• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

"Super Genius" comes up with revolutionary new theory for the universe?

I remember reading about this guy quite a while ago when he created quite a stir with his knowledge and theory. I couldn't understand it, so I don't know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1952) is an American autodidact whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at between 195 and 210.[1] Billed by some media sources as "the smartest man in America",[2] he rose to prominence in 1999 while working as a bouncer on Long Island. Langan has developed his own "theory of the relationship between mind and reality" which he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)".[3][4]

Not to diss him, but quarky's single quark hypothesis is way arfing smarter then his lame-ass crap.
 
"Super Genius" comes up with revolutionary new theory for the universe?

I believe that's supposed to be spelled "Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupeeeeer Geeeeeeeeniuuus".

I worked with a guy who claimed to have made 800's on the LSAT and had a doctorate in philosophy.

Impressive. Especially considering the max score on the LSAT is 180.

More like lipstick on an anus and asking the public to give it a big wet one - with tongue.:jaw-dropp

That's one way to polish a turd.
 

Mmmhm. Someone in the comments mentioned this bit, quoted as being written by Langan anonymously. It caught my eye since it seems to show some serious misunderstandings of scientific and mathematical concepts:

Since the CTMU cannot be proven under the traditional scientific method (involving an observer and that which is observed because in the CTMU observer = observed) it proposes to prove itself. Hence the CTMU can be thought of as supertautological; an axiom of choice; or self-proving.

I'm not sure what he means by "observer = observed", but if this means the two are of no distinct nature, isn't that no different from conventional physics, where everything, observer and object, are both made from the same matter, part of the same universe, and governed completely by the same laws? If so, it sure doesn't make conventional physics "unprovable". Even conventional QM theory says that "measuring" or "observing" an "observable" actually causes a change, at least in mainline interpretations like Copenhagen (though I could be wrong about this -- remember, QM is a slippy beast to understand and I'm not sure if I totally understand in myself and someone said if you think you understand QM you probably don't :) ). This doesn't render QM "unprovable" by "traditional scientific method" -- indeed, QM is so good that it has given us a great deal of modern technology like lasers and computer chips -- WAY more than can be said for this "CTMU" stuff. Does anyone know what he's supposed to be getting at here?

That last bit about "an axiom of choice; or self-proving" doesn't make any sense at all: axioms don't "prove" themselves. If we say that AC, to use his seeming example, is true, that's essentially by "fiat" as far as I understand it, though one could make intuitive/philosophical/etc. arguments for/against its "truth" or "reality" (One could also use a different axiom system in which it is possible to prove AC, e.g. we could take some axiom like GCH or V=L on top of ZF, or even something totally different to ZF altogether -- but all those axioms are again, "fiat" truths insofar as logical "proofs" go, and they are certainly not a self-proof of AC from AC!) However such are not really part of mathematics, instead I'd guess they would be more like "meta-mathematics" at best. Unless he wants to somehow expand the umbrella of math to include that stuff... Regardless, in any case, AC doesn't "prove itself" and so it is not a valid analogy.

If he's saying his theory's "truth" is determined in the same way as that of AC, then he doesn't understand how that truth is "determined" -- namely, by fiat since it is the choice of the mathematician to use or not use it as being "true" in the foundational axioms for mathematics. Because if you put that in there, then he'd be saying his theory is true 'cause he says so -- which you don't do insofar as discovering laws of reality goes! Unless he's somehow abusing the term "axiom of choice" as something other than the analogy I thought he used it for, in which case he's doing a really poor job of communicating whatever his ideas are. If there's any good idea buried in this at all, it's not going to help anyone if the language is so poor. Regardless of the worth of this analogy (which is really poor), a "self-proving" theory or tautology doesn't really help anything unless you can show it corresponds to reality. Yet isn't that what "scientific proof" is all about?

Also, I smell some lack of originality in these ideas. There's a bit that makes it sound like this theory is saying the universe "creates itself", which reminds me of some old Indian philosophical systems/viewpoints, for example.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone think the 'super genius' is worth spending any more time on?

Sort of...

In as much as we can be even more super-genius than him.

Have i ever told you my theory of everything minus one?

All its missing is something. Something I can't quite put my finger on.
The same finger I cut off with a band saw, accidentally.
 
As near as I can make out, he has discovered some branch of Buddhism. Wrestling the ineffable.

I am honestly reminded of Phaedrus in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

The whole thing makes me sad.
 
I just noticed his site, and read a bit about his ctmu... of course, as I do not belong to the "inquisitors movement" here in JREF :D I can see that he has interesting things to say.. I don't care if his ideas solve any problem, I'm far more pragmatic... and having no ontology to defend, I can read and take what rings a bell on me, and forget the rest.

All in all, he is right in several things, which, I have to agree, are to subtle to be tackled, specially by those who I call "naive materialists" (not talking about anyone in particular) who like to defend some theories as "absolute truths".

For instance, he talks about science as a body of ideas or beliefs that deal with what is called "reality", and he acknowledge something that seems very difficult to grasp, that theories and concepts are abstract constructions that rely on logical properties, and so they are independent from that which they attempt to explain.

Things don't fall because the force of gravity pulls them down... things fall .. and we relate to ourselves how or why with our theoretical accounts.



 
Last edited:
Yes it is the "where do you stand" problem. Beyond that, is there any insight on offer though? I haven't found anything yet.
 
I just noticed his site, and read a bit about his ctmu... of course, as I do not belong to the "inquisitors movement" here in JREF :D I can see that he has interesting things to say.. I don't care if his ideas solve any problem, I'm far more pragmatic... and having no ontology to defend, I can read and take what rings a bell on me, and forget the rest.

All in all, he is right in several things, which, I have to agree, are to subtle to be tackled, specially by those who I call "naive materialists" (not talking about anyone in particular) who like to defend some theories as "absolute truths".

I'm not sure who here says any theory is some kind of absolute truth. If anything, the questions asked of proposed "alternative" theories are: what is the supporting evidence, does it explain all the previous evidence, is it internally consistent, etc. Science is about evidence and rigor, it is not about absolute truths or dogmas. Claims of absolute truths are more in the realm of religion, not science. If "alternative" theories do not make the grade, it's likely because the evidence was not good enough. E.g. many such claims are based on anecdotes. But anecdotes are a far cry from hard evidence. They can be faked very easily, and even if they aren't, since the only thing we have is words, we can never know what exactly it was they saw, just what they thought, which may not really be what it was.

For instance, he talks about science as a body of ideas or beliefs that deal with what is called "reality", and he acknowledge something that seems very difficult to grasp, that theories and concepts are abstract constructions that rely on logical properties, and so they are independent from that which they attempt to explain.

Things don't fall because the force of gravity pulls them down... things fall .. and we relate to ourselves how or why with our theoretical accounts.

This does not seem like a difficult thing to grasp at all. Theories are not actually "reality", but the models that we have created which give the best fit to available evidence. If new evidence is found the model cannot accommodate, the theory is tossed. But this is more a philosophical point than anything. How is it useful or important insofar as "revolutionizing" science goes?
 
Last edited:
In 500 years, they're going to uncover his works and conclude that he was the Thomas Aquinas of our time.
 
You encapsulate yourself nicely there.

hi there PixyMisa

Yep, thing is, I do not believe he has a theory, but since I don't have any ontology to defend I do not care about his words that much. All I did was to read here and there, to see if he has anything relevant to say that had any meaningful insight for me.
 
I'm not sure who here says any theory is some kind of absolute truth.

Oh don't worry you will know them. Some people in here are not really skeptics, but fundamentalists that need to have certain knowledge to feel comfortable. As being a religious fundamentalist is seen as "uncool" they resort to being fundamentalists about "science" (more what they understand by it). Not to worry, JREF also have interesting and very intelligent people around.

This does not seem like a difficult thing to grasp at all. Theories are not actually "reality", but the models that we have created which give the best fit to available evidence. If new evidence is found the model cannot accommodate, the theory is tossed.

Nice nice.. but you really think that this is general knowledge? think about truths, people LOVE truths. Think about the relation between what is true and what is real.

I'm far more interested in what happens when no new evidence is found? Humans tend to be dogmatic (no, it is not a flaw of character, it is simply human nature) and so, when something is believed for a long period of time, somehow it transforms itself from a theory to "reality". Think about the flat earth. Was it an idea? something that was believed only momentarily? or.. a hard truth? (at the time of course).


But this is more a philosophical point than anything. How is it useful or important insofar as "revolutionizing" science goes?

I didn't understood the thing about revolutionizing anything.
 
Last edited:
Sort of...

In as much as we can be even more super-genius than him.

Have i ever told you my theory of everything minus one?

All its missing is something. Something I can't quite put my finger on.
The same finger I cut off with a band saw, accidentally.
.
The band saw is considered one of the safest machine tools in the shop.
I've come close to getting a skin abrasion, but never did the whole nine yards.
Did amputate the last 1/4" of my left middle finger with an X-Acto knife a couple years back.
The doc at the ER sewed it back on, and there's no evidence of any trauma there at all.
Could it be "The missing finger of fate fails to point, and moves on"?
 
I noticed that someone else mentioned in the second-to-last comment on the blog page (http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/two_for_one_crackpot_physics_a.php) that they managed to understand what it was saying, but that it's "subtle" and you need a "broad" education to grasp what it means. What do you make of that?
.
No matter how much experience one has with broads, there's always a need to learn more.
Both sadly and fortunately, there's an unending supply of broads to work with.
 
If it's on magnetic media, not much chance.
Get it down on good quality print media.
We can still read Chaucer's and Willy Shakespeare's stuff..
But even 3-1/2" disks are damn near unreadable today, due to the lack of disk readers!
 
If it's on magnetic media, not much chance.
Get it down on good quality print media.
We can still read Chaucer's and Willy Shakespeare's stuff..
But even 3-1/2" disks are damn near unreadable today, due to the lack of disk readers!


Check out the etched-disk concept at the Rosetta Project: http://rosettaproject.org/disk/concept/

which is part of the Long Now Foundation efforts: http://www.longnow.org/

which is working on a very cool 10,000-year mechanical clock: http://www.longnow.org/clock/
 
Etching a disk (tablet) is why we have Gilgamesh.
My VHS tapes from the '80s are disintegrating and many are unusable.
This month's NatGeo has a short article on a cunieform tablet with "Enki" telling "Atram-Hasis" to build a coracle, common in the area then and now, not a boat.
 
I think current ideas revolve around changing within an envelope of possibilities coupled with a sort of default. So, for instance, I could make myself become left handed (having been born a righty) and it would take some applied effort, but whether or not I could ever manage to play the harp properly might depend on my finger span, something I couldn't change.

I don't know how plastic human personality is in this way. Could I create a tyrant out of a pleasant little girl with the right psychological drivers? If mental gifts in the form of IQ are expressed at an early age, I suspect other mental events might be as well, although, as I said before, I am not at all well-read in developmental psychology and how trauma shapes personality.

We do know that personality degrades with physical brain events like a steel rod through the noggin or chemical treatment. So the argument is one about possibilities and whether or not we become less malleable with age.

Getting back to the OP though, I'm going to give his paper a shot because of his lauded IQ. It's a good exercise, along the lines of the Unibomber Manifesto -- not that I think going in there is anything criminal or wrongheaded, but rather that it is a worldview from someone who's brighter than I am.

I think that personality is a poorly defined contruct at best, it generally refers to the general mood of a person, their general arousal level, their response to stress and then some very complex behaviors: expression of empathy and the like.

So one level does involve the biological responses, but most of it would be way conditioned.
 
hi there PixyMisa

Yep, thing is, I do not believe he has a theory, but since I don't have any ontology to defend I do not care about his words that much. All I did was to read here and there, to see if he has anything relevant to say that had any meaningful insight for me.
Which is the precise opposite of pragmatism.

Which was my point.

Now somewhat belaboured.
 
Oh don't worry you will know them. Some people in here are not really skeptics, but fundamentalists that need to have certain knowledge to feel comfortable. As being a religious fundamentalist is seen as "uncool" they resort to being fundamentalists about "science" (more what they understand by it). Not to worry, JREF also have interesting and very intelligent people around.



Nice nice.. but you really think that this is general knowledge? think about truths, people LOVE truths. Think about the relation between what is true and what is real.

I'm far more interested in what happens when no new evidence is found? Humans tend to be dogmatic (no, it is not a flaw of character, it is simply human nature) and so, when something is believed for a long period of time, somehow it transforms itself from a theory to "reality". Think about the flat earth. Was it an idea? something that was believed only momentarily? or.. a hard truth? (at the time of course).

When no new evidence is found, what can you change theories to, anyway? I suppose one could try coming up with alternative theories that give the same results as the current ones (otherwise new evidence would be required), but what good would changing to those *do*, exactly? And what would motivate choosing any one over any other?

I think "dogmatism" occurs when someone does not want to accept new evidence (even just new to them). This happens all the time with fundamentalist religions, e.g. there's piles and piles of evidence to support evolution, yet hardline "creationists" staunchly reject it all. Lack of change is not itself dogmatism -- dogmatism is active *resistance* to change in the face of a motivating force like new evidence, resistance that is not based on rational thought. That last part is important. For example, it is not dogmatic to resist the idea that the moon is made of cheese: rational thought tells us otherwise -- e.g. observing the moon shows it to be very un-cheeselike, and we've even been there and brought back samples. It *is* dogmatic, however, to resist evolutionary theory 'cause I've been taught by my pastor that you've gotta take that Bible literally and as a totally infallible revelation from God so if it says the Earth is 6000 years old and God made Adam and Eve and there was no death 'till they sinned then that's the way it is -- "science" be damned! The fossils? Pah! Planted there by Satan! Or God the Deceiver, depending on which church I was taught in. Or it was Noah's Flood, or any other number of silly ideas to attempt to push away everything that threatens the dogmas in question.

As for someone here being dogmatic about "science", perhaps, but I'm not sure who'd be it...
 
Last edited:
When no new evidence is found, what can you change theories to, anyway? I suppose one could try coming up with alternative theories that give the same results as the current ones (otherwise new evidence would be required), but what good would changing to those *do*, exactly? And what would motivate choosing any one over any other?

There is one good reason; Epistemology. Taking for granted that common knowledge is synonymous with THE TRUTHtm leads to obscurantism, inquisitions and witch hunting. And yes, people tend to take their beliefs as truths (it is how we are hardwired).

I think "dogmatism" occurs when someone does not want to accept new evidence (even just new to them).

I think dogmatism occurs when someone reacts with aggression when confronted by people with different beliefs.

This happens all the time with fundamentalist religions, e.g. there's piles and piles of evidence to support evolution, yet hardline "creationists" staunchly reject it all. Lack of change is not itself dogmatism -- dogmatism is active *resistance* to change in the face of a motivating force like new evidence, resistance that is not based on rational thought. That last part is important.

I have problems with this assertion. For instance, it neglects the way humans relate to ideas, specially those which are taken as "knowledge". When somebody can't see what other considers evidence is because their worldviews is not able to apprehend such evidence, this is the easiest way to put it. It is not because they are *resisting* a higher truth, or whatever, is because they are unable to see it (the way you see it). Why? because they look at it from a different perspective. They see a different thing.

Being capable of perceiving evidences as evidences, require training, learning, understanding.. until, somehow, the point of view is changed.

Speaking in general, any fundamentalist (religious or not) will actively *resist* to change. Change is dangerous and means they are wrong, and biologically, we are hardwired to believe we are right, it is a survival aspect of our psyche (extending to our cultures, in a broader sense).

It *is* dogmatic, however, to resist evolutionary theory 'cause I've been taught by my pastor that you've gotta take that Bible literally and as a totally infallible revelation from God so if it says the Earth is 6000 years old and God made Adam and Eve and there was no death 'till they sinned then that's the way it is -- "science" be damned! The fossils? Pah! Planted there by Satan! Or God the Deceiver, depending on which church I was taught in. Or it was Noah's Flood, or any other number of silly ideas to attempt to push away everything that threatens the dogmas in question.

Exactly, you miss an important point here. For them, their theory is correct because they can deal with the evidence! "planted by satan". Why do they need to change?

A last point, any "evidence" needs interpretation, and the interpretation comes (or not) with the theoretical account everyone has to face the world. And the problems begin here of course, subjectivity, bias, fear, etc.
 
Last edited:
Oh don't worry you will know them. Some people in here are not really skeptics, but fundamentalists that need to have certain knowledge to feel comfortable. As being a religious fundamentalist is seen as "uncool" they resort to being fundamentalists about "science" (more what they understand by it). Not to worry, JREF also have interesting and very intelligent people around.



Nice nice.. but you really think that this is general knowledge? think about truths, people LOVE truths. Think about the relation between what is true and what is real.

I'm far more interested in what happens when no new evidence is found? Humans tend to be dogmatic (no, it is not a flaw of character, it is simply human nature) and so, when something is believed for a long period of time, somehow it transforms itself from a theory to "reality". Think about the flat earth. Was it an idea? something that was believed only momentarily? or.. a hard truth? (at the time of course).




I didn't understood the thing about revolutionizing anything.

I agree with a lot of what you say. It will cause me trouble, even.

My take on reality is much less specific than some of the hard evidence guys.
As long as I don't violate any of the Laws, I feel like it's safe to imagine the what's next-ness.

I'm nearly certain that we're in for tons of cool surprises. I've got some hunches, but they don't matter. Its cool to have hunches, though; and toss them around in one's head;read up on it; maybe write to some freak once in awhile.

When I was in college, my physics and chem and math profs were seriously the stiffest, dorkiest, no fun people I ever met. Crew-cuts; pocket protectors; never been laid in their sorry lives; etc.
But they were damn true to the program. No B.S.

None of them was ever going to do a thing but rehash the stuff they never came up with themselves. A realm utterly devoid of creativity. It shocked me, frankly.

Hopefully, its not like that anymore.
Though some scientists tend to put a fence around what's been proven; in their mind-field; and protect it with electric fence; even razor wire, so that it can't be violated or trespassed upon.

They become incurious, and simply knowledgeable.
That sucks so bad to be around, that it pushes otherwise brilliant people to woo-ville, for revenge.
 
Being full-on, pig-headed wrong is one of the magical paths to creativity. What is harder is to be simultaneously wrong and uniquely so.

Wrong isn't the enemy, banal is.
 
There is one good reason; Epistemology. Taking for granted that common knowledge is synonymous with THE TRUTHtm leads to obscurantism, inquisitions and witch hunting. And yes, people tend to take their beliefs as truths (it is how we are hardwired).

So "epistemology" says one should keep cycling through different theories when no new evidence is available, just to reinforce that they're not "The Truth(TM)"? And if such believing is hard-wired, then there is no getting away from it. It will happen anyways.

I think dogmatism occurs when someone reacts with aggression when confronted by people with different beliefs.

To me such a thing would seem more like a "symptom".

I have problems with this assertion. For instance, it neglects the way humans relate to ideas, specially those which are taken as "knowledge". When somebody can't see what other considers evidence is because their worldviews is not able to apprehend such evidence, this is the easiest way to put it. It is not because they are *resisting* a higher truth, or whatever, is because they are unable to see it (the way you see it). Why? because they look at it from a different perspective. They see a different thing.

So then what's the problem? There's nothing wrong with having a different viewpoint in and of itself. That's why I said that "dogmatism" involves *resistance*.

Being capable of perceiving evidences as evidences, require training, learning, understanding.. until, somehow, the point of view is changed.

What would they be perceiving them as before this "change" is made, other than evidences?

Speaking in general, any fundamentalist (religious or not) will actively *resist* to change. Change is dangerous and means they are wrong, and biologically, we are hardwired to believe we are right, it is a survival aspect of our psyche (extending to our cultures, in a broader sense).

And it is that active "resistance" that I call the "dogmatism".

Exactly, you miss an important point here. For them, their theory is correct because they can deal with the evidence! "planted by satan". Why do they need to change?

Well, beliefs about the origins of life aren't as problematic as, say, other parts of their belief system. For example, the "satan" stuff will often be associated with everyone who doesn't accept their brand of religion burning in hell forever and ever. That is something destructive to spread around. Wouldn't you think it should be stopped?

Another problem could arise if they think they can somehow make things "better" by teaching creationist theory. Creationist theory has led to precisely zero advances in knowledge, technology, etc., unlike evolutionary theory. So evolutionary theory is superior in this sense. If creationist theory were to displace it, then all that advancement would simply stop.

Because the evolutionary theory works so well, explains so much in a consistent instead of ad-hoc fashion, and even predicts discoveries of evidence in advance, it is considered to be closer to "reality" than creationist "theory" is. This of course does not make it absolute truth as nothing in science is such. If someone has a truly better theory than evolutionary theory, I'd be curious to hear about it.

A last point, any "evidence" needs interpretation, and the interpretation comes (or not) with the theoretical account everyone has to face the world. And the problems begin here of course, subjectivity, bias, fear, etc.

And so, what, exactly? There's never going to be a perfect theory. The problems you mention are an inescapable consequence of using evidence. One has to compensate for them. If we didn't use evidence we'd have no knowledge at all. Imperfect knowledge is better than none at all -- and all our knowledge is imperfect. So we have to use evidence.
 
Another problem could arise if they think they can somehow make things "better" by teaching creationist theory. Creationist theory has led to precisely zero advances in knowledge, technology, etc., unlike evolutionary theory. So evolutionary theory is superior in this sense. If creationist theory were to displace it, then all that advancement would simply stop.

Because the evolutionary theory works so well, explains so much in a consistent instead of ad-hoc fashion, and even predicts discoveries of evidence in advance, it is considered to be closer to "reality" than creationist "theory" is. This of course does not make it absolute truth as nothing in science is such. If someone has a truly better theory than evolutionary theory, I'd be curious to hear about it.
That's exactly right. Science works, in a way nothing else does, because it is tested against observable reality. We accept it for purely pragmatic reasons.

If you don't care about what works, about what is real, then you are of course free to believe whatever you like. Allele frequency owes you no favours.
 
Back
Top Bottom