In A Walkthrough Of Christopher Langan’s Cognitive-theoretic Model Of The Universe (ctmu), Has Anyone Done A Critique Of This Work (part 3)?

Hello. I’m analytic philosopher. This is Part 3 of my walkthru of Chris’ CTMU paper. The Body.

Chris’ text in italic, mine in normal font.

I’ve worked through The remainder of the paper. And as usual, it doesn’t warrant further paragraph by paragraph analysis. It just took me a bit to get my arms around what he was trying to say.

I can reduce it quite simply to this.

  1. Chris is using a very … private language … by pulling from a host of analogies (a super-geek common failing) to say something both true and relatively obvious, that can be stated in quite simple terms.
  2. This kind of behavior comes from identifying patterns across many bodies of work, without adopting the rigor (limits) of those disciplines he draws from. I’m sympathetic.
  3. Technically speaking, this is a work of academic … narrative… or perhaps poetry. It’s not technically pseudoscientific, because it’s not false. I’m not sure he makes any pseudoscientific claims at all. I see … liberties with language and logic. But, still the paper stated in pseudoscientific and pseudo rational prose – and bordering on supernatural in cases. There is a vast difference between analogy, accuracy, and necessity. So I understand the critics response.

    I’m probably one of the most skilled people living – at least across disciplines if not within them – and I can take this apart and determine that he’s not full of it. I think this is an honest representation of the mind of an autist, in the grammar and semantics of an autist.

  4. There is however nothing calculable here, only ‘reasonable’. Nothing certain. Nothing Proven (although we do not ‘prove’ science, since laws are forever contingent.) There is nothing stated operationally and therefore causally. What we have is a work of EXPLANATION by analogy stated with examples from math, logic, and science
  5. I’m not sure if he’s making an anthropomorphic argument for narrative purposes or because he wants to imply it. I almost wrote him off immediately. There are at least three points of view he could be making: that there is a first mover. That there is no difference between our reasoning and the reasoning of the universe. Or that it’s a convenient means of drawing analogy.
  6. And there is nothing original here other than the matter of the narration of the topic. I mean, science fiction authors said this in the 40’s and 50’s.
  7. That does not discount – in the least – that it is not FALSE. All the pseudoscientific costumery of the French Theatre aside, the underlying narrative is correct. We learn truths from the fictions of tolstoy and shakespeare. We can learn truths from the mind of an autist (I am one also). It’s just that the claims are obvious. Or at least obvious to me.
  8. Not sure I am excited to weigh in on this but people asked me to, and it’s my job to debunk nonsense. And I’m pleasantly surprised that while it’s written a bit nonsensically, it’s not nonsense. 😉

From what I understand, chris has expanded this work over the years. I know the difference in my abilty to communicate my ideas increases dramatically with every year that passes, so I assume he’s done the same.

If anyone has anything to recommend, pls comment and I’ll read it. -thanks

Leave a Reply