Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 11-26-2002, 04:11 PM

LOL! The planet's two Superbrains (Chris Langan and Ian Goddard) are <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000483;p=2" target="_blank">squabbling</a> over their respective contributions to the Theory of Everything. And to think one of them was whining about the peer-review publication process.

Quote:

CML: I don�t appreciate your venting your concerns about citation in public, as though you were somehow shortchanged. The next time you do so, I'm afraid we�ll have to be going our separate ways. [...] As I'm sure you know, we all have our theories. I happened to like yours from the moment Johnny pointed it out to me...not because I need to pull "your" components out of it, but because you seem to have independently reproduced some of my conclusions on a philosophical level (as have a few others). For this, I credited and continue to credit you with outstanding insight. But if you appreciate this, you might want to exercise a bit more restraint.
I understand that you may be disappointed over your lack of due recognition � that�s a very common condition among those with theories that have been ignored, and you know I speak from experience � but you need to vent your impatience in another direction.

Quote:

Ian: Sorry if I am incorrect in assuming to have first outlined what I've assumed to be my ideas. It seems illogical on its face to believe you lifted my ideas given that you published them in my name. As you note, you've stated that our ideas are similar, I just never realized how similar. I've not seen your 1989 paper and don't find it on the Internet, and nothing I've seen includes any mention of syndiffeonesis.[ ... ] Well, even if I was well-known for my ideas I'd raise the issue if I thought I might have been cited more directly but was not. I think most people would. I appreciate your kind comments now and in the past and have done what I can to return your kindness. I'm very sorry if citing similarity in our work and having suggested citation might put that at risk. But I feel it's not inappropriate to have done so. If you can prove that you defined syndiffeonesis before my similar work, I'll cite it in any future similar work of my own.

Guess Superbrain isn't as smart as he makes himself out to be.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

pz · 11-26-2002, 04:19 PM

What a pair of idiots, arguing over who came up with this really stupid idea of "syndiffeonesis" first.

Happy Wonderer · 11-26-2002, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz:
What a pair of idiots, arguing over who came up with this really stupid idea of "syndiffeonesis" first.

Oh God, this is too funny! I typed "syndiffenonesis" into google and found this beauty of a paper by Langan
<a href="http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf" target="_blank">The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality</a>.

A new kind of reality all right

. I didn't smoke that sort of stuff in college (maybe I should have...)

Quote:

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 a full self-configuration and self execution (reflexive read-write functionality.)

Reality is a suicidal plug 'n play Java applet?

HW

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]

Xeluan · 11-26-2002, 05:24 PM

And I really like this remark from Superbrains:
"Of course, if you try to take credit for the CTMU or any of its major components, I can’t promise that you won’t regret it. But perhaps this is just a misunderstanding after all."

It seems like that acceptance into any of the Mega IQ societies is related more to overblown self importance and ego than IQ.

Xeluan

KC · 11-26-2002, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xeluan:
And I really like this remark from Superbrains:
"Of course, if you try to take credit for the CTMU or any of its major components, I can’t promise that you won’t regret it. But perhaps this is just a misunderstanding after all."

It seems like that acceptance into any of the Mega IQ societies is related more to overblown self importance and ego than IQ.

Xeluan

I'm glad you caught that. I saw it too, and was going back to post it here, when I noticed Langan had edited it out...LOL I guess old Mod4 realized it sounded too much like a threat...LOL

Cheers,

KC

pz · 11-26-2002, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer:

Reality is a suicidal plug 'n play Java applet?

Yeesh. I was just browsing through that ghastly CTMU document. What a horror -- it's a guy babbling endlessly in jargon, with no substance at all behind his claims.

It also doesn't seem to be anything new. It seems to be a gussied up version of the New Agey idea that you "create your own universe". I kind of expect him to start telling us about the virtues of crystals and astrology next.

I also noticed that on Langan's Noeosis page, he lists as contributors:

Phillip Rushton and Arthur Jensen: two racists who have long been making 'bell curve' kinds of arguments

and

Tom Van Flandern: best known for his ludicrous, extravagant claims about the Face on Mars.

These guys are nuts.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]

Happy Wonderer · 11-26-2002, 06:20 PM

Wading through the paper I found some really neat diagrams.

I can't pull the pictures but here is the text of diagram 1, which shows a dot, a filled circle, a blue arrow, and a circle with a dot and a blue arrow:

Quote:

Diagram 1: 1. Indeterminacy 2. External determinacy 3a. Self-determinacy 3b. Intrinsic self-determinacy (the effectual aspect of the object or event has simply been moved inside the causal aspect, permitting the internalization of the blue arrow of determinacy and making causality endomorphic.)

"May the blue arrow of determinacy be with you"

Damn, now I have to include the text above the diagram, it is precious. Arguing that there is a solution to the dilemma of "either events are related because they cause each other, or they aren't":

Quote:

But there is another possiblity after all: self-determinancy. Self-determinancy is like a circuitous boundary separating the poles of the above dichotomy... a reflexive and therefore closed boundary, the formation of which involves neither preexisting laws nor external structure. Thus, it is the type of causal attribution suitable for a perfectly self-contained system. Self-determinancy is a deep but subtle concept (deep is the word for it) owing largely to the fact that unlike either determinancy or randomness, it is a source of bona fide meaning. Where a system determines its own composition, properties and evolution independently of external laws or structures, it can determine its own meaning and ensure by its self-configuration that its inhabitants are crucially implicated therein.

Diagram 2 is even better, it explains telic feedback (ie, goal-driven feedback. WTF?)

Diagram 4 takes the cake.

Quote:

The boundary of a directed 1-dimensional line segment consists of its 0-dimensional endpoints, which separate the line from its complement (the space surrounding the line.) Oooh, deep maths here.) The initial point represents the "debt" required to start the line and is thus given a value of -1, while the terminal point represents the "payoff" for completing the line and is given a value of +1. When the initial and terminal points of the line are identified as indicated by the curved arrow, the result is a closed line bounding a planar disk (1b) (Where did the planar disk come from? Frisbee from God, I guess.) Because the endpoints now (Now? How long does it take to draw a line?) coincide, they sum to zero and no longer separate the line from its complement; thus, the 0-dimensional boundary of the 1-dimensional boundary of the 2-dimensional disk is 0.

Are these guys for real, or is this a jabberwock contest? If they are for real, how much meth do you think they go through in an average week?

HW

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]

KC · 11-27-2002, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer:
Wading through the paper I found some really neat diagrams.

I can't pull the pictures but here is the text of diagram 1, which shows a dot, a filled circle, a blue arrow, and a circle with a dot and a blue arrow:

Are these guys for real, or is this a jabberwock contest? If they are for real, how much meth do you think they go through in an average week?

HW

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]

You obviously do not have the mental horsepower to understand it.

Cheers,

KC

Happy Wonderer · 11-27-2002, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KCdgw:


You obviously do not have the mental horsepower to understand it.

Cheers,

KC

Damn, I knew I should have sprung for that higher-horsepower brain rather than saving money on the economy model. Do you think that if I used higher-octane fuel, I'd get it?

HW

pz · 11-27-2002, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer:
Damn, I knew I should have sprung for that higher-horsepower brain rather than saving money on the economy model. Do you think that if I used higher-octane fuel, I'd get it?

Not enough. A goodly dose of nitrous might get you operating at the right level of performance, though.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-26-2002, 04:19 PM	#2
pz Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Morris, MN Posts: 3,341	What a pair of idiots, arguing over who came up with this really stupid idea of "syndiffeonesis" first.

11-26-2002, 05:24 PM	#4
Xeluan Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Some Pub In East Gosford, Australia Posts: 831	And I really like this remark from Superbrains: "Of course, if you try to take credit for the CTMU or any of its major components, I can’t promise that you won’t regret it. But perhaps this is just a misunderstanding after all." It seems like that acceptance into any of the Mega IQ societies is related more to overblown self importance and ego than IQ. Xeluan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.