Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2016, 08:52 AM
Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
I came across this idea, concept, wackyness in a conversation with someone online. Some guy named Christopher Langan came up with it. Does anyone know anything about CTMU? I can't find much info about it.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2016, 11:16 AM
RE: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

Puke, it's just another god-of-the-gaps argument cloaked in Chopraisms and woo.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
25-05-2016, 02:08 PM
RE: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
(25-05-2016 11:16 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

Puke, it's just another god-of-the-gaps argument cloaked in Chopraisms and woo.

I had never heard of this nonsense before so after I posted the question here I looked further on the internet and found a post on The Physics Forum that ripped it to shreds. Here's a copy/paste from that forum which is a copy/pasted statement directly from Physicist, Dave Miller.

"Let me see if I can clarify why no intelligent, educated people can think of Chris Langan as anything except a fool, a charlatan, or, possibly, a prankster with a somewhat eccentric sense of humor.

The problem is not his polysyllabic jargon per se. The various sciences and mathematics all have a lot of jargon. But the jargon serves a legitimate purpose there: it is easier for a topologist to refer to “homologous cycles” than repeat each time the hundreds (or thousands) of words encapsulated in that phrase of jargon. Most importantly, other practitioners in the field know what the jargon is shorthand for, and newcomers to the field can find out what the jargon means from standard textbooks. If someone in the field finds it necessary to introduce new jargon, he has an obligation to explain to everyone what it means, and he should not introduce new jargon unless it is really needed.

That’s Langan’s problem: his CTMU masterpiece consists largely of undefined jargon, not known to real experts and not explained by Langan himself.

That is the sure sign of a crackpot.

The other problem is that those of us who have some real expertise in some of the fields about which he pontificates find his musings to be nonsense.

I have a Ph.D. from Stanford in elementary particle theory: I know a great deal about quantum mechanics. I also am co-patentholder on several patents that apply information theory to various problems in computer and communication systems.

Quantum physics and information theory are two of the subjects Langan appeals to in his CTMU work. Part of the point is to make it sound as if you would recognize the profundity of his writing if only you understood all of the technical background as he does. Well, in those two fields, I do understand the technical background, and his use of those subjects is a sham: it only seems impressive to people who are as ignorant of those subjects as Langan is.

Personally, my guess is that it is all a big joke, like Mencken’s bathtub hoax: Langan is running an experiment to see how many gullible fools there really are in the country (answer: hundreds of millions – just watch the election!).

The only interesting question is whether there is any truth to Langan’s claims of extra-high scores on real IQ tests. If he really has scored that high, it is one more sign of the very real limits to the usefulness of IQ. I recommend James Flynn’s recent book, “What Is Intelligence?” to anyone interested in the meaning and limits of IQ tests (they are not completely meaningless, but their value is somewhat limited).

Dave Miller"

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like dancefortwo's post
25-05-2016, 06:28 PM
RE: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
Without even looking, I would ask a basic question.
"Does his model of the universe make any predictions and how accurate are the predictions it makes ?"

In other words, is it useful or useless ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2016, 12:19 AM
RE: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
Found out this guy, Chris Langan, has an IQ of something like 160 but he's a bouncer in a nightclub. Claims to have the highest recorded IQ. He's a social nitwit who's good at lying too.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2016, 08:20 AM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2016 08:25 AM by Fireball.)
RE: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
One can have a high IQ without being an astrophysicist, just to pick a field where a high IQ probably helps. That said, Marylin Vos Savant has an IQ of about 186, though the people who make the tests claim that above 170, the test isn't all that reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant

That said, I think that Dave Miller hit the nail square on the head. His analysis can be applied to anything someone says. Change some of the words to a religious format and you have a perfect example of the godbots who post here- the words they use don't mean to us what they think they mean, so it's nonsense. But they don't see it. It is that inanity that causes me to seldom venture into the atheism vs theism forum. It is too annoying to see the word salad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: