archive-org.com » ORG » C » CTMUCOMMUNITY.ORG

Total: 149

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • God - CTMU Wiki
    phrases like before reality existed and when reality created itself So rather than asking when the universe came to be or what existed before the universe was born we must instead ask what would remain if the structural constraints defining the real universe were regressively suspended First time would gradually disappear eliminating the when question entirely And once time disappears completely what remains is the answer to the what question a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint In other words the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply Now let s attend to your how question Within a realm of unbound potential like the one from which the universe emerges everything is possible and this implies that everything exists in the sense of possibility Some possibilities are self inconsistent and therefore ontological dead ends they extinguish themselves in the very attempt to emerge into actuality But other possibilities are self consistent and potentially self configuring by internally defined evolutionary processes That is they predicate their own emergence according to their own internal logics providing their own means and answering their own hows These possibilities which are completely self contained not only with respect to how what and when but why have a common structure called SCSPL Self Configuring Self Processing Language An SCSPL answers its own why question with something called teleology where SCSPL is God to whatever exists within it teleology amounts to the Will of God Since the meaning of life is a topic that has often been claimed by religion we ll attempt to answer the second part with a bit of CTMU style logical theology Within each SCSPL system subsystems sharing critical aspects of global structure will also manifest the self configuration imperative of their inclusive SCSPL that is they exist for the purpose of self actualization or self configuration and in self configuring contribute to the Self configuration of the SCSPL as a whole Human beings are such subsystems The purpose of their lives and the meaning of their existences is therefore to self actualize in a way consistent with global Self actualization or teleology i e in a way that maximizes global utility including the utility of their fellow subsystems Their existential justification is to help the universe AKA God express its nature in a positive and Self beneficial way If they do so then their souls or relationships to the overall System God attain a state of grace and partake of Systemic timelessness life eternal If on the other hand they do not if they give themselves over to habitual selfishness at the expense of others and the future of their species then they are teleologically devalued and must repair their connections with the System in order to remain a viable part of it And if they do even worse intentionally scarring the teleological ledger with a massive net loss of global utility then unless they pursue redemption with such sincerety that their intense desire for forgiveness literally purges their souls they face spiritual interdiction for the sake of teleological integrity Such is the economy of human existence Much of what we have been taught by organized religions is based on the illogical literalization of metaphorical aspects of their respective doctrines But this much of it is true we can attain a state of grace we can draw near to God and partake of His eternal nature we can fall from God s grace we can lose our souls for doing evil In all cases we are unequivocally answerable to the System that grants and sustains our existence and doing right by that System and its contents including other subsystems like ourselves is why we exist Sometimes doing right simply means making the best of a bad situation without needlessly propagating one s own misfortune to others the necessary sufferance and nonpropagation of personal misfortune is also a source of grace Further deontological insight requires an analysis of teleology and the extraction of its ethical implications Now for a couple of qualifiers Because we are free the teleologically consistent meaning of our lives is to some extent ours to choose and is thus partially invested in the search for meaning itself So the answer to the last part of your question is yes determining the details of your specific teleologically consistent reason to exist is part of the reason for your existence Secondly because God is the cosmos and the human mind is a microcosm we are to some extent our own judges But this doesn t mean that we can summarily pardon ourselves for all of our sins it simply means that we help to determine the system according to whose intrinsic criteria our value is ultimately determined It is important for each of us to accept both of these ethical responsibilities In the CTMU what God thinks is right is encapsulated by the Telic Principle This principle a generalization of the Cosmological Anthropic Principle asserts that by logical necessity there exists a deic analogue of human volition called teleology However due to the fact that God s Self creative freedom is distributed over the universe i e His Mind human volition arising within the universe is free to be locally out of sync with teleology This requires a set of compensation mechanisms which ensure that teleology remains globally valid despite the localized failure of any individual or species to behave consistently with it In part these mechanisms determine the state of your relationship to God i e your soul If you are in harmony with teleology with the self realization and self expression of God then your soul is in a state of grace If you are not then your soul is in danger of interdiction by teleological mechanisms built into the structure of the universe CTMU Q A What does this say about God First if God is

    Original URL path: http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/God (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Beginner's introduction - CTMU Wiki
    in an unchanging eternal way it contains within it all of the processes required for it to refine itself into existence out of nothingness As such consciousness is stratified the bottom stratum is the all knowing mind of God and within this all knowing mind of God is contained all of the more superficial strata of consciousness that are inherent in the creation process In other words God is aware of all the steps in its own creation However from the vantage point of these more superficial strata the universe appears as a physical entity unfolding in physical space Our human minds are pieces of these more superficial strata To us things look like they are still unfolding And recall that our conscious minds are contained within God s consciousness As such we retain the creative power of God on a scale that is localized in time and space We can choose to act in a way that facilitates the execution of the self creating algorithm that creates God or we can choose to act in a way that is not useful to this end which is known as the telos of this particular reality If we choose to act in a way that is in line with the telos those parts of our minds that match the mind of God get preserved and we basically move closer to the all knowing substratum or the consciousness of God If we act against the telos what happens may be that those elements of our minds that do not match the mind of God get recycled endlessly or something until they properly refine themselves The eternal unchanging nature of the overall God consciousness is preserved despite our free choices because the system continually adjusts itself in such a way that even though

    Original URL path: http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Beginner%27s_introduction (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Frequently asked questions - CTMU Wiki
    theory about science Instead of being a mathematical description of specific observations like all established scientific theories it is a metatheory about the general relationship between theories and observations i e about science or knowledge itself 1 Langan contends that due to the problem of induction no general theory of reality can ever be reliably constructed by the standard empirical methods of science Instead such a theory must be established by the rational methods of mathematics But this does not mean that science has no part to play Whereas the necessary properties of reality are verified by logic its contingent properties are subject to scientific confirmation In other words says Langan the means by which a general theory of reality like the CTMU is constructed must be rational and tautological while those by which it is subsequently refined may be empirical Has the CTMU appeared in a peer reviewed academic journal A 56 page paper on the CTMU was published in September 2002 in Progress in Complexity Information and Design PCID the journal of ISCID a professional society whose stated purpose was to investigate complex systems using information and design theoretic concepts PCID was presented as a peer reviewed journal and most of the members of its editorial advisory board were academics ISCID s perceived promotion of intelligent design proved controversial and the journal ceased publication in 2005 Langan s paper in the 2004 anthology Uncommon Dissent published by ISI Books contained discussion of the CTMU and the theory has also been published in journals within the high IQ community and received mention in the mainstream media See CTMU sources for references Has an exhaustive development of the CTMU been made public Not yet The most comprehensive available treatment of the CTMU is Langan s 56 page PCID paper but this is intended to present a general outline of the theory rather than an exhaustive development Nonetheless this paper together with the essays discussions and other material linked at CTMU sources suffice to characterize the CTMU on an introductory basis and distinguish it in flavor and content from other theories Langan hopes to publish a fuller account of the CTMU in a book titled Design for a Universe What books should I read to prepare for understanding the CTMU To prepare for the CTMU Langan has recommended reading a good history of Western philosophy a good book on mathematical logic and formalized theories and a good book on general cosmology As examples he has recommended A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell Mathematical Logic and Formalized Theories by Robert Rogers out of print Cosmology The Science of the Universe by Edward Harrison When will Langan publish a book about the CTMU Hopefully soon Early press coverage reported Langan to be writing such a book If offered the chance to do anything he wished Langan says he would like to make a living by trying to solve the mysteries of the universe For some time he s worked on an

    Original URL path: http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Frequently_asked_questions (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • CTMU sources - CTMU Wiki
    Langan Christopher M Flash from Deep Space Supernews on Supernovas Physics and Metaphysics Discussions Topica CTMU list official e mail list CTMU Q A HIQ A CTMU and God ABCNEWS com chat transcript Noesis for CTMU discussion see issues 44 46 57 59 62 63 and 76 MegaBoard Discussions CTMU Forum Audiobook Version A Dialogic Response to an Atheist Discussion with CTMU Conference Members Discussion on the Ultranet List Discussion with a Mega Society East Member Discussion at the utne cafe Discussion at the Utne Cafe Dialogue between Christopher Michael Langan and Russell Fred Vaughan Ph D Colloquy discussions CML Langan Intelligence Meaning and Measurements God the Universe and Theories of Everything On Nagarjuna and the Heart Sutra Altered States and Psi Phenomena Part One Altered States and Psi Phenomena Part Two On Society and Socialization Depression Genetics and Brain Physiology Survival Issues of the Twenty first Century ISCID discussions Audiobook Version Cosmogony Holography and Causality Critical Questions CTMU and the Axiom of Choice Evolutionary Intelligence Karl D Stephan Tegmark s Parallel Universes A Challenge to Intelligent Design On Progress Readdressing Reality Theory Information in the Holographic Universe Organisms using GAs vs Organisms being built by GAs T Duality Universe Virtues of Scientists Audio Video Antonia Maria April 30 2007 Smartest Man In America Lives In Missouri KMBC Morris Errol August 14 2001 The Smartest Man in the World part 1 part 2 part 3 First Person Preston Ray November 15 2006 Meet the Smartest Man in America KMOV Mosley Michael February 10 2009 Make Me Smart BBC Simone Rob December 28 2012 Mind Reality Coast to Coast AM CTMU Pencil animation depicting self creation inspired by the CTMU JAY T July 15 2014 WORLD S SMARTEST MAN SPEAKS OUT BBS Radio Youtube Version of The People Speak Another Crank

    Original URL path: http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Sources (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Create account - CTMU Wiki
    C in CTMU stand for Username Password Confirm password Email address optional CTMU Wiki is made by people like you 1 023 edits 51 pages 3 recent contributors Retrieved from http ctmucommunity org wiki Special UserLogin signup Navigation menu Personal

    Original URL path: http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin/signup (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Meta:Editor's guide - CTMU Wiki
    not affiliated with Chris Langan Images pictures diagrams can only be uploaded if they can be released under the CC BY SA 3 0 license used by this wiki If you have your own theory or independent work related to the CTMU rather than posting it in the article space where it could be confused with Langan s own ideas it would be better to put it in your userspace e g at User Example replacing Example with your username Please keep your input civil and constructive Let s all work together to improve the wiki Things to do We now have articles for almost all of the major CTMU concepts Some of them are just stubs or need a bit of touching up so feel free to expand them and make fixes and rewrites Adding simple concrete examples would be especially helpful It would be great to also have diagrams and visual illustrations You can make these yourself and release them under the CC BY SA 3 0 license used by this wiki We are working on a page of Common CTMU objections and replies It could do with some editing internal links attribution of quotes etc Edit this

    Original URL path: http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Meta:Editor%27s_guide (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Meta:Discussion - CTMU Wiki
    people are deeply confused w r t foundational math formal theories and logical systems in general Cdipoce talk 18 58 25 December 2013 UTC SPSCL Page The SPSCL Page should either be removed or more clearly elucidated As it stands now the content simply describes why reality is a language not what the nature of that language is i e what is a Self Processing Self Configuring Language and why is reality isomorphic to it Cdipoce talk 19 17 25 December 2013 UTC Make Me Smart is incomplete For those of you who have watched the BBC documentary Make Me Smart originally on TV that is in its original version might have noticed that the same documentary available on YouTube under the name of can you become smarter lacks at least a scene The original version presents a scene in which Mr Mosley has a conversation with Langan and 3 other supposedly Mega Foundation members in a bar over a beer I just wanted to inform you that the version of that documentary linked on this wiki isn t the original one Michael talk 13 22 18 February 2014 UTC Design for a Universe scrubbed Looks like Langan changed the title or the entire plot anyway view it for yourself http megafoundation org MegaPress Titles download html Whoever wants to make the necessary changes feel free Thank you for posting this I can t wait for it to be released Dylancatlow talk 15 05 2 July 2014 UTC One outside the Ultranet can only wonder exactly what the book will entail it may or may not be a successor to the un published Design for a Universe One could argue two things I The lack of critical success and hatred towards to CTMU from people in cyberspace has resulted in a partial or complete abandonment of his works regarding the CTMU II The original title went through a name change which isn t un common we have seen this before with the original CTMU acronym variants I have often wondered whether the book will provide greater insight into the CTMU provide a extremely simplified overview for every audience or detail complex scientific and mathematical concepts that draw on a range of issues including the CTMU A large section of the Mega Foundation website hasn t been renovated largely due to other projects namely advanced research projects allegedly being undertaken by the Society a large part of that research appears to be neurological in nature most likely being spurred for by Dr LoSasso I believe option two would be the most logical total or partial abandonment of an amazing theoretical framework seems illogical at it s most benign Lastly I believe CML s cover for the novel appears to be an interstellar cloud which hints at the suggestion of cosmology metaphysics etc JT1480 talk 10 40 3 July 2014 UTC Hello JT1480 Actually as Langan stated in ABC chat transcript and elsewhere CTMU like any other reality theory is a continuous work in progress He had re written his book twice and that was in 2000 I m not sure Ultranet members would know much more since I know some of them Regards Michael talk 12 20 3 July 2014 UTC Reasons why I think option one is very unlikely 1 In 2012 he said on a forum that his book will likely be published in a year or so 2 Last year in a radio interview he said he spends several hours every day developing the theory which implies that the delay is not related to lack of interest 3 For his upcoming radio interview on June 15th his page says his book is soon to be published Dylancatlow talk 14 30 3 July 2014 UTC There was a discussion with Chris and the ISCID titled Toward an Ultimate Theory of Reality I believe that it will indeed feature Cat Mew got me saying it now content http www iscid org christopherlangan chat php You may want to convert the php file by visiting it with notepad Windows then saving it as all files anyname html if you use another operating system you can always research how to change a file extension Genie makes an appearance too I m not sure if you already have the convo linked on the sources page Just as scientific observation makes demands on theories the logic of theories makes demands on scientific observation and these demands tell us in a general way what we can observe about the universe In other words a comprehensive theory of reality is not just about observation but theories and their logical requisites Since theories are mental constructs and mental means of the mind this can be rephrased as follows mind and reality are linked in mutual dependence on the most basic level of understanding It is this linkage of the abstract and the concrete the subjective and the objective the internal and the external that constitutes the proper focus of reality theory The CTMU is a theory of reality tautologically developed along these lines JT1480 talk 18 48 23 July 2014 UTC JT1480 talk 05 01 4 July 2014 UTC Chris new book could come out in physical format too In his latest interview Chris stated that he tries to figure out how to print publish and distribute it That could be saying something Michael talk 21 05 23 July 2014 UTC New page created Common CTMU objections and replies Click here Common CTMU objections and replies I wish to thank Dylancatlow talk for creating CTMU Database website Feel free to link each CTMU concept therein contained to its page on this wiki Michael talk 17 20 2 July 2014 UTC Off topic This section has been moved to off topic http ctmucommunity org wiki Meta Discussion Off topic JT1480 talk 20 03 23 July 2014 UTC The People Speak I enjoyed it and was happy that I got to ask my question I didn t call a second time so I don t know why they mentioned me again later in the broadcast I laughed when he congratulated the caller for choosing the right theory to fixate on What did you all think Tim Smith talk 02 24 16 July 2014 UTC I missed the first part although I did record and upload it I disliked the BBS website due to the fact that I can t find the recordings of the interview and I couldn t get PalTalk to work I didn t have any real questions I prefer the Dyson Sphere idea rather than the alien question posed by one subject I thought the interview was overall good I m glad that there was advanced notice I m also glad that there wasn t crazy callers like in one of his previous radio interviews One negative would of course be the mis pronunciation of Langan radio hosts tend to pronounce it Lagn It could be a once in a lifetime opportunity to talk to Langan so it s good you got to ask your questions I also found it great that more autobiographical information was added and I m happy the book issue was basically closed by Langan himself lol JT1480 talk 02 40 16 July 2014 UTC JT1480 BECAUSE THEN JESUS WOULD HAVE TO BE A WOMAN lol Dylancatlow talk 17 09 16 July 2014 UTC This is a Dean Radin free zone JT1480 talk 04 16 17 July 2014 UTC Apart from the technical issues that was a fantastic interview Great questions Dylancatlow talk 05 34 16 July 2014 UTC I wait BBS to realease a podcast of it When I hear him talking just about anything it s hard to object He s so right I d like to have a vis à vis conversation with him one day One day perhaps I ll interview him If so I ll let you know Michael talk 12 46 16 July 2014 UTC I very much agree MD I found it very interesting that the entirety of Christian scripture can be interpreted within the CTMU although I sort of already noticed that This almost seems to demand an explanation of its own Dylancatlow talk 14 13 16 July 2014 UTC By the way I didn t know that Langan could prove that P NP If so he should send the proof of it to CMI at least on a experimental basis 1 million dollars would take his foundation to the next level To wit Wiles attitude is quite off putting not to mention irrational Michael talk 15 36 16 July 2014 UTC His solution would probably be predicated on CTMU related concepts In order to get the million dollars he would probably need to promote the CTMU enough such that he wouldn t need the money Dylancatlow talk 15 22 16 July 2014 UTC As Langan stated he may not submit it due to the fact that the panel review board is bias towards academia I also believe than Langan wouldn t like the idea of anyone stealing his work that s why he only really publishes the CTMU on his website JT1480 talk 15 34 16 July 2014 UTC The rules say that proposed solutions may not be submitted directly to CMI for consideration Rather Before consideration a proposed solution must be published in a refereed mathematics publication of worldwide repute or such other form as the SAB Scientific Advisory Board shall determine qualifies and it must also have general acceptance in the mathematics community two years after One possibility would be for Langan simply to post his solution to arXiv org That s what Perelman did for the Poincaré conjecture the only Millennium Prize Problem to be solved so far His articles there drew attention he was invited to give talks on them his proof was fleshed out and verified by other mathematicians in refereed journals and eventually he was awarded the prize which he declined Perelman was already well established in academia when he put his proof online though so things might play out differently for Langan But at least arXiv org would give him a public timestamp in the event of a priority dispute Tim Smith talk 16 07 20 July 2014 UTC If Chris Langan posted a putative proof of P NP on Arxiv org plenty of us would take the time to check it and if it seemed correct it would get attention lead to invited talks etc etc It s hard to get anyone to pay attention to mathematical metaphysics but a solution to a classic math problem will get plenty of attention once even a handful of mathematicians start hinting it may be correct Ben Goertzel I enjoyed it of course I was surprised to hear his comments regarding 9 11 he hedged his bets by saying there s not enough data to proclaim that it s an inside job but he seemed to imply it was a plausible theory I find this ridiculous Otherwise he was his usual brilliant self I was texting questions but unfortunately they were not used If he appears on the show again I ll try phoning in I have a question that s become an obsession and attempts at formalizing his theory have hit an absolute roadblock because of it Cdipoce talk 18 32 22 July 2014 UTC 9 11 was an inside job and anyone who thinks otherwise is incompetent Anonymous talk 21 51 4 July 2015 UTC Tim it s plausible however I believe his main focus is basically the CTMU and projects being undertaken by the Mega Foundation He used to go to collaborative discussions with people outside the high IQ community think of the modern day TedX talks he just Sort of stopped doing it he s getting old I honestly don t know if he will release half of his works he has privately undertaken in his lifetime cdipoce well there have been reports of insider threats and there has been insider threats for decades Insider trading is basically confirmed to have occurred during 9 11 That s not to say that Bush and the elite were all behind it but AQ and other groups may have had access to US Government facilities or held clearance to those areas Washington Post did report some time ago that the US Government was hunting a classified terrorist organization it s unknown where it operates or what groups make it up Knowing Snowden he probably has that information somewhere considering he s only released 0 5 of the total stolen data Anyway I actually did have a question I forgot to mention it at the time I wanted Chris to elaborate on psi phenomena specifically the outer body experiences he s had JT1480 talk 08 58 23 July 2014 UTC Discussion of OBEs continued at Off topic OBEs Independent Movie and public info on Mega Foundation It seems that the Mega Foundation plans to release a new independent film has anyone heard any details of the plot http megainternational org megapower http megainternational org archive There is also apparently a podcast page that may be made on the site hopefully Chris publications get widely accepted so more donations can chime in JT1480 talk 13 51 20 July 2014 UTC A Chris Langan comment I found This section has been moved to off topic http ctmucommunity org wiki Meta Discussion Off topic JT1480 talk 20 04 23 July 2014 UTC Off topic board Someone should make a CTMU forum great place to discuss everything off topic JT1480 talk 16 40 23 July 2014 UTC Well we could start an Off topic subpage Michael talk 17 15 23 July 2014 UTC Who s the moderator Would we need a majority vote JT1480 talk 17 21 23 July 2014 UTC Isn t Tim Smith il padrone around here I don t think many people have an account on this wiki and most of those who do are seemingly self moderating And most most active users are handful I don t think we need a vote for that Michael talk 17 54 23 July 2014 UTC I thought it was I honestly prefer free hosting websites many sites now a days seem to disappear if money isn t paid anyway if you would like to make one feel free JT1480 talk 18 09 23 July 2014 UTC I went ahead and created a subpage for off topic discussion Go wild Feel free to move any off topic material from this board to that one to get it started Tim Smith talk 19 35 23 July 2014 UTC CTMU Diagrams http imgur com db8Gf1D O6lrmSq 73LkcsR 0 Do you think these are helpful Should I make more Dylancatlow talk 18 04 30 July 2014 UTC Yes I think these are helpful and they look nice too Good work Dylan Diagrams are a great way to complement our explanations on the wiki I like the first two The third one is a bit unclear could you clarify what X definition means Tim Smith talk 17 35 31 July 2014 UTC Thanks Tim The third one is meant to depict the following idea Suppose that there is some degree of noncorrespondence between cognitive syntax and perceptual content observed phenomena Then there exist items of perceptual content which do not correspond to or coincide with cognitive syntax But if these items do not coincide with cognitive syntax then they are unrecognizable i e inobservable since cognitive syntax is by definition the basis of recognition But then these items are not included in perceptual reality the set of observable phenomena and we have a contradiction Therefore perceptual reality must coincide with cognitive syntax In other words X definition could stand for anything For example denying that a proton equals its description amounts to the assertion that proton proton By the way I made the diagrams using google docs They are very easy to make if you ever want to make one yourself If you can think of any other CTMU concepts that could use diagrams please post them on my talk page Dylancatlow talk 18 21 31 July 2014 UTC Here we have to be careful On the syntactic level a description is necessarily isomorphic to that which it describes because they occupy the same reality and therefore share a common syntax but on the semantic level illusion and falsehood become possible The description equals its object only up to the validity of the description Maybe the diagram could have two parts The first part would show that when a description only partially describes its object they neverless share the same underlying syntax The second part would show that when a description wholly describes its object they are identical Tim Smith talk 00 45 3 August 2014 UTC but on the semantic level illusion and falsehood become possible I thought by that Langan meant one s interpretation of a given description could be false e g an assumed veridical mapping of personalized fantasies onto general perceptual reality Or is that what you meant by The description equals its object only up to the validity of the description Maybe the diagram could have two parts I ll try to improve it Dylancatlow talk 02 15 3 August 2014 UTC Yes that s what I meant In logic another way to say that one s interpretation of a description is false is to say that the description is false under that interpretation Remember that description is essentially just another word for theory A theory can be good or bad fanciful or plausible true or false But doesn t that essentially make theory synonymous with description Yes A theory is just a description of something Since theories can be true or false descriptions can be true or false under various interpretations while nonetheless sharing a common syntax with the objects to which they are being interpreted Tim Smith talk 06 49 5 August 2014 UTC I found a diagram illustrating the concept of Requantization Michael talk 21 07 31 July 2014 UTC Show them to a random person who knows little on the CTMU and see what they think You may have to simplify it for the general audience I do like them though good work Enjoy these links well you can I got the idea off Michael it s easy to just open the directory http campus theultranet com MILC login index php http hiqnews megafoundation org http www hurson com index http www megafoundation org images picher jpg http imgur com a HgBnW all photos of everything Chris from childhood to reading material to few diagrams Interestingly enough if you look at the YouTube videos that feature Chris they often film inside his house if you pause it at his chalk board you will see a cube and something close to regarding quarks I believe it s this image here http i imgur com Dy6sl0J jpg JT1480 talk 09 29 2 August 2014 UTC Can someone explain Chris resolution of Newcomb s Paradox Dylancatlow talk 14 59 2 August 2014 UTC For starters see my summary above Tim Smith talk 00 50 3 August 2014 UTC That was helpful thanks Dylancatlow talk 02 16 3 August 2014 UTC ARN Threads In the Scientopia discussion the poster going by the username Rubix linked several forum posts about the CTMU that Chris made on the ARN Intelligent Design forums Here are those links Metaphysics and ID http www arn org ubbthreads showflat php Cat 0 Number 190000 page 0 fpart all vc 1 Real ID Scientists http www arn org ubbthreads showflat php Cat 0 Number 205062 page 135 fpart all vc 1 Chris what s your position on ID in biology http www arn org ubbthreads showflat php Cat 0 Number 205060 page 135 fpart all vc 1 Hidden Variables and ID s Scientific Advantage http www arn org ubbthreads showflat php Cat 0 Number 190012 page 0 fpart all vc 1 Can DE Really Pass as Science http www arn org ubbthreads showflat php Cat 0 Number 190027 page 0 fpart all vc 1 Does anyone really undertand CTMU http www arn org ubbthreads showflat php Cat 0 Number 190043 page 0 fpart all vc 1 Geometry Logic Not Exactly http www arn org ubbthreads showflat php Cat 0 Number 190064 page 0 fpart all vc 1 Photosynthesis Analysis Shows Work of Ancient Genetic Engineering http www arn org ubbthreads showflat php Cat 0 Number 234677 page 0 fpart all vc 1 Logical Theology http www arn org ubbthreads showflat php Cat 0 Number 209614 page 0 fpart all vc 1 personal question for Chris http www arn org ubbthreads showflat php Cat 0 Board 12 Number 238026 ID Science and the ID critics http www arn org ubbthreads showflat php Cat 0 Number 190095 page 0 fpart all vc 1 A serious question about Humo u r http www arn org ubbthreads showflat php Cat 0 Number 190090 page 0 fpart all vc 1 As you can see all of these are dead I remember looking at them a couple years when they weren t They were very interesting For example if I remember right I sometimes confuse Chris s posts at ARN with his posts at ISCID Chris made an analogy between a flatlander s trying to prove that he couldn t have a digestive tract since it would cut him clean in half and our trying to prove things about reality with the CTMU I m posting here in the hope that one of you will be able to find the old posts through HTML magic Anonymous talk 19 01 3 August 2014 UTC Hi Anonymous If I m not mistaken Chris has written over 200 posts on ARN I think the ARN website has gone through maintenance or changed it s directory listings So unless ARN killed it s boards forums Chris posts should be available somewhere By the way I contacted ARN regarding this issue Michael talk 11 27 4 August 2014 UTC Yeah 200 sounds about right Thanks for contacting them Anonymous talk 04 31 5 August 2014 UTC Extended Family One year after Chris passes away should we post his extended family on here or Wikipedia I have it I m not sure how many fans he may gain with the release of his book so I think we shouldn t release any of his relatives names until a year after his passing to protect them Agreed Thoughts JT1480 talk 15 15 10 August 2014 UTC You should only do this if you get each family member s permission Anonymous talk 21 21 4 July 2015 UTC A question about self Out of all the people I could have been why am I me Why am I conscious of this consciousness and not another consciousness In other words why does I refer to my mind and not another mind Dylancatlow talk 19 00 16 October 2014 UTC This is a great question The surprising answer is that in fact there is ultimately only one self and it is shared by all individuals This is an old idea with antecedents in Eastern philosophy Thus while you seem to be conscious only of a single person s experiences this is an artifact of that person s brain which has access only to the experiences recorded in it When having a Dylan Catlow experience you have access only to other experiences of Dylan Catlow and don t remember having experiences as anyone else When having an experience as someone else you have access only to that person s experiences and don t remember having experiences as Dylan Catlow But it is the same One Self which has all the experiences which is the subject of all consciousness everywhere This follows from syndiffeonesis putatively separate selves belong to a common medium and are therefore not absolutely separate We can stratify the self and speak of individuals and levels of self but there s ultimately just one self And that s you and me In the CTMU this idea is called distributed solipsism Tim Smith talk 22 50 16 October 2014 UTC Thanks for your reply I don t see how this answers the question though I agree that there is only one true self and that the self I m referring to is superficial and that everyone feels it but I still don t understand why I m aware of this superficial self if that makes sense Could it be that since you have no specific identity outside of yourself there is nothing about you which exists apart from yourself I m speaking in terms of superficial self of course I d love an answer from Langan on this Dylancatlow talk 18 03 17 October 2014 UTC Yes it would be interesting to get Langan s response But I think what I said does answer the original question which was Out of all the people I could have been why am I me Or in other words out of the set of all conscious experiences that people have why do I experience only the subset associated with the person Dylan Catlow The answer is that actually you experience not just that subset but the entire set of all conscious experiences It just seems like you only have Dylan Catlow experiences because while having a Dylan Catlow experience you only remember other Dylan Catlow experiences Similarly while having an experience as another person you only remember that person s experiences Thus the question falsely presupposes that your self is identical to a particular person when in fact it is distributed over all people Once this is understood the question goes away Of course you could still ask given that I have the entire set of all conscious experiences why is this particular experience that I am having this one and not one of the others in the set E g why is this Dylan Catlow experience a Dylan Catlow experience and not say a Chris Langan experience given that I have both But this is like asking why 1 equals 1 and not 2 Each experience in the set has its own identity In having each experience you distinguish it from the other experiences in the set but that is just part of having the experience and you do it for every experience in the set Here I don t see a problem The problem was due to the assumption that you are a particular person and have only that person s experiences This inexplicably ties your self to just one person out of many Once that assumption is dropped we get a nice symmetrical picture with one self having the experiences of all people So I think that the one self idea does resolve this problem That the CTMU accommodates this resolution is a strength of the theory Tim Smith talk 06 27 19 October 2014 UTC Thanks for clarifying what you mean I m inclined to agree with you now On an unrelated note could you look over a debate I had and tell me if my understanding of the CTMU is correct I did a lot of arguing in the comments section as well Thank you http www debate org debates God exists 97 Dylancatlow talk 15 26 19 October 2014 UTC I read the debate and I think you displayed a sound understanding of the CTMU Tim Smith talk 17 54 5 November 2014 UTC This is typical non positivistic CTMU nonsense IT DOESN T MAKE A DIFFERENCE whether you think of there is one self or many Appealing to some common medium is arbitrary it s like saying There is only one species because we can find common features between any pair of species Sure you can but that s not how people use the word species Similarly in some contexts it can be more useful to say there are many selves and in some it can be more useful to say there is just one self It s a stupid philosophical issue and you can change your point of view on it freely because it makes no difference in your sense perceptions One self or many selves indeed Maybe I only have two legs but 14 billion arms It s nonsense it doesn t matter learn logical positivism Anonymous talk 21 32 4 July 2015 UTC On the contrary it does makes a difference in your sense perceptions It makes a big difference it determines which sense perceptions are yours If your self is limited to a particular person e g Anonymous then you have only that person s sense perceptions If your self is distributed over all people then you have all of their sense perceptions Thus your set of sense perceptions changes dramatically depending on whether there is one self or many Further which sense perceptions and conscious experiences are yours determines which utilities are yours Since utility is essential to rational decision theory and ethics the philosophical issue of the nature of the self actually has consequences for real world decision making To say that there is only one species because we can find common features between any pair of species would indeed be a misuse of the word species After all there are already other words e g genus phylum to describe higher taxonomic ranks species is reserved for one level in this hierarchy However self is different from species Properly understood self is a primitive philosophical concept which denotes an indexical subject of experience Although it is commonly assumed that the experiences had by any one self are tied to a single individual e g a person this is not required by the definition In fact as I mentioned above the idea that there is only one self distributed over all individuals is an old one with antecedents in Eastern philosophy Regarding logical positivism it may be less at odds with the CTMU than it seems In logical positivism statements about the world to be meaningful are required to make a difference in perception In the CTMU reality is defined on relevance to perception That is in the CTMU reality consists of 1 perceptions plus 2 all relevant supporting structure Where they differ is on the nature of the supporting structure in the CTMU it is metaphysical whereas the program of the logical positivists was to dispense with metaphysics For a nice retrospective on that program see this interview in four parts with one of its leading exponents A J Ayer Near the end he says that its most important defect was that nearly all of it was false Tim Smith talk 22 33 7 July 2015 UTC No one has anyone s sense perceptions but their own no matter how many parapsychologists say otherwise The parapsychologists are wrong and they do bad science I will never have your sense perceptions and you will never have mine But even if I did would it mean that every person has access to many selves Depends on your point of view A solipsist would say no because there is only one self anyway and it s mine Even if I dreamed of a certain room went to your house and saw that my dream matched your room exactly as you saw it at the same time as I had my dream it would still not prove that every person has access to many selves to the solipsist But you don t have to be a solipsist It could be a Fight Club scenario maybe we re really two aspects of the same person When you let go of sense perceptions as your point of reference this is the sort of nonsense that you get Which utilities are yours in the arbitrary framework of the CTMU is not important for ethics Ethics should be understood through superrationality which Douglas Hofstadter first wrote about in Metamagical Themas The original idea only applied to symmetric games like the prisoner s dilemma Superrationality dictates that two perfectly logical players mutually cognizant of their perfect logic in a prisoner s dilemma would agree to cooperate because they d both reason that since they are both perfectly logical they should come to an identical conclusion about what to do either both cooperating or both defecting But since the former option maximizes each player s utility they choose to cooperate In fact even with a relatively low probability that the other player is superrational dependent on the exact payoffs a superrational player will choose to cooperate Notice that this sort of reasoning would apply even to a player who is only self interested but who is perfectly logical Superrationality was extended to asymmetric games by Ron Maimon you can read about it here The idea here is that you should behave as if an all knowing being whose utility is maximized when all players play ethically in all games this is actually a first order approximation because the utility of the players might be modified in light of this notion but it s close enough had an absolute answer to what you should do This is how you arrive at the notion of God Again it doesn t actually require that other people s utilities are yours that s irrelevant Spock could arrive at the same notion of God A J Ayer doesn t know what he s talking about All the philosophers either died or abandoned positivism whatever they re a bunch of politically schmoozing sellouts Positivism lived on among the physicists although they don t like philosophy much so they usually don t know that what they believe is called positivism Positivism is completely correct the CTMU is nebulous and not even wrong and you should go do something more useful than running this wiki I realize you ve been invested in this idea since the 90s but look it s not going to go anywhere I was invested in it for some years myself I was one of its biggest defenders in online discussions I m the same Anonymous from Scientopia and An American Atheist and now I do more productive things Please go prove a new theorem or discover a new law of physics or something don t waste more time on this Anonymous talk 00 56 8 July 2015 UTC Don t worry I have a life outside the CTMU as you can tell from how long it sometimes takes me to reply A self has only its own sense perceptions and other conscious experiences by definition The question is whether there are multiple selves each with experiences tied to some individual e g a person or whether there is one self whose experiences range over all individuals Let s be careful to distinguish self and person As I said self is a primitive philosophical concept which denotes an indexical subject of experience By contrast person is a fuzzier notion applied to any cognitive system exhibiting sufficiently advanced behavior to be characterized as intelligent self aware rational etc We are interested in the relationship between the two Parapsychology is irrelevant here if you dreamed of a room in my house just as I was seeing it that could indicate a paranormal flow of information between our two persons but it would not in and of itself mean that we share the same self Similarly if you never have such a dream that would not mean that we have distinct selves To definitively relate persons and selves metaphysical e g CTMU style reasoning is required As for solipsism recall that Langan s term for the relationship of the self to the individual is distributed solipsism In conventional solipsism the one self is inexplicably and asymmetrically tied to a particular person with all other persons taken to be philosophical zombies or

    Original URL path: http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Meta:Discussion (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Template:CTMU - CTMU Wiki
    Futures Universe as a Self Representational Entity USRE Teleology Telic Principle Generalized utility Telic recursion Telor Telon Teleologic Evolution Teleological consistency Syntax Principle of Linguistic Reducibility Syntactic operator Syntactor Syntactic covering Unisection Distributed syntax Metasyntax Human Cognitive Syntax HCS Other Distributed solipsism Generalized cognition Hology Holotheism Self determinacy Self multiplexing Self selection Supertautology Syndiffeonesis Noeon Closed descriptive manifold Retrieved from http ctmucommunity org w index php title Template CTMU oldid

    Original URL path: http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Template:CTMU (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive



  •