REGARDING https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-bRM1kYuNA
The Propertarian Institute
Religious, Metaphysical, Philosophical, and Scientific systems can describe the same universe with different paradigms, logics, and vocabulary, at least for humans, given human sense perception(modeling), auto-association, prediction(imagination) and bias. I could ‘science’ what Langan is saying, but it would eradicate the supernatural (animism, anthropomorphism) that he justifies with it. I think it’s better to say that the universe that is interpretable by man can be understood as a language, because all human experience can be understood as a language and the structure of the universe and language are, at least in structure, identical. Mostly Chris is using a lot of occult, pseudoscientific, and sophomoric terms because he intuits that underlying pattern but cant ‘science’ it. So Chris is an example of grasping a structure, failing to systematize it in scientific language, but he’s close enough to logically address the problems of the world. But effectively he’s created a private language very much like say, Heidegger or the postmodernists.
C Langan
Nonsense. “Private language”, your tailfeathers. Read the papers – there are several you’ve clearly never seen, and many more where those came from. Stop assuming you can pass judgment on work of this complexity just by listening to an interview or two – the very idea is ridiculous.
The Propertarian Institute
@C Langan I read the papers. They aren’t even vaguely difficult. A not insignificant number of people have suggested we talk for good reasons. Largely because of your derivations from your model not your claims to the testifiability of your model. But again, you’re making a philosophical, metaphysical, and animistic ‘story’. You’re intuiting the relationship between physics, math, and language. This is correct. I think the rest of us on the bleeding edge would use the computational frame instead. Thus avoiding the criticisms that plague you and the tradition you’re less rigorously applying (continental). I extrapolate from the science to a similar conclusion to ‘comfort’ the literary and theological that they ‘aren’t entirely wrong’. So it’s not that I don’t agree – by analogy. That’s different from saying it’s true rather than analogy. So CTMU is a good cut at bridging religion, philosophy, and science, but you won’t get any traction and the idea will end with you because the most parsimonious model isn’t allegorical, supernormal, analogical, but simply stating the empirical facts. The rest of the world that would invest in you isn’t smart enough to debate you and to deconstruct your argument. I am. And I’m not even trying to say you’re wrong. Just that your method conflates domains, and perpetuates sophistry and mysticism when it doesn’t need to. Show less
The Propertarian Institute
@C Langan Your work isn’t complex. The underlying theory is trivially simple, because the underlying logic of the universe is trivially simple – and entirely logical. The fact that you took a rather obtuse route to it, and used animism throughout it, obscures the simplicity. I just don’t understand why you’re so resistant to ‘sciencing’ it and maintaining a Heideggerian malinvestment in a supernormal frame.
C Langan
@The Propertarian Institute I’m sorry, but I see no sign that you understand much of anything I’ve written. Nothing you say relates to it at all, but merely suggests holes in your own comprehension. (I’m not into the mushy sort of political-economic opinionating for which you’re known. Your conceptual vocabulary is grossly inadequate to intelligently discuss my work. But thank you anyway for your comments, snide and impertinent though they are.)
The Propertarian Institute
@C Langan Not an argument. If you don’t understand how my criticism relates to your theory then this is not my failure to understand yours. It’s your failure to understand your theory in the context of the last decade of discovery in cognitive science. Refute my claim that you are evading the parsimony of the scientific paradigm as a means of constructing a supernatural justification in order to attribute intention to the universe. This is my primary criticism – it’s not a complicated one. I’m making a rather obvious argument, If you had a counterargument then you’d answer with one. The fact that you don’t isn’t a measure of my incomprehension but of the simple fact that you don’t have one. I worked on a similar problem from the scientific paradigm because of problems I saw in mathematics, economics, and law. But I studied cognitive and computer science – not philosophical rationalism. So I ended up with the same solution that the scientific world is converging on across the spectrum. You didn’t. You aren’t’.You won’t. You can take my criticism as it’s intended – as a means of explaining that your critics don’t grasp the difference between your recognition of the patterns intrinsic at all scales, and the rather odd combination of metaphysical rationalism and animism, similar to the alternate frame Heidegger tried to construct with being. But your attempt like every other has failed. Take credit for almost getting there and then adapt your theory to the science. You’re imitating the catholic church by doubling down on mysticism when they simply failed to continue the convergence with Greek thought but with the integration of the underclasses, rather than treating them as domesticated animals. It’s not like I don’t have the same army of mouth-breathing morons accusing me of word salad, as they do you. I get it. On the other hand. Science has been and will continue to be the winning team, and philosophy died with Darwin. Everything else has been desperation – an evasion of the hard reality that Weber was right: everything is reducible to computation.
C Langan
@The Propertarian Institute I’m sorry, Curt, but your critiques simply don’t make sense. They’re of the “not even wrong” variety. Listen, I know that you had trouble with Jim Bowery, and that you’re in a snit because no one payed what you felt was the right amount of attention to you when you came to one of my forums. (Thank you for participating, however briefly.) I also know that you were driven underground for some period of time due to the fallout from certain embarrassing concessions you made to a group of Blacks who muscled you off the stage at a talk you were giving. I sympathize, but that’s where it ends. I’m not obliged to humor your presumptions regarding the structure of reality. I don’t think you’re in my league there, and although I’m sure you disagree, you have much to prove before you convince me that you qualify for a debate with me. Again, thanks for your comments, and have a nice evening.
The Propertarian Institute
@C Langan Evasion. As expected. Time will do its work. ?
xxxYYZxxx
Accusing Chris of using “occult” ideas and “private language” is simply a failure on your part to grasp the topic. I agree that Chris uses his theory to prop up his biases, but that doesn’t alter the fundamental scientific import of his theory. The neologisms used by Chris are always generic concepts not yet formally identified by scientists, but required of a reality theory. In effect, Chris makes the same misidentification of God that all Christians make (by default), unwittingly attributing to God what’s actually the work of “the Devil”. Langan’s reflexive “G.O.D.” operator is a formally identified structure required of reality-theory (no optional), but it’s not the monotheistic God-figure from the Old Testament Langan as seems to imply, but rather “the Devil” in disguise, at least as I see it.
The Propertarian Institute
@xxxYYZxxx
Here’s the test. You can either say something in operational language or you can’t. If you can’t say it in operational language you can’t say you understand it. If you can’t say you understand it then you can’t claim it’s true. Because that’s what a truth claim means: that you can testify to due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, fictionalism, and deceit. Existential Truth constitutes a claim of innocence by demonstrated due diligence one is willing to warranty against liability that results from failing to do so, sufficient that it meets the market demand for infallibility in the context claimed. Now I know what he’s trying to do and I know why he failed, and why he’s criticized for failing. I didn’t fail. But then I didn’t read philosophy or theology. I worked with math, physics, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence. Computation is operational. If you can’t compute it, can’t construct it, can’t universalize it, then it’s not a theory of everything. It’s a set of pseudoscientific analogies that do little more than identify a pattern without understanding what it’s constituted (constructed) from. The fact that we can construct multiple illustrations of that pattern only confirms that the pattern exists. It doesn’t say how or why.
C Langan
@The Propertarian Institute Curt, stifle yourself before you regret it. You’re in way over your head. I read your CTMU critique long ago, and it’s what those in the circles I frequent call “not even wrong”. You show no sign of having done more than superficially scan some fraction of one of the peer-reviewed papers – there are a good half-dozen peer-reviewed papers at this point – and you still don’t even grasp the basic issues. I know this because of your harping on highly constrained operations like computation, which the CTMU explicitly transcends (as it logically must do in order to deal with the laws and the theater of computation and causation themselves). Just give it a rest.
The Propertarian Institute
@C Langan I”m responding to a challenge, and I’ll respond to any challenge.
Yes, I read all your papers. They aren’t even vaguely challenging. And they are what every other intellectual claims: a series of conjectures with no causal relation. I’ve read people’s justifications of your work, and they are what I said, justifications of the recognition of the pattern not the cause.
I’m graciously arguing that you’re intuition is correct but your methodology failed, and the market has delivered its verdict that it’s failed.
You could correctly argue that I didn’t publish yet because unlike you or Taleb or any other borderline thinker, feels some strange need to proselytize before the work is complete when works on this scale of question historically take more than twenty years. Someone like Nietzsche has a simple insight, applies it across all manner of domains, but never understands it himself, and never brings about a conclusion only a critique. Those that publish early like Wittgenstein end up later in life self-correcting. Those that try but fail die unfinished like Bentham’s mission for the law. Some like Darwin and Maxwell succeed. Some like Einstein and Bohr succeed are heralded in their lifetimes but will be viewed in history as having created a half-truth that cost us the better part of a century. And some like Hilbert and Brouwer and Bridman fail to correct a cognitive trend. Some like Marx Boaz and Freud usher in almost two centuries of pseudoscience causing the worst superstition since the invention of the Abrahamic religions and the Abrahamic method of deceit.
The reality Is that I’m testing my own work against the fringe cases to determine if I can identify the failure of those edge cases and explain their error – and you’re one of them. And yes, testing your work allowed me to explain your failure. The only way to understand the bias or error in your thinking is to discuss it with you. Otherwise, I have to infer it – which I only have vague assumptions of.
All you can do otherwise is what you always do is evade and engage in ad homs to avoid challenges. All I have to do is stay with the central point: your unification rests on analogies not causalities. You’ve correctly identified the continuous relation between the universal structure of the universe across the scales right through to cognition, experience, and language. But you didn’t solve the underlying problem just as the mathematicians failed to solve the underlying problem what’s the grammar of that logic?
If you can’t state it operationally you don’t know it. If you could, you wouldn’t rely on non-causal, merely analogistic relations.
The universe isn’t complicated. What’s complicated is the collection of human cognitive biases that evolved to provide us incentive to continue with sufficient confidence to act in the face of a kaleidic universe, fragmentary knowledge, limited processing power, in a herd of others like us who have just as many malincentives to demonstrate the pretense of knowledge as we do confidence in our action. If you remove the error, biases, and methods of lying all you are left with is computation – meaning the universal human language of possibly testable actions, and a very simple grammar that continuously recursively disambiguate the universe.
God, if he existed or exists, spoke one word: evolve. So it’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that you can’t imagine my level of understanding. Or how trivial is man’s thought once possessed of it.