17

a lesswrong: 47-minute read extolling the ambition and insights of Christopher Langan's "CTMU"

a science blogger back in the day: not so impressed

[I]t’s sort of like saying “I’m going to fix the sink in my bathroom by replacing the leaky washer with the color blue”, or “I’m going to fly to the moon by correctly spelling my left leg.”

Langan, incidentally, is a 9/11 truther, a believer in the "white genocide" conspiracy theory and much more besides.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] blakestacey@awful.systems 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

And here's Ben Goertzel, formerly MIRI's director of research:

I find myself mentally comparing Langan to Eliezer Yudkowsky, another high-IQ maverick who has personally avoided the academic establishment, while developing his own deep and idiosyncratic view of the universe. Both Langan and Yudkowsky have the habit of introducing a lot of novel vocabulary for describing their ideas, though they have different styles of doing so (Langan likes inventing new words; Yudkowsky prefers assigning new meanings to commonplace phrases, e.g. “Friendly AI” or any of the zillion other “defined terms” commonplace on the Less Wrong blog/network he founded). [...] Langan’s style is very clear and elegant, in some places beautiful, but doesn’t do the reader any favors — you really have to read each sentence and absorb it fully before going on to the next.

zoom and enhance

Langan’s style is very clear and elegant

Typical Langan, for reference:

In the CTMU, the self-inclusion process is known as conspansion and occurs at the distributed, Lorentz-invariant conspansion rate c, a time-space conversion factor already familiar as the speed of light in vacuo (conspansion consists of two alternative phases accounting for the wave and particle properties of matter and affording a logical explanation for accelerating cosmic expansion).

Goertzel is also co-editor of a book called Evidence for Psi — he's a Cosmist who believes in psychic powers.

[-] sinedpick@awful.systems 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

as a wannabe science/mathtist I totally feel the pain of realizing that I will probably never have any good, original ideas unless I actually dedicate my life to studying the works of people that actually had good, original ideas.

In these people, I see a version of me that didn't tell myself that all my stupid theories of the universe and consciousness are total unfalsifiable wastes of time. It's a type of "high-iq" psychosis.

[-] blakestacey@awful.systems 11 points 8 months ago

It's fun to stand on the shoulders of giants... and having the standard stuff down cold is the best way to convince experts that when you do have a zany idea, it might be worth considering.

[-] korydg@awful.systems 2 points 8 months ago

A propos: John Baez's https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/books.html (How to Learn Math and Physics)

[-] V0ldek@awful.systems 6 points 8 months ago

at the distributed, Lorentz-invariant conspansion rate c, a time-space conversion factor already familiar as the speed of light in vacuo

You just said "at the speed of light", but while doing a backflip and taking a shit mid-air.

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 13 points 8 months ago

[Time Cube] has a high-IQ mystique about it: if you don't get it, maybe it's because your IQ is too low. The [website] itself is dense with insights, especially the first part. It uses quite a lot of nonstandard terminology (partially because the author is outside the normal academic system), having few citations relative to most academic works. The work is incredibly ambitious, attempting to rebase philosophical metaphysics on a new unified foundation. As a short work, it can't fully deliver on this ambition; it can provide a "seed" of a philosophical research program aimed at understanding the world, but few implications are drawn out.

[-] blakestacey@awful.systems 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Back in 2009, Yud asked who he should do a "bloggingheads" dialog with. Two people suggested Langan.

And one suggested Scott Adams.

[-] blakestacey@awful.systems 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Intelligent design theory involves probabilistic judgments such as "irreducible complexity", the idea that life is too complex and well-organized to have been produced randomly by undirected evolution. Such probabilistic judgments rely on either a causal model (e.g. a model of how evolution would work and what structures it could create), or some global model that yields probabilities more directly.

No, they rely upon numbers extracted from up a creationist's colon.

There is a duality between cosmic expansion and atom shrinkage.

Hey now, the atom just got out of a cold swimming pool.

[-] blakestacey@awful.systems 9 points 8 months ago

There's a longish section about the physicist John Archibald Wheeler. I know people who worked with Wheeler. I've read Wheeler's unpublished notebooks. Get John Wheeler's name out of your mouth.

The very first thing that section says is

John Wheeler is a famous physicist who coined the term "black hole".

No, he didn't.

[-] dgerard@awful.systems 8 points 8 months ago

the comments are winners too

[-] blakestacey@awful.systems 11 points 8 months ago

Chris is actually very pleasant to talk to if (like me) it does not bother you that he acts like he is much smarter than you.

Langan:

Of course, I'm talking about a ~90% White America becoming ~50% White in around 60 years, a cataclysmic demographic upheaval which violates every conceivable standard of national sovereignty along with the will and interests of the US majority, and thus cannot have happened by accident.

[-] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 8 points 8 months ago

God damn, I was expecting a normal boring reformulation of phenomenology but this is kooky.

It would appear that high IQ curses you with the ability to turn old concepts into utter bullshit. Hopefully doctors find a cure soon.

[-] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 14 points 8 months ago

I'll tell my kids this is object-oriented ontology.

[-] YouKnowWhoTheFuckIAM@awful.systems 4 points 8 months ago

Honestly? Improvement

[-] blakestacey@awful.systems 8 points 8 months ago

Langan himself has ~~showed up~~ graced the comment section with his benevolent presence!

The CTMU is not conjectural, but a lock. So as much as I'd like to humbly efface myself in an outpouring of false modesty, I'll merely point out that arguing with the CTMU amounts to undermining one's own argumentation, whatever it may be. People have been trying to get over on the CTMU for the last 35 or so years, and not one has ever gotten to first base. This was not an accident. If you think you see a mistake or critical inadequacy, the mistake and the inadequacy are almost certainly yours.

[-] V0ldek@awful.systems 3 points 8 months ago

Dude made "you're holding it wrong" into a philosophy, impressive.

[-] blakestacey@awful.systems 5 points 8 months ago

The discussion in the comments has continued in a low-key way. Now they're making excuses for why the nutbar is incomprehensible:

To understand why Chris thinks this way, it's important to remember that he had never been acculturated into the norms of the modern intellectual elite...

Langan has been "working" on the CTMU since the 1990s. People have been born since then and have had time to learn how to talk like academics.

this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
17 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

1012 readers
3 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS