CTMU

[Anonymous No.12749148]

Nobody has still explained to me what CTMU is.

I respect Langan, but to be honest I can't sit through dozens of pages of the most eloquent philosophical jargon ever written.

[Anonymous No.12749160]

>>12749148
it's nothing original

[Anonymous No.12749165]

>>12749148
He’s a Tooker level pseud

[Anonymous No.12749197]

>>12749148
>most eloquent philosophical jargon ever written
you have never read any philosophy have you now

[Anonymous No.12749233]

tldr:
>LOOK AT THE PICTURE
>SEE THE SKULL THE PART OF BONE REMOVED
But if Dec was a less eloquent writer and far up his own ass

[Anonymous No.12749384]

>>12749197
No I have not.

[Anonymous No.12749409]

>>12749148
>I respect Langan, but to be honest I can't sit through dozens of pages of the most eloquent philosophical jargon ever written.
Has nothing on Kant, Hegel, or Heidegger.
>>12749384
You should at the very least read a book on the history of philosophy or the history of intellectual thought.

[Anonymous No.12749517]

high IQ people should focus on physics

[Anonymous No.12749581]

>>12749409
>Kant
>Eloquent

[Anonymous No.12749678]

>>12749148
CTMU is the theory of everything. It builds from the ground up with tautologies

http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe

[Anonymous No.12749691]

>>12749148
>proves the existence of God
Okay retard

[Anonymous No.12749797]

>>12749678
Bro I'm aware of the page but I don't understand a single sentence on hology dot com or the wiki. Literally not a single sentence.

[Anonymous No.12749820]

>>12749797
Well I guess it's harded if your IQ lower than say 130, two standard deviations above. That link is already very much simplified, so if you want to understand the CTMU you got to go bit by bit, learning about each word and statement and asking questions. I'm happy to answer any specific questions, but be prepared to put in some effort.

[Anonymous No.12749875]

>>12749148
>Highest IQ ever
>Has to drop out of college for financial and transportation reasons

[Anonymous No.12749897]

>>12749820
Hey Chris, how’s the farm

[Anonymous No.12749920]

>>12749820
What interesting things have been discovered via the CTMU framework?

[Anonymous No.12749931]

>>12749691
>>12749875
You are free to not believe or disagree with him, but spending most of your life criticizing others for shallow reasons is unhealthy.

[Anonymous No.12750020]

>>12749920
Free will is real and therefore an AGI requires something different than being built as a deterministic Turing machine. Space is discrete and "laws" observed through inductive reasoning can be broken at the macro level, not just micro. These are the things I find interesting. It also predicts cosmic inflation from a priori reasoning, which is remarkable.

[Anonymous No.12750045]

>>12750020
Where can I find the proof for free will within the CTMU or if you don’t mind could you outline the argument.

[Anonymous No.12750081]

CTMU is a lot of (intelligent) word games without any rigor or formal reasoning. It is just him jerking his brain off. He is clearly smart but CTMU is a mess. He throws around a lot of flowery and eloquent prose but he ends up saying nothing of substance. It is clear he doesn’t understand math or physics with any expertise but he throws in mathematical and physics jargon to give the impression that he is doing either. Examples are using "proof" in a very abnormal way, and also his inability/refusal to understand the distinction between the statement "the set containing the universe" and "the universal set". In fact, he believes that the universe IS a set. When others tried to explain to him a set is just an abstract idea/mathematical concept, and not a real tangible thing, he started insulting them and calling them brainlets.

[Anonymous No.12750088]

>>12749875
>have 4.0 gpa
>university wont give me a scholarship because I got a GED instead of sitting through 4 years of high school like a good boy
maybe I’m just not high IQ enough to get a scholarship but in my experience a university doesn’t give a shit if you’re smart and need help paying for college

[Anonymous No.12750148]

>>12750081
As someone who hasn’t looked into his theory yet, your criticisms make sense. However, I don’t see the problem with saying that the universe is a set if he can prove that it functions like one. The Standard Model is a gauge theory, which is an entirely abstract mathematical concept.

[Anonymous No.12750252]

>>12749148
>Highest IQ ever
>He's still a retard pseud.
He's the proof that hard work > wits

[Anonymous No.12750269]

>>12750045
Yeah I can outline it, but a more formal deduction can be found even in Introduction to the CTMU, from 1998, by Langan, which I will link.

https://cdn.website-editor.net/743d4a58f53348a69dd2535a810a7b68/files/uploaded/CL.pdf

One starts with the concept of the Universal Set, the set that contains all sets, which obviously equals our Universe. In order to avoid Russell's Paradox, this set, let's call it U, has to be a dynamic with two levels through time: the topological level and the descriptive level. Basically in order to contain itself, U needs to have an operator, like a finite mind inside it, therefore topologically, that descriptively contains U. Therefore here we are. Then we look at one of CTMU's axiom, related to closure, Metaphysical Autology Principle, which states there is nothing outside of the Universe, which is true by definition, and which leads to the conclusion that the Universe is therefore self-configured. Self-configuration is how we define free will. Since we defined its descriptors as its elements, as minds able to describe U within their topological containment, and since these descriptors finitely contain U, merely transducing semantics to local syntax, Langan uses the word 'conversive', as opposed to 'aversive' and added to the prefix 'in' meaning towards within, to state that the incoversive distribution of this relationship is the basis of free will. This word incoversive is by the way a pleb filter because it can't be easily googled. But anyway, basically U has free will and therefore its descriptors, we, must also have free will.

[Anonymous No.12750275]

>>12750088
>Highest IQ ever
>Cannot figure out how to continue college without a scholarship

[Anonymous No.12750284]

>>12750252
> hard work > wits
He actually states that. Self-actualizing is more important than being born with talents.

[Anonymous No.12750289]

>>12750269
>uses the word 'conversive',
Typo due to autocorrect, meant coversive

[Anonymous No.12750580]

>>12750088
why didnt you score in the top 90th percentile on the SAT?

[Anonymous No.12750585]

>>12750252
Do people actually believe that this guy has more natural ability than people like Feynman or Witten? Ok, he scored well on a Jordan Peterson test, big deal. He hasnt done anything in his life to prove that he has any more intelligence than the average person with a phd.

[Anonymous No.12750644]

>>12749875
I consider myself a genius but I dropped out because of crippling misophonia and anxiety.
When you're smart the chances you have these neurological challenges sometimes goes up.

[Anonymous No.12750660]

>>12750644
You're not smart then. If you were smart you would have overcome it.

[Anonymous No.12750661]

>>12750269
What's your major, philosophy?
I'm a theoretical physics major and I understand 0% of this. To me this looks like wordplay with a set of rules, and it only makes sense if you know the rules. Like math, but instead it's not useful or scientific.

[Anonymous No.12750671]

>>12750660
I hate it when privileged, healthy brainlets throw this around.
IQ doesn't mean you can just "reason" your way out of how your brains have been wired.
Are you saying a high IQ person would survive military-grade torture just by playing mindgames with himself? Are you saying a high IQ person doesn't mourn the death of his child?
What you don't understand is that physical and mental energy is limited and IQ doesn't generate more of it.
Chris Langan WILL tire out if he runs a marathon.

[Anonymous No.12750696]

>>12750671
>I hate it when privileged, healthy brainlets throw this around.
That's assumptive of you. I overcame my autism.
And from what you write you're fucking dumb. You think IQ is just reasoning? Lol you compare your struggles to real torture? Of course high IQ people mourn, high IQ people mourn better than brainlets.

[Anonymous No.12750711]

>>12749820
I want to suck your dick, Langan

[Anonymous No.12750748]

>>12750696
>I overcame my autism.
How?

>Lol you compare your struggles to real torture?
Bro, if you're high IQ you should've already concluded that the only thing that is really real is the emotion people have in their heads. Someone could experience torture-level pain from reading an offensive 4chan post, because pain is relative.
As far as misophonia goes, misophonia sufferers agree that it's one of the most intense mental pains you can endure, if it goes on for a long time. It's like wanting to run away from your own brain but you can't because it's always there by definition.

>high IQ people mourn better than brainlets.
This I agree with. The more capacity you have for understanding something, you have deeper levels of pain you're capable of experiencing.
That's why I said neurological issues manifest often in high IQ individuals. A dumb person is not capable of producing the thought cycles required for autistic behavior.

[Anonymous No.12750750]

>>12750661
This is closer to math than physics, but I doubt you are a decent physics student if you really understood 0% of what is written there, given you guys are supposed to have enough of a g factor to deal with abstract concepts, and that physics gets ridiculously abstract after entry level. If you are not interested in the theory, it's clear you are here for something else. I'm going to post this meme just to piss you off.

[Anonymous No.12750754]

>>12750748
For an intelligent person, your brain is your worst enemy.
Only dumb people think that smart people are happy because they automatically succeed and can fix all their problems through sheer thinking.

Chris Langan himself said in an interview that his own brain tires him out constantly. Probably explains why he became a mere bouncer and not an astrophysicist.

[Anonymous No.12750761]

>>12750750
>I doubt you are a decent physics student if you really understood 0% of what is written there
Keep in mind I live in Scandinavia and English is not my native language in any way. Langan likes to use big words.

>I'm going to post this meme just to piss you off.
Big brain behavior right there.

[Anonymous No.12750880]

>>12750269
What is his equivalency for the big bang?

That description seems like a definition of a self-conscious mind. Any set is limited by whatever the set is as elements.
Let me get direct to the paradox with a set that contains all sets. And not just the obvious logical paradox. Any set that contains all sets will have sets of things that exist and sets of things that don't exist. We can imagine the latter set is larger, but it merely has to be one thing. The existence of this line is outside of the "self-configuration" of the universal set. If there is any little thing we can say that doesn't exist, then this conceptual line must exist.
First, this set of non-existent things must be differentiated from the self-configuring set of non-existent things. Any set that you or I name and enumerate is self-configured by definition. Much like U, the set of non-existent things doesn't much care about what is considered of its things; however, either it must exist because such non existing things are or it would be an exclusive member of the set.
Now I want to prove this line is not a member of U. Is the CTMU website a reliable reference for his material?

[Anonymous No.12750905]

>>12750671
>mental energy is limited and IQ doesn't generate more of it
Based. I think mental energy is based on computational substrate available. Bigger brains can have bigger IQ because they have more mental/computational energy available. Smaller brains can have higher IQ but at the expense of homeostasis of other processes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P50_(neuroscience)

[Anonymous No.12750955]

>>12750754
>Chris Langan himself said in an interview that his own brain tires him out constantly. Probably explains why he became a mere bouncer and not an astrophysicist
lol. I guess all the people working manual labor jobs are really the most intelligent of us all. What a weird take

[Anonymous No.12750959]

>>12750754
Smart people are more happy than dumb people. There is clear correlations between job satisfaction, marital satisfaction and a multitude of other things that correlate with intelligence or education.

[Anonymous No.12751032]

>>12750880
The part of U where all actualizations exist indiscriminate is isomorphic to a subset of U that correspond to all physical potentials. I guess that is what you mean by non-existent at least partly, no?

>Any set that you or I name and enumerate is self-configured by definition

Self-configuration isn't used for static sets, it requires the creation of time.

>Now I want to prove this line is not a member of U
It's within U as, again, non-actualized potentials, and if it's not even consistent with itself, merely as meta-signifier.

Hopefully I answered some of your questions, but if not you can ask Langan. I can tell there are some assumptions you are making that stop you from getting into the more abstract core of the CTMU. Can you exemplify some of this stuff?

[Anonymous No.12751060]

>>12750754
His brain is overclocked and he needs to cool it down.

[Anonymous No.12751076]

>>12750880
>What is his equivalency for the big bang?

It includes the Big Bang, but it's a bigger model that is defined around the concept of Unbound Telesis(UBT) and telic recursion. Here is a quick intuitive explanation: http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/UBT

[Anonymous No.12751160]

>>12750959
>Smart people are more happy than dumb people. There is clear correlations between job satisfaction, marital satisfaction and a multitude of other things that correlate with intelligence or education.

I disagree with this based on intuition and observations.
IQ 100 people seem the happiest to me. IQ 60 people would be happy if they didn't fuck up their lives by repeatedly committing crimes and stuff like that. IQ 130+ people are riddled with depression.
Being the average person is the golden ticket to happiness and I believe everything in life is built to cater to the IQ 100 individual.
Look at the Internet, every discussion on the Internet reeks of IQ 100 even on 4chan.

But this is such a huge topic that it's insane to try and get a definite yes or no on it.
You have to consider so much. Like the fact that people with a high IQ have a "language barrier" with "dumber" people and vice versa, meaning a smart person can easily get isolated and live in their ivory tower. An IQ 60 rapper thinks that a physicist focuses on the wrong things in life and thinks of "stupid autist shit" whereas the physicist is appalled by the rapper's lifestyle of cocaine and sex. These people don't get a long.

[Anonymous No.12751230]

>>12751160
Whatever, you may be right. We dont really have anything to go on besides certain data which might not represent reality, but I still think that being smart will likely make you happier for certain reasons. Job satisfaction is one. Marriage satisfaction is another. People who have more education are less likely to get divorced. Thats a big deal.

And your point on being isolated is not something actual smart people would have to face. If you really are a smart person, all your peers are going to be smart. For example, someone who is really really smart is going to do something like become a professor. Thus, all his peers will also be really really smart. And even then, if you are smart, you are going to get a job that requires you to be smart like a demanding business type job, or stuff like software or other engineering jobs. People who work at low level jobs who think that they are isolated because they are smarter than everyone else are likely not actually that smart, otherwise they would have ended among smart people.

[Anonymous No.12751246]

>>12751160
To add on to my point imagine the life trajectory of a typical smart person. He goes to highschool where he may be isolated because he is a nerd but he liekly has a few friends he connects with. In college he majors in engineering where now everyone is pretty similar to him. He then goes to work as an engineer and still everyone he works with is like him. I dont see how that person would be isolated from fellow smart people. You can think of people who go through the path of being a lawyer or a doctor and its the same. At law school or medical school, people there will be at a similar level of intelligence and then when they graduate and start working, the people they work with will also be similar in terms of intelligence.

The only people who I can see that are isolated because of the intelligence gap are outliers. And most who claim to fit into that category likely are not really all that smart.

[Anonymous No.12751283]

>>12751160
>Being the average person is the golden ticket to happiness and I believe everything in life is built to cater to the IQ 100 individu
I dont think so. The best paying jobs are not meant for average people. And when it comes to entertainment, there is entertainment for everybody in the age of the internet. If you want mindless entertainment, its there. And if you want high class entertainment, its also there.