faded_Glory

Here is Langan's abstract:

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). Where information is the abstract
currency of perception, 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. 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. 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.
Uniting the theory of reality with an advanced form of computational language theory, the CTMU describes
reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language
characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and selfexecution
(reflexive read-write functionality). 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 selfselection
parameter and adjusting on the fly to freely-changing internal conditions. 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. By distributing the design phase of
reality over the actualization phase, conspansive spacetime also provides a distributed mechanism for
Intelligent Design, 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.

(Source: <a href="http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf)" target="_blank">http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf)</a>

I may of course be wrong, but I find the smell of mushrooms overwhelming.

fG

Principia

Oh look. It's King Leeernard of the ARNies' Basement. I wondered when he would have the balls to come here and whine directly to us, rather than post (and then apologize for) hist little funny threads at ARN that have almost zero readership.

Hey, HW, good pickup on the exchange between our cheerleading mutual acquaintance here and this guy Luke, who by the looks of it is another YEC dumbass. It looks like Leeeernard likes to play moderator whenever he can, interjecting himself in the most random situations so that he can come off as the neutral peacemaker. What a goof, uh I mean fluke.

Of course, the irony is that Leeernard is complaining about rudeness in that thread? LOL. But, notice how swiftly he changes the subject.

Hey, Dr. Lao. Nice to see you here. Try not to take it too personally from Leeernard. We both know why he has a thing against you, and it certainly ain't because he's all-right up in the noggin' if ya know what I mean . Gosh, it almost sounds like talking to someone really familiar... Hahahaha

Of course, Leeernard can't. The best he can do is play the role of Gina (CL's GF) -- that of a faithful, absent-minded, obstinate supporter who says nothing of substance.

EDIT: Speaking of which, <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000243" target="_blank">here</a> we see that Leeernard is back at it again, trying to make ARNie into a little boy's club (and that one exception). Aww, he is trying to rebuild his dysfunctional 'home.'

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

Bubba

Getting back to arn, does anyone notice the same sort of persecution complex here?

<a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000467" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000467</a>

I would think that accusing Darwinian Evolutionists of intellectual terrorism would be the last thing one would want to do if one wanted rational debate.

Also...

Posted 11/12/2002, on page three of the "Don't Confuse Evolution With Science" Thread:

Evolskeptic: "[To SLP] When I have nothing better to do with my time than waste it sparring with dishonest, mouth-foaming ideologues like you and Homer J. Simpson, I'll let you both know."

Two weeks later, I still have much better things to do."

One of their more mindless followers responding when cornered on another BB by Scott page, tgamble, myself and a few other evo's. Apparently if you believe in ID when the debate gets tough you just cry "foul" and do a Johnsonesque whine about the biases of your opponents.

These people do not impress me with their intellectual honesty in the least.

If they really wanted rational debate, we could provide it. I almost think it would be good to see an open debate between one of the smarter posters here (Rufus, pz, DT, etc.) and someone like Langan on a neutral third party BB.

Or, it would be nice to see one of them debate us in the Formal Debates forum here at Infidels.

Bubba

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: Bubba ]</p>

Clutch

Whoever it was who'd advocated just boycotting boards like ARN -- well, this whole Langan-idiot epicycle is powerful support for the idea.

Left to themselves, without even the appearance of some genuine scientific controversy, and without the regular injections of actual content from anti-ID-ologists, these buffoons will elect a half-wit like Langan as their intellectual leader, then collapse in a heap of bafflegab and vicious sectarianism. The trajectory of all forms of theism, it seems.

Bubba

Actually I'd like to see this trajic little comedy keep going just for amusement reasons.

Bubba

leonarde

Postedd by pz: That's just it though: where are your IDists? Your
creationists? (And I don't mean the atheists-in-
"Christian troll"-clothing). When you do have someone of that sort post here (Vanderzyden for instance), there's a hail of abuse thrown up at the person. Pz recently urged even Douglas to stay away from II. How can you have a "discussion"
of religion, biological origins, or anything else
when your PRIMARY focus is invective???

Calling people "idiots" and "morons" doesn't constitute "discussion" of even the meagreest sort.

Cheers!

Principia

And there we go again, King Leeernard riding his moral high horse. Shameless hypocrite that he is.

Principia

Let's see... this is what umpteenth time that Leernard has graced us with his presence on this forum? I am willing to wager that he will still continue to avoid presenting any evidence or arguments for ID. Why? Because he is a whiner.

As Oolon once said to him: "It's time to put up, or shut up."

EDIT: anyone can look for himself. Do a search on this E/C forum, with leonarde's ID: 6226. Look at each link, and determine for yourself, whether he has said anything of substance about ID or evolution... or if he's here just to whine about Infidels.

EDIT: [edited right back out]

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p>

excreationist

This is from Chris Langan's <a href="http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Q&A/Archive.html#Souls" target="_blank">CTMU Q&A</a>:
I think that is one of his most ridiculous claims - that is fairly simple to understand... he's claiming that sometimes people can remember past lives... and that somehow fits into his theory.

leonarde

Partial post by Principia: The "discussion" continues....

Cheers!