/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10287796]

>The difference between Christopher Langan's IQ (200) and the average Nobel laureate's IQ (135) is the same as the difference between the average Nobel laureate's IQ and that of a retard (70)

Imagine for a moment if Einstein or Feynman walked into a school for special children to teach them about the world and the retards there say they're wrong because they couldn't understand it.

People with less than 190 IQ aren't even qualified to have an opinion on CTMU much less critique it.

[Anonymous No.10287804]

It gives me comfort that Chris is confident there is an afterlife.

[Anonymous No.10287807]

>>10287796
How do I learn about CTMU? I read a bit about it, but I still don't know what it is

[Anonymous No.10287833]

Why are low IQ people so impressed by numbers?
So we suppose that his IQ is in fact as high as he claims, so what? It just means he's good at taking tests, it doesn't give any inherent value to his ideas which do not seem to be able to stand on their merit but rather his hubris.

[Anonymous No.10287840]

>>10287804
What a retard. If there was an afterlife, we'd already be in it because the "life" is exactly 0% of the eternal "life+afterlife"

[Anonymous No.10287846]

>>10287840
There's a theory we all died when the LHC was turned on and everything since has been an increasingly irrational delusion

[Anonymous No.10287847]

>>10287833
Based on the way you write I estimate you IQ to be in the low 90's.

[Anonymous No.10287854]

>>10287846
Link?

[Anonymous No.10287857]

>>10287847
Based on the fact that you defend Langan I estimate your IQ to be in the low 70s

[Anonymous No.10287858]

>>10287846
you have to be alive to have an delusion. Along the same veins of "I think therefore I am".

[Anonymous No.10287861]

>>10287858
Proof?

[Anonymous No.10287867]

>>10287840
Is this bait, or are you genuinely retarded. The same reasoning would entail that if there is an afterLIFE than human were never alive to begin with, or e.g. that a person has never counted to one if they've counted to an extremely large integer greater than one.

[Anonymous No.10287875]

>>10287858
>>10287861
It's a prerequisite. That's what lies in it. Or are you of the idealism school of thought that ideas somehow are able to exist outside of the experiences of living things?

[Anonymous No.10287882]

>>10287858
Yeah, it's pretty dumb. I favor the bottleneck hypothesis. LHC has destroyed almost all parallel realities, and only a tiny fraction which are the sum of a series of seemingly unrelated things like Trump and flossing have managed to survive because they somehow influence the LHC. Maybe a scientist at the LHC was flossing and broke something, which bought us some time.

[Anonymous No.10287886]

>>10287882
How does the LHC destroy realities? What is the theoretical basis for this? Otherwise you can say someone destroys a universe everytime they flush the toilet.

[Anonymous No.10287894]

>>10287840
Just like how we know the integers have an end, because if they were infinite, any random number is exactly 0% of the infinite "numbers i can count to + more".

[Anonymous No.10287896]

>>10287886
Black holes or particles outside the standard model

[Anonymous No.10287902]

>>10287896
A whole sentence is comprised of a subject and predicate. You may or may not have learned this in your special needs school.

[Anonymous No.10287906]

>>10287894
numbers are a social construct

[Anonymous No.10287909]

>>10287902
being pedantic will get you nowhere

[Anonymous No.10287911]

>no one else can have an opinion
So he built his own house because he knows better than builders? Did he also design his own car and program his own OS?
Specialisation is what has let technology develop to this point and I'm pretty sure I know more about my specialisation than he does.

[Anonymous No.10287917]

>>10287875
I don't follow any school of thoughts. I was just asking for proof that you have to be alive to have a delusion

[Anonymous No.10287922]

>>10287902
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.10287923]

>>10287833
it means he‘s good at taking tests that independently of one another correllate highly with traits and factors we consider intelligent.

[Anonymous No.10287926]

>>10287917
When did you stop beating your wife?

It's a prerequisite. No proof needed or even applicable.

[Anonymous No.10287929]

I think people like Langan for the same reason they liked Hitler
Most low IQ people are like children who want a stern parent to lead them through the darkness

[Anonymous No.10287940]

>>10287833
What? Its only high IQ people that care about IQ, low IQ people dont give a shit about it.

[Anonymous No.10287943]

>>10287926
I don't understand. Are you saying being alive is a prerequisite to having a delusion, i.e. having a delusion implies being alive? If so why is "No proof needed or even applicable"?

[Anonymous No.10287950]

>>10287902
>I'm unable to discern the meaning of colloquial text.

[Anonymous No.10287963]

>>10287923
But IQ-intelligence has no inherent value by itself what you do with it matters.
I like to think of it as similar to gasoline, and the various ways you can burn it that can either offer no or immense benefit.
What if Langans attention seeking personality, and contrarian contempt for the scientific establishment leads him to erroneous views?

[Anonymous No.10287968]

>>10287940
Langan supporters do not seem very intelligent. If they were they wouldn't worship numbers.

[Anonymous No.10287973]

>>10287943
> i.e. having a delusion implies being alive?
Yes.

> If so why is "No proof needed or even applicable"?
Because dead things are unable to have delusions. Much in the same way you can't breathe without an atmosphere.

I reckon you ARE of the idealism school of thought, without even knowing it.

[Anonymous No.10287995]

>>10287973
>Because dead things are unable to have delusions. Much in the same way you can't breathe without an atmosphere.
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.10287996]

When the IQ score is normalized like that intentionally, the absolute difference is arbitrary and meaningless. 135 is the 99th percentile, 200 is 99.999...th percentile. The "difference" between them is less than 1% of the population. 70 IQ is 2.27th percentile. The difference between a retard and a Nobel laureate is 96% of the population. A 1% difference in percentile from 135 IQ in the other direction is a 130 IQ (rounding up from the 97.7th percentile, since the integer values of IQ don't line up with the integer percentiles).
There is no reason to believe that the absolute difference measured proportionally to standard deviation is a meaningful description of intelligence, because that's only one way to interpret an IQ score. To say one person is x IQ points above another can mean something completely different depending on where they are on the bell curve.

[Anonymous No.10288001]

>>10287950
that's not what colloquial means

[Anonymous No.10288005]

>>10287995
Because I have experienced, personally, being without consciousness - or more correctly - being in a state without consciousness.

No time flows. You don't experiences anything. From the time I lost consciousness until I regained it again, it might as well have been an instant, because that is what happened. I lost a full 6 hours that seemed, to me, to have happened instantaneously.

Tell me; where were you before you existed?

[Anonymous No.10288018]

>>10287796
This guy is a retard, his IQ score AFAIK is self proclaimed, and his theories are worse than science explained in warhammer 40k

[Anonymous No.10288020]

>>10287996
just proved urself wrong genius

200 is well over 1 in a billion

for every langan there is 10 million nobel LOL

if anything the gap between langan and a 135 brainlet is even bigger in terms of raw population than the gap between a 135 and a retard

[Anonymous No.10288022]

>>10287796
He denies the Trinity, and as such should be not taken serious. Follow the Words of the Lord, not a antichrist. Read the bible for sole Source of truth, and dig deeper to find the Associations With those Divine Words. All else is a trick by Satan and his legions, as to lead you to hell. We live in the end times, as prophesized, and the end is coming this Century. Forget all secular matters, and resist sin. This life is short for a reason

[Anonymous No.10288024]

>>10287896
There are much more energetic events happening in the universe than the LHC can ever produce, are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.10288039]

>>10287858
Only by our concepts of being alive are we alive, how do you know you're not "dead" right now, have you ever died before?

[Anonymous No.10288048]

>>10288020
You don't really get it. Langan scores better than a Nobel laureate and even 10 million of them. That can't translate into actual difference in intelligence because of how IQ is defined. If Langan didn't exist one of the 10 million laureates would have IQ bigger than the rest of them and he would be designed as the 200IQ guy.

[Anonymous No.10288058]

>>10288048
Langan never scored 200, and if he did, then that means too high IQ is a sign of being retarded like too low is.

[Anonymous No.10288059]

>>10287796
>>10287804
>>10287807
>>10287833
>>10287840
>>10287875
>>10287867
>>10287929
>>10287940
>>10287963
>>10287996
>>10288022
>>10288020
>>10288018
>>10288005

The number of abhorrent comments in this thread bore me. Langan is a lunatic that pieced together many concepts in his head and came up with a profound concoction of pure fecal matter that no self-respecting scientist or theoretical physicist would ever take seriously.

Christopher is a fusion between a con man and a religious nut. All of the concepts he spoke of on air are complete dog shit. The reporter who accepted to interview him should be ashamed of himself. He might as well should have found a 4chan user to interview and ask him about all the science articles on AI and simulation theory he has read in the past 2 years. People like Christopher treats everyone like they are below him. I suppose Christopher is at the end of a spectrum, the complete opposite of a NASA employee or Jordan Peterson. Christopher has no credibility whatsoever. He found some big words with big meanings and he internalized these concepts

This is why you should never let your ego get away from you.

For anyone who doubts my bullshit critique, here's a quora article calling this con man nut job exactly what he is: https://www.quora.com/What-do-physicists-think-of-Christopher-Langans-Cognitive-Theoretic-Model-of-the-Universe-CTMU

[Anonymous No.10288060]

man Einsten has made everyone think that light is spontaneous generation

He is important because thanks to him some subjects got developed but he is not even close to be one of the best scientists of all time

just go to your place, you need to understand that I'm the holder of the force and I'm putting Einstein on a level of "good scientist" but he is actually responsible for big mistakes of Physics

[Anonymous No.10288068]

>>10288058
It doesn't matter for the sake of explaining what IQ actually is. IQ is a relative metric that only says who's better, not by how much. It's like curve grading exams, nobody will ever know that the bottom person and the top person had 10% difference between them, but of course we assumed that students have normal distribution and we can't give too many A's or too few D's

[Anonymous No.10288083]

>>10288060

The "best" is a subjective term.

>just go to your place, you need to understand that I'm the holder of the force and I'm putting Einstein on a level of "good scientist" but he is actually responsible for big mistakes of Physics

First of all, this is epic cringe. Secondly, no fucking shit. Everyone makes mistakes. That doesn't mean he is disingenuous like Christopher.

[Anonymous No.10288085]

>>10288068

IQ is a penis measuring contest.

[Anonymous No.10288091]

>>10288059
Chris Langan discovered fusion?!?

[Anonymous No.10288100]

So is Langan really smart or not? Cause some people say he's a fraud but I want to believe in the solitary genius

[Anonymous No.10288103]

>>10287968
Intelligent relative to who? Actual low IQ people like blacks just stare you in the face if you talk about their IQ results then goes "well? so what?". It took a man with a high IQ to even invent the IQ test yet you insist morons care about IQ.

[Anonymous No.10288131]

>>10288039
Do you think "dead" means something other than being not alive? You're chasing your own tail here.

[Anonymous No.10288137]

>>10287796
Langan probably has 130-140 iq, nothing special but well above subhuman normie 90-110

[Anonymous No.10288140]

>>10288059
>quora article

[Anonymous No.10288144]

>>10287858
"I define myself therefore I am"
Lol, the people who actually believe this are insane. Things don't define themselves, this is logic 101.
>>10287875
If you think therefore you are, then you sure must know how to "think" then huh. You must have just thought yourself into existence, right out of thin air then you must have thought yourself into growing up, all with no help! Oh an just you and only you right? Yeah, why would someone whose thoughts conjure up their own existence require a medium to traverse through?

>Or are you of the idealism school of thought that ideas somehow are able to exist outside of the experiences of living things?
>you are your beliefs
A most abhorrent psychosis. I pity "you".
>>10288059
Correct. Chris Langan has produced an astounding net 0 contribution to both science and metaphysics and his "proofs" consist of appeal to authority/circular logic nonsense. He thinks he's right because he and a group of people that think like him say he is. That's not science.

[Anonymous No.10288146]

>>10288137
>Langan probably has 130-140 iq
Read CTMU, Langan ain't above 105, he is a walking dunning kruger syndrome or a fraud

[Anonymous No.10288148]

>>10287796

[Anonymous No.10288151]

>>10288144
>He thinks he's right because he and a group of people that think like him say he is. That's not science.
That's literally science

[Anonymous No.10288155]

>>10288144
>Yeah, why would someone whose thoughts conjure up their own existence require a medium to traverse through?

That's exactly opposite of what I was alluding at. Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.10288162]

>>10288151
>That's literally science
GTFO non stem faggot

[Anonymous No.10288163]

>>10287840
>I take everything literally because im a brainlet, the post

[Anonymous No.10288167]

in any event i'm kind of skeptical about langan's iq anyway. actual brain mutants like that are coerced in some way or another by the powers that be to actually make something of their talents. langan is probably high iq but not that high iq. the super elite brain mutants with an iq of 190 are probably followed closely by the intelligence agencies in some capacity their whole lives and are probably "coerced" into a life of academia or intelligence work or something in some way.

[Anonymous No.10288168]

>iq threads
how is this /sci/?

[Anonymous No.10288177]

>>10288167
but iq is obviously broken after a certain treshold. plus it's obviously not linear. the difference between 130 iq and 190 iq is probably slight, and cannot be compared to the difference between 130 iq and 70 iq on the basis of it being a difference of 60 iq points. i don't think anyway.

[Anonymous No.10288183]

>>10288177
there’s a noticable difference in cognitive capacity every standard deviation or so. someone close to 200 would be almost a different species compared to a very bright 2 SD person. It becomes less significant every point gained above 3 SD’s but the aggregate effect of 50 pt difference would be startling. Langan is not an eminent orator or writer and nothing he proposes can’t be found in other upper mid level iq schizo ramblings online.

[Anonymous No.10288191]

>>10288183
my feelings exactly. plus this post here too:
>>10288167

[Anonymous No.10288201]

>He is a lunatic
>He is a retard!
>He is a religious nut!
>He lied about his IQ!
Triggered much?

[Anonymous No.10288203]

Maybe Langan should serve as a lesson to all of you people who preach IQ digits like they're synonymous with human potential and worth. That the number is an accurate measurement of intelligence does not mean that it's an accurate measurement of someone's capacity to do things like, well, formulate an accurate theory of everything out of pseudo-philosophical junk.

There are aspects of science and reasoning that even an apt intelligence cannot replace, and thinking that your intelligence confers you the ability to conjure up solid insights out of your half-knowledge of things is how you make an ass out of yourself. Plenty of people here do just the same, if less obviously. Maybe using IQ as an argument of authority doesn't do you or the measurement construct any favors.

Arrogance is your own worst enemy, as it is this college dropout's.

[Anonymous No.10288207]

>>10288151
>That's literally popscience

FTFY

>>10288155
I don't even think you know what you're alluding to. You think therefore you are not otherwise you would "be" and you wouldn't have to think much about it now would you?

[Anonymous No.10288209]

I'm in the process of finishing my rebuttal thesis to the CTMU. If there is enough interest in /sci/ I'll make it open access by the end of February. I address each point that Langan makes and disprove it using mathematics. I haven't taken an IQ test, but I expect myself to be around 210 +/- 10, 99% CI.

[Anonymous No.10288222]

>>10288209
Dude if you read through CTMU and actually tried to understand it all, I will suck your dick. You are a living god. I would rather get flayed than read through CTMU

[Anonymous No.10288242]

>>10288177
>the difference between 130 iq and 190 iq is probably slight
what's the difference between 130 IQ and 135IQ?

[Anonymous No.10288248]

>>10288203
/thread

[Anonymous No.10288256]

>>10287804
The existence of an afterlife depends one your belief in it. This is why Christianity and other religions put such an emphasis on blind, unwavering, faith. That is what is required to experience heaven. If you doubt your beliefs at all, or are looking for validation through someone else, you dont get it.

[Anonymous No.10288258]

>>10288131
Our being alive is just the time we spend in these fleshy bodies. Let's say that your consciousness continues on after you "die" would you still be alive by our concept of it? It would appear to everyone else on this planet that you died, but by your point of view you would be alive as well. I don't even know where I'm going with this, just something that's been on my mind

[Anonymous No.10288262]

>>10288059
>Im super jelly of a genius, the post

[Anonymous No.10288269]

He’s smart but the tests aren’t designed to read that high. After roughly 140 you can only make speed gains, not in stuff that actually matters like verbal comprehension or perceptual reasoning
He seems like a cool guy though

[Anonymous No.10288277]

Just because a 140 IQ and a 200 IQ are both rare it doesn't mean that the difference between them is small.

[Anonymous No.10288278]

>>10288177
Most stuff correlates linearly with iq actually iirc

[Anonymous No.10288292]

This thread is full of mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.10288297]

>>10288222
I've read through it and explain the concepts in laymen terms in my thesis.

[Anonymous No.10288303]

>>10287840
Basic stupid mathematician. Some of the sensory experiences MUST be located in the "0%" (which is actually ">0%" but whatever brainlet). Therefore it is VERY VERY INCORRECT TO SAY you cannot be in life because afterlife is so much bigger.

[Anonymous No.10288344]

>>10288201
It's funny how the posters in this thread are a example of a person suffering from the dunning Kruger syndrome projecting the dunning Kruger effect on Langan .

I think personally that Langan is likely so smart that he embraced ultra nihilism and he just doesn't give one about science anymore .

[Anonymous No.10288369]

>>10287911
Logan did build 3 of his own homes actually and he owns a ranch. The guy is wholesome, that's why I think many ppl here don't like him, pure envy on every level.

[Anonymous No.10288419]

>>10288369
There is no envy, read CTMU, dude is a retard

[Anonymous No.10288462]

>>10287833
It's been proven that an IQ above 120 is practically meaningless.
High IQ people are just autistic nerds, who only have IQ to brag about.
They are simple above average intelligence people, who have just studied taking IQ tests day and night in order to be able to brag.
If they were actually smart they wouldn't care about IQ. They would be rich and famous.

[Anonymous No.10288473]

>>10288001
That's literally what colloquial means.

[Anonymous No.10288505]

An IQ of 200 is impossible. Higher than 195 is just an estimate

>>10288462
Wrong and bluepilled

[Anonymous No.10288507]

>>10287796
And the difference between Langan and a Nobel Prize winner is that a Nobel Prize winner actually contributes something to society.

[Anonymous No.10288513]

>Muh IQ

Pass peer review, then people will have a reason to listen to your ramblings.

[Anonymous No.10288531]

>>10288513
>Muh Scientism

[Anonymous No.10288545]

>>10288531
>Muh scientism

Pass peer review, then people will have a reason to listen to your ramblings.

[Anonymous No.10288561]

>>10288545
>I expect scientistians to accept the fact that they're religious

[Anonymous No.10288586]

hey bro if ur so smart how come youre poor

[Anonymous No.10288587]

>>10288561
Many scientists are indeed members of religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. And?

[Anonymous No.10288591]

>>10288587
I was referring to scientistians, not scientists.

[Anonymous No.10288595]

>>10288591
Never heard of it.

[Anonymous No.10288598]

>>10288595
don't expect them to be self-aware.

[Anonymous No.10288600]

>>10288598
All craniate animals are self-aware, or they’d be unable to put one foot in front of the other.

[Anonymous No.10288616]

>>10287796
>IQ (200)

Won't exist until the earth's population reaches over 70 Billion

[Anonymous No.10288625]

>>10288600
I'm so hungry I could eat a whole elephant. That means that I won't feel satisfied until I literally eat a whole elephant.

[Anonymous No.10288629]

>>10288625
It would take a single human weeks at least to consume the edible mass of an African or Asian elephant, so I am skeptical of your claim.

[Anonymous No.10288643]

>>10288629
I'm very hungry and non narcissistic people can understand that.

[Anonymous No.10288651]

>>10288643
It’s a joke. I find being pedantically literal funny.

[Anonymous No.10288658]

How do we know he has IQ that high? Has any independent third party verified it?

[Anonymous No.10288680]

>>10288658
Who cares?

[Anonymous No.10288739]

>>10288419
point out one inconsistency in CTMU

"muh pretentious words" is not an argument

[Anonymous No.10288743]

>>10288059
why the hell should scientists and physicists have any say what so ever on the CTMU?

[Anonymous No.10288754]

>>10288151
>science is one big appeal to authority
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10288759]

>>10288739
its an entire construct of mutually supporting vagueness, word salad, misapplied jargon, and crankery.

in fact it ticks off many identifiers in Baez's Crackpot Index:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[Anonymous No.10288766]

>>10288759
its not physics its metalogical inquiry

He defines all terms, im simply asking you to point out a flaw in the theiry. Nobody on /sci/ ever does, becasue its a perfectly sound theory.

[Anonymous No.10288770]

>>10288743
Because it treads on their turf?

[Anonymous No.10288772]

>>10288766
I don’t think you know what theories are.

Make one prediction using it.

[Anonymous No.10288777]

>>10287796
I (supposedly) have a very high IQ, and all I can say is there are definitely times where I can see something and someone else cannot and they treat me like I'm an idiot until they either see the results or someone else tells them they're wrong. But that's edge cases, generally you can agree on most stuff.

[Anonymous No.10288779]

>>10288766
its vagueness obfuscates investigation into its soundness, when someone attacks his neologisms he can (and does) simply claim that the definition wasn't properly understood, thereby letting him move the goalpost wherever he chooses, or connecting it via invisible threads to any other vague concept in his theory

why not spell out his theory in the precise, public language that is mathematics? because that provides a ground where he does not have the upper hand and the math community could rip it to shreds. he'd rather hide in the safety of his language game

[Anonymous No.10288793]

>>10288772
again, you dont understand what he is doing. This is not science, he has developed a theory that explains how the mind interacts with reality in a profound way. That is what theories do. They describe things. There could be plenty of prediction, though thats not what he intended i dont think. One prediction could be the structure of any all emcompassing ideology whether it be marxism, christianity or islam, and the ideology must necessarily obey the principles of the theory.

>>10288770
none of them are arguing against the theory itself, they are all creating strawmen

[Anonymous No.10288796]

>>10288793
you sound like a cultist

[Anonymous No.10288808]

>>10288779
You can't explain it in mathematics without first defining vastly different axiomatic parameters. Math treats sets, points, space etc as pure intuition, in other words there are no actually proofs for their "existence". Godel showed this is necessary for any mathematical system. Langan is different in that he axiomizes that reality constraint principle ie there is no "gimmes", everything that exists exists casually in some sense.

[Anonymous No.10288813]

>>10288796
you sound like an autist

[Anonymous No.10288843]

>>10288793
I’ll present another one, since no predictions are necessary. The mind lives in another dimension called Ur-Slurp, and it sends commands to the brain using undetectable magic.

[Anonymous No.10288865]

>>10288843
that theory is simply not useful and dosent have the prediction power. We could have discussions on what constitutes another dimension with respect to a person that believes christian doctrine, and if heaven is a third layer dimension still contained by ur-slurp, but that would be pointless as we could discuss it way more elegantly and easier in Langans theory. Not only that, but your ur slurp theory can actually be explained in terms of CTMU

[Anonymous No.10288878]

I feel any serious supporter of langan are failed low IQ STEM aspirers who now have resentment against the scientific community and find refuge in the non mathematical nonsensical nature of CTMU made by a genius (fake IQ). This is all coping coz they couldn't understand math.

[Anonymous No.10288879]

>>10288865
>that theory is simply not useful and dosent have the prediction power.

>There could be plenty of prediction, though thats not what he intended i dont think.

Cult.

[Anonymous No.10288920]

>>10288879
is "Force is proportional to mass and acceleration" intended to predict, describe, or be useful? Depends what level of abstraction you are looking at. Langan is usually bringing up his theories in interviews to describe, which in turn is to be useful: One of his main motivations is to stop religious fundamentalist violence. Anyways, any theory predicts and describes usefully, but your theory is simply not elegant enough to be used over other theories. Also Langan is an asshole I agree, so stop calling my a cultist, it makes you sound like a brainlet that dosent understand the actual theory. Which you probably dont

[Anonymous No.10288925]

>>10288808
this rests on the same assumptions, but about linguistic mappings and causality, it's no "deeper", it's the same sort of thing as what you claim math is.

(btw he could have build it from self-evident, self-proving *mathematical* tautologies, not imprecise linguistic ones, but its clear he didn't)

even the laws of thought are a decent enough starting point. there's plenty of non-set-theoretic foundations for math but its clear langan is out of his depth with advanced math. he's appealed to using math as the language for his theory but then rationalises the lack of math by saying "there's no notational system able to capture this theory" with the assumption he has stressed the limitations of things like higher category theory, categorical semantics, stable theory, model theory, proof theory etc. to their limits (tip: nobody has done so)

[Anonymous No.10288933]

>>10288920
force is used every day by engineers and scientists.

what a brainlet take.

[Anonymous No.10288949]

>>10288925
Theres no real reason to describe it with mathematics though even though that would be an interesting thing to do

>>10288933
telic recursion is used by engineers and scientists every day too

[Anonymous No.10288970]

>>10288920
>is "Force is proportional to mass and acceleration" intended to predict, describe, or be useful?
HAHAHHAHA, this proves only non STEM retards believe langan bs, even fucking CS students are taught about engineering mechanics

[Anonymous No.10288979]

>>10288970
explain the intent of any given theory then

[Anonymous No.10288990]

>>10288949
telic recursion isn't a real thing

the real reason to describe it with mathematics is to make it mutually intelligible, but Chris hides behinds his obscure language and takes it that since nobody can understand his word salad he must be a genius. high IQ people tend to write clearly and think rationally but Chris doesn't.

https://culteducation.com/warningsigns.html
scary number of boxes ticked here by Langan, CTMU and its cultists

[Anonymous No.10288991]

>>10288979
To make accurate predictions

[Anonymous No.10289014]

>>10288990
>telic recursion isn't a real thing
how?

[Anonymous No.10289019]

>>10288991
and how does it do that with out describing?

[Anonymous No.10289022]

>>10289019
With numbers and mathematics.

[Anonymous No.10289024]

>>10289019
You could describe gravity 10 ways, out of which only one may be correct, how would you verify which is correct? By comparing observation to predictions done by theory. This is why a theory needs to have predictions to be taken seriously. CTMU has nothing.

[Anonymous No.10289037]

>>10289022
>numbers and mathematics
without describing

>>10289024
nothing is "correct" when we talk about theories that is why they have the name "theory" There are only systems that describe phenomena that hold up better then others

[Anonymous No.10289066]

>>10289037
>nothing is "correct" when we talk about theories that is why they have the name "theory" There are only systems that describe phenomena that hold up better then others
Are we gonna be pedantic here? 9 are horse shit, 10th theory accurately predicts and has much more accurate results.
You are just another non STEM retard who can't understand maths. What does CTMU predict better than other theories?

[Anonymous No.10289073]

>>10289066
>What does CTMU predict better than other theories?
there are no other theories for it to compete with. thats the fucking point feel free to make a better one

[Anonymous No.10289076]

>>10289037
>without describing
If you consider abstract math to be "describing" then I can't help you.

[Anonymous No.10289080]

>>10289073
"What is materialism?"

[Anonymous No.10289084]

>>10289073
>pedantic
Lul, so what does it predict accurately? Also, do you wanna hear about my "Theory for retards who don't understand maths" aka, TRWDUM, which describes the inner workings of 5th dimensional ball sack?

[Anonymous No.10289099]

>>10289080
materialism is a theory that makes claims about the fundamental constituent of reality, CTMU makes claims about how a mind ascertains reality. You have no idea what youre talking about.

>>10289084
It will predict the nature and structure of every single religious ideology from now into the future for example.

[Anonymous No.10289103]

>>10289014
>prove a negative

[Anonymous No.10289105]

>>10289099
>It will predict the nature and structure of every single religious ideology from now into the future for example.
So CTMU is trash tier social science? KEK

[Anonymous No.10289108]

>>10289105
science itself is a religious ideology retard

[Anonymous No.10289111]

>>10289099
>how a mind ascertains reality
This is also part of the realm of materialism.

[Anonymous No.10289118]

>>10289105
its not a social science, its more of a metaphysical system.

>>10289103
give me one instance of a scientific theory for example, that cant be generalized to manifestation of telic recursion

[Anonymous No.10289119]

>>10289108
The IQ level of CTMU dumbfucks
And calling ME a retard holy shit

So how is science a religious ideology when say, the second law of thermodynamics is true at every point in space and time while religious bs isn't?

[Anonymous No.10289126]

>>10289118
>its not a social science, its more of a metaphysical system.
Aka bullshit? Got it. It's worse than social science holy shit

[Anonymous No.10289139]

>>10289118
generalisation and abstraction work in favour of any position. these are just more of langan's language games

[Anonymous No.10289155]

>>10287796
1. Measuring IQs three deviations above average (or probably even less) doesn’t work. So you can’t measure with accuracy an IQ above 145


IQ is dubious in its accuracy and claims and it’s talked about by people who have literally no clue what a normal distribution is.

[Anonymous No.10289156]

>>10289111
that is correct, its nowhere near as nuanced CTMU though. In fact materialism can be embedded in the CTMU rather usefully. There is no obvious and elegant way to do this with materialism. Materialism also does not emphasize the self recursion of the universe ie make the self preservative property part of its framework.
>>10289119
false flagger
>>10289126
brainlet

[Anonymous No.10289160]

>>10289119
>So how is science a religious ideology when say, the second law of thermodynamics is true at every point in space and time while religious bs isn't?

Holy fuck non-stem majors are braindead.

[Anonymous No.10289163]

>>10289139
in other words, you cant find an example

>>10289156
*CTMU cant be embedded into materialism easily, not itself

[Anonymous No.10289168]

>>10289139
WTF! Isaac Newton is cheating!! Hes just abstracting and generalizing things!!!

[Anonymous No.10289171]

>>10287846
What about people born after it was switched on?

[Anonymous No.10289181]

>>10289163
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/baTWMegR42PAsH9qJ/generalizing-from-one-example

"I observe this person competing in a power play, therefore everything that exists is reducible or generalisable solely to distinctions of power"

I'm not doing legwork for you, nor am I playing your game by jumping through your hoop instead one the multitude of various hoops (Langan pretends he has designed the hoop of hoops but it's just another first-order hoop).

>>10289168
Newton generalised within a domain using non-generalisable mathematical ingredients that have precise and limited definitions.

We're discussing theories of everything, models of the world, cosmologies, maps and territories. Newton's watchmaker analogy is one that didn't stand up: the world is analogous to the order of clockwork therefore everything can be likened to the workings of a clock!!!!!

[Anonymous No.10289206]

>>10289181
Believe me im not generalizing from one example, Its you that cant find a counter example

[Anonymous No.10289215]

>>10289181
ironic how you claim we cant talk metaphysically at all because there exists no "hoop of hoop" but then your precede to claim math is non-generalisable. with respect to reality numbers are no more general then language

[Anonymous No.10289289]

>>10289181
>Lesswrong

[Anonymous No.10289316]

>>10289215
that's not my claim at all retard
I'm talking about mapping singular concepts as the defining basis for all of reality as a whole. Generalisations in math apply to math itself or other sciences to form predictive models and theories. Linguistic generalisations do not preserve this scalability.

>>10289289
LW for all its flaws is better than the CTMU

>>10289206
find a counter-example to my generalisation of generalisations, my abstraction of abstractions. oh you can't do that? I win again heh

telic recursion is not even well-defined within the CTMU. stacking, nesting and mapping, or myriad other process-interactions from vague concepts onto other vague concepts is very dazzling to noobs because it allows them to import anything they can to fill in the gaps - it's like those new-agers that think everything is fractal. few of those types have the self-awareness to recognise this self-selective blindspot

[Anonymous No.10289324]

>>10289316
>LW for all its flaws is better than the CTMU
Cellphones brain damage guy's screeds are better than the CTMU, it's hard not to be.

[Anonymous No.10289329]

>>10289316
I'm not going to reply to you again, but for the record I just think you should read the theory. I'm not saying become a cult member, or a fanatic. I'm saying read the theory. You're acting like a child pretending like good ideas cant come from bad people. As long as no other theory comes along, there is no reason to stop using CTMU when talking about metaphysics

[Anonymous No.10289350]

>>10289329
Metaphysics ain't a legit field, my "big dick CTMU is trash theory" is better than CTMU anyways

[Anonymous No.10289397]

>>10289329
I've been reading the CTMU since 2010, I grew out of it after a few years

[Anonymous No.10289444]

THIS THREAD IS A DISTRACTION

[Anonymous No.10289465]

>>10288258
You go nowhere. You cease to exist. You're dead. That's what "dead" means. Christ.

Maybe it's hard to wrap your head around that, but there are several instances where anyone's consciousness is affected. It's not some impermeant thing. Even trivial subjective experiences tell us that, everything from sleeping to optical illusions.

[Anonymous No.10289480]

Again I offer my rebuttal thesis which explains the CTMU far better than Langan and disproves it.

[Anonymous No.10289489]

>>10288513

>Muh peer review

Literally just something the US government implemented in the 20th century to expedite scientific discoveries to compete with the USSR. Peer review journals are neither reliable nor necessary.
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/21/peer-review-replication-and-publication-bias/

[Anonymous No.10289494]

>>10289465
That's what I've been believing for many years. But how can I know for sure until I die?
That line of thinking is, for some reason, starting to feel very narrow-minded

[Anonymous No.10289510]

>>10289465
Faulty logic and reasoning. By your definition, sleeping is being ``dead``, therefore, your definition of ``dead`` is invalid - checkmate, brainlet

[Anonymous No.10289680]

>>10287796
>Christopher Langan
Literally who?

[Anonymous No.10289681]

>>10287796
Ok, then fuck CTMU lmao.

[Anonymous No.10289688]

Sweet excuse to Christopher post

[Anonymous No.10289690]

Mmm that Langan post is delicious

[Anonymous No.10289692]

/ourguy/

[Anonymous No.10289695]

>>10289692
He sounds like he spends his days on /pol/

[Anonymous No.10289702]

>>10289695
>>10289695

And that's a good thing!

[Anonymous No.10289889]

>>10288183
>dumb people think smart people are crazy
>"this 'smart' guy is just crazy"
big think

[Anonymous No.10290491]

>>10288059
t. brainlet