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?
OY. There is no science here, it's mysticism.
