Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

[thesynapseislife]

I'm not a genius by any account but I have read the CTMU introduction (put forth by Michael Langdon - a genius) and I would like to get your (pl) opinion on it. Thank you.

CTMU: http://www.ctmu.org/

[Kevin Solway]

It tends to lose me from the very first sentence.

That is:

The real universe has always been theoretically treated as an object

Who by? Western academics? Or by the Buddha?

I'll read a little more if I can stand it.

[thesynapseislife]

An object of matter or relating to all the constituents of matter - big and small. That's what I understand when I read it at least.

But the rest leaves me in the dark, very quickly.

[thesynapseislife]

Although later on he mentions that the Universe as a whole cannot be the product of all it's constituents.

[DHodges]

I'll read a little more if I can stand it.

I was able to read about six paragraphs of the introduction before getting a headache and giving up. Here are some comments on the beginning bits:

Nor, for identical reasons, can we think of the universe as the sum of its parts, for these parts exist solely within a spacetime manifold identified with the whole and cannot explain the manifold itself.

The predicate "physical", like all predicates, here corresponds to a structured set, "the physical universe" (because the universe has structure and contains objects, it is a structured set).

"Structured set" means something. What does "the universe has structure" mean, exactly? Is it an obvious truth?

If the universe is all that exists, is it obvious that "all that exists" is identical to the "spacetime manifold" in which we find ourselves?

"The real universe contains all and only that which is real."

Is it possible for there to be degrees of realness, one thing being more real than another? Is it an obvious truth that reality is a binary affair (either real or not real)? I'm not saying that it is the case that reality is a matter of degree, but there is an assumption made here that is not completely obvious (and applying to "all possible realities").

So mathematicians view sets, broadly including null, singleton, finite and infinite sets, as fundamental objects basic to meaningful descriptions of reality. It follows that reality itself should be a set…in fact, the largest set of all.

A set is a mathematical object. Claiming that a given thing is a certain type of mathematical object is loose language. It's fine when saying your yard is a square or a rectangle, but here it is hiding something.

In this context, when describing sets, it is important to remember that SETS are being described, not physical objects.

This is the simple (but extremely common) error of not distinguishing between A and "A"; that is, mistaking the map for the territory.

(Mistaking the map for the territory is taken even further - and expanded into a principle! - in the "Mind Equals Reality" Principle, a little further on.)

An act is a temporal process, and self-inclusion is a spatial relation. The act of self-inclusion is thus "where time becomes space"; for the set of all sets, there can be no more fundamental process.

Does this mean something? It isn't clear.
It then goes on to talk about Lorentz transforms and whatnot, assuming that something meaningful and coherent has been said. Has it - or is it just using big words and technical-sounding ideas to hide that nothing meaningful has actually been said?

Anyway, if this is supposed to be an introduction, it needs to take a few steps back and do a whole lot more introducing - I mean, explaining where these assumptions and ideas are coming from, rather than just introducing jargon like "conspansion" and "protocomputation."

Scanning forward a bit from the first six paragraphs, it looks like it does not get any more readable. The language seems deliberately obtuse. My impression is that it was written to be impressive (look at all these big words I know!) more than it was written to clearly outline an idea. It seems very academic - in the sense of being pedantic and speculative.

Beyond that, it also seems to wander from set theory into theology, which doesn't help either one. That cements the overall impression of being written by a stoned college student trying to write a paper about something he doesn't really understand, and so is (deliberately or not) trying to bullshit the reader.

Maybe there are actually some good ideas in there - maybe not - as written, it's hard to tell. At the least, it needs to be completely re-written for clarity.

[thesynapseislife]

It definitely needs to be rewritten for clarity! But the author Chris Langdon is no college stoner. If you read some bio's about him you'll find this out.

Somewhere in his site (http://www.ctmu.org) there's a link that can take you to the entire layout of the CTMU with neat little diagrams. It doesn't help me any, but it might for you.

[thesynapseislife]

This is a rather extensive quote taken from a Q & A session with Chris Langdon explaining the Cognitive-theoretic model of the Universe in a little more clarity:

Scientific theories are mental constructs that have objective reality as their content. According to the scientific method, science puts objective content first, letting theories be determined by observation. But the phrase "a theory of reality" contains two key nouns, theory and reality, and science is really about both. Because all theories have certain necessary logical properties that are abstract and mathematical, and therefore independent of observation - it is these very properties that let us recognize and understand our world in conceptual terms - we could just as well start with these properties and see what they might tell us about objective reality. 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 may observe about the universe.

In other words, a comprehensive theory of reality is not just about observation, but about theories and their logical requirements. 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 at the most basic level of understanding. This linkage of mind and reality is what a TOE (Theory of Everything) is really about. The CTMU is such a theory; 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. Thus, it can credibly lay claim to the title of TOE.

Mind and reality - the abstract and the concrete, the subjective and the objective, the internal and the external - are linked together in a certain way, and this linkage is the real substance of "reality theory". Just as scientific observation determines theories, the logical requirements of theories to some extent determine scientific observation. Since reality always has the ability to surprise us, the task of scientific observation can never be completed with absolute certainty, and this means that a comprehensive theory of reality cannot be based on scientific observation alone. Instead, it must be based on the process of making scientific observations in general, and this process is based on the relationship of mind and reality. So the CTMU is essentially a theory of the relationship between mind and reality.

In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human.

Thus, the attempt to formulate a comprehensive theory of reality, the CTMU, finally leads to spiritual understanding, producing a basis for the unification of science and theology. The traditional Cartesian divider between body and mind, science and spirituality, is penetrated by logical reasoning of a higher order than ordinary scientific reasoning, but no less scientific than any other kind of mathematical truth. Accordingly, it serves as the long-awaited gateway between science and humanism, a bridge of reason over what has long seemed an impassable gulf.

[thesynapseislife]

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 at the most basic level of understanding.

I understand that a theory has certain properties that are observations from reality and reality must fit these observations. However, that is still going in a one-way direction. How are mind and reality linked in mutual dependence if reality doesn't care what goes on in the mind of a biological entity? The only link is someone's theory fitting an observation of nature. The two are connected then, yes, but what does that matter? If nature was linked to what our minds think then I should be able to submit this post by clicking the 'submit' button with the power of my mind shouldn't I? Am I totally missing something?

Mind and reality - the abstract and the concrete, the subjective and the objective, the internal and the external - are linked together in a certain way, and this linkage is the real substance of "reality theory". Just as scientific observation determines theories, the logical requirements of theories to some extent determine scientific observation.

Ok - what? Theories dont 'determine' anything in reality, it's always reality that determines the theory, isn't it? I must be missing something here...

[David Quinn]

To my mind, Michael Langdon is yet another intellectual who has no real idea how to apply his intellect in a profound way and truly get to the bottom of an issue. He reminds me of Rupert Sheldrake (a maverick biologist who also likes to believe that the Universe is conscious and teleological) in that he has tonnes of intellectual energy, but no real philosophic intuition or skill. The best he can come up with is to conjure wacky quasi-scientific theories that try to challenge mainstream theories and yet don't really contribute to our philosophic understanding in any way.

In short, his CMTU theory is superficial and unnecessary from a philosophic perspective, and bizarre and wacky from a scientific perspective.

He seems to be saying that he wants to become a great spiritual philosopher who knows "the mind of God". And yet he doesn't want to leave the scientific world behind and actually do it. I suppose, if he did this, he would no longer be able to dazzle others with his amazing intellect.

--

Synapse wrote:

Langdon: 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 at the most basic level of understanding.

Synapse: I understand that a theory has certain properties that are observations from reality and reality must fit these observations. However, that is still going in a one-way direction. How are mind and reality linked in mutual dependence if reality doesn't care what goes on in the mind of a biological entity? The only link is someone's theory fitting an observation of nature. The two are connected then, yes, but what does that matter? If nature was linked to what our minds think then I should be able to submit this post by clicking the 'submit' button with the power of my mind shouldn't I? Am I totally missing something?

Our minds do play a role in shaping what we perceive and experience in reality. Not to the extent of being able to manifest physical objects with mere thought. But our values, emotions, categories, biases, mental blocks, ignorance, etc, all play their part in determining what we actually perceive and experience in the world.

For example, our society is currently dominated by the idea that men and women are equal in all intellectual matters, including the higher realm of genius - even though this patently untrue. People everywhere are being brainwashed into believing this - it is the politically correct dogma of our times - and lo and behold! whenever they look out into the physical world this is precisely what they see.

Langdon: Mind and reality - the abstract and the concrete, the subjective and the objective, the internal and the external - are linked together in a certain way, and this linkage is the real substance of "reality theory". Just as scientific observation determines theories, the logical requirements of theories to some extent determine scientific observation.

Synapse: Ok - what? Theories dont 'determine' anything in reality, it's always reality that determines the theory, isn't it? I must be missing something here...

Well, in most people's cases, it is theory which determines theory. Reality never comes into it.

It seems that Langdon is trying to articulate the obvious fact that our philosophical outlook shapes what we see. In doing this, he is going beyond science. I don't think he is trying to say that scientists should no longer place supreme importance on observational data. He's not challenging the scientific method in any way. He is simply stating the obvious truth that there is really no such thing as an objective world "out there".

-

[thesynapseislife]

From what I understand of Langdon's musings it does seem a little "dreamy".

[analog57]

http://www.teleologic.org/

Determinacy and indeterminacy…at first glance, there seems to be no middle ground. Events are either causally connected or they are not, and if they are not, then the future would seem to be utterly independent of the past. Either we use causality to connect the dots and draw a coherent picture of time, or we settle for a random scattering of independent dots without spatial or temporal pattern and thus without meaning. At the risk of understatement, the philosophical effects of this assumed dichotomy have been corrosive in the extreme. No universe that exists or evolves strictly as a function of external determinacy, randomness or an alternation of the two can offer much in the way of meaning. Where freedom and volition are irrelevant, so is much of human experience and individuality.

But there is another possibility after all: self-determinacy. Self-determinacy is like a circuitous boundary separating the poles of the above dichotomy…a reflexive and therefore closed boundary, the formation of which involves neither preexisting laws nor external structure. Thus, it is the type of causal attribution suitable for a perfectly self-contained system. Self-determinacy is a deep but subtle concept, owing largely to the fact that unlike either determinacy or randomness, it is a source of bona fide meaning. Where a system determines its own composition, properties and evolution independently of external laws or structures, it can determine its own meaning, and ensure by its self-configuration that its inhabitants are crucially implicated therein.

[analog57]

In short, his CMTU theory is superficial and unnecessary from a philosophic perspective, and bizarre and wacky from a scientific perspective.

The CTMU theory is irrefutable. Trust me [INSERT SMILEY]

[Jamesh]

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Arti ... 092902.pdf

While this theory is remarkably difficult to understand, and I do not, those few parts that I do understand on one non-studious reading appear to be quite good.

Providing it does not get to irritating - the writer reckons his IQ is 195-210, and unfortunately he has written it to be technically succinct as possible for experts whom are already familiar with all the terms which makes - I'll have a go at reading it at least once more to see if it is worth a proper study.

I think that most of this theory is highly rational and the best I've seen of those TOE theories that include a universal consciousness, but still twisted by the "active God" and Karma outcomes he wants with this theory, as one can see in the following quote.

That the conclusions may be wrong due to religious/ego biases is not much of a problem, as I've never met or heard of anyone that I more than 90% agree with overall. I'm sure we could all learn something from it - well at least if it was not so damn frustrating to read.

"A. The first part of your "why" question is answered at the end of the above response to Celia. 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."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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"

[Jamesh]

I have not reread this theory, but my view is that he developed this theory from starting parameters generalised from the Christian myths, that they were the end result he wanted and he developed the theory to fit into that. He believes that the universe via structured feedback (intelligent design) creates the laws of nature, from which evolution of things, then life, is the result.

It seems to be a reasonable assumption. If one looks at the nature of things, of anything recognisable as a whole, then yes there is causal feedback from the whole to its parts.

Take the earth for example, and its parts. The earths shape, position in solar system, rotation speed, gravitational effect etc are not solely attributes of the parts but also of the whole. That The Sum is Greater than its Parts, is actually a logical necessity. Greater in the sense of things, means a higher level of containment. We measure things by how much energy is contained within them. When alike and then complementary things congregate, expansion to outside of those things is reduced as there is greater equalisation between each part, causality becomes contained more within. The affect of this is gravity. If there is greater containment within, and thus less external-to-the-thing expansionary push, then there is less constraint for the outside to expand, thus it pushes in at the thing. This occurs everywhere, so the affect is to push separate things together. There is always some degree of causal equalisation between things of every type, and this general interconnectedness means that expansion outside of things always has more relative power to push than between and within things.

The parts have their own overall states on a lesser scale. A whole, a thing, is the flow of a dynamic causal set through time. Things are a collection of differentiated causation, that form a synergistic set according to natures structural logic, wherein the whole set together with the parts, causally feed back to the parts. Everything is a 3 dimensional two way street, on a one dimensional time path.

The parts emit expansionary forces, such as in the electromagnetic spectrum, whereas the whole forms a *secondary* layer of inwards causation, above that of the omnidirectional primary causality everywhere. This allows stability in causal sets or patterns. The same applies to the parts themselves, as they are wholes also. There is no absolute particle, no thing is completely static, all things change, and they do so because expansion is always rising up from the past, from within, into the present.

Inward causality creates differentiation, as it creates centres. The combination of Outside, Inside and Centre, are a legitimate set, a spatial thing. The causal pressures inside a set are different from those outside the set, and where causally equidistant from the set and from each part within the set, the causal pressure will be greatest. So things have this floating centre of gravity - the centre of the overall flow. It is a causally created "point" of essentially nothingness - nothingness as it is the result of a set and has no thingness to be in turn to be a causal agent of its own. Therefore it is fundamentally different from what created it. Therefore it is the most fundamental logical differentiation that exists in the universe.

So if things do that, can the same process be applied to The Totality? Can the totality have a feed back structure that allows set causal flows to arise, in the same way that all of its parts do? Is there any reason why the natural logic we see in parts would be different at the level of the whole?

The only reason I can see is that infinity would prevent any feedback as infinity means there can be no absolute whole. With infinity no whole set can be truly formed, there cannot be the Outside segment of the set equation, and there cannot be a Centre, so structured feedback could not arise.

Personally I don’t actually believe the universe is completely infinite. I only see it as being infinite inwardly, not outwardly. I see it outwardly bound by the barrier of the speed of times expansion. If one were to freeze the totality, freeze causation, then there would be a whole, a set of everything, though it would have the same problem as any Thing - it would be infinitely divisible - you could not locate a physical centre that was a "beginning" thing. So to me there is always a floating whole, but a whole in which excludes its outward causality as part of its definition of wholeness (outward causality being times continual expansion). It is a whole due to its secondary set based inwards causality (the primary inward causality still being time itself).

As things such as the earth has natural structural logic resulting from its wholeness, this can be considered as being "intelligence". For minds, intelligence is the rational construction of concepts so that something new is created. Ie 1 + 1 = 2. The created 2 is a usable thing in its own right, it has a form of causality by the fact it can be utilised.

All the intelligence in the universe, must in turn affect the nature of the whole. Just as the earth would have a different causal flow through time were it consist only of gas, so to might cognitive intelligence. With the inside of the totality being infinite, then that almost calls out for the evolution of super cognitive intelligence, far greater than that of us humans.

So does this set of cognitive intelligence, cause the Totality to have an intelligence attribute as part of its form as a whole, an attribute that could be called a god, but one that still has an inwards causal effect on its parts. Just as a whole keeps the parts of itself in place, might there also be a feedback mechanism that aids in the development of cognitive ability to sufficiently evolved physical structures. Thus God would perpetuate itself through the endless recreation of itself via lesser consciousness such as us.

All parts emit smaller parts that leave the wholeness of that thing. Light for example is emitted, and is no longer part, of the wholeness that is the sun. The secondary internal causality of the sun no longer affects it, it is only affected by the sun outward causality.

So can human cognition via the formation of intelligence sets do the same thing. Does our awareness and intelligence creating ability unable us to go beyond that which we are, to tap into a greater external intelligent whole, by using intelligent awareness to remove as a constraint, the physical side of the inward causality of our wholeness? The physical side to be bypassed, would include all mental activity relating to human living, such as the self, ego, emotions, facts and other forms of cognitive noise.

There are a lot of signs that point to this. There are dreams, there are drugs that cause spiritual mental sensations, there is meditation, there are those that apparently obtain it as part of their nature via achieving a sufficient state of enlightenment about reality. There is even just plain deep concentration.

Unfortunately it does not imply a life after death, as their is no intelligence in the dead.

Ahh, gotta go, the zombies are after me.

[Dan Rowden]

I think I was wrong, Jimbo, you should drink even more...

[Jamesh]

Gosh Dan, you don't actually read my posts do you?

Now while, I can't say I don't care about your judgement, you being Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates of Ultimate Truth and all, but I still say you can go jump. I'll work out reality my own way.

I just write whatever comes into my head, so my posts are far from perfect, but you know I still think there is something more honest about these posts, than closing off investigations like you seem to have.

Did you go through things like this in the first 5 or 10 years, or were you just automatically fully coherent in your thinking?
I've not seen evidence that you have gone where I go with causality. Or do you just have a fast brain and all this was done in your head, and soon dismissed?

Eventually I'll get sick of speculations like the above, I suppose.

[wadenkrampf]

In short, his CMTU theory is superficial and unnecessary from a philosophic perspective, and bizarre and wacky from a scientific perspective.

Yeah, this is some superior reasoning going on here. Ten years ago he was recommended as a guest. I guess I know now why he wasn't invited.

[jufa]

the premier theory of mathematical metaphysics, can be succinctly described in several ways; for example, as a metaphysical (ontological, epistemological, and scientific) formulation of logic comprising a self-contained description of reality on its most general and basic level of existence.

The crux here, as the above color emphasize, is 'theory.' Regardless of what is stated it is still a theory, and to debate a theory is the same as debating a falsehood.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Regardless of what is stated it is still a theory, and to debate a theory is the same as debating a falsehood.

There's no need to debate any large, universal, absolute truth. It would prove impossible to do so although it might take a while to realize. The reason is that truth functions at a higher order than provability. This means one cannot be convinced of the nature of truth, it can only dawn, like a background.

That said, all ideas, theory, language and thought live and thrive inside dialogue, discussion, opposition and ongoing flux, internally or externally.

[jufa]

Diebert wrote:There's no need to debate any large, universal, absolute truth. It would prove impossible to do so although it might take a while to realize. The reason is that truth functions at a higher order than provability. This means one cannot be convinced of the nature of truth, it can only dawn, like a background.

That said, all ideas, theory, language and thought live and thrive inside dialogue, discussion, opposition and ongoing flux, internally or externally.

It matters not whether debate or discussion are the handles gripping words,

all ideas, theory, language and thought live and thrive inside dialogue, discussion, opposition and ongoing flux, internally or externally, as Diebert has stated

are all without probative value [falsehoods] which will not open the mind to anything except repetitions falsehood. This is the law,

everything after its kind.


Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Diebert van Rhijn]

all ideas, theory, language and thought live and thrive inside dialogue, discussion, opposition and ongoing flux, internally or externally, as

are all without probative value [falsehoods] which will not open the mind to anything except repetitions falsehood.

Once you evoke a notion like "all ideas are falsehoods" there are complementary truths being summoned in the background. Your bag of personal truths which you don't seriously discuss or debate and therefore they pretty much remain dead and dysfunctional, for all ends and purposes. Take also note of the idea that if everything discussed is equally false, it becomes normative reality and either all true, false or neutral (neither true or false) depending on if we define our sense or definition of "reality" as being wholly false, true or neither.

[jufa]

Perhaps I have missed something about ideas being personal beliefs which are neither justified by politically correctness, religious, philosophical, psychological, educational, nor the world society because the collective whole do not accept them as anything other than group involvement, rather than truths welcomed, and received as the unification of what is, not what is thought to be.

What can then be proved, or validated in individual, or collective minds of mankind concerning what has been conceived idealistically which would be the same truth to my individual experience, as the one who has experienced? There is no truth for others to find in what I do or believe, nor vice verse, because there are no two things of exact precision anywhere in the universe. So all ideas, notions, opinions are draped in relativistic falsehood to all but the individual who experiences the event, or thought.

All things are normal. Just look at rhetorical axis mundi of the same events which take place in season for all societies. Most all people are conformist, nominal.