man who needs to hide his hurt ego

[Anonymous No.10195920]

Ah! The classic "here's an essay about how it isn't worth my time to reply to you". Never gets old.

[Anonymous No.10195933]

>>10192737
Ted was right, desu.

[Anonymous No.10196110]

>>10192737
>Not worthwhile of my time
>Continues to bitch endlessly about him facebook
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.10196118]

Parasite isn't even a term that applies to humans. Go look up encyclopedia britannica.

[Blank No.10196147]

>>10196110
Endless rant in normie is the same as burp in Chris Langan. You would not understand, simpleton

[sage and report No.10196153]

>Christopher Langan
Go back to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10196279]

>>10196118
That's because Encyclopedia Britannica is politically correct and doesn't want to piss off potential customers by calling them parasites.

[Anonymous No.10196310]

>>10192737
based facebook/youtube drama poster

[Anonymous No.10196720]

[Anonymous No.10197156]

>>10192737
Chris Langan is a pseud and this kid is a brainlet empiricist moron.

[Anonymous No.10197223]

>>10192737
how can you not love this guy?

[Anonymous No.10197227]

>>10197223
by not being a retard

[Anonymous No.10197261]

>>10196720
>randomly adding an extra axis that represents nothing and is completely meaningless just so it makes your data look cooler

[Anonymous No.10197279]

>>10196720
Imagine actually opening paint and drawing this. Just... whoa.

[Anonymous No.10197289]

>>10197223
Pseuds hate him.

[Anonymous No.10197297]

>>10197279
>>10197289
I found it on his facebook page. Fuckin kek'd hard. One of his fans made it and posted it there I think. Woulda made a good shitpost thread but I always complain about board quality so I'm not gonna be hypocritical by making a "scientifically speaking, is this correct?" shitpost.

[Anonymous No.10197299]

>>10197261
it's the log dude. it's a log plot.

[Anonymous No.10197304]

>>10197299
it might not be either, you might be right

[Anonymous No.10197311]

>>10192738
>using dumb puns like acadummy
>red flag of crackpotism

[Anonymous No.10197458]

>>10197311
>Bill Gaede
>Lubos Motl
I think you are right, but saying 'crackpot' or 'crank' is the academic's "acadummy" don't you think?

[Anonymous No.10197591]

>>10192737
>>10197297

>he hasn't derived a proof for god from first principles

and look, the brainlet makes a thread about it too. oh but some guy who probably hasn't even read the ctmu made a shitty iq chart on facebook! not an argument

>>10195851
you are close, but not quite. not only this, but in genesis, the universe had to have defined its rules somehow. from the reality principle, reality is all that is real so nothing external to it could have imposed this syntax. what follows is that through self-determinacy (effectively free will) the universe defined its own rules by placing restrictions upon UBT. i think i could have explained it earlier, but who cares? the thread is going to be deleted after i make this post. not that i care.

>>10196147
this desu

>>10195910
you do not understand what perception is in this discussion. otherwise, it should be rather self-evident that reality does indeed conform to categories or cognitive syntax

this here provides some background behind where he is coming from:

http://megasociety.org/noesis/44/intro.html

it is a bit annoying that you can talk about metaphysical subjects such as the ctmu in /sci/ or /lit/

[Anonymous No.10197600]

>>10194237
t. brainlet

>Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

[Anonymous No.10197602]

>>10197591
>that you can talk
*that you cant

sorry, i am a bit tired.

>>10197311
his dislike for academia is rather concerning. he is probably still resentful from having to drop out of uni because his parents couldn't be damned to pay tuition. his ideas would most likely be taken far more seriously if he did get a degree, seeing as pseudo-science like string theory seems to be all the craze

[Anonymous No.10197612]

>>10194237
>Add to this the fact that many people, including employers, resent or feel threatened by intelligent people [...] and the IQ-parameterized employment function is no longer what it was once cracked up to be. If you doubt it, just look at the people running things these days. They may run a little above average, but you’d better not be expecting to find any Aristotles or Newtons among them. Intelligence has been replaced in the job market with an increasingly poor substitute, possession of a college degree, and given that education has steadily given way to indoctrination and socialization as academic priorities, it would be naive to suppose that this is not dragging down the overall efficiency of society.

[Anonymous No.10197654]

>>10192737
Chris Langnan's prose makes me believe him

[Anonymous No.10197658]

>>10197600
is that a quote by him?

[Anonymous No.10197663]

>>10197658
Yes, §18.

[Anonymous No.10198425]

>>10192737
Can anyone give me a link for this ctmu? I couldnt find anything on google

[Anonymous No.10198438]

>>10192737

So does he refute anything at all or is this all just venom that's spitting out?

[Anonymous No.10198452]

How fucking asspained do you have to be to go out of your way and harass some tiny youtuber only getting 1k views per video.

[Anonymous No.10198674]

>>10197591
>but in genesis, the universe had to have defined its rules somehow
>reality is all that is real so nothing external to it could have imposed this syntax

Maybe. But the I can imagine the universe being part of some greater reality where the rules fluctuate over.. spacetime (or something deeper) and our universe is simply a localized phenomenon where they crystallized in such a way as to allow us to emerge to question the rules. Though I'll concede that this simply pushes the ultimate question back a step.
It may also be that the universe is simply eternal and/or the linearity of time is also just a localized phenomenon in a more complex topology.
>self-determinacy..
This still just boils down to assuming the necessity of a mind in a place where our conception is at a maximum distance from verifiability.

[Anonymous No.10198792]

>>10192737
why does anyone take langan seriously? nothing related to him is worth discussing

[Anonymous No.10198795]

>>10195851
so he's just a berkeleian idealist. that's gay.

[Anonymous No.10198834]

Did not expect to see mge dm lord solomon on /sci/ desu

[Anonymous No.10198851]

quick rundown on this guy please

[Anonymous No.10199430]

>>10198851
>Be retard
>Convince other retards you're a super genius with the usual quantum universe IQ babble
>Profit

[Anonymous No.10199436]

>>10195488
He's using too many words that aren't adding anything of substance.

[Anonymous No.10199465]

>>10199436
major cope

[Anonymous No.10199637]

>>10198851
/pol/ on two legs and with better grammar.

[Anonymous No.10200236]

>>10198674
>This still just boils down to assuming the necessity of a mind in a place where our conception is at a maximum distance from verifiability.

yes as would be needed for any universe

[Anonymous No.10200242]

>>10195534
Chad Langan vs Sodomite Nelson.

[Anonymous No.10200248]

>>10198851
High IQ guy who was unable to continue with college because of finances, worked as a bouncer for 20 years then revealed himself to the world. Honestly is smart and I agree with most issues.

[Anonymous No.10200265]

Seriously why the fuck is he getting so mad over a literal who youtuber
Fuck langan

[Anonymous No.10200266]

>>10200265
He's mostly mad that his fans aren't properly defending it and thus making him look bad by association.

[Anonymous No.10200278]

>>10200265
because he's literally just a big fucking fake retard nobody so posturing against other nobodies is his entire life

[Anonymous No.10200324]

>>10199436
you mean he learned to write before text messaging existed

[Anonymous No.10202095]

>>10192737
Langan has a low EQ

[Anonymous No.10202185]

>>10195851
So basically what Alan Watts(+Buddhism) already spoke about

[Anonymous No.10203369]

>>10195851
That's Berkeley. Does he add anything original?

[Anonymous No.10203382]

>>10202185
No

[Anonymous No.10204736]

>>10198792
>why does anyone take langan seriously
If you take IQ seriously, you must take Langan seriously.

[Anonymous No.10204754]

>>10195851
This actually makes sense from a Peirceian, biosemiotic take of Life as God.

[Anonymous No.10205732]

>>10202185
>Alan Watts
MI6

[Anonymous No.10206190]

Chris Langan is that rare combination of con-man and autist.

Fight me.