• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

CTMU Youtube

Ostronomos

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member

Here Langan explains how the theory of the CTMU blossomed beginning in his late teens. His vision of reality as a "language of languages". Many of his ideas have paralleled mine. If any given mind sees universal truth and explains it well, it would have met the criteria of success.
 
Ostronomos

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member

Origins​

Questions like "why and how does reality exist?" and "why does this reality exist instead of some other reality?" are typically answered in one of two ways:

  1. Reality "just exists", and no further explanation is needed or can be given.
  2. Reality exists due to the influence of something outside of it, an external creator.
Langan opposes both views, arguing that were reality to lack an explanation, it would lack the structure needed to enforce its own consistency, whereas for an external creator to create reality, the creator itself would have to be real, and therefore inside reality by definition, contradicting the premise.[32]

The CTMU treats the origin of reality in the context of freedom and constraint. Concepts are defined by constraints specifying their structure, and structure requires explanation. Consequently, Langan argues, every concept requires explanation except the "terminal concept" with no constraints, and no structure to explain. In the CTMU, this terminal concept or "ontological groundstate" is called "unbound telesis" or UBT.[33]

Because UBT is a medium of pure potential, everything is possible within it. This means that anything which is able to "recognize itself" as existing, will in fact exist from its own vantage. However, the requirements for doing so are, asserts Langan, more stringent than is normally supposed. Because UBT is unstructured, the only possibilities which can actualize from it are those with sufficient internal structure to create and configure themselves. So in the CTMU, reality, rather than being uncaused or externally caused, is self-caused, and constrained by the structure it needs to create and configure itself, that of SCSPL.

The above reasoning, holds Langan, resolves the ex nihilo or "something-from-nothing" paradox. The paradox arises when "nothing" is taken to exclude not just "something", but the potential for "something". Because exclusion of potential is a constraint, "nothing" in this sense requires its own explanation, and cannot serve as an ontological groundstate. But when "nothing" is viewed as unconstrained potential or UBT,[34] asserts Langan, reality arises inevitably from it.

-CTMU Wiki, Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe - CTMU Wiki

Reality is said to retroactively configure itself in the CTMU. Time flows backwards and forwards in it. This is a reasonable conclusion since we are no longer thinking in terms of a localized or object-level perspective, but a holistic one.

The success of this theory reflects mankind's desire to know his origins and the much deserved recognition of the Quantum sciences, which only recently blossomed into an ontological framework.
 
Ostronomos

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
From The Reality Self-Simulation Principle:

The instances “deceive the observer” by supplanting a generic formal description, the model of X, with specific instances, physically imitating mental properties and formal patterns thereof. Only the instances, not the programming, are visible inside the simulation (in the “display”). The subjective nature of models, programs, and formal properties are hidden, either in an external processor or deep within the observer himself.

Where X = reality, the simulation is a reality-simulation. Where the processor is artificial - e.g., a mechanical or electronic construct - the reality simulation is artificial; where the processor is natural (involving no artificial construct), the reality simulation is natural, and may be considered a part of nature or reality itself. If it can be considered a simulation at all, it is a self-simulation of, by, and for nature itself. Real simulations of reality exist in reality, and in principle may be “nested” in simulations of simulations ... of simulations. Thus, we have the following diagram 1) Ultimate Reality  [nested subrealities]  (2) source system (to be simulated)  (3) host system with model of source system  (4) displayed target system

- Christopher Langan

So again, we see that atheists fall prey to a type of logic that resides in the illusory matrix. Where reality is in fact a simulation of, by and for nature itself. The programming is embedded deep within the observer or an external processor. Logic once again triumphs over false beliefs.
 
Ostronomos

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
Ostronomos said:
The only thing indisputable is the imaginative creativity in making a case for atheism.
Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:
If God was a fact you could support it with valid sources. Not spinners of woo woo.

And ease up on the projection a bit. Please.
Click to expand...
The Reality Self-Simulation Principle is 99.9% fact. Which is far more than anything any atheist has ever made a case against THE ONE AND ONLY for.

While all atheists are swayed by false belief I and Langan are not.
 
Mock Turtle

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Ostronomos said:
The Reality Self-Simulation Principle is 99.9% fact. Which is far more than anything any atheist has ever made a case against THE ONE AND ONLY for.

While all atheists are swayed by false belief I and Langan are not.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because you think you are what you are not? I seem to have roughly the same intelligence as you (as per two tests) - from what you have said as to IQ below - and I don't ever feel like a genius even if I know I am more intelligent than most - so perhaps you are mistaken?

Interpretation of my IQ score?

I scored 135 sd 15 in pattern recognition yet 2nd %ile in processing speed. My physical appearance would suggest, due to my intensity in the eyes, that I am observational in my thought processes and reasoning. But also, due to my somewhat youthful exuberance and naive overall appearance, that...
www.religiousforums.com
 
Ostronomos

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
Mock Turtle said:
Perhaps because you think you are what you are not? I seem to have roughly the same intelligence as you (as per two tests) - from what you have said as to IQ below - and I don't ever feel like a genius even if I know I am more intelligent than most - so perhaps you are mistaken?

Interpretation of my IQ score?

I scored 135 sd 15 in pattern recognition yet 2nd %ile in processing speed. My physical appearance would suggest, due to my intensity in the eyes, that I am observational in my thought processes and reasoning. But also, due to my somewhat youthful exuberance and naive overall appearance, that...
www.religiousforums.com
Click to expand...

I have a dual intellectual identity. One high, and one super-high.
 
freelight

freelight

Soul Pioneer
Premium Member
Ostronomos said:

Here Langan explains how the theory of the CTMU blossomed beginning in his late teens. His vision of reality as a "language of languages". Many of his ideas have paralleled mine. If any given mind sees universal truth and explains it well, it would have met the criteria of success.
Click to expand...

Ive been watching some video interviews of Langan recently and diving a bit into CTMU, at least some of the basic principles, as it relates to other models of TOE and metaphysics in general. Also been following CTMU SINGULARITY on Youtube, young tommy's channel, and Tom Campbells's Big TOE :) - anyways,....will see if this is the most ideal thread to explore this model, or another thread, thanks for sharing and will get back into. Im more of a theosophist these days, a 'meta-theist', so these universal models of cognitive theory are pretty standard. Looking forward.........:thumbsup::thumbsup:


~*~*~
 
freelight

freelight

Soul Pioneer
Premium Member
Ostronomos said:

Langan's influence spans the entire western world.
Click to expand...

Tommy at such a young age is impressive! Indeed, all reality is self-caused, referenced and contextualized, if we view 'God' as like that Infinite I AM Original Intelligence which can only exist as a Self-cognizing Presence and Creator,......beyond this, Consciousness is all-inclusve and includes/concludes ALL that IS or ever will BE...because there is nothing outside of consciousness except what is possible and imaginable within its own resources to bring forth or actualize. I just need to get a handle on some of the main CTMU terms and concepts, and likely sync them with my own learning of older terms as they correlate and coordinate to them. Looks FUN! :)


~*~*~
 
freelight

freelight

Soul Pioneer
Premium Member
Twilight Hue said:
The only thing indisputable is the imaginative creativity in making a case for God.
Click to expand...

Which is simply re-cognizing that fact that consciousness itself is a self-referencing system of reality, and that imagination itself proves a creative intelligence is at the heart of all the exists, all creation. It is logical within a theistic context to refer to this Original Source-Reality as 'God', the origin of all potentials and actuals. - all else is relative to that ONE Reality by inflection/reflection in all points in space/time.


~*~*~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top