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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---