Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Cognition Theoretic Model of the Universe

ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
edited June 2006 in Faith & Religion
http://www.ctmu.org/

Christopher Langan's new model to prove God through philosophy seems very difficult for me to understand. Does anyone know about this and would care to spend some time to explain it to me in simpler terms?

P.S. Langan has an IQ of 195!!!

Comments

  • gregcgregc
    edited April 2006
    Thanks for the link! I'll read this tomorrow (I'm tired and have got a headache tonight) and I'll be glad to post my opinion(s).
  • XraymanXrayman Veteran
    edited May 2006
    No. absolutely no ideas-sorry.
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    He seems to be using mathematics to prove God's existence... Which to me seems quite logical, since mathematics is a fixed discipline. However, I think using mathematcs to prove His Existence is a little too far-fetched isn't it?
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited May 2006
    Why?
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Hmmm.. Actually mind me because I gonna use Nothing and Something interchangebly since well, philosophically God can be either one.. :p To be clear refer to the Theory.. I think that proving that Something is a Result of Something/Nothing seems logical in his theory.. But why can't we say that this Something/Nothing is in fact the singularity the Universe came out of in the first place?
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited May 2006
    Which Universe?
  • angulimalaangulimala Veteran
    edited May 2006
    ajani_mgo wrote:
    P.S. Langan has an IQ of 195!!!
    i believe it is not for my consumption,cause my iq just average
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Hmmm angulimala... I'd be glad if I had an IQ of 195 too! I can already think of some uses of it... Hehe...

    And yes, fede, I caught the humour. For simplicity's sake let us just assume our Universe. But even if it was not our Universe, isn't Langan trying to prove a First Cause which we would assume would be well, the First SINGLE Universe with no other parallel that would split off into its Infinite Multiverse?
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited May 2006
    Whaddya askin' me for?? I am to science, what a canoe is to a desert dweller...!

    The linked article you provided, lost me at "This website has been created...."

    Because I don't know the first darned thing about website creation, let alone that of the universe!

    Good on you for persevering though....:grin:
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    =p sure fede.. Well perhaps if the canoe wasn't given to him it'd be necessary to give him one because he needed to find water? (for those who don't get my humour, too bad! Clue: Theology's Cause and Effect Fallacy)
  • gregcgregc
    edited May 2006
    Ajani, I got it! That is funny in an odd way, something I find it hard to believe that I'm "laughing" at it.

    I'm trying, but I am having a bit of difficulty freeing up enough time to read the article. I'm never in an appropriate atmosphere to read something like that.
  • aingaing
    edited May 2006
    "The simplest way to explain "connected" in this context is that every part of the (object-level) system relates to other parts within an overall structural description of the system itself"

    uummm we are all interconnected, rather a verbose way of explaining it.

    " Now, if the universe were pluralistic or reducible to its parts, this would make God, Who coincides with the universe itself, a pluralistic entity with no internal cohesion. But because the mutual syntactic consistency of parts is enforced by a unitary holistic manifold with logical ascendancy over the parts themselves - because the universe is a dual-aspected monic entity consisting of essentially homogeneous, self-consistent infocognition - God retains monotheistic unity despite being distributed over reality at large."

    I think he forgot the hindu scriptures he read and thinks this is original.

    If ya let me define the definition of terms, I can prove anything.
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Hmmm that's interesting... He reminds me of that old joke of the black cat of the philosopher and the theologian... LOL.
  • aingaing
    edited May 2006
    ajani mgo

    old to you but unknown to me. please share the joke
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited May 2006
    I'll second that. Though I'm the downhill side of middle-aged... ;)
  • NirvanaNirvana aka BUBBA   `     `   South Carolina, USA Veteran
    edited May 2006
    aing wrote:
    because the universe is a dual-aspected monic entity consisting of essentially homogeneous, self-consistent infocognition

    If that's true, can you explain how it is that people vote the incongruous way that they do?

    I mean, what in the heck is "Infocognition?"
  • ajani_mgoajani_mgo Veteran
    edited May 2006
    Hmmm it goes like this... One fine day a philosopher and a theologian were debating... (Now isn't that classic? :rockon: )

    And their discussion reaches until a point in time where the theologian, fed up with losing, tells the philosopher: "Heck! Philosophers are like people entering a black room looking for a black cat that isn't there!"

    With this the philosopher replied sarcastically, "Yeah, right, and you found that cat."
  • aingaing
    edited May 2006
    Thank you Ajani_mgo, I will be using that story in the future

    Nirvana, I was quoting from the writings on http://www.ctmu.org/

    My thoughts were the ones not in quotes. I dont have a clue to the definition of infocognitio
    besides the melding information and cognition.

    I was trying to express my opinion that he is pretentious and wordy expressing simple thoughts as complex as possible. Of course I am never prententious and full of my self.

    Simon what is the logic fallicy called that comes from using unprovable facts to lead to a conclusion? such as:

    "But because the mutual syntactic consistency of parts is enforced by a unitary holistic manifold with logical ascendancy over the parts themselves"

    "because the universe is a dual-aspected monic entity consisting of essentially homogeneous, self-consistent infocognition"

    Then "God retains monotheistic unity despite being distributed over reality at large."
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited June 2006
    aing wrote:

    "But because the mutual syntactic consistency of parts is enforced by a unitary holistic manifold with logical ascendancy over the parts themselves"

    "because the universe is a dual-aspected monic entity consisting of essentially homogeneous, self-consistent infocognition"

    Then "God retains monotheistic unity despite being distributed over reality at large."


    That's easy for you to say! :ukflag:
  • IawaIawa
    edited June 2006
    A bunch of thinking off, if you ask me.

    As the buddha would say, "That's all fine, but there's still the problem of your liberation."
Sign In or Register to comment.