Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia;  Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.

Post 37. 05/25/2018 continued  . . .

Another Theory of Everything

God Is Supraphysical

A higher level of cognition includes human thought. So he identifies homo sapiens as “agents or telors”, which are “observer-participants in the ongoing creation of reality.” Thus humans are co-creators in evolution, in that they can supplement natural laws with “meta-laws”, that I would call “cultural norms”. Of course, this does not mean that humans have god-like creative powers, because their “ability is constrained by factors including locality, interference, and the fact that it must occur within the probabilistic limits of the laws of physics.” In other words, humans are bound by the restrictions of space-time, while G*D is unbounded in the state of Enfernity.

The highest kind of cognition is what he calls the “global level” of “reality itself”. Yet again, I object to the use of “reality” or “global” to describe the mind of God. That's because those terms typically refer to space-time reality with its physical boundaries. I prefer to refer to the meta-reality of G*D as “Ideality”, because it is characterized by pure Information without physical restrictions. Nevertheless, Langan is confident that his theory reveals absolute Truth – “founded on tautology and supported by logical and mathematical reasoning” – so it proves the existence of “God”. He calls that highest level of Mind by the traditional term, because it possesses the usual theological attributes of Omnipresence, Omniscience, and Omnipotence. But I like to make a distinction between my philosophical god-model and the customary religious concept, by spelling it G*D.

In general, the CTMU seems to reach the same conclusions about how the real world operates, and about its origin in a preter-natural realm, as the Enformationism thesis.  And his extended application of Information Theory is compatible. The primary advantage of CTMU is that, in theory, qualified critics can follow the mathematical logic to inevitably reach the same inference. Sadly, its reception among many of those experts has been scathing. I suppose that's more due to his ultimate deduction than to the logical procedure. Although his proof of God has been well received by such rational Christian organi-zations as the Intelligent Design society, most academics have rejected it as pseudo-science. If I were to publish my little thesis to academia, I'm quite sure it would receive the same kind of reception. So, I'll just keep it between you and me.  

End of Post 37



Old and New models of the Universe

 

Thus Saith the Lord :

The name literally says it all. The phrase “Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe” contains three main ingredients: cognitive theory, model, and universe. Cognitive theory refers to a general language of cognition (the structural and transitional rules of cognition); universe refers to the content of that language, or that to which the language refers; and model refers to the mapping which carries the content into the language, thus creating information. The way in which the title brings these three ingredients together, or “contracts” their relationship to the point of merging, reflects their perfect coincidence in that to which the title implicitly refers, i.e., reality (the physical universe plus all that is required to support its perception and existence). Thus, the CTMU is a theory which says that reality is a self-modeling universal language, or if one prefers, that the universe is a self-modeling language.
____Chris Langan

Supernatural vs Supraphysical :

While the kind of theology that this entails neither requires nor supports the intercession of any “supernatural” being external to the real universe itself, it does support the existence of a supraphysical being (the SCSPL global operator-designer) capable of bringing more to bear on localized physical contexts than meets the casual eye. And because the physical (directly observable) part of reality is logically inadequate to explain its own genesis, maintenance, evolution or consistency, it alone is incapable of properly containing the being in question.
___CTMU wiki