Thread replies: 12
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1449242193291.jpg (30KB, 649x463px) Image search:
[Google]
30KB, 649x463px
Has anyone here read the CTMU?
People discount it as garbage but have yet to give any valid criticism.
In response to the only valid criticisms I've seen:
>muh neologisms
Langan has to invent words seeing as he's describing concepts that have never been thought of before.
>no maths
From what I understand his theory is entirely tautological and worked out without extensive equations.
>dismissed by modern science as a farce
He has this pretension that he's better than others ans claims academia to be a club that he is not part of. In essence, he's blacklisted, so it's probable that if that were true, it has something to do with it, seeing as we all know the modern academic circle jerk to be biased or exclusive to some degree.
Overall I would like to see someone offer valid criticism. You can download the entire thing on his megafoundation website by searching CTMU.
>Inb4: he's a pseud
>>
What the hell is ctmu
>>
only pseuds are obsessed with pseuds
>>
>>9966510
had a good giggle at the documentary but never actually read the ctmu, wouldn't you be better of posting on /sci/?
>>
>>9967372
I did think about which board to post it to initially before settling on lit because of its philosophical and metaphysical nature. But I'll try science now.
>>
>we could build a self-referential theory of reality whose variables represent reality itself, and whose relationships are logical tautologies. Then we could add an instructive twist. Since logic consists of the rules of thought, i.e. of mind, what we would really be doing is interpreting reality in a generic theory of mind based on logic. By definition, the result would be a cognitive-theoretic model of the universe.
>>
if it's tautological then it's pointless and stupid
>>
>>9966510
He's a pseud. Actual explanations of reality are based on the physical world. Pseud attempts at explanation of reality are easily recognized by their preoccupation with "consciousness."
>>
>>9968349
How is consciousness not involved when it's the fundamental component from which we observe.
>>
>>9968026
Did... did this guy honestly waste months or years on his life on constructing an entire book full of tautological """philosophy"""?
OP, I think you might be better off with Science Without Numbers. At least it isn't pseud.
>>
>>9966510
Skimmed through the introduction on (his?) website. Really boring stuff man. Seems like the whole thing is an unimpressive ontological argument he tried to make as long and boring as possible so no one would actually read it. Its clearly not science, no reason to be bitter the scientific community isn't interested in some bouncers philosophical ramblings. That's my take but if you think he has some real impressive points that need to be addressed you should post them.
t. physics undergrad
Thread posts: 12
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1