The smartest man in universe believes in Intelligent Design

[Curious3141]

Whether CML is actually the "smartest man in the Universe" or not is really beside the point. Using that as a basis for bolstering a sympathetic belief in ID is a sort of reverse ad-hominem. Play the ball, not the man.

And, not to detract from my previous statements, I've known of CML for quite a while (around a decade or so). That was the time when I was active in these so called "ultra-high IQ societies" and related fora (and I am happy that I've left all that pompous silliness behind me). He was always a controversial character and has been involved in many rifts in the community, including the schism of the (original) Mega Society (a society for those whose IQs fall into the top millionth of the gen. population). This is not to say he was wholly, or even in large part to blame for those conflicts, but the fact remains that he was embroiled in quite a number of those incidents.

That was just to give you a little background on the man's history in the "ultra high-IQ" community. The rest you can read up on. In any case, judge his arguments (for the CTMU) on their own merits (or lack thereof), and not by CML's attributes.

 

[grant9076]

It is so easy to dislike people who are smarter than we are.

I have to say that he does speak in metaphors. However, in one of his essays that I have read, he did explain from an evolutionary standpoint why the egg had to precede the chicken. This implies that Mr. Langan believes in evolution and that any hasty conclusions that he does not are likely to be in error.

Although the term "language" usually refers to a natural language like English, it is actually more general. Mathematically, a formal language consists of three ingredients: a set of elements to be combined as strings (e.g., symbols, memes), a set of structural rules governing their arrangement in space, and a set of grammatical rules governing their transformations in time. Together, the latter two ingredients form the syntax of the language.

Although some of his other essays get heavily into philosophy, he does have a valid point when he says that the laws of nature and existence can be described as a language. It also makes sense that the role of science is to discover “syntax” of this language.

Although I don’t believe that there will ever be a way to find a “smartest person”, I am forced to conclude (from reading a few of his essays) that Mr. Langan is absolutely brilliant.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Did you even realize what are you saying here?

Funny, the part I quoted last, stated exactly the opposite, but you keep throwing your stones. Oh well.

Yes I thought I made it clear, I'm saying that this guy is talking pseudo intellectual BS. If you think that anything he's saying has any sort of consistent scientific or even philosophical base then it's up to you to show where. In short I know exactly what I'm saying: this is as Evo so rightly puts it, mysticism, nothing short of sophistry. Verbose sophistry, I'll give him that. apparently a few long words and a bit of pseudo philosophy and people somehow think he's proved intelligent design, unless I'm taking the whole thing out of context, which is possible as all I have is a sound bite.

I'd like to make it clear I'm attaking his prose not the man, I think he's talking rubbish. I couldn't care less whether he had an IQ of 4 billion, everyones capable of talking crap, I don't believe the ability to be wrong discriminates solely on the basis of intellect.

 

[J77]

? Huh really ? So they "tested" everybody in the universe in the same way ? Huh ?

"universe" read "US" :tongue:

The bit on wiki about him bulking up to beat his step-dad who beat him makes him sound like an idiot - hardly the smartest man in the uuuuuuuuniverse.

 

[whatta]

yeah yah yah he's not smart, not even remotely genius, and his IQ measurements were probably faked by christian mafia in yet another conspiracy to make more americans into ID supporters. after all he's just a bouncer. what can bouncer possibly know about the universe? oh yeah, one more thing: you are probably more right and more clever that this guy can ever be.

happy?

 

[arildno]

But it follows that gravity exists.

Again, gravity is not the same as the state of having fallen down.
Nor are the conditions enabling the formation of intelligent life the same as intelligence.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

yeah yah yah he's not smart, not even remotely genius, and his IQ measurements were probably faked by christian mafia in yet another conspiracy to make more americans into ID supporters. after all he's just a bouncer. what can bouncer possibly know about the universe? oh yeah, one more thing: you are probably more right and more clever that this guy can ever be.

happy?

I really don't consider IQ as a worthy measurement of intelligence, I've seen too many people who ought to be dumb because of there IQ's do too many clever things. It's a rough guide at best, if IQ was directly corelatory between achievment then I might take it more seriously, as it is I'm a bit of an IQ test critic.

Happy? About what, the guys talking nonsense, I call a spade a spade. As I said I'd be delighted for anyone to show me how exactly this is profound philosophical revelation, rather than the twaddle I think it is.

 

[arildno]

Twiddle twaddle, use a paddle.
Eat a bagel, don't read Hegel.

 

[grant9076]

"universe" read "US" :tongue:

The bit on wiki about him bulking up to beat his step-dad who beat him makes him sound like an idiot - hardly the smartest man in the uuuuuuuuniverse.

In a physically abusive household, a person has to do what is needed to survive with his physical well being intact. What Chris Langan did actually solved the problem...permanently. So, from a logical standpoint, what he did was not stupid.

If you think that anything he's saying has any sort of consistent scientific or even philosophical base then it's up to you to show where.

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Which.html" is an essay that he wrote. If you find anything it that is mystical or otherwise indicates a dissenting opinion regarding evolution, then please let me know. I sincerely hope that you read it because anyone who has ever interviewed with the media knows that media clips often take what they say out of context.

 

[whatta]

Again, gravity is not the same as the state of having fallen down.
Nor are the conditions enabling the formation of intelligent life the same as intelligence.

Me and you are not same, so why do they keep calling us with same names (e.g., human, websurfer, pf poster, etc, etc).

 

[arildno]

By that piece of silly reasoning, you just proved that the big bang was actually the fart of a tiny fish.

If you want to live in a mind of cloudy imprecisions&misconceptions, please do, but don't bother us with revelations of your thought processes.

 

[whatta]

us who ?..

 

[Curious3141]

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Which.html" is an essay that he wrote. If you find anything it that is mystical or otherwise indicates a dissenting opinion regarding evolution, then please let me know. I sincerely hope that you read it because anyone who has ever interviewed with the media knows that media clips often take what they say out of context.

That's a nice little essay. I've previously cogitated upon the same question and come up with the same solution (and the same essential justifications), that he did : in the unqualified rhetorical question, the egg necessarily came first.

However, he neglected to consider the niggling unsaid detail that makes this question impossible to answer definitively. There is an implicit label prepended to the object "egg" - that label is "chicken". In truth, the question that people often mean when they pose, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?", is "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?" Given that the possessive form as it applies to the ovum of a general oviparous species is commonly assumed to attach to the maternal progenitor of said ovum and less so the embryonic form within, it becomes clear that the answer *has* to be "the chicken".

Hence, from the perspective of a formal logico-axiomatic-semantic-syntactic structure that presupposes that such a question can even be posited, let alone answered, the final solution must remain ontologically indeterminate.

Thank you for your patience. All pleonasms are mine, but I was inspired by that Great Man among great men, CML. No innocent avians were harmed in the foregoing thought experiment.

Impenetrable? Abstruse? Obscurantist? Well, it doesn't begin to approach the prodigiously arcane prose that CML is infamous for. :rofl:

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Which.html" is an essay that he wrote. If you find anything it that is mystical or otherwise indicates a dissenting opinion regarding evolution, then please let me know. I sincerely hope that you read it because anyone who has ever interviewed with the media knows that media clips often take what they say out of context.

OK look I'm not slighting the mans intellect, I'm sure he's done many great and outstanding things somewhere, just from the bits and pieces I've read on this particular issue I think he's off the mark, whether that reflects on his work as a "whatever he does", I have no idea, 'til I saw this article I'd never even heard of him. If anyone has his entire essay on intelligent design put it up and I'll tell you what I think of that too.

I think sometimes Stephen Hawking is full of crap too, doesn't mean he isn't a brilliant physisist. Einstein was wrong about QM, Newton about lights properties, Socrates about the elements; Langer I think is full of it about ID.

 

[whatta]

If anyone has his entire essay on intelligent design put it up and I'll tell you what I think of that too.

http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

 

[Curious3141]

If anyone has his entire essay on intelligent design put it up and I'll tell you what I think of that too.

You can download the pdf off here : http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

See now that's my problem I can't read those, they don't appear to work, I'll try on my computer at home, that said though if your cherry picks of good ideas are anything to go by, I'm not expecting much. And the Chicken and the egg thing isn't going to inspire me either, as most people with basic evolutionary knowledge could have figured that out and indeed did. Who is this guy anyway, is he a professor or some sort of scientist or just an author, floating along on his reputation, or his IQ?

 

[grant9076]

OK look I'm not slighting the mans intellect, I'm sure he's done many great and outstanding things somewhere, just from the bits and pieces I've read on this particular issue I think he's off the mark, whether that reflects on his work as a "whatever he does", I have no idea, 'til I saw this article I'd never even heard of him. If anyone has his entire essay on intelligent design put it up and I'll tell you what I think of that too.

I think sometimes Stephen Hawking is full of crap too, doesn't mean he isn't a brilliant physisist. Einstein was wrong about QM, Newton about lights properties, Socrates about the elements; Langer I think is full of it about ID.

I understand your point about high intelligence not being any guarantee against being wrong. However, I was trying to point out the unreliability of media clips for some reasons:

1. Anyone who has experienced the absolute humiliation and embarrassment of being quoted out of context by the media can tell you that sound bites and other media clips are not to be trusted.

2. Many smart people often speak metaphorically and are easy to take out of context. For example, when Einstein said something to the effect of "God does not play dice with the Universe.", I do not take it to mean that he is a bible thumping christian.

3. Chris Langan's essays indicates that he believes in things such as evolution, the theory of Relativity, and (yes) the Big Bang. Now, I do not claim any extensive knowledge about the CTMU. However, from what little I (hopefully) understand, he believes that the laws of existence are part of a self configuring self processing language, and that the role of science is to understand the rules of this language. I believe that he is using the word "intelligent" as a metaphor to describe the laws of physics etc which process themselves. However, I am not sure of that. Regardless, IMHO his works seem to indicate an uncommonly high level of intelligence (regardless of his IQ score).

 

[Kurdt]

He mentions the human eye as being unexplainable in a gradualistic evolutionary process. I thought this had been explained for years. Perhaps he needs to do more research.

 

[arildno]

He mentions the human eye as being unexplainable in a gradualistic evolutionary process. I thought this had been explained for years. Perhaps he needs to do more research.

For those still wondering about these "mysteries", at least two typical processes are at work:
1. One light-sensitive cell is better than none
2. Organ streamlining:
Given a set of cells that all does the same tasks 8say, produce some stuff), one subset's capacity of doing one task may become redundant if another subset can heighten its own efficiency at doing the same task.
Thus, the first subset may shut off its own ability, getting the necessary stuff from other subsets, and go on and specialize itself onto some other task.
Thus, organs in which each part is extremely specialized, and cannot survive on its own, is perfectly well explainable by a selective redundancy cut-off procedure.

 

[Kurdt]

I found this which has a video and a short explanation. The guy in the video presents his theory very clearly backed up by some examples from nature.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

 

[arildno]

I found this which has a video and a short explanation. The guy in the video presents his theory very clearly backed up by some examples from nature.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Very interesting! Thanks!

 

[Evo]

Langan's nonsense can be read here http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

Click on the last link to The CTMU and Intelligent Design. Amazing how he managed to ramble on for several pages without making a single statement that actually had any scientific merit or providing any facts to back up his thoughts.

 

[whatta]

Amazing how he managed to ramble on for several pages without making a single statement that actually had any scientific merit

Why is that so amazing. Just look at this thread. I have some input from his wife to post here to clear things up for some of you, I'm just awaiting for her permission. So don't you lock it until tomorrow ;)

 

[Evo]

Why is that so amazing. Just look at this thread.

We're not trying to BS people into thinking that something has scientific merit when it's already been shown that it doesn't.

I have some input from his wife to post here to clear things up for some of you, I'm just awaiting for her permission. So don't you lock it until tomorrow ;)

Unless she can provide data that meets the criteria bolded below, I don't see the point.

Defining intelligent design as science

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design."[96] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be:

Consistent (internally and externally)

Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)

Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)

Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)

Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments

Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)

Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)

Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[97] violates the principle of parsimony,[98] is not falsifiable,[99] is not empirically testable,[100] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[101]

In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[102] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."[103]

Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.

The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.

The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Defining_intelligent_design_as_science

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Response to the PDF supplied.

http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Artic...TMU_092902.pdf

Abstract: Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping).

Sounds reasonable.

Where information is the abstract currency of perception,

This is sounds good but it doesn't as far as I can tell mean anything.

such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality.

He's talking about some sort of descriptive inhernetly self contained reality. Well philosophical and a tad vague, but, let's read on?

This extension is associated with a limiting formulation of model theory identifying mental and physical reality, resulting in a reflexively self-generating, self-modeling theory of reality identical to its universe on the syntactic level.

This is pretty much the same thing said above? This sentence is redundant, ok we got it the first time.

By the nature of its derivation, this theory, the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic.

You mean that saying the same thing needlessly somehow reinforces some sort of point?

Uniting the theory of reality with an advanced form of computational language theory, the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Langauge or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and self-execution (reflexive read-write functionality).

Are we talking Mega tautology now? That's pretty much what you said the first time, God damn it I get it..Now how are you going to explain this system?

SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism consisting of infocognition, self-transducing information residing in self-recognizing SCSPL elements called syntactic operators. The CTMU identifies itself with the structure of these operators and thus with the distributive syntax of its self-modeling SCSPL universe, including the reflexive grammar by which the universe refines itself from unbound telesis or UBT, a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. Under the guidance of a limiting (intrinsic) form of anthropic principle called the Telic Principle, SCSPL evolves by telic recursion, jointly configuring syntax and state while maximizing a generalized self-selection parameter and adjusting on the fly to freely-changing internal conditions.

I think I get this it's the same thing you said above but now your trying to establish that it's somewhat evolutionary, care to express any reason for your self consistent giga tautology? Or are we going to be subject to more waffle?

SCSPL relates space, time and object by means of conspansive duality and conspansion, an SCSPL-grammatical process featuring an alternation between dual phases of existence associated with design and actualization and related to the familiar wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics

What? Related how? can you be clear exactly what you mean? Is this an analogy or are you really suggesting your theory is essentially quantum mechanics but with lots of long sentences that endlessly reiterate the same thing. If you think that the laws of the universe boil down to physics then bloody well say so

. By distributing the design phase of reality over the actualization phase, conspansive spacetime also provides a distributed mechanism for Intelligent Design,

But so far you have done nothing to explain your theory except to make an analogy with QM, I didn't quite fathom, and use some ontological expressions about language somehow begatting reality?

adjoining to the restrictive principle of natural selection a basic means of generating information and complexity. Addressing physical evolution on not only the biological but cosmic level, the CTMU addresses the most evident deficiencies and paradoxes associated with conventional discrete and continuum models of reality, including temporal directionality and accelerating cosmic expansion, while preserving virtually all of the major benefits of current scientific and mathematical paradigms.

Well to be frank if the rest of this document is anything like this, I don't think I'm going to get very far with understanding anything other than the fact that he thinks there are some flaws with evolution, so far he's pretty much repeated himself 4 times, and not even clearly represented a single idea.

OK thoughts onwards to end of page 2, now we're cooking it's taken a whole page for him to say it, and might I say "say it for the fifth time now", I see what he means about super tautology

Synatatic isomporphism? Why does he use expresions like this why not just say synonamous or an analogy? This guy loves using long words

The existence of these laws is given by the stability of perception. Because these repetitive patterns or universal laws simultaneously describe multiple instances or states of nature, they can be regarded as distributed “instructions” from which self-instantiations of nature cannot deviate; thus, they form a “control language” through which nature regulates its self-instantiations. This control language is not of the usual kind, for it is somehow built into the very fabric of reality and seems to override the known limitations of formal systems. Moreover, it is profoundly reflexive and self-contained with respect to configuration, execution and read-write operations. Only the few and the daring have been willing to consider how this might work…to ask where in reality the laws might reside, how they might be expressed and implemented, why and how they came to be, and how their consistency and universality are maintained. Although these questions are clearly of great scientific interest, science alone is logically inadequate to answer them; a new explanatory framework is required. This paper describes what the author considers to be the most promising framework in the simplest and most direct terms possible.

Brilliant he's just taken a hundred words to describe the meaning of nature? Is this guy having a laugh?

On a note of forbearance, there has always been comfort in the belief that the standard hybrid empirical-mathematical methods of physics and cosmology will ultimately suffice to reveal the true heart of nature. However, there have been numerous signals that it may be time to try a new approach. With true believers undaunted by the (mathematically factual) explanatory limitations of the old methods

Scientists aren't either, your damned right forebearance, are you going to make a point at some point or what?

, we must of course empathize; it is hard to question one’s prior investments when one has already invested all the faith that one has. But science and philosophy do not progress by regarding their past investments as ends in themselves; the object is always to preserve that which is valuable in the old methods while adjoining new methods that refine their meaning and extend their horizons. The new approach that we will be exploring in this paper, which might be colorfully rendered as “reality theory is wedded to language theory and they beget a synthesis”, has the advantage that it leaves the current picture of reality virtually intact. It merely creates a logical mirror image of the current picture (its conspansive dual), merges the symmetric halves of the resulting picture, and attempts to extract meaningful implications. Science as we now know it is thereby changed but little in return for what may, if fate smiles upon us, turn out to be vast gains in depth, significance and explanatory power.
And on that note, I thank you for your kind attention and wish you a fruitful journey.

Honestly this is perhaps one of the most frustratingly unrevelationary piece of prose I have ever read, it says the same thing over and over again as if by reiterating it, it will prove more true;makes no attempt to put a framework on the "theory", and no conclusion is reached, at the end he merely suggests what nature is, and as I understand it pretty much what most people think it is, but without doing so in any contextual way, at this point I'm left asking myself? So what was the point again?

Honestly I really did try going in with an open mind, if nothing else talking about intelligent design or philosophical theory can be quite interesting, whether you agree or not; but this guy just wasted ten minutes of my time telling me either a) nothing substantial b) nothing I didn't already know c) nothing that couldn't be summed up in a single paragraph anyway.

Reminds me of a flim flam artist, your so busy listening to the words, the meaning ceases to matter, he do sure talk pretty, sorry but to convince anyone he's got to get out of the habbit of saying much but revealing nothing, that's a really really, bad habbit he's got into there.

OK my analysis, I read a particularly good argument for Intelligent design the other day, all be it somewhat dated and by the Catholic church, this was not even in the same league, and the priests who wrote that no doubt didn't have an IQ of 192.

I made it to the end of page 4, someone tell me it gets better and less excrutiatingly wordy and vague?

 

[Mk]

Langan's nonsense can be read here http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

Click on the last link to The CTMU and Intelligent Design. Amazing how he managed to ramble on for several pages without making a single statement that actually had any scientific merit or providing any facts to back up his thoughts.

Well, whad'ja expect? It's all metaphysics and philosophy, not science.

 

[PIT2]

Maybe we just don't understand his hyperintelligent writings, like a baboon wouldn't understand einstein.

 

[arildno]

Maybe we just don't understand his hyperintelligent writings, like a baboon wouldn't understand einstein.

The problem is, though, that Einstein wouldn't understand the scribblings of a baboon, either..

 

[Kurdt]

Maybe we just don't understand his hyperintelligent writings, like a baboon wouldn't understand einstein.

This is what scares me about the world. Why would you rather believe that just because he claims to be the cleverest guy alive, than what you can gather from the situation for yourself?

 

[tehno]

Langan?Langan who

Twiddle twaddle, use a paddle.
Eat a bagel, don't read Hegel.

Are you teasing Evo?Our fearless moderator?
Be careful!She belongs to female Borg community...
BTW,Marilyn Vos Savant is still listed in Guinness Book of World Records as smartest person (by I.Q. test standards ).And she is a woman if I'm not mistaken.Therefore...

 

[PIT2]

This is what scares me about the world. Why would you rather believe that just because he claims to be the cleverest guy alive, than what you can gather from the situation for yourself?

I dont. I tried reading his thing but i couldnt.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I dont. I tried reading his thing but i couldnt.

It's not consistent and it's not comprehensible even when you do understand the rather wordy expressions he seems to get off on using, if you ask me this is meant to be appreciated only for it's tendency to be expansive, but not explicit.

Essentially what it says is that he has invented a new language(Self-Configuring Self-Processing Langauge or SCSPL) That is not only self referential but is capable of self amendment and self evolution, that can explain the development of nature in terms of itself(no explanation of how is given) He says pretty much the same thing five times, adding some obscure quantum reference which is not explained enough to make any sense of it.

At this point he ties in his language with the many states of the quantum, but does little to explain how this happens, then goes on to explain how nature itself is a means to explain his system, but since he never really explains his system, this is a sort of circular argument and leaves you with no insight into his own language or how exactly it would fit into a natural physical picture.
Simultaneously he dismisses science and maths as being old or not able to cope with the new language, but does little to explain why he is making this assumption or why his picture is better.

In other words,I think he's indulging in sophistry or trying to trick or mislead by making very vague and non correlative statements and using very overly wordy phrases.

As I said he says much but imparts nothing, even if you do grasp what he is saying it's impossible to see where he derives such assumptions from, or even what point he is trying to make if any, other than he's found out a new way of talking about reality that makes no coherent sense.

I'll maybe try and comprehend the next 4 pages later, if I work out if it is worth the effort :lol:

EDIT:

I then went on to try and make sense of his explanations, and failed miserably, I obviously am not intelligent enough to understand his reasoning, but then there are no examples here that I can make head nor tale of? Usually he makes an assertion and then holds it true without explaining why? As if somehow we're supposed to understand why there must be intrinsic causality but without an external causation or vice a versa, care to give us an analogy, apparently not.

It's bewilderingly unclear, and to my mind completely incomprehensible, perhaps someone with a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics and philosophy can take a look, but I personally could get little out of it, other than a bemusing array of self contained arguments that had no explanation other than obscure references.

He's either a genius beyond a mere mortals understanding, or more likely he's simply disappeared into a reality no one else is meant to fathom, nor in fact will ever be able to as it simply does not make sense

And the worst part is he never tries to explain his own language and how it would fit into his argument? It's almost like he's worried by revealing the cogs and bolts, it would uncover his arguments as flimsy.

Reminds me of The Wizard of OZ, all style and no substance.

 

[D H]

Brilliant he's just taken a hundred words to describe the meaning of nature? Is this guy having a laugh? ... Reminds me of a flim flam artist ... I made it to the end of page 4, someone tell me it gets better and less excrutiatingly wordy and vague?

This guy reminds me of a coworker from a think-tank job 15 years ago. Guy had two PhDs and sure knew how to talk purdy, but it was almost all BS. More than half of the papers he wrote were his private little joke on the world. Invoking the homunculus, philosophy, and quantum physics to prove some point about artificial intelligence and such. He had one particularly egregious piece of BS accepted at a prestigous conference. He let me in on his little joke, wondering how much more BS he could add to this without the reviewers catching on that it was 100% pure BS.

 

[whatta]

Unless she can provide data that meets the criteria bolded below, I don't see the point.

Well she doesn't want to be quoted. So let's just say, in my own opinion he has had trouble gaining exposure for his work as he is not an academic, hence he included material on how his work relates to the concepts of ID and creationism so that they would give him a venue to publish his work. Cough. In my own opinion.