KC

It seems Langan couldn't stay away from ARN for long, and 'dayton' has actually managed to engage him long enough to actually explore his ideas a bit more carefully:
<a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000504" target="_blank">Geometry/Logic Thread</a>

Dayton has gotten to he heart of Langan's ideas through a discussion of geometry and logic, and frankly, Langan is beginning to falter under a withering cross-examination. Good stuff.

I'm kinda ashamed to admit that I have been reading Langan's paper myself-- I'm about 2/3 done-- and its becoming clearer what the big guy is saying, but there is a bigass hole that has yet to be resolved:

In the paper, and in the ARN threads, CML keeps saying his theory eliminates the need to resort to a 'it's turtles all the way down' argument, because his theory uses what he calls 'telic recursion' to avoid it. Yet, he clearly talks about the universe having to begin in a state of 'unbounded telesis', or UBT, a 'primordial' (his term) state of infinite potential and choice, and that the Universe uses recursion, or process by which choices from that infinte potential are actualized BEGINS as a way of relieving the 'stress' (again, his term) of UBT. Well, what CAUSES this 'stress'? WHY does telic recursion have to BEGIN choosing from all of this infinite potential? Isn't this the beginning of an 'it's turtles all the way down' argument?

Maybe he explains himself eventually, or maybe I missed an important point. Has anyone read the paper and know? I can't stand the suspense

Cheers,

KC

[pz: fixed url]

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p>

faded_Glory

You are reading it? Just looking at the abstract makes me dizzy!

But, if you manage to the end I wouldn't mind if you could give us a synopsis in some language I can understand. Langan refuses to do this, and I haven't made up my mind if this is because there is nothing there to summarise, or if he genuinely thinks it is crystal clear as it stands.

fG

KC

Yeah, the abstract is a bit forbidding, especially since he has this irritating habit of inventing words like 'infocognition' and 'syndiffeonesis'. But he does define them, if a bit sloppily. He also suffers from the same quirk that Dembski does, that is, he can't resist inventing laws and principles. One of the problems I'm having with his reasoning is that he will declare a principle, then use it as if it is valid, and yet for the life of me I cannot see where it is logically derived. That's why I'm hoping there is some place later where that is done. If not, then on my second pass I will note it.

The paper isn't as forbidding as it looks. However, there is always present the feeling that a shell game is being played logically. But I can't say that for sure until I see the whole thing.

Cheers,

KC

Principia

I searched the paper for the crucial uniqueness theorem that makes all of his deductive arguments about the 'theory of everything' worthwhile. In other words, why must his model stand above all others and stand alone? Couldn't find it. Anyone? See, the problem is that without this crucial bit, there is no logical reason at all to prefer his model vs. any other model. Empiricism strikes back!

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

Principia

On a side note, I think KC meant to link to <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000504" target="_blank">this thread</a> in the OP.

pz

I agree. I haven't read it with much care, but skimmed through it all. It's very thin, but inflated to an extreme with pompous neologisms and self-declared truisms. I saw absolutely nothing of any utility anywhere in it, so I'm sure it will fit in well with the Dembskiites.

Principia

And the <a href="http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000239&p=1" target="_blank">ToE battles</a> begin!

pz

Dear sweet merciful jebus. Are all of these people chronic masturbators or something?

KC

I'm sure somebody is gonna open up a can of whupass on this guy for being so impertinent as to think that Langan's ideas are similar to his, rather than the other way around

KC

The Pixie

I tried to question Chris Langan about CTMU at ARN, but he stopped replying after a while. I have read the paper through properly, and it does become understandable after a while, though the logic is unconvincing.

The basic idea is tat the universe is evolving. Events in the future affect the past, allowing the intelligent telic god universe to make a conscious decision and to select a prefered future. This seems to occur at the quantum level; whereever mainstream science sees random (or magic, as Langan calls it) there is the telic god universe choosing an outcome.

One claim is that maths and logic are a form of generalised language, and as maths and logic are the basis of the laws of nature, it follows that reality is defined by language. This allows him to throw around words like syntactic and grammatic in an impressively bewildering manner, without (as far as I can see) actually helping the theory.

There is also an interesting idea in conspansion, which says that the universe is not getting bigger, but everything inside it is getting smaller (in fairness, I think this is offered as alternative perspective).

There is also some logical sleight of hand, equating reality with the universe, and non-determinacy with random. Whether the result of sloppy thinking or deliberate I could not say.

The "syndiffeonesis" thing is interesting too. This is a relationship that is true of any two objects one can conceive. By the "Reality Principle", to conceive it is to be affected by it, and thus forces its inclusion in reality, so we have the sameness, and yet they are two objects, not one, so we have a difference. On the face of it so simple, but...

Langan claims that syndiffeonesis is a paradox (and not trivial as we all suspected). Further, if you base a theory on a paradoxical relationship, then that provides immunity to paradoxes. This impressive feat is known as paradoxiforming, but sadly Langan does not elaborate on why this might be so.

The Pixie