|
Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
Has anyone on this list ever heard of this? A theory of reality
formulated by Christopher Michael Langan?
http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htmIt sounds a little sketchy at first, though not entirely different
than some of what Bruno Marchal says.
Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan
has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first
paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped.
But, after further reading it sounds somewhat more plausible. I'd be
very interested in hearing Bruno's opinion.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
I looked into him about a month or so ago, after he'd posted an
unflattering remark about my work. He might have an IQ of 200, but to
put it bluntly, what he writes is "drivel". It may well have a kernel
of truth, and there may well even be original thought in there, but it
is so voluminous and so badly organised it is impossible to tell.
Basically, my advice to him would be to get a PhD. It doesn't teach
you creativity, but does teach you how to organise and express your
ideas so that others can possibly understand it. But I suspect Chris
Langan is too proud to do this. At least Bruno has done his PhD, and
his work is so much the better off for him having gone through that
process, painful though it was.
Cheers
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 02:08:44PM -0700, rexallen314@... wrote:
>
> Has anyone on this list ever heard of this? A theory of reality
> formulated by Christopher Michael Langan?
>
> http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm>
> It sounds a little sketchy at first, though not entirely different
> than some of what Bruno Marchal says.
>
> Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan
> has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first
> paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped.
>
> But, after further reading it sounds somewhat more plausible. I'd be
> very interested in hearing Bruno's opinion.
>
>
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder@...
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
Why would someone's IQ rating be a recommendation of anything about
them?
People like Langan long ago fell into the "Intelligence Trap". They
have an exaggerated need to be "right" about everything all the time.
They are usually unable to think about anything from a perspective
other than the one they long ago decided was the "right" perspective.
They don't know how to listen to others. They are usually unable to
restructure the available information in such a way that they can draw
new perspectives from it. Please do not extoll the virtues of anything
as anachronistic and mythical as somebody's supposed "high IQ". I
could put a thinking test in front of him that would defeat him
totally, yet be easily done by a 7 year old.
Kim Jones
On 31/05/2009, at 9:16 AM, russell standish wrote:
>> Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan
>> has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first
>> paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:03:41AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> Why would someone's IQ rating be a recommendation of anything about
> them?
>
> People like Langan long ago fell into the "Intelligence Trap". They
> have an exaggerated need to be "right" about everything all the time.
> They are usually unable to think about anything from a perspective
> other than the one they long ago decided was the "right" perspective.
>
> They don't know how to listen to others. They are usually unable to
> restructure the available information in such a way that they can draw
> new perspectives from it. Please do not extoll the virtues of anything
> as anachronistic and mythical as somebody's supposed "high IQ". I
> could put a thinking test in front of him that would defeat him
> totally, yet be easily done by a 7 year old.
>
> Kim Jones
>
Exactly to all of the above. And it was kind of my point about the use
of doing PhDs. I didn't write the statement below (note the two levels
of quoting), rexallen314 did.
Cheers
>
>
> On 31/05/2009, at 9:16 AM, russell standish wrote:
>
> >> Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan
> >> has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first
> >> paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped.
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder@...
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
> Why would someone's IQ rating be a recommendation of anything about
> them?
Well, someone who's 8 feet tall is not necessarily going to be good at
basketball, or even have the other abilities needed to excel at
basketball, BUT I think it seems reasonable to think that it might be
interesting to watch them play. More interesting than watching
someone who's 6 feet tall...if for no other reason than sheer novelty.
And so, I pressed forward past the first paragraph.
Langan does seem to have some peculiar personality quirks, but he's
had a peculiar life, so it's not clear what would be the most likely
explanation for that.
But, all of that is neither here nor there. What I'm curious about is
whether there's anything to what he says.
I agree with Russell's point, many of the things I found online that
Langan has written do seem to be obscure to the point of drivel.
However, the previous link I posted was reasonably well written, and
he has another one here:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdfIf you ignore the stuff about the possibility of "intelligent design"
in the opening section, he makes some interesting points in the
following sections.
But, if you say it's all crap, I have no problem with that. I'm not
here to advocate for Langan. Just to see what people's opinions are.
It's all good. Peace brothers!
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Kim Jones < kimjones@...> wrote:
>
> Why would someone's IQ rating be a recommendation of anything about
> them?
>
> People like Langan long ago fell into the "Intelligence Trap". They
> have an exaggerated need to be "right" about everything all the time.
> They are usually unable to think about anything from a perspective
> other than the one they long ago decided was the "right" perspective.
>
> They don't know how to listen to others. They are usually unable to
> restructure the available information in such a way that they can draw
> new perspectives from it. Please do not extoll the virtues of anything
> as anachronistic and mythical as somebody's supposed "high IQ". I
> could put a thinking test in front of him that would defeat him
> totally, yet be easily done by a 7 year old.
>
> Kim Jones
>
>
>
> On 31/05/2009, at 9:16 AM, russell standish wrote:
>
>>> Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan
>>> has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first
>>> paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped.
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
On 30 May 2009, at 23:08, rexallen314@... wrote:
>
> Has anyone on this list ever heard of this? A theory of reality
> formulated by Christopher Michael Langan?
>
> http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm>
> It sounds a little sketchy at first, though not entirely different
> than some of what Bruno Marchal says.
>
> Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan
> has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first
> paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped.
>
> But, after further reading it sounds somewhat more plausible. I'd be
> very interested in hearing Bruno's opinion.
It is a physicalism in disguise. There is also a confusion between a
mathematical object as a tool to represent other object, and the other
object.
And using set theory in that setting is a curious choice, given that
set theory is known to flatten the concepts. It is the reason what
mathematician prefer category theory, or specific theories ... I mean
sets? Which sets? It is very unclear how the different notions are
related. I can appreciate its apparent open mind on religion, but I
don't see any effort to solve problems, nor any clarification of
problems. Langan seems not to be afraid of being appreciated by those
who want to be mystified instead of understanding.
But then if you have a link on a real precise theory or results, you
can let us know, but my opinion is that it is not really honest, or if
it is, then it is presented in a very awkward. To give set a
fundamental status is really like saying you should do everything in
FORTRAN. Unless you have a good original reason to use sets, but then
you should give it.
Rereading some parts I am not sure at all he even try to say
something, ... pervert the usual meaning of the terms. He makes
complex simple ideas and hides somehow its naive view of Plato, making
me a bit nervous even on points where I could imagine some sense
there ...
...
Hmm.... Pompous and Boring, if you ask my opinion.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
Good information, thanks!
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Bruno Marchal < marchal@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 30 May 2009, at 23:08, rexallen314@... wrote:
>
>>
>> Has anyone on this list ever heard of this? A theory of reality
>> formulated by Christopher Michael Langan?
>>
>> http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm>>
>> It sounds a little sketchy at first, though not entirely different
>> than some of what Bruno Marchal says.
>>
>> Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan
>> has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first
>> paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped.
>>
>> But, after further reading it sounds somewhat more plausible. I'd be
>> very interested in hearing Bruno's opinion.
>
> It is a physicalism in disguise. There is also a confusion between a
> mathematical object as a tool to represent other object, and the other
> object.
> And using set theory in that setting is a curious choice, given that
> set theory is known to flatten the concepts. It is the reason what
> mathematician prefer category theory, or specific theories ... I mean
> sets? Which sets? It is very unclear how the different notions are
> related. I can appreciate its apparent open mind on religion, but I
> don't see any effort to solve problems, nor any clarification of
> problems. Langan seems not to be afraid of being appreciated by those
> who want to be mystified instead of understanding.
> But then if you have a link on a real precise theory or results, you
> can let us know, but my opinion is that it is not really honest, or if
> it is, then it is presented in a very awkward. To give set a
> fundamental status is really like saying you should do everything in
> FORTRAN. Unless you have a good original reason to use sets, but then
> you should give it.
> Rereading some parts I am not sure at all he even try to say
> something, ... pervert the usual meaning of the terms. He makes
> complex simple ideas and hides somehow its naive view of Plato, making
> me a bit nervous even on points where I could imagine some sense
> there ...
> ...
> Hmm.... Pompous and Boring, if you ask my opinion.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/>
>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
Russell, I second (if it is of any worth).
I 'tried' to read the diatribes on the html page and my perseverence ws not sufficient to stay in he lines. Some concepts seem to be mixed (I did not say "up") e.g. to identify 'reality' one should get a hold of it and I found 'physical' sketchy (maybe I blurred-up where it was more sorrowly identified). . .
It was funny to read about ONE universe in all, spacetime etc. as universal foundations, and so on, I think this list is past such level.
About the Ph.D.: I agree, it is a harsh schooling to compose/order ideas an regulate one's thinking (if the tutor is any good). My 2nd one was a lot easier than the 1st one. I don't care too much for titles, but in terms as a mental training I appreciate your position.
I don't care too much for high IQs either (was measured once for a job interview and they disclosed upon my threat only that it was >200) - but I assigned it to the metric system I grew into: saved lots of time in the math problems by converting the US units into metric, play with the decimal point and reformed the US units. Which is not much of an intelligence. Other topics in those tests are cultural background related, plus a snobbish preference for certain domains in the cognitive inventory by the organizers of the particular test. People with other background may fail.
John M
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:16 PM, russell standish <lists@...> wrote:
I looked into him about a month or so ago, after he'd posted an
unflattering remark about my work. He might have an IQ of 200, but to
put it bluntly, what he writes is "drivel". It may well have a kernel
of truth, and there may well even be original thought in there, but it
is so voluminous and so badly organised it is impossible to tell.
Basically, my advice to him would be to get a PhD. It doesn't teach
you creativity, but does teach you how to organise and express your
ideas so that others can possibly understand it. But I suspect Chris
Langan is too proud to do this. At least Bruno has done his PhD, and
his work is so much the better off for him having gone through that
process, painful though it was.
Cheers
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 02:08:44PM -0700, rexallen314@... wrote: > > Has anyone on this list ever heard of this? A theory of reality > formulated by Christopher Michael Langan?
> > http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm> > It sounds a little sketchy at first, though not entirely different > than some of what Bruno Marchal says.
> > Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan > has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first > paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped.
> > But, after further reading it sounds somewhat more plausible. I'd be > very interested in hearing Bruno's opinion. > > > > > --
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder@...
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
I think these interviews provide a nice summary of his views:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mfbUhs2PVYI remember seeing an interview with him on TV about a decade ago and
being very interested in his claim to be able to mathematically prove
the existence of god, souls, and life after death, but I don't know if
he's ever revealed those proofs. It seems with Bruno's testable comp
hypothesis we can do the same, depending on your definitions of god,
souls, and life after death.
Jason
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:20 PM, John Mikes < jamikes@...> wrote:
> Russell, I second (if it is of any worth).
>
> I 'tried' to read the diatribes on the html page and my perseverence ws not
> sufficient to stay in he lines. Some concepts seem to be mixed (I did not
> say "up") e.g. to identify 'reality' one should get a hold of it and I found
> 'physical' sketchy (maybe I blurred-up where it was more sorrowly
> identified). . .
> It was funny to read about ONE universe in all, spacetime etc. as universal
> foundations, and so on, I think this list is past such level.
> About the Ph.D.: I agree, it is a harsh schooling to compose/order ideas an
> regulate one's thinking (if the tutor is any good). My 2nd one was a lot
> easier than the 1st one. I don't care too much for titles, but in terms as a
> mental training I appreciate your position.
>
> I don't care too much for high IQs either (was measured once for a job
> interview and they disclosed upon my threat only that it was >200) - but I
> assigned it to the metric system I grew into: saved lots of time in the math
> problems by converting the US units into metric, play with the decimal point
> and reformed the US units. Which is not much of an intelligence. Other
> topics in those tests are cultural background related, plus a snobbish
> preference for certain domains in the cognitive inventory by the organizers
> of the particular test. People with other background may fail.
>
> John M
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:16 PM, russell standish < lists@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> I looked into him about a month or so ago, after he'd posted an
>> unflattering remark about my work. He might have an IQ of 200, but to
>> put it bluntly, what he writes is "drivel". It may well have a kernel
>> of truth, and there may well even be original thought in there, but it
>> is so voluminous and so badly organised it is impossible to tell.
>>
>> Basically, my advice to him would be to get a PhD. It doesn't teach
>> you creativity, but does teach you how to organise and express your
>> ideas so that others can possibly understand it. But I suspect Chris
>> Langan is too proud to do this. At least Bruno has done his PhD, and
>> his work is so much the better off for him having gone through that
>> process, painful though it was.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 02:08:44PM -0700, rexallen314@... wrote:
>> >
>> > Has anyone on this list ever heard of this? A theory of reality
>> > formulated by Christopher Michael Langan?
>> >
>> > http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm>> >
>> > It sounds a little sketchy at first, though not entirely different
>> > than some of what Bruno Marchal says.
>> >
>> > Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan
>> > has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first
>> > paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped.
>> >
>> > But, after further reading it sounds somewhat more plausible. I'd be
>> > very interested in hearing Bruno's opinion.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> --
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>> Mathematics
>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder@...
>> Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
hmmmmmmmm. Some thorts.
:-) I love the 'duncical equilibrium' that is our leadership....sounds
like the 'coalition of the willing'.
He's seems to be a damaged guy, although aren't we all? The infuriating
blindness of the masses (alias the wisdom of the crowd!) gnaws on his
butt.
Yes....we need a cognitive Einstein, but there's a possibility he would
end up the bouncer at the 'bar of the new authoritarian mess', despite
the plan of reality he claims to have. Maybe we are entering an era
where such an approach will save us.... but I'd prefer a 'new
enlightenment' to a pile of 'anti-diseugenics' any day. Doesn't fit my
idea of 'kindness'.
....his use of the word god detaches it from faith...That has to be a
good move.
There's too much focus on the fact of genius and not enough being one.
His endomorphic image of the mind of god translates to what we
recognise self similarity at all scales... and the tautologousness of
any recursive structure.... all of which the folks here will relate to.
He reminded me of the snorefest incremental science factory I inhabit
here.
....recent explanatory paper attached.
Charlton, B. G. 'Why are modern scientists so dull? How science selects
for perseverance and sociability at the expense of intelligence and
creativity', Medical Hypotheses vol. 72, no. 3, 2009. 237-243.
It calls for a place to nurture these guys ... these 'strange and
luminous fools' as charlton puts it. I think I might have 1 foot in
this camp ... the idea of it scares me ... but when I
introspect....there I am. Kept from the dungheap by the relentless
seeking of truth.
cheers
col
Jason Resch wrote:
I think these interviews provide a nice summary of his views:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mfbUhs2PVY
I remember seeing an interview with him on TV about a decade ago and
being very interested in his claim to be able to mathematically prove
the existence of god, souls, and life after death, but I don't know if
he's ever revealed those proofs. It seems with Bruno's testable comp
hypothesis we can do the same, depending on your definitions of god,
souls, and life after death.
Jason
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:20 PM, John Mikes jamikes@... wrote:
Russell, I second (if it is of any worth).
I 'tried' to read the diatribes on the html page and my perseverence ws not
sufficient to stay in he lines. Some concepts seem to be mixed (I did not
say "up") e.g. to identify 'reality' one should get a hold of it and I found
'physical' sketchy (maybe I blurred-up where it was more sorrowly
identified). . .
It was funny to read about ONE universe in all, spacetime etc. as universal
foundations, and so on, I think this list is past such level.
About the Ph.D.: I agree, it is a harsh schooling to compose/order ideas an
regulate one's thinking (if the tutor is any good). My 2nd one was a lot
easier than the 1st one. I don't care too much for titles, but in terms as a
mental training I appreciate your position.
I don't care too much for high IQs either (was measured once for a job
interview and they disclosed upon my threat only that it was >200) - but I
assigned it to the metric system I grew into: saved lots of time in the math
problems by converting the US units into metric, play with the decimal point
and reformed the US units. Which is not much of an intelligence. Other
topics in those tests are cultural background related, plus a snobbish
preference for certain domains in the cognitive inventory by the organizers
of the particular test. People with other background may fail.
John M
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:16 PM, russell standish lists@...
wrote:
I looked into him about a month or so ago, after he'd posted an
unflattering remark about my work. He might have an IQ of 200, but to
put it bluntly, what he writes is "drivel". It may well have a kernel
of truth, and there may well even be original thought in there, but it
is so voluminous and so badly organised it is impossible to tell.
Basically, my advice to him would be to get a PhD. It doesn't teach
you creativity, but does teach you how to organise and express your
ideas so that others can possibly understand it. But I suspect Chris
Langan is too proud to do this. At least Bruno has done his PhD, and
his work is so much the better off for him having gone through that
process, painful though it was.
Cheers
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 02:08:44PM -0700, rexallen314@... wrote:
Has anyone on this list ever heard of this? A theory of reality
formulated by Christopher Michael Langan?
http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm
It sounds a little sketchy at first, though not entirely different
than some of what Bruno Marchal says.
Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan
has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first
paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped.
But, after further reading it sounds somewhat more plausible. I'd be
very interested in hearing Bruno's opinion.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder@...
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@... To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@... For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
Bruno:
Since I program in Fortran, I am uncertain how to interpret things.
Ronald
On May 31, 1:02 pm, Bruno Marchal < marc...@...> wrote:
> On 30 May 2009, at 23:08, rexallen...@... wrote:
>
>
>
> > Has anyone on this list ever heard of this? A theory of reality
> > formulated by Christopher Michael Langan?
>
> > http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm>
> > It sounds a little sketchy at first, though not entirely different
> > than some of what Bruno Marchal says.
>
> > Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan
> > has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first
> > paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped.
>
> > But, after further reading it sounds somewhat more plausible. I'd be
> > very interested in hearing Bruno's opinion.
>
> It is a physicalism in disguise. There is also a confusion between a
> mathematical object as a tool to represent other object, and the other
> object.
> And using set theory in that setting is a curious choice, given that
> set theory is known to flatten the concepts. It is the reason what
> mathematician prefer category theory, or specific theories ... I mean
> sets? Which sets? It is very unclear how the different notions are
> related. I can appreciate its apparent open mind on religion, but I
> don't see any effort to solve problems, nor any clarification of
> problems. Langan seems not to be afraid of being appreciated by those
> who want to be mystified instead of understanding.
> But then if you have a link on a real precise theory or results, you
> can let us know, but my opinion is that it is not really honest, or if
> it is, then it is presented in a very awkward. To give set a
> fundamental status is really like saying you should do everything in
> FORTRAN. Unless you have a good original reason to use sets, but then
> you should give it.
> Rereading some parts I am not sure at all he even try to say
> something, ... pervert the usual meaning of the terms. He makes
> complex simple ideas and hides somehow its naive view of Plato, making
> me a bit nervous even on points where I could imagine some sense
> there ...
> ...
> Hmm.... Pompous and Boring, if you ask my opinion.
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 07:45:22AM -0700, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> Bruno:
> Since I program in Fortran, I am uncertain how to interpret things.
> Ronald
Maybe if he said Fortran IV or Fortran 66, it might have made the
point clearer. I know guys who still program in Fortran 66. The rest
of us have moved on ... Fortran 95 is not a bad language to program in
for instance - and 2003 has some interesting features, although I don't
know of any freely available compilers.
Personally, I went C++ in the early 90s because g++ was available and
the equivalent for Fortran 90 was not (gfortran or g95 arrived by
about 2000 IIRC).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder@...
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
Russell:
Maybe you might be interested in gfortran( http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran)?
Ronald
On Jun 2, 6:38 pm, russell standish < li...@...> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 07:45:22AM -0700, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> > Bruno:
> > Since I program in Fortran, I am uncertain how to interpret things.
> > Ronald
>
> Maybe if he said Fortran IV or Fortran 66, it might have made the
> point clearer. I know guys who still program in Fortran 66. The rest
> of us have moved on ... Fortran 95 is not a bad language to program in
> for instance - and 2003 has some interesting features, although I don't
> know of any freely available compilers.
>
> Personally, I went C++ in the early 90s because g++ was available and
> the equivalent for Fortran 90 was not (gfortran or g95 arrived by
> about 2000 IIRC).
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpco...@...
> Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
Hi Ronald,
On 02 Jun 2009, at 16:45, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> Bruno:
> Since I program in Fortran, I am uncertain how to interpret things.
I was alluding to old, and less old, disputes again programmers, about
which programming language to prefer.
It is a version of Church Thesis that all algorithm can be written in
FORTRAN. But this does not mean that it is relevant to define an
algorithm by a fortran program. I thought this was obvious, and I was
using that "known" confusion to point on a similar confusion in Set
Theory, like Langan can be said to perform.
In Set Theorist, we still find often the error consisting in defining
a mathematical object by a set. I have done that error in my youth.
What you can do, indeed, is to *represent* (almost all) mathematical
objects by sets. Langan seems to make that mistake.
The point is just that we have to distinguish a mathematical object
and the representation of that object in some mathematical theory.
I will have the opportunity to give a precise example in the 7th
thread later.
In usual mathematical practice, this mistake is really not important,
yet, in logic it is more important to take into account that
distinction, and then in cognitive science it is *very* important.
Crucial, I would say. The error consisting in identifying
consciousness and brain state belongs to that family, for example. To
confuse a person and its body belongs to that family of error too.
All such error are of the form of the confusion between the Moon and
the finger which point to the moon, or the confusion between a map and
the territory.
I have nothing against the use of FORTRAN. On the contrary I have a
big respect for that old venerable high level programming language :)
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
From my understanding of logic, there is made the distinction between
objects and descriptions of objects.
For example, the relation "is less than" is considered different from
the relation symbol <
So what you said makes sense.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Ronald,
On 02 Jun 2009, at 16:45, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
Since I program in Fortran, I am uncertain how to interpret things.
I was alluding to old, and less old, disputes again programmers, about
which programming language to prefer.
It is a version of Church Thesis that all algorithm can be written in
FORTRAN. But this does not mean that it is relevant to define an
algorithm by a fortran program. I thought this was obvious, and I was
using that "known" confusion to point on a similar confusion in Set
Theory, like Langan can be said to perform.
In Set Theorist, we still find often the error consisting in defining
a mathematical object by a set. I have done that error in my youth.
What you can do, indeed, is to *represent* (almost all) mathematical
objects by sets. Langan seems to make that mistake.
The point is just that we have to distinguish a mathematical object
and the representation of that object in some mathematical theory.
I will have the opportunity to give a precise example in the 7th
thread later.
In usual mathematical practice, this mistake is really not important,
yet, in logic it is more important to take into account that
distinction, and then in cognitive science it is *very* important.
Crucial, I would say. The error consisting in identifying
consciousness and brain state belongs to that family, for example. To
confuse a person and its body belongs to that family of error too.
All such error are of the form of the confusion between the Moon and
the finger which point to the moon, or the confusion between a map and
the territory.
I have nothing against the use of FORTRAN. On the contrary I have a
big respect for that old venerable high level programming language :)
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@... To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@... For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Ronald,
>
>
> On 02 Jun 2009, at 16:45, ronaldheld wrote:
>
>
>> Bruno:
>> Since I program in Fortran, I am uncertain how to interpret things.
>>
>
> I was alluding to old, and less old, disputes again programmers, about
> which programming language to prefer.
> It is a version of Church Thesis that all algorithm can be written in
> FORTRAN. But this does not mean that it is relevant to define an
> algorithm by a fortran program. I thought this was obvious, and I was
> using that "known" confusion to point on a similar confusion in Set
> Theory, like Langan can be said to perform.
>
> In Set Theorist, we still find often the error consisting in defining
> a mathematical object by a set. I have done that error in my youth.
> What you can do, indeed, is to *represent* (almost all) mathematical
> objects by sets. Langan seems to make that mistake.
>
> The point is just that we have to distinguish a mathematical object
> and the representation of that object in some mathematical theory.
>
Just so I'm sure I understand you; do you mean that, for example, the
natural numbers exist in a way that is independent of Peano's axioms and
the theorems that can be proven from them. In other words you could add
to Peano's axioms something like Goldbach's conjecture and you would
still have the same mathematical object?
Brent
> I will have the opportunity to give a precise example in the 7th
> thread later.
>
> In usual mathematical practice, this mistake is really not important,
> yet, in logic it is more important to take into account that
> distinction, and then in cognitive science it is *very* important.
> Crucial, I would say. The error consisting in identifying
> consciousness and brain state belongs to that family, for example. To
> confuse a person and its body belongs to that family of error too.
>
> All such error are of the form of the confusion between the Moon and
> the finger which point to the moon, or the confusion between a map and
> the territory.
>
> I have nothing against the use of FORTRAN. On the contrary I have a
> big respect for that old venerable high level programming language :)
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
On 04 Jun 2009, at 19:28, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Ronald,
On 02 Jun 2009, at 16:45, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
Since I program in Fortran, I am uncertain how to interpret things.
I was alluding to old, and less old, disputes again programmers, about
which programming language to prefer.
It is a version of Church Thesis that all algorithm can be written in
FORTRAN. But this does not mean that it is relevant to define an
algorithm by a fortran program. I thought this was obvious, and I was
using that "known" confusion to point on a similar confusion in Set
Theory, like Langan can be said to perform.
In Set Theorist, we still find often the error consisting in defining
a mathematical object by a set. I have done that error in my youth.
What you can do, indeed, is to *represent* (almost all) mathematical
objects by sets. Langan seems to make that mistake.
The point is just that we have to distinguish a mathematical object
and the representation of that object in some mathematical theory.
Just so I'm sure I understand you; do you mean that, for example, the natural numbers exist in a way that is independent of Peano's axioms
Not just the existence of the natural numbers, all the true relations are independent of the Peano Axioms, and of me, ZF, ZFC and you.
and
the theorems that can be proven from them.
A formal theory is just a machine which put a tiny light on those truth.
In other words you could add
to Peano's axioms something like Goldbach's conjecture and you would
still have the same mathematical object?
The whole point of logic is to consider the "Peano's axioms" as a mathematical object itself, which is studied mathematically in the usual informal (yet rigorous and typically mathematica) way.
PA, and PA+GOLDBACH are different mathematical objects. They are different theories, or different machines.
Now if GOLDBACH is provable by PA, then PA and PA+GOLDBACH shed the same light on the same arithmetical truth. In that case I will identify PA and PA+GOLDBACH, in many contexts, because most of the time I identify a theory with its set of theorems. Like I identify a person with its set of (possible) beliefs.
If GOLDBACH is true, but not provable by PA, then PA and PA+GOLDBACH still talk on the same reality, but PA+GOLDBACH will shed more light on it, by proving more theorems on the numbers and numbers relations than PA. I do no more identify them, and they have different set of theorems.
If GOLDBACH is false. Well GOLBACH is PI_1, that is, its negation is SIGMA_1, that is, it has the shape "it exist a number such that it verify this decidable property". Indeed the negation of Goldbach conjecture is "it exists a number bigger than 2 which is not the sum of two primes". This, if true, is verifiable already by the much weaker RA (Robinson arithmetic). So, if GOLDBACH is false PA + GOLDBACH is inconsistent. That is a mathematical object quite different from PA!
Here, you would have taken the twin primes conjecture, and things would have been different, and more complex.
Note that a theory of set like ZF shed even much more large light on arithmetical truth, (and is still incomplete on arithmetic, by Gödel ...). Incidentally it can be shown that ZF and ZFC, although they shed different light on the mathematical truth in general, does shed exactly the same light on arithmetical truth. They prove the same arithmetical theorems. On the numbers, the axiom of choice add nothing. This is quite unlike the ladder of infinity axioms.
I would say it is and will be particularly important to distinguish chatting beings like RA, PA, ZF, ZFC, etc... and what those beings are talking about.
Bruno
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@... To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@... For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> ...
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> The whole point of logic is to consider the "Peano's axioms" as a
> mathematical object itself, which is studied mathematically in the
> usual informal (yet rigorous and typically mathematica) way.
>
> PA, and PA+GOLDBACH are different mathematical objects. They are
> different theories, or different machines.
>
> Now if GOLDBACH is provable by PA, then PA and PA+GOLDBACH shed the
> same light on the same arithmetical truth. In that case I will
> identify PA and PA+GOLDBACH, in many contexts, because most of the
> time I identify a theory with its set of theorems. Like I identify a
> person with its set of (possible) beliefs.
>
> If GOLDBACH is *true, but not provable* by PA, then PA and PA+GOLDBACH
> still talk on the same reality, but PA+GOLDBACH will shed more light
> on it, by proving more theorems on the numbers and numbers relations
> than PA. I do no more identify them, and they have different set of
> theorems.
>
> If GOLDBACH is false. Well GOLBACH is PI_1, that is, its negation is
> SIGMA_1, that is, it has the shape "it exist a number such that it
> verify this decidable property". Indeed the negation of Goldbach
> conjecture is "it exists a number bigger than 2 which is not the sum
> of two primes". This, if true, is verifiable already by the much
> weaker RA (Robinson arithmetic). So, if GOLDBACH is false PA +
> GOLDBACH is inconsistent. That is a mathematical object quite
> different from PA!
So what then is the status of the natural numbers? Are there many
different objects in Platonia which we loosely refer to as "the natural
numbers" or is there only one such object and the Goldbach conjecture is
either true of false of this object?
>
> Here, you would have taken the twin primes conjecture, and things
> would have been different, and more complex.
Because, even if it is false, it cannot be proven false by exhibiting an
example?
>
> Note that a theory of set like ZF shed even much more large light on
> arithmetical truth, (and is still incomplete on arithmetic, by Gödel ...).
> Incidentally it can be shown that ZF and ZFC, although they shed
> different light on the mathematical truth in general, does shed
> exactly the same light on arithmetical truth. They prove the same
> arithmetical theorems. On the numbers, the axiom of choice add
> nothing. This is quite unlike the ladder of infinity axioms.
>
> I would say it is and will be particularly important to distinguish
> chatting beings like RA, PA, ZF, ZFC, etc... and what those beings are
> talking about.
>
> Bruno
Do you mean PA talks about the natural numbers but PA+theorems is a
different mathematical object than N?
Brent
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
|
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
Bruno:
I understand a little better. is there a citition for a version of
Church Thesis that all algorithm can be written in
FORTRAN?
Ronald
On Jun 4, 10:49 am, Bruno Marchal < marc...@...> wrote:
> Hi Ronald,
>
> On 02 Jun 2009, at 16:45, ronaldheld wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bruno:
> > Since I program in Fortran, I am uncertain how to interpret things.
>
> I was alluding to old, and less old, disputes again programmers, about
> which programming language to prefer.
> It is a version of Church Thesis that all algorithm can be written in
> FORTRAN. But this does not mean that it is relevant to define an
> algorithm by a fortran program. I thought this was obvious, and I was
> using that "known" confusion to point on a similar confusion in Set
> Theory, like Langan can be said to perform.
>
> In Set Theorist, we still find often the error consisting in defining
> a mathematical object by a set. I have done that error in my youth.
> What you can do, indeed, is to *represent* (almost all) mathematical
> objects by sets. Langan seems to make that mistake.
>
> The point is just that we have to distinguish a mathematical object
> and the representation of that object in some mathematical theory.
>
> I will have the opportunity to give a precise example in the 7th
> thread later.
>
> In usual mathematical practice, this mistake is really not important,
> yet, in logic it is more important to take into account that
> distinction, and then in cognitive science it is *very* important.
> Crucial, I would say. The error consisting in identifying
> consciousness and brain state belongs to that family, for example. To
> confuse a person and its body belongs to that family of error too.
>
> All such error are of the form of the confusion between the Moon and
> the finger which point to the moon, or the confusion between a map and
> the territory.
>
> I have nothing against the use of FORTRAN. On the contrary I have a
> big respect for that old venerable high level programming language :)
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
2009.pdf (202K) 