/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10198929]

Can someone explain the CTMU to me? This asshole with a 200 IQ says we're all going to hell.

[Anonymous No.10198935]

>CTMU
Ask >>>/x/
We only discuss science and math on /sci/

[Anonymous No.10198936]

>>10198935
Is the CTMU complete pseudoscience?

[Anonymous No.10198938]

>>10198936
I don't know what it is but it's definitely not science

[Anonymous No.10198940]

>>10198929
First you have to understand the time cube

[Tuba Jam No.10198974]

>>10198936
the CTMU is a weird intersection of science, philosophy, logic, and metaphysics. Those who can understand one part are usually unfamiliar with the others, and add to that the fact that langnan invented a lot of the concepts himself, which leads to him giving names to things that might already have been discovered by others with different names, thus leading to even further confusion.
I wish he would make an appendix that defines the words he uses. I wonder why doesn't.

[Anonymous No.10199215]

>>10198940
Oh, I understand the time cube.

[Anonymous No.10199239]

>>10198936
Essentially, yes. Btw there is no evidence meme man has a 200 IQ, just that he is a highly eloquent speaker.

[Anonymous No.10199255]

>>10198974
Email him and ask him.

[Anonymous No.10199257]

>>10199255
OP here
I emailed him and he never got back to me

[Anonymous No.10199259]

>>10198929
it's just another one of those stupid "perception creates reality" stinkheaps. in other words, meaningless philosophy that is completely nonscientific

[El Arcón No.10199262]

>>10198940
Nice resource on time cube:
>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

[Anonymous No.10199267]

>>10198936
It has not been published in peer-reviewed journals - make of that what you will

[Anonymous No.10199271]

>>10199267
Was the Principia Mathematica published in a peer reviewed journal?

[Anonymous No.10199279]

>>10199271
No, but Principia was at least comprehensible. CTMU is literal gibberish.

[Anonymous No.10199281]

>>10199239
He's a pseudo intellectual. Maybe that's why he's so popular on this board.

[Anonymous No.10199362]

>>10199257
Keep pestering him.
He probably gets loads of them.

[Anonymous No.10199369]

>>10199279
>Principia was at least comprehensible
But it wasn't. Most people didn't understand the new mathematics he invented and thought he was bullshitting at first.

[Anonymous No.10199398]

>>10199369
Oh shit. Langan is right..

[Anonymous No.10199407]

>>10199369
but newton was like "look, it agrees with kepler's data, plus i'm making new predictions" and people tested them and they turned out right. just because mathfags were unhappy didn't make any difference when empirical evidence was staring everyone in the face

OTOH philosophical nonsense that makes no predictions and doesn't correspond to any observational data (like langan's drivel) is worthless

[Anonymous No.10199434]

>>10199369
Everything you said is false. Principia was revolutionary, and immediately so. Nobody on Earth even knows what CTMU is.

[Anonymous No.10199441]

[Anonymous No.10199463]

>>10199441
why do i enjoy pseudoscientific constructs like this
I enjoyed the shit out of maps of meaning too. I guess I'm just grimly fascinated with superstition and magical thinking.

[Anonymous No.10199470]

>>10199463
So I guess this board isn't hugely into JP?

[Anonymous No.10199488]

>>10199434
No, what I said was correct (people didn't understand it at first), but you are obviously correct that the Principia had an immediate effect. But that's because Newton was already at the greatest institution on the planet. Langdon is some dude working out of his basement with no connections or institution.

[Anonymous No.10199490]

>>10199470
It's almost universally accepted here that psychology is barely a science and Jungian psychoanalysis is a complete pseudoscience but we don't have quite the hateboner that /lit/ has for him. We mostly just poke fun at "Dr. Peterson" (PhD in ""clinical psychology"")

[Anonymous No.10199495]

>>10199463
What about it is pseudoscientific? There's a high probability that a superintelligence will eventually be created that would essentially be a god.

[Anonymous No.10199502]

>>10199490
The thing is, psychology doesn't need to be a science. It deals with subjectivity and the human consciousness which cannot be examined scientifically. But we know that "pseudo-sciences" like psychodynamic therapy actually work.

[Anonymous No.10199510]

>>10199495
its
>lack of prediction power
>un-testability
>non-falsifiable nature
make it pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.10199516]

>>10199463
Friendly reminder that the scientific method itself is incapable of being verified by science. The very foundations of science are assumptions that cannot be verified. Scientism is an irrational and self-contradictory worldview.

[Anonymous No.10199519]

>>10199516
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.10199522]

>>10199519
>calls other magical thinkers
>doesn't even know the first principles of his discipline

[Anonymous No.10199523]

>>10199516
>Friendly reminder that the scientific method itself is incapable of being verified by scien
yes
>The very foundations of science are assumptions that cannot be verified
very true
>[science] is an irrational and self-contradictory worldview.
NO, lmao

[Anonymous No.10199525]

>>10199516
based

[Anonymous No.10199587]

>>10199523
I said scientism, not science. Science is a methodology for studying nature. Scientism is an ideology. Degenerate animu furfag.

[Anonymous No.10199592]

>>10199587
So why did you bring it up? Nobody mentioned scientism besides you. The scientific method is absolutely rational.

[Anonymous No.10199601]

>>10199592
Because the person I responded to was spouting a worldview akin to scientism, that anything that isn't scientific or verifiable by science is useless/irrational. Furfag weeb, kys.

[Anonymous No.10199612]

>>10199601
No he didn't. He said the image in >>10199441 is pseudoscience. Which it is. See >>10199510
>kys
No ;3

[Anonymous No.10199616]

>>10199587
"scientism" is a word invented by science haters to strawman scientific views they don't like. nobody who matters has ever said "i believe in scientism" -- the only time anyone uses that word it's when some scientifically minded person says something like "it's impossible for twenty-something jewish dudes to walk on water" which triggers some retard priest into the "REEEE SCIENTISM, MIRACLES ARE REAL AND SO IS SANTA REEEEEEEE"

[Anonymous No.10199650]

>>10199616
Scientism is a legitimate thing, though most people who are adherents of scientism are unaware of it. If you're one of the spergs that believes only "scientific" things are worthwhile, you're one of them.

[Anonymous No.10199655]

>>10199650
Nobody in this thread "only believes scientific things are worthwhile." No successful scientist thinks that way either. But things that present themselves are scientific, which aren't, are actually garbage. What's a matter, can't respond to >>10199612 ?

[Anonymous No.10199666]

>>10199650
>most people who are adherents of scientism are unaware of it
god, what a dumb argument. i am a scientist but i wouldn't claim that "only scientific things are worthwhile" like for instance human rights are "worthwhile" in my opinion (like e.g. it's worthwhile to do what can be done to end/prevent slavery). but to value things that aren't squarely in the crosshairs of science doesn't require believing in anything supernatural or metaphysical -- that stuff is retarded. for example, the golden rule is pretty self-evident and could be argued for in many ways that don't conjure up imaginary fairy tales. and i think most scientists feel the same way: only scientific facts are actual true facts, but that doesn't mean your worldview is entirely nihilistic/materialistic, but people like you are closeted jesusfags who strawman us like that

[Anonymous No.10199671]

>>10199666
>and i think most scientists feel the same way: only scientific facts are actual true facts
You're destroying the point you're trying to make, retard. There are lots of fact that aren't empirical [scientific] in nature. I don't actually believe you are employed as a research scientist btw.

[Anonymous No.10199677]

>>10198929

1. No one has verified his IQ
2. He has no formal education
3. Academics laugh at him

Conclusion:

In all likely hood this is a man who has above average intelligence with an above average inferiority complex.

[Anonymous No.10199691]

>>10199671
well i guess this is sort of arguing semantics at this point, but to clarify: yes, there are many things which aren't empirical facts. take for instance "augustus caesar was the emperor of ancient rome". fine, we can't do a test to reproduce that or look through a telescope to see it, so it's not empirical. it's a historical fact. but it's totally consistent with scientific observations, and tidbits of "indirect evidence" exist in a scientific way (like looking at archaeology and ancient artifacts)

what i mean by "only scientific facts are true facts" is that if you claim there are any facts that are inconsistent with science, or postulate the existence of things which aren't observable empirically (in principle, forever), then it's not a fact. statements that disagree with established empirical facts (like walking on water) are just false, and statements that only deal with permanently unobservable things are nonscientific and have no meaning

[Anonymous No.10199694]

>>10199691
>augustus caesar was the emperor of ancient rome
But that IS an empirical fact? You're making the scientism guy look smarter than you. There are facts about morality, math, taste, art, etc. Just stop posting.

[Anonymous No.10199706]

>>10199510
Except it is testable you fucking moron. If millenia pass and a technological singularity hasn't happened yet, that would be strong evidence that it is wrong.

[Anonymous No.10199708]

>>10199259
>perception creates reality

CTMU is bullshit, but that part is actually true.

[Anonymous No.10199709]

>>10198929
Summary of this dickhead:
Pop sci high brain numbers man reads and misinterprets "Allegory of the Cave" and ultimately relies on ad hominem and appeal to authority when the inevitable questions "how does something come from nothing" or "how can a human define god?" are asked.

[Anonymous No.10199714]

>>10199694
it’s not something you can make a reproducible experiment to verify, and not something you can directly observe, so empirically it’s only supported by very weak indirect evidence like artifacts and anthropological stuff. it’s much more supported if you consider it as a historical fact

>There are facts about morality, math, taste, art
these are not objective facts you can prove though. what you’re referring to only are “facts” within a set of assumptions which may or may not be true, so the consequences of them are not really facts about real things. give me an example of such a “fact”, whatever you say is either not a fact or, the only alternative, it really is an empirical fact in disguise

[Anonymous No.10199734]

>>10199666
>only scientific facts are actual true facts
Can you prove this assertion scientifically?

[Anonymous No.10199738]

I love when /sci/ threads turn into meta-discussions and most posters get exposed as nothing more than brainlet calculators that repeat things they read in textbooks or experienced from routine problem-solving, yet considers themselves intelligent.

[Anonymous No.10199743]

>>10199694
>There are facts about morality, math, taste, art, etc. Just stop posting.
Ignoring that you just lumped math in with completely unrelated subjects what are some "facts" about morality taste and art.

[Anonymous No.10199776]

>>10199734
scientifically, true statements are empirically testable and observable, otherwise those things are false or meaningless, so basically what i said is proven since it’s a tautology

[Anonymous No.10199780]

[Anonymous No.10199787]

>>10199776
Test that statement empirically, anon.

[Anonymous No.10199789]

No one has explained it yet...

[Anonymous No.10199791]

Anyone who unironically thinks you can EVER get truth with Empiricism is a pseud and should be laughed at.

[Anonymous No.10199806]

>>10199743
>he thinks math, music, and art are unrelated

[Anonymous No.10199837]

>>10199806
>music
You never said music.

[Anonymous No.10199841]

>>10198929
>>10199780
>High IQ
>Autodidact
>Creates new ideas that are revolutionary
>Good grounded mental state, respects the blue collar professions
>Also a powerlifter

Is Langan the modern renaissance man?

[Anonymous No.10199848]

>>10199841
Even if all the things you quoted were true he still wouldn't be a modern renaissance man.

[Anonymous No.10199851]

>>10199791
You can get an approximation or an understanding of the functioning mechanism, but you can never answer the serious questions. That is the limit of science.

[Anonymous No.10199858]

>>10199791
Good thing scientists realize that empiricism doesn't provide "truth"

[Anonymous No.10199869]

>>10199858
/sci/tards think it does

[Anonymous No.10199893]

>>10199257
Of course he didn't.
His """"""theory"""""""""""""""" is akin to writing
>the recombobulation of the pataphysical flux recapacitor depends on the luxuation of God's phylactery
His mumbo jumbo is necessary for his writings to be unfalsifiable. The thing is, he hides the unfalsifiability behind his IQ. If you try to prove anything wrong, you'll be told that you just don't understand the words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

[Anonymous No.10200023]

>>10198929
People who revolve their entire identity around their IQ score show a horseshoe effect. They wrap right back around to being retarded because it's all about the display. It's just a gig, like people who seek world records.

If they don't learn a field, there's no reason to give a fuck about their opinion. This guy sounds like he can start with epistomology, specifically the parts about stuff not being true because you made it the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.10200027]

People on /sci/ specifically are going to the worst and most painful possible hell besides the small handful of non-pretentious non-white supremacist people on here.

[Anonymous No.10200136]

>>10199259
It's called idealism and it's a position held by many rigorous philosophers.

[Anonymous No.10200172]

>>10199259
Guy with dp/dr here

Im beginning to think thats actually true

[Anonymous No.10200256]

>>10199858
What does provide "truth"?

[Anonymous No.10200264]

>>10200256
Pure mathematics

[Anonymous No.10200274]

>>10200264
Can you use it for anything worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.10200284]

>>10199239
Highly eloquent? He sounds like the typical retarded reddit pseud, like that yudkowsky guy.

[Anonymous No.10200660]

>>10198929
“Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see.” Arthur Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.10200723]

>>10198929
It's like getting people to read Mochizuki's proof.
You're taking a risk of wasting a portion of your life in trying to understand it.
Maybe a century later, some autist with money and free time will read it and transcend dimensions or he will have just wasted his time.

[Anonymous No.10200733]

>>10199434
Actually I do know..

[Anonymous No.10200737]

>>10200723
The difference being that Mochizuki, unlike Chris, is a well respected mathematician who has done and does actual research. You take away IUT and there's more to Mochizuki than that. You take away CTMU from Langan and you have an insufferable quack sperging over muh iq. Fuck, even if you don't take away CTMU, all you have is still an insufferable quack sperging over muh iq, and his entourage of dumb teenagers

[Anonymous No.10200739]

>>10200660
don't insult poor Yudkowsky :'(