|
Author
|
Topic: On Progress, Readdressing Reality Theory, & Information in the Holographic Universe
|
Jacob Aliet
Member
Member # 578
|
posted 25. August 2003 03:35
This is the first time I am actually experiencing Langans monumental word-twisting ability. He took my words, twisted their meaning and then attacked them in their novel form. I do not know whether he does this for his personal amusement or just for the cheap thrill of annoying people.
I never suggested ARN as a neutral board and I never accused Langan of intellectual bullying. I made it clear that I was stating other peoples opinions. Indeed, I admitted I don't know what a neutral board means.
Just to be clear, "Neutral board" is a contradiction in terms - oxymoron. Every board set up has some ideological persuasion of one sort or the other. I provided a link to sample debates at infidels where we debate with theists like Langan. The objective was to demonstrate to Langan that even at that site, one can conduct a civil debate without ANYBODY interrupting. Nobody will call him an IDiot, or subject him to vituperation and belittling. And moderators do NOT participate in formal debates and discussions. They only facilitate.
Its precisely because we want to shut out the overzealous minions that are always hovering around Langan (with his vaunted IQ score quickly generating personality cults) that I suggested a place where Langan can debate one-on-one with one person.
But it seems the thought of debating formally without the sweet music of your cheering acolytes is not exactly cheering.
I guess the gauntlet has been retracted due to a "technicality" - lack of a "neutral board". There will be no debate after all.
{Jacob tells the patiently waiting professors that Langan will not be debated due to some "technicality"}
I find it very amusing that Langan thinks what I am doing is "hounding" him. Ah, the big guy has a sense of humour after all ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) .
Now, back to what Langan characterises as my error streak. [I dont know why I am debating with someone who has said he can't lose a debate because CTMU is a chicken and egg construction - you say chicken, he says egg, you say chicken, he says egg. Chicken. Egg. Chiicken. Eeeggg. Then you drop down exhausted. And he challenges the next person and hogs all the attention anew. CTMU presents itself as a solution to tower of turtles but its tautological construction is designed to make heads spin and neologisms give one the illusion that the author is onto something profound.]
Langan states: "Therefore, perceptual reality must coincide with cognitive syntax."
This means absolutely nothing. Its an example of Langan saying something because he has nothing to say. He has not answered the question. What he has done is make a correct but tangential statement that is portent with meaning. Giving us the illusion that he has actually answered the question. I believe in logic its called a red herring. He has introduced new ideas that keep our minds occupied while he walks round the question.
He was asked about CTMU, he talks about recognition and cognitive syntax. The debate is shifted such that the questioner is made to feel the only way of proceeding with the debate is to challenge the response - which, on the face of it, is correct. The questioner is made to feel "stumped" and if unsophisticated, will initiate a different line of questioning.
An air of "the question has been answered" is established yet there has been no real answer.
He has shifted the argument and made it seem that the question was challenging the idea that "perceptual reality must coincide with cognitive syntax". That was not what the question was challenging.
Can Langan provide a clear example of what falls under "cognitive syntax" and demonstrate how it corresponds with an example of observable reality - within the CTMU framework? (I recommend you demonstrate how ideas like UBT, conspansion, syndiffeonesis, SCSPL map to our universe/reality - examples of what CTMU claims outside common knowledge)
And more importantly, show how it changes our current knowledge about reality or even causality.
Can you provide examples of phenomena exhibiting conspansion?
If I put a live hen in a polythene bag, can we say they exhibit syndiffeonesis?
How is syndiffeonesis useful in our understanding of reality? And how practical is this understanding as far as, for example, biology is concerned? Can syndiffeonesis help us understand how fertilization takes place?
How different is telesis and the UBT from the platonic concepts of "emanation" and aeon respectively - besides the heavy cloak of logic, neologisms and mathematics? Holotheism seems to be a manifestation of neo-platonism - would that be correct? If not, explain.
Would I be correct to state that the UBT is also what you call "the mind of God"?
[and while at it, please define "reality" since I have encountered the phrase "reality and its contents" in your work]
As far as "recognition" and cognitive-perceptual mapping goes, Langan is equivocating (because CTMU is not just about recognition). When we perceive a mirage as a pool of water - is the cognitive-perceptual mapping broken - how does CTMU explain this?
More importantly, Langan is using "recognition" synonymously with CTMU. When asked how he will extablish correspondence between CTMU concepts/objects with real life phenomena, he states cognitive-syntax maps with reality. Of course cognitive syntax [sometimes] maps with reality, but cognitive syntax does not have UBT, conspansion, teleologic evolution, hologic identity and a whole bunch of other weird stuff in CTMU - how do they map with perceptual reality and how do we detect them?.
You can't sneak in CTMU in the guise of "cognitive syntax". I know CTMU subsumes cognitive syntax. But you cant use one aspect of CTMU as CTMU. That is misleading. The fact that an aspect of CTMU is self-evident does not mean that CTMU is true.
Consider yourself busted.
You still haven't answered the question or provided an example of real life phenomena and how it maps to CTMU - a reality model.
Langan stated: "But if these items do not coincide with cognitive syntax, then they are unrecognizable, i.e. inobservable (since cognitive syntax is by definition the basis of recognition)."
Does a mirage coincide with cognitive syntax? What about other optical illusions - are they recognizable? (since you use "unrecognizable" synonymously with "unobservable").
Even if there are aspects that coincide with cognitive syntax, how is that important? So I can see a cup of tea - so what?
Lets exit the realm of vacuous truths and discuss something useful.
Please.
[ 25. August 2003, 04:29: Message edited by: Jacob Aliet ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher M. Langan
Member
Member # 264
|
posted 25. August 2003 05:07
Parallel says "So the SCSPL syntax cannot be finitely enumerated, which means it cannot be enumerated." Not exactly; it only means that SCSPL syntax cannot be completely enumerated. The distinction between denumerability and nondenumerability in mathematics is very clear, and it has nothing to do with finitude. (Is anybody else wondering why parallel seems to have so much trouble with simple math concepts?)
Parallel then asks "How can an infinite syntax be known or evaluated?" As supporting examples of how SCSPL syntax can be referred to and implicated in mathematical expressions without finite enumeration, consider N (the natural numbers), R (the real numbers), aleph nought (denumerable infinity), sqrt(2) (an irrational number which evaluates to a nonrepeating decimal that cannot be finitely specified), and pi (a transcendental number that is the root of no algebraic equation). I could, of course, go on at considerable length, but as we can see, the quality of the objection merits no such effort.
Next, parallel complains that "it seems the SCSPL syntax is an inexpressible concept that is inferred to exist by way of other concepts. This sounds more like divination than logic, more like myth than mathematics." As the examples above make clear, logic and mathematics have no problem with concepts that are not finitely expressible.
Parallel then bellyaches that in response to his inane and prosecutorial "where's the beef?" line of questioning, I called him "stupid" and threatened him with a "knuckle sandwich". Strangely, I have no such recollection.
Finally, ignoring what he was told the first time around, parallel persists with his demands for personal information. Once again, I'm afraid that parallel is neither polite nor important enough to warrant any degree of compliance with his summary demands. But just so nobody can accuse me of not being helpful and modest, I'll gladly admit to having an IQ of 80, maybe even less, if parallel will direct us to a single Brainstorms post of his which is addressed to me (or anyone else) and even comes close to complying with the user guidelines established for this forum.
I hope that parallel finds these answers satisfactory. But if not, who cares?
Now let's move on to another cynosure of constructive criticism, the irrepressible Jacob Aliet. Although I'm almost as tired of Jacob's meaningless and repetitive banter as I am of parallel, I'll take just enough time to call attention the following excerpts:
"This is the first time I am actually experiencing Langans monumental word-twisting ability. He took my words,twisted their meaning and then attacked them in their novel form. I do not know whether he does this for his personal amusement or just for the cheap thrill of annoying people. I never suggested ARN as a neutral board and I never accused Langan of intellectual bullying. I made it clear that I was stating other peoples opinions."
[Jacob is evidently referring to his previous post, which contains another shining example of his constructive brand of participation here: "Many have complained of your intellectual bullying and others that your ideas are too nebulous to hold a discussion on. Almost inexorably, it seems to me, your ego comes to the fore and the discussion degenerates. Geometry = Logic? Not exactly thread comes to mind. Some say Dayton kicked some ***.]
The last time I checked, Brainstorms was not supposed to be about instigating trouble and fomenting discord through the importation of interpersonal hostility from other forums. Unfortunately, Jacob's post only deteriorates from there, alternating spasmodically between personal denigration and the supposed need to specify, contra Godel's theorems and a number of other mathematical relationships, every single teensy-weensy rule of SCSPL syntax down to the last iota.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the general mathematical relationship of syntax to language does not presuppose the exhaustive enumeration of syntactic rules, but treats them in the aggregate. If Jacob finds this to be a problem, then the problem exists solely in the minds of Jacob and other wide-eyed neophytes uneducated in linguistic and grammatical algebra. And whether Jacob likes it or not, this is as cold, hard and irreversible as a fact can be.
As we all know, constructive and insightful criticism can help one to refine, clarify or correct one's ideas, and I've never held myself forth as an a priori exception. But sadly, this is not the kind of criticism we've been seeing from Jacob. There's an old saying attributed to Mark Twain: "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." I can only suggest that Jacob consider whether it might, in some small way, apply to him.
[ 25. August 2003, 05:28: Message edited by: Christopher M. Langan ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
