Cognitive theoretical model of the universe.

[Jeremias]

The "ctmu" is a ontolocigal/metaphysical Theory about the relationship between Mind and Reality. It has been developed by Christopher Langan, who has an IQ of 200. 

As it is a Theory that requires a high IQ and a an open Mind to understand it, I thought this is the right place to advertise for it. You can find the the whole paper on www.ctmu.org 

Good day.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Jeremias

[Flyboy]

9 hours ago, Jeremias said:

The "ctmu" is a ontolocigal/metaphysical Theory about the relationship between Mind and Reality. It has been developed by Christopher Langan, who has an IQ of 200. 

As it is a Theory that requires a high IQ and a an open Mind to understand it, I thought this is the right place to advertise for it. You can find the the whole paper on www.ctmu.org 

Good day.

I researched this recently.  His theory doesn't actually require a high IQ to comprehend, he just wants to make it sound like it does.  If you read his writing, it is fairly obvious that he wants to seem like the smartest person in the world.  I say that because his diction and sentence structure seem to be deliberately abstruse, even when conveying fairly straightforward ideas.  Verifying the veracity of his voluble vexations vies for vitriol via voracious invidious vim.  (That doesn't quite make sense but you get the point).

That being said, a big ego isn't really unexpected from someone so gifted.  The interesting thing about CTMU is that it really seems like a mathematical version of nonduality.  I actually found it quite fascinating that someone so intelligent would essentially come to the same conclusions as enlightened mystics about the nature of reality, albeit from a completely different direction (math and reason vs direct experience).  Even regarding evolution, Langan states the specified complexity found in observable life requires intelligent design beyond mere Darwinism.

While Langan does not appear to me to be enlightened, the power of his exceptional mind brought him to eerily similar conclusions!  The concept of the Human Singularity really reminded me of Leo's description of God breathing (when all duality finally re-integrates into nonduality).  I think that's kind of cool, personally.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Flyboy

[Wilhelm]

On 14/07/2020 at 5:09 AM, Flyboy said:

That being said, a big ego isn't really unexpected from someone so gifted.  The interesting thing about CTMU is that it really seems like a mathematical version of nonduality.  I actually found it quite fascinating that someone so intelligent would essentially come to the same conclusions as enlightened mystics about the nature of reality, albeit from a completely different direction (math and reason vs direct experience).

While Langan does not appear to me to be enlightened, the power of his exceptional mind brought him to eerily similar conclusions!  The concept of the Human Singularity really reminded me of Leo's description of God breathing (when all duality finally re-integrates into nonduality).  I think that's kind of cool, personally.

The CTMU most definitely is a monic (non-dualistic) theory, meaning that it asserts that reality is reducible to a fundamental syntactic medium that distributes over all of reality. In simpler terms, everything is made from a fundamental substance - everything is different (e.g. apples and oranges), yet is reducible to the same underlying reality. If they weren't reducible to the same fundamental medium/substance, it would be impossible to compare them, even to hold them both in the mind simultaneously, as they would not both be real or occupy the same reality. Yet, despite it being a monic theory of reality, he does say that it is a dual-aspect monism, meaning that this fundmental monic medium/substance has two aspects, those being mind and physicality, inseperable and complementary.

I take slight issue with the suggestion that Langan has not used direct experience in deriving his theory. It seems obvious that direct experience of reality was the impulse at the inception of his quest for an ultimate theory of reality, and he has relied on the modern body of scientific discovery, which is derived empirically - by physical experience. And he has expressed that he has had spiritual experiences related to the contents of the CTMU, so I think we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss his spiritual capacity/progress. (It is also arguable that all experience in some sense has a conceptual or cognitive aspect. This idea is one of the central themes of his theory, that everything in the universe follows the same fundamental rules of cognitive-perceptual syntax, meaning that everything from your perceptions to large physical rocks in quarry have a conceptual and logical aspect to them.)

I agree that Leo's descriptions of God and of ultimate reality share a similar underlying structure and similar ideas with Langan's, despite them using quite different terms and methods of explaining. Both of them reaching similar conclusions though different paths is not that surprising since they're both brilliant and I would guess that the absolute truths of the univers would funnel such individuals towards the same end-point despite arriving from different starting points.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Wilhelm
changed should -> shouldn't in 2nd paragraph

[outlandish]

@Flyboy I totally agree with everything you said there. 

I spent a lot of time a few years back digesting what I could from his papers, and came to the same conclusions. I think he's really on to something.

And then, over time, I noticed some ugly philosophy that comes from him, and that left a very bad taste. He's a racist and advocates for e̶u̶t̶h̶a̶n̶a̶s̶i̶a̶ eugenics, a grim combination. He's also such an arrogant asshole that he'll probably be forgotten. Who knows though, maybe future generations will recognize him as the revolutionary and preeminent genius that he thinks he is.

Despite his extremely unpalatable side, I did find that reading his CTMU theory (as best as I could grasp) has been fertile grounds for insight. 

Edited July 24, 2020 by outlandish
fix typo

[Carl-Richard]

He doesn't practice what he preaches.

[Wilhelm]

@outlandish

Although Langan has said things that might be characterized as racist, such as some races having a lowered measured average IQ than people from European decent, he has never said anything remotely close to constituting support for mass killings of any group of people. That is a ridiculous, libelous suggestion. Support for euthanasia generally means supporting the free choice of people suffering from terminal or incurable diseases to end their life to avoid suffering unecessarily and burdening family and friends, not supporting genocide. He has, however, stated that he would prefer if the world were to practice some form of "anti-dysgenics" (a relatively soft, passive form of eugenics), to protect the human genome from the proliferation of deleterious mutations, especially diseases, that follows naturally from current breeding patterns. That would of course apply to people of european descent.

Edit: Maybe you mixed euthanasia with eugenics? If so, your comment makes alot more sense.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Wilhelm
Edit

[outlandish]

26 minutes ago, Wilhelm said:

@outlandish

Edit: Maybe you mixed euthanasia with eugenics? If so, your comment makes alot more sense.

Oh yeah sorry, I meant eugenics 100%, that was a typo.

[Wilhelm]

On 23/07/2020 at 8:17 PM, outlandish said:

@Flyboy

And then, over time, I noticed some ugly philosophy that comes from him, and that left a very bad taste. He's a racist and advocates for e̶u̶t̶h̶a̶n̶a̶s̶i̶a̶ eugenics, a grim combination.

I agree that racism and eugenics makes a distasteful combination. It has a grim history. But to be fair to Langan, the kind of anti-dysgenics he advocated for is more or less already in practice for some congenital disorders, though is entirely voluntary. In my country, 9 out of 10 pregnancies with detected Down's syndrome are terminated.

[integral]

@outlandish people interpret spiritual teachings at there level of development, each level produces a more or less conscious interpretation. His views where interpreted as racist... eugenics is interpreted as wrong... the freedom to have children and as many of them as we want is a luxury we take for granted, Doe its likely genetic modification will be the winner, not selective mating because its far more practical. 

Edited July 25, 2020 by integral