tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post6003464418074851619..comments2024-04-19T00:03:15.388-04:00Comments on The Multiverse According to Ben: Langan’s “Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe”Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12743597120529571571noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-16773789780881364192023-11-03T20:59:37.119-04:002023-11-03T20:59:37.119-04:00Dear Arthur,
Excellent. I await.Dear Arthur,<br /><br />Excellent. I await.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-24839919409087216972023-11-03T12:23:53.101-04:002023-11-03T12:23:53.101-04:00I will make it clear in the email header. I will c...I will make it clear in the email header. I will contact you soon.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Arthur Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-66706841953904517892023-10-23T20:32:38.968-04:002023-10-23T20:32:38.968-04:00Dear Arthur. Yes, it's been quite some time! Y...Dear Arthur. Yes, it's been quite some time! You may email this account: bioclassifiers@gmail.com. Feel free to email me there, knowing that I will never publicize our correspondence (although I acknowledge the limitations of internet confidentiality). How will I know you've emailed me? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-64130998772269995312023-05-24T21:28:08.965-04:002023-05-24T21:28:08.965-04:00Dear Anonymous: Wow, I had no idea you replied to ...Dear Anonymous: Wow, I had no idea you replied to me until now. How long as it been? A few years? I did not check this blog until today again, just because I wanted to re-read some of the thoughts expressed. Believe it or not, I had not even recalled that I also had written something here. I was reading through this thread and was like "hmm...this fellow sounds exactly like me...Oh wait...it IS me!" Anyway, because I really wish to maintain my anonymity, I do not know how we can communicate privately. The internet never forgets, after all. Perhaps you can create some fake account, like "CTMUdiscussions@gmail.com" or whatever, and I will email you there. If these discussions ever become public, I will deny all involvement. Thanks and regards,<br /><br />ArthurAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-79155605731253272122020-02-02T15:35:13.121-05:002020-02-02T15:35:13.121-05:00The CTMU is strange, I don't understand the en...The CTMU is strange, I don't understand the entire theory, but intuitively you should be able to see the "where it comes from", regarding the CTMU and how it's a "true" version of the mathematical universe hypothesis.<br /><br />There is one entity that contains all of reality. The earth, the universe, the afterlife, and other dimensions, space and time. OBVIOUSLY, if you ZOOM OUT and see yourself as "an exterior observer of the grand entity that contains reality", you would see that the existence of reality, its contents, and its reason for existence, MUST be a LOGICAL/MATHEMATICAL NECESSITY, as necessary as a statement like X=X and other mathematical truths. The CTMU describes reality as SCSPL of which MATH and LOGIC are subsets of. Math and logic ARE "always there absolutes", we can all agree and understand. The CTMU is the big picture of it all, the SCSPL.<br /><br />Really, to throw away "reality theory" as an impossible task/something to be ignored is to discard your humanity/what makes you human. I am glad to see that there are serious academians and other curious people who realize that it's a damn serious topic, and questions regarding the definition of self/personal identity/afterlife are SERIOUS questions.IloveLindsaySouvannarathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09486050689991155962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-88334599258761850422018-12-07T11:07:36.687-05:002018-12-07T11:07:36.687-05:00Arthur, we communicated on the Quora thread in que...Arthur, we communicated on the Quora thread in question, and I recall similar comments. I am anonymous because I, also, have developed a CTMU-relevant work, an artistic philosophy, using a new genre of narration: not from the first-person, the ostensibly raw reality, but field-person, the real raw reality. I will publish this anonymously. Initially, this method of expression will be indigestible, yet it is just one of many philosophical breakthroughs therein presented. I am very intrigued about your mathematical-scientific treatment of SCSPL, since this approach is not competitive, but complementary, with Langan's metaphysical method, and my artistic method, which was invented to deterge ordinary people from thoughtlessly discarding the higher-order distributivity of reality. So, effectively, I am preparing people to comprehend the CTMU and your adaptations/formalizations of SCSPL. <br /><br />However, your comments about rivaling Mr. Langan, and far more so that "This century belongs to me," induce serious concern. Are you a megalomaniac? If not, perhaps we should converse (provided that you respect my anonymity, as I would respect your request of confidentiality).<br /><br />Ben: you cannot be aware how happy I am to read actual thinkers contending with the CTMU. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-54732305713965296082018-09-18T02:13:27.454-04:002018-09-18T02:13:27.454-04:00Ben...
We need to talk.
I have developed a new (...Ben...<br /><br />We need to talk.<br /><br />I have developed a new (and superior) mathematical language (in some sense comparable to what a rigorous mathematical treatment of SCSPL would look like in a higher-order language), and I am putting some finishing touches on it. <br /><br />I am too tired and lazy to get into details. What I will say is this: Langan has taken the philosophical route; I have taken the mathematical-scientific route, to essentially say the same thing.<br /><br />Langan is indeed brilliant, but behind me at least 20 years. I have given him some hints to shave it down to 10, and I am awaiting his response (over at Quora).<br /><br />He is a rival of mine, reminding me of Leibniz, to my Newton. <br /><br />But this century belongs to me. <br /><br />His latest publication 'An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics' confirms this.<br /><br />Anyway, Ben, let's talk some time. You have a solid background and based on your cursory evaluation/analysis of CTMU, I deem you sufficiently apt to bounce a few ideas off. <br /><br />Much of what we discuss, will have to remain confidential. <br /><br />Yours respectfully.<br /><br />Arthur (pseudonym)<br /><br />p.s. please write to me on here. We may exchange details at some point. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-18104457731010549672018-05-15T17:58:38.077-04:002018-05-15T17:58:38.077-04:00Just a few thoughts I have on recursion and entrop...Just a few thoughts I have on recursion and entropy. Recursion happens apparently because of a cosmic mirror effect I have seen that happening in person many times. When you bring a specific thought or idea or creation into the world this thing becomes mirrored in the eternal cosmos and other brains pick up on it energetically. This entire conversation is of course based on philosophy rather than the confines of our reality and measurement that is why there is no such thing as entropy in the wider perspective because things are infinite and thus never bound within a specific sphere of existence. Very interesting what Langan, Ben and others including Esther Hicks have said about the sudden infusions of extra dimensional occurrences within our own field of reality. This goes to show that our field of reality is really just a specific cosmic location which has it's own laws of physics and which is also not air tight in it's entropic nature. The mirror effect a term I stole from neuro science and which I am using now for the field of cosmic inter connectivity is happening throughout all universes, entropic spheres and realities. It is fascinating for me to observe that any specific idea or information that vibrates energetically throughout infinity gets recognized or played with also by energetic entities which then can show themselves to us through socalled random patterns and by that I mean seemingly for us random patterns. Most people would not notice them it requires very tuned in and artistic brains to notice it. Have you guys noticed faces in blankets, rough surface wallpapers, rugs or in lawn or brush patterns in photo images? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05129425853328110683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-72565447327713578512017-05-19T01:48:10.622-04:002017-05-19T01:48:10.622-04:00Interesting ... one and all. I stumbled upon the t...Interesting ... one and all. I stumbled upon the thoughts herein via a YouTube video on Langan(Chris Langan, the man with 200 IQ) which, after a Google search, took me to a diatribe a MarkCC wrote over at "scientopis.org"+ before landing here. Again, interesting, yes indeed. My thoughts, and therefore insights, are much more simplistic than those so elegantly expressed of which I was exposed. They are....: 1) I'm glad porn is now free on the internet; 2) I'm glad I developed a healthy porn addiction after it became free; 3) masturbation is the answer to the why questions: "Who are we?; Where did we come from?: Where are we going?; How should we live?" 5) and my final postulation is: You guys and gals need to spend time away from stroking your intellects (aka: egos) to yank and rub your genitals (ids).<br /><br />Just a thought from a 186 ....<br /><br />+ http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2011/02/11/another-crank-comes-to-visit-the-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-5035927607359414282017-04-05T06:43:32.386-04:002017-04-05T06:43:32.386-04:00Not a high-level math guy or thinker, just an armc...Not a high-level math guy or thinker, just an armchair philosophy buff, so take this for what it's worth...thoughtful post by Ben. Have just finished reading Langan's longer exposition as well as his more recently published stuff in the Journal Cosmos and History.<br /><br />Langan’s CTMU seems to satisfy three things rather elegantly:<br /><br />1. It suggests the general contours of what artificial (or alien, or animal) intelligence would look like;<br />2. It suggests a unity behind the preponderance and variety of language-games and what the general ground rules are for any given one, but also nests mathematics and scientific naturalism inside this framework;<br />3. Suggests why the “truth” value (consistency?) is important within all these language-games (success?)<br /><br />In all, seems less likely an endorsement of a specific theology and more like the idea of pantheism/panpsychism, as in Alan Watts’s mystical imagining: the Universe as a game of hide-and-seek, the Supreme Self masquerading as Teeming Things, slowly revealing itself.<br /><br />What’s also interesting is his method for arriving at the formulation. Instead of focusing on propositions, he seems to consider what a Theory of Everything would be called on to do; then, after specifying its functions and slowly whittling away at it, he arrives his concept, which is theoretically scalable to all “levels” of reality at large. It only remains to be proven (or disproven), I guess. He’s not so much redefining physics and science as nesting science, math, and all “language-games” and indeed thought within a framework that comes down to logic, which has significant explanatory power for even a layperson like me. Is there any language that defies logic? That would be telling evidence against such a theory, I would think.<br /><br />The big turnoff, as noted by Ben above, is the association with Intelligent Design (ID). Politically and theologically, ID seems to me to be associated with a much more rigid ideology and agenda, whereas the CTMU in itself seems much less tied to any specific dogma. Langan’s conception seems to lend itself less to defending any specific Theist view of “God” that it does something like the Tao, or Dan Dennett’s idea of the universe as a long-unfolding Tree of Life; it might better be characterized as “Intelligible Design.” In my opinion it does a disservice to associate Langan’s theory with a narrower ideological viewpoint as ID.<br /><br />That said, I don’t know that the theory justifies some of Langan’s extrapolations from it. But I guess that remains to be seen.Pete Prochilohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071453177683930557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-51155952541063697822016-09-03T03:46:44.809-04:002016-09-03T03:46:44.809-04:00Hi
Just a thought...
Maybe you, Langan and Goert...Hi <br /><br />Just a thought...<br />Maybe you, Langan and Goertzel, can cooperate on the P vs NP-problem ? If Langan is able to solve it, and Goertzel recognises the solution, then perhaps that would cause the solution to be taken seriously by the Clay Institute ?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-81383827935468707702016-03-14T02:14:08.859-04:002016-03-14T02:14:08.859-04:00The CTMU of Christopher Michael Langan reminds me ...The CTMU of Christopher Michael Langan reminds me of a virtual reality construct of successive shifts in consciousness states, akin to a closed loop of recursive entanglements; this would be reflecting the necessary increase in information density, thereby, establishing the thermodynamic arrow of time.<br /><br />The global conspansion rate must be required to provide a constant ratio expressing the value of c, the speed of light in vacuum, although the values in the both the numerator and denominator of successive states can change... X_n / X_d <br /><br />Non-local connections are not classical... the human brain would have two types of computation, regular neurocomputation and also an extended or non-local mind as quantum or holographic computation... Perhaps the brain is something like a hologram with non-local connections ... <br /><br />The general properties of the universe like individual atoms and rocks and grains of sand are also part of the universal hologram or "universal wave-function" but a rock does not have an ego.<br /><br />Some animals are advanced enough to have a rudimentary or primitive form of ego because they can pass the mirror test for self awareness. The Totality of Existence i.e. the Universal Mind, does not have an ego but is a general intelligence ...the wave-function of the Universe.<br /><br />My intuition tells me that a soul is something that is not made of separated parts but is somehow whole like a continuum that can merge with other souls yet still be itself.mystichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05922966487455798450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-54477143998048801942015-12-29T20:27:36.908-05:002015-12-29T20:27:36.908-05:00Every time there's a critique, they don't ...Every time there's a critique, they don't read through the entire damn theory.<br /><br />Is this really the best you can do?<br /><br />You had one shot and you blew it.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05817718246276660633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-91584176100407251022015-12-01T23:27:02.090-05:002015-12-01T23:27:02.090-05:00https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snKCli0lTwU&li...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snKCli0lTwU&list=PLXSh6dk6yMq4Oft5HXNzMGxOU0VWxpgPi&index=31Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05129425853328110683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-51125689471115086552015-11-24T02:04:31.601-05:002015-11-24T02:04:31.601-05:00This is all extremely interesting. It is becoming ...This is all extremely interesting. It is becoming more and more evident that, like Ben said, as one would venture out away from Earth and surroundings we would experience a stretch or some kind of mutation possibly in measurements. The farther we travel the more stretched things become. Maybe I'm wrong. Haha. But from what I have been learning about matter this is what seems to occur. I had dreams about this as well. Time and space measurement evolves into more and more slow motion and width the farther out into space a spaceship goes. I have the need to do that to my art work as well. Art itself dictates that to many artists. And I see many people are afraid of that. I see their reactions to my art work. Dr. Stephen Hawking said that things are random. I thought about that for many years. But I experience that differently coming from a different vantage point of course. The vantage point of an abstract artist. I experienced that there is no randomness at all. It's not ordered either nor orchestrated. But it's not random. Things are caused by causes. They are not caused by intelligent design though. Haha. They cause each other in an infinitely continued manner. I found out about that when I studied statistics in psychology. Nothing is random. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05129425853328110683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-19496982543377956132015-11-07T18:19:55.526-05:002015-11-07T18:19:55.526-05:00Greetings syntactic operators, (ahem). I'd lik...Greetings syntactic operators, (ahem). I'd like to add here that in addition to the Delayed Choice Experiment(DCE), the Quantum Zeno Effect (QZE) also relates to a closed, self describing system a la CTMU & Conspansion. Both DCE & QZE examples demonstrate a closed process where input amounts to the information available to the system, in general, and output amounts to an observable patterns.<br /><br />This closed, systemic processing occurs regardless if living conscious observers exist or not, however it also accords perceptually to the whims of said observers. (I call this the "shadow puppet principle").<br /><br />Note finally, and with apologies for my repeated prolixity, the necessity of systemic closure is guaranteed by the quantum and therefore minimal status of the information generated in the experiments; and since these experiments are repeatable, the information generated and registered is therefore general to the system, meaning as a whole, proving systemic unity and inter-relatedness at all levels from quantum to cosmic. The entire universe reflexively accords its perceivable appearance depending on the measurements (or lack thereof) of one quantum process involved in these experiments, and thus is a self processing hologram.YYZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01393137516972422536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-56438762763904133442015-11-07T18:03:23.581-05:002015-11-07T18:03:23.581-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.YYZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01393137516972422536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-1353788175454173152015-11-05T18:14:15.018-05:002015-11-05T18:14:15.018-05:00It just occurred to me that this notion of mapping...It just occurred to me that this notion of mapping dimensional space comes from the idea of an absolute reference frame. It may be that time is not dimensional with respect to an absolute reference frame, but that is to be expected since it has already been firmly proven that there is no absolute reference frame. <br /><br />In contrast, understanding time as a line of emergence, the convergence of all times constituting integral space-time (but not a reference frame), the question of dimensionality concerns the point of emergence. From the perspective of the point of emergence, time is necessarily n-dimensional.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16812119114642573368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-18503532106838125592015-11-02T02:02:56.124-05:002015-11-02T02:02:56.124-05:00I think I would suggest that it is only in the con...I think I would suggest that it is only in the context of space-time that time is about partial-ordering. <br /><br />That is to say: in the context of space-time, time is a line across a space. It is only because of the presupposed continuity of space that one can imagine the survey of such a line. Without the space to guarantee the frame of reference, there is no way to view the line of time as a pattern at all. <br /><br />In contrast, in the context of space and time, time is a line of emergence. This means that there is no given frame of reference for continuity in order to consider time as an element of passage. I believe this means it cannot be a matter of partial ordering. Rather, from the perspective of a line of time, time is the selection of a tangent line that determines the orientation of the next infinitesimal. <br /><br />In other words: lines of time draw curves that capture space, whereas arrows of time draw differentials across space-times. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16812119114642573368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-17530461379082030842015-11-01T23:06:42.989-05:002015-11-01T23:06:42.989-05:00Asher -- time is about partial-ordering, right? A...Asher -- time is about partial-ordering, right? About one event occurring after (or before) another. But not all partially ordered domains are embeddable in a dimensional space.... <br /><br />If we look at Langan-like models of the meta-verse (the overall universe, not just our spacetime continuum) as some sort of hyperset-ish language, then within the space of expressions in this language , many subspaces may have partial-orderings on them; but not all of these partial orderings will be projectable into a dimensional space in any useful way. Specifically if we have a subspace of the space of linguistic expressions, which has a partial ordering (local time-ordering) and a metric (some sort of similarity measure) on it, it may not be possible to project this subspace into a dimensional space in a way that preserves distances (the metric) well...<br /><br />In our spacetime continuum, local time-arrows between event-pairs all neatly line up to form global time-axes.... But this isn't guaranteed to be the case throughout the metaverse...<br /><br />Ben Goertzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01289041122724284772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-64133487204556529522015-11-01T22:44:32.433-05:002015-11-01T22:44:32.433-05:00Ben, can you please elaborate on what it would mea...Ben, can you please elaborate on what it would mean to understand historical time (I believe this is the time you are talking about? Historie rather than Geschichte in Heidegger's sense?) as non-dimensional?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16812119114642573368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-23450811453966652962015-11-01T22:27:57.464-05:002015-11-01T22:27:57.464-05:00The implication of this is that lines of time form...The implication of this is that lines of time form an n-dimensional integral manifold, whereas arrows of time decompose that integral manifold into tangent lines that traverse the manifold along specific dimensions. We like to talk about space-time as 3-dimensional or 4-dimensional etc, but we easily forget the dimensions that translate a thought/statement like "I want a sandwich" into a trip across the city for pizza. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16812119114642573368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-45327677306630205752015-11-01T22:22:44.881-05:002015-11-01T22:22:44.881-05:00This is the relevance of Gödel's rotating univ...This is the relevance of Gödel's rotating universe theorem. We have to distinguish between two types of time: lines of time (which, at any given frame of space-time, are emergent nodes of time prior to space) and arrows of time (which, at any given frame of space-time, relate that point of space-time to the relative convergence with other points in space-time, which is not identifiable with time apart from space). <br /><br />So we have an infinite number of points of emergence (lines of time) that converge and produce probabilistic intersections where emergence literally "takes place", which produces locales (in the sense of Mach's principle), and from which our common concept of dimensionality falls out (physics). But if we are talking in terms of lines of time, even though they each implicate the whole of relativity (this is what defines relativity), each line of time converges (conspands) only on itself, whereas each arrow of time converges (expands) into the locale. This is closely related, I think, to Umwelt, although modernized for QM/Semiotics/Psychoanalysis. <br /><br />If we start by talking about emergence in terms of lines of time, then we have no problem with time. The question becomes: what is the math that takes a multiplicity of lines of time and calculates the integral manifold that defines the relations between the specific divergence each point of emergence defines. <br /><br />The difficulty is that in order to take such a measure, we have to presuppose a continuity of space-time (even as we are speaking of a rupture that reconstitutes it). What this means is that the relation between lines of time and arrows of time is reversible— we can begin the consideration from one or the other. If we start from lines of time, we are composing integral volumes (Leibniz's calculus). If we start from arrows of time, we are decomposing derivative tangents (Newton's calculus). The two, of course, converge. But in order to take this seriously we have to delineate "time" from "space-time". Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16812119114642573368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-4406623507534469742015-11-01T20:44:00.920-05:002015-11-01T20:44:00.920-05:00xxxYYZxxx .. about Dunne's theory of time ... ...xxxYYZxxx .. about Dunne's theory of time ... I agree that modeling time as "more than one dimensional" is probably right, and in a different way than modern physics does...<br /><br />I'm not so sure that the broader scope of time (beyond the one dimension we typically experience) is best modeled as a *dimensional* space at all, though.... This needs more thought..... The multiple dimensions of time Dunne hypothesizes may be best thought of as existing in a larger non-dimensional space (which is still a topological and maybe even metric space) ...<br /><br />But details aside, yeah, Dunne's thinking agrees w/ mine in that he sees our spacetime continuum as existing within a broader space containing many spacetime continua -- and unlike the quantum multiverse as currently conceived, he sees the possibility of navigating between these (though not easily) ...Ben Goertzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01289041122724284772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-42473732850156492702015-11-01T15:58:00.605-05:002015-11-01T15:58:00.605-05:00Turing discovers the language problem to be the no...Turing discovers the language problem to be the non-reversibility between the completeness and incompleteness theorems:<br />* A formal language can produce expressions that it can model and whose models it can prove valid.<br />* A free-standing statement does not provide its own model and is therefore undecidable.<br />Turing concludes that a system he calls “intuition” is needed to map informal statements to formal systems that might be capable of imitating them. This formal system is the rotating universe theorem as semiotics, and its expression includes—but is in no way limited to—the statements we frequently conflate with “language”. <br /><br />“Language” is most properly defined as the potential for translatability between points of relative emergence. In terms of a photoreceptor at the eye, this is the “pure difference” produced between distinct moments of emergence, which has no external metric but can nevertheless produce one internally. Time is the operative term that links the two instances together and produces a language relation. Language, in this sense, is the systematicity of time as the multiplicity of emergence. This is not the same as linguistics, which studies patterns of speech over time. Linguistics studies only a miniscule subset of what is at stake here. <br /><br />The point is that everything is language because language is the only structure capable of becoming anything and also everything while at the same time converging only on itself, essentially consisting in nothing. It has nothing to do with discourse in the precise sense that Foucault defines “discursive practices”: these are the formations that utter discourse, not the structures internal to the enunciation (which are speech-content, not performance). <br /><br />“Language” names the architecture of the real insofar as the real is the repetition of difference, which is why it can be considered the one-all and non-all, which singularizes everything even as it distributes it as multiplicity. <br /><br />AsherAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16812119114642573368noreply@blogger.com