The blog to end all blogs. Reviews and comments about all and everything. This blog is NOT affiliated with YouTube, Wikipedia, Copilot Designer or any commercial vendor! Links don´t imply endorsement. Many posts and comments are ironic. The blogger is not responsible for comments made by others. The languages used are English and Swedish. Content warning: Essentially everything.
I couldn´t withhold this little gem from JMG´s Parsifal essay linked to in the previous blog post:
>>>It’s indicative of the difference we’re discussing that the salvation offered by Christ is confirmed to his believers by their faith that he returned from death, while the salvation offered by the Buddha is confirmed to his believers by their faith that everyone else returns from death but he did not and never will.
>>>It’s equally noteworthy that Christian teaching rests on the idea that each human being has an immortal soul that needs to be saved from damnation, while Buddhist teaching insists that the idea that any of us has an enduring self at all is the very source of our damnation.
>>>The two faiths are irreconcilable at levels deeper than most people, and even most theologians, are willing to go.
Noooo, I want harmonization so I can pretend that pluralism doesn´t really mean what it seems to mean...
Is this the last installment in John Michael Greer´s analysis of Wagner´s Ring Cycle and Parsifal?
Here is the last paragraph: "The load of that loveless pity has become an immense political fact in our day. Wagner’s operas offer no answers in response to it; brilliant as he was despite his flaws, he wrestled with the challenges of his own time, not those of ours. Can we expect some other wandering youth raised in the wilderness to arrive with a new answer that will meet the hard needs of our predicament, or are we just waiting for fire and flood to overwhelm the Valhallas of the modern industrial world? The curtain falls, the lights come up, and the opera is over; if there is an answer, we must find it somewhere else."
Damn. For a moment, I assumed JMG would give us the Holy Grail!
An entertaining YouTube clip on the "Cardiff Giant", a pseudo-archeological hoax from the mid-19th century. That´s Cardiff, New York State, btw.
The hoaxer was apparently an atheist who wanted to trick the gullible believers with a Nephilim-type sculpture. At one point, none other than P T Barnum exhibited a fake "Cardiff Giant", claiming it was the real one?! That is, Barnum was promoting a fake of a fake!
Interestingly, both the real fake and the fake fake are still on display somewhere in the US. How´s that for Americana?
Anders Lindberg har ju tidigare uttalat stöd för det svenska NATO-medlemskapet. Och Aftonbladet verkar även ha stött DCA-avtalet. Här verkar det som att han ändrar linje, men utan att säga det rent ut?! Hmmm...
The Metatron has watched the hours-long press conference featuring the three Italian researchers who claim to have found evidence of underground structures at the Giza plateau. While our man doesn´t rule anything out, he is *very* critical of the presentations at the presser and wonders aloud (very aloud) about the underlying methodology. It seems to be some kind of "Alternative Egypt" esoteric mumbo-jumbo, put forward with all the usual fanaticized conviction of true believers.
For instance, the claim that the Giza plataeu can be dated to 36,000 BC?! Or the claim that the researchers have located an underground "city" from Egyptian mythology. And when they used their radar technology to pick up vibrations from the ground, they "discovered" an ancient structure that looked like a tuning fork! It´s all "fated" and what not, even the fact that these three investigators met is "fated".
What really seems fated here is that this will turn out to be another episode in the neverending saga of pyramidiocy. And yes, a reptoid alien was included in one of the team´s powerpoints. Probably a joke, but you´ll never know. The Schwärmers are already using the multi-color scans (which are extremely difficult to interpret - one of the researchers even admit that he is color blind!) as evidence for nuclear power plants, UFOs and what not.
And then, maybe not. In case you assumed that Adventism was a straightforward thing...Ready to Harvest is here to set you straight, brother! Note that the Adventist movement was split on several different Churches from the get go. If this was the case with Adventism, why should we think early Christianity was any different?
Professor Dave and Grayson Hawk discuss excerpts from the marathon interview with Chris Langan made three years ago by Curt Jainmungal on his YouTube channel. Langan, rumored to have the highest IQ in the world, is a somewhat controversial figure who developed a "theory of everything" known as the CTMU. It´s really a philosophical or metaphysical system. While I don´t get half of it, there does seem to be a broad family likeness with Whitehead´s process philosophy and Ken Wilber´s Integral Theory. Perhaps CTMU could be described as an evolutionary form of panentheism?
Grayson believes that it´s idealism pure and simple, but expressed in a more convoluted language. Think Berkeley. Both Dave and Grayson consider materialism and "scientific realism" to be proven once and for all long ago, so Langan´s model (in which consciousnes is primary) strikes them as downright kookish. It´s worthless as a scientific theory, despite using scientific-sounding language. And while claiming to explain everything in physics, the CTMU contains no math. It also postulates the existence of God (or as Langan prefers to call it: G.O.D.) The two skeptical debate bros further believe that Langan deliberately uses an obscure and self-invented Newspeak when describing his theory, making it needlessly difficult to understand.
True to form, Dave also cracks ad hominems! Speaking of which: note that the first section of the video deals with another drama: the "debate" between Dave and the Christian creationist Tour in Texas about a year ago.
Langan went super-viral a couple of months ago, when he was featured in an interview on the Daily Wire, an interview which apparantly has 11 million views to date?! Perhaps because the Daily Wire gave people the impression that "the smartest man in the world" is some kind of Christian. Personally, I suspect super-intellectual Hindus and Buddhists may find the CTMU more to their liking. OK, good luck with this material...
So I decided to ask ChatGPT about Chris Langan´s theory of everything, the notorious (and notoriously incomprehensible) CTMU, which went viral some time ago. The AI is simplifying Langan´s system, obviously, but it confirms my general impression. We´re dealing with some kind of panentheist philosophy or crypto-theology.
Can you tell me about Chris Langan and his theory of everything? What are some of the criticisms of his theory?
Chris Langan is an American man known for his extraordinarily high IQ, which has been measured to be around 195-210, depending on the test. He is best known for developing a theory of everything called the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). This theory is an attempt to explain both the nature of reality and how consciousness interacts with the physical universe.
Chris Langan’s Theory: The CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe)
Langan’s CTMU is an ambitious attempt to unite philosophy, science, and mathematics into a single framework for understanding the universe. Some of the core ideas of the theory include:
Self-Processing Language (SPL):
Langan suggests that reality can be viewed as a self-processing language. In this model, the universe is understood as a kind of computational system where consciousness itself is part of the fundamental structure of reality. The laws of physics and the structure of the universe are thus interconnected with consciousness.
The "Syntactic Logic" of the Universe:
Langan proposes that syntax—the structure of language or rules governing the way symbols are arranged—plays a critical role in understanding the universe. In this sense, the universe operates like a logical system, where everything is governed by certain "rules" that dictate the structure of reality itself. The universe's existence is self-contained and computational.
Dual-Aspect Monism:
A key idea in the CTMU is dual-aspect monism, where mind and matter are two aspects of the same underlying reality. Langan’s theory asserts that consciousness and the physical world are not separate, but are part of a unified whole.
The Role of "Infocognition":
Langan introduces the concept of infocognition, which combines information and cognition. This is the idea that the universe’s fundamental nature is both informational and cognitive, suggesting that reality itself processes information in a conscious-like manner. Essentially, reality isn’t just physical—it is a form of thought or cognition.
The "Telesis" Principle:
The CTMU also incorporates a principle of telesis, which refers to the purposeful progression of the universe toward greater complexity and order. This idea implies that the universe has an inherent teleological structure (purpose or goal-directedness).
Criticisms of Chris Langan’s CTMU
While Langan’s CTMU is an intriguing theory, it has faced significant criticisms from both the scientific and philosophical communities. Some of the major criticisms include:
Lack of Empirical Evidence:
One of the primary criticisms of the CTMU is that it lacks empirical support. It is highly abstract and philosophical, without clear or testable predictions that can be verified through experiments or observations. As a result, many consider it more of a metaphysical hypothesis than a scientifically viable theory.
Excessive Complexity and Obscurity:
The CTMU is often criticized for being extremely difficult to understand due to its use of dense, technical language. Many reviewers have pointed out that Langan’s ideas are presented in a circuitous, jargon-heavy manner that makes them challenging to engage with, even for experts in philosophy or theoretical physics.
Some critics claim that the theory is too vague and seems to lack clear definitions of important concepts, making it hard to evaluate or critique meaningfully.
Self-Referential and Circular Logic:
Some have pointed out that the CTMU is self-referential, meaning it seems to define its own terms in a way that makes it difficult to falsify or test. In some parts of the theory, Langan’s explanations of key concepts like self-processing language and syntax appear to be built on circular reasoning, which is a common flaw in some speculative theories.
Lack of Engagement with Existing Scientific Frameworks:
Critics argue that Langan’s theory does not sufficiently engage with or build upon existing scientific theories, such as quantum mechanics, relativity, or evolutionary biology. Many of the concepts in the CTMU appear to be independent of mainstream scientific understanding, making it difficult to reconcile with the well-established frameworks in science.
Philosophical and Metaphysical Overreach:
Some philosophers have criticized Langan for overreaching into metaphysics. While it’s important to address the philosophical aspects of reality and consciousness, many critics argue that the CTMU tries to blend philosophy and science in a way that makes it difficult to separate the two. Science, especially when discussing the universe’s workings, is meant to rely on empirical evidence and falsifiability, while philosophy deals with abstract ideas—mixing the two can lead to speculative claims without real-world applicability.
No Peer Review or Scholarly Validation:
One of the significant criticisms of Langan's theory is that it has not been peer-reviewed or published in any major scientific journals. This lack of formal academic validation has led many to dismiss it as pseudoscience or philosophical speculation.
Conclusion:
Chris Langan’s Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe is a bold attempt to unify various aspects of reality, consciousness, and the universe into a single framework. However, it is met with skepticism due to its lack of empirical evidence, complexity, obscurity, and philosophical overreach. While it has garnered attention due to Langan's intellectual reputation, it remains outside the mainstream of scientific thought and faces significant challenges in terms of acceptance within the scientific community.
Would you like to explore any specific criticisms in more detail or discuss how similar theories have fared in the scientific community?
Is it fair to say that Langan´s theory is a form of idealism, pantheism or panentheism?
Yes, it is fair to say that Chris Langan’s Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) shares elements with idealism, pantheism, and panentheism. While Langan himself may not explicitly identify with these philosophical schools, his theory contains concepts that closely align with them. Here's how:
1. Idealism
Idealism is the philosophical view that consciousness, mind, or ideas are the fundamental building blocks of reality, and that the physical world is either dependent on or derived from mental phenomena.
Alignment with Langan’s CTMU:
Langan’s theory suggests that consciousness plays a central role in the structure of the universe. His concept of the universe being a "self-processing language" means that reality is not just a physical system but also a cognitive or mental construct. The universe is, in a sense, a thought process or a cognitive structure.
The CTMU emphasizes that reality’s fundamental nature is both informational and cognitive, which closely resonates with idealism, where mind or consciousness is seen as the fundamental reality rather than material objects.
In this way, Langan’s theory can be considered a form of idealism, where the mental and cognitive aspects of existence are primary, and the physical world emerges from these higher-order processes.
2. Pantheism
Pantheism is the belief that God or divinity is identical to the universe or nature—that everything is God or that the universe itself is a manifestation of the divine.
Alignment with Langan’s CTMU:
Langan’s idea of the universe as a self-processing system and his concept of "infocognition" (the combination of information and cognition) suggests that the universe itself may be thought of as divine or inherently purposeful. The universe has a cognitive structure and a teleological (goal-directed) aspect to it, which resonates with pantheistic views that divinity and the cosmos are not separate.
The "telesis" principle in the CTMU, which refers to a progressive, purposeful development of the universe, suggests that the universe is not just a physical system but is actively evolving toward greater complexity and order, much like how pantheistic views would suggest that the universe has a divine purpose.
In this sense, Langan’s model could be interpreted as pantheistic, where the universe itself is an intelligent, divinely orchestrated system.
3. Panentheism
Panentheism holds that God is greater than the universe, but the universe is contained within God. It suggests that the divine is both immanent (present within the universe) and transcendent (beyond the universe).
Alignment with Langan’s CTMU:
Langan’s theory incorporates ideas of consciousness being fundamental to the universe, suggesting a kind of immanence of the divine within the fabric of reality. But his emphasis on the universe being self-contained and operating under logical, cognitive principles could also hint at the idea that the universe reflects a higher, transcendent order.
The universe’s teleological structure and the evolution of complexity and order that Langan suggests could be seen as part of a larger divine process, which is consistent with panentheistic views where God is both immanent and transcendent.
Thus, the CTMU could also be seen as panentheistic, in the sense that consciousness and the divine are within the universe but also beyond it in a broader, more abstract sense.
Summary:
Idealism: Langan’s theory has a strong idealistic element, as it posits that consciousness or mind is a fundamental building block of reality.
Pantheism: The idea that the universe has a cognitive structure and purpose may align with pantheism, where the universe is essentially divine or a manifestation of the divine.
Panentheism: Langan’s view that the universe is both immanent and progressively developing towards greater complexity could be seen as panentheistic, where the divine both permeates the universe and exists beyond it.
While Langan may not explicitly use these terms to describe his theory, his work does share significant similarities with these philosophical systems. His CTMU blends aspects of consciousness, divinity, and the universe into a unified framework, which is central to both pantheistic and panentheistic views, with a definite leaning toward idealism in its foundation.
Would you like to delve deeper into any of these philosophical systems, or perhaps explore other aspects of Langan's theory?
Is it fair to say that Chris Langan´s CTMU regards God as both personal (as in theism) and impersonal (as in pantheism)?
Yes, that would be a fair characterization of how Chris Langan’s Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) conceptualizes God. In the CTMU, God is described as both a personal and an impersonal entity, combining elements of theism and pantheism in a unique way.
Personal Aspect (Theistic Influence) – Langan describes God as a self-aware, self-configuring, and self-processing entity that underlies reality. This aligns with the theistic notion of a conscious, intelligent designer with volition and purpose.
Impersonal Aspect (Pantheistic Influence) – At the same time, God in the CTMU is identified with the entire structure of reality itself, functioning as the "self-configuring self-processing language" (SCSPL) that generates and sustains the universe. This aligns with pantheistic ideas where God is synonymous with the totality of existence.
Thus, Langan’s concept of God transcends the usual dichotomy between personal and impersonal conceptions, integrating both within a broader metaphysical framework. This hybridization is sometimes described as panentheistic or even as a form of logical theology, where God is both the transcendent mind behind reality and the very structure of reality itself.
Are there any similarity between Langan´s CTMU and Whitehead´s form of process philosophy, or some other form of process philosophy?
Yes, there are notable similarities between Chris Langan’s Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) and Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, as well as certain other forms of process thought. However, there are also key differences in their metaphysical frameworks. Below are some points of comparison:
Similarities between CTMU and Process Philosophy
Reality as Dynamic and Self-Actualizing
Both Langan and Whitehead reject the idea of reality as a static, substance-based structure.
In the CTMU, reality is a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language (SCSPL), meaning it is self-generating and self-evolving.
Whitehead’s process philosophy sees reality as a series of actual occasions, constantly in a state of becoming and influenced by prior events.
God as an Integral Aspect of Reality
In Whitehead’s philosophy, God has both a primordial nature (eternal potentialities) and a consequent nature (influenced by the unfolding of the world).
Langan’s CTMU similarly presents God as a necessary, self-contained entity that includes all possible configurations of reality within itself.
Cognition and Information as Fundamental
Both frameworks emphasize a kind of intelligence or self-organization underlying reality.
Whitehead’s prehensions suggest that even the most basic units of reality have a kind of proto-consciousness or relational awareness.
Langan’s CTMU goes even further, explicitly identifying reality as a self-processing language that necessarily embodies cognition.
Reality as a Unified System
Whitehead’s metaphysics describes a relational universe where everything is interconnected.
Langan’s CTMU is also highly relational, proposing that reality is structured by infocognition—a fusion of information and cognition that enables its self-configuration.
Differences between CTMU and Process Philosophy
Whitehead’s Panexperientialism vs. Langan’s Self-Processing Universe
Whitehead argues that all entities, even the smallest ones, have a form of experience (panexperientialism).
Langan’s CTMU, while emphasizing cognition, frames reality more in terms of self-processing logic rather than individual experiential units.
God’s Role in Reality
Whitehead’s God is not omnipotent in the traditional sense but rather functions as a guiding principle, shaping possibilities without absolute control.
Langan’s God, by contrast, is logically necessary and all-encompassing, being both the architect and the very substance of reality.
Mathematical and Logical Rigor
Langan’s CTMU is deeply rooted in mathematical and logical structures, drawing on self-referential logic, metalogic, and computational theories.
Whitehead’s process philosophy, while systematic, leans more toward a metaphysical narrative without the same emphasis on formal logic.
Comparison to Other Forms of Process Philosophy
Teilhard de Chardin's Evolutionary Process Theology
Like Whitehead, Teilhard saw God as both immanent and transcendent, guiding evolution toward an Omega Point.
Langan’s CTMU has similarities here, as it also describes reality as self-actualizing toward a higher-order unity.
David Bohm’s Implicate Order
Bohm proposed a holoflux—a dynamic process where reality unfolds from a deeper implicate order.
Langan’s CTMU also describes a deep self-referential order underlying reality, though in more explicitly linguistic and logical terms.
Conclusion
Langan’s CTMU shares key process-oriented ideas with Whitehead’s metaphysics, particularly regarding the dynamism of reality, the relational nature of existence, and the integration of cognition. However, Langan’s model is more formalized in terms of logic and computational structure, whereas Whitehead’s process philosophy is more organic and experientially oriented.
Are there similarities between Langan´s system and Ken Wilber´s Integral Theory?
Yes, there are some similarities between Chris Langan’s Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) and Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory, though they originate from different intellectual traditions—Langan’s from self-referential logic and metaphysical realism, and Wilber’s from transpersonal psychology and developmental theory. Below are key areas of overlap and distinction.
Similarities Between CTMU and Integral Theory
1. Reality as a Self-Organizing System
CTMU: Reality is a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language (SCSPL), meaning it recursively evolves through self-reference and cognition.
Integral Theory: Reality is an evolving holarchy (a hierarchy of wholes within wholes) that unfolds through different stages of complexity and awareness.
Overlap: Both propose that reality is structured, evolving, and self-referential, rather than being a static mechanism.
2. Interconnectedness and Non-Dualism
CTMU: Reality is an infocognitive monism, meaning information and cognition are inseparable, forming a single unified system.
Integral Theory: Wilber’s non-dual awareness suggests that all distinctions (e.g., subject-object, mind-matter) are ultimately relative and united in a higher synthesis.
Overlap: Both propose a non-dual reality where mind and matter are ultimately aspects of the same fundamental structure.
3. Multiple Perspectives on Reality
CTMU: Reality is telic, meaning it has intrinsic purpose, and is structured through a logical meta-language that can generate different perspectives.
Integral Theory: Wilber’s AQAL Model (All Quadrants, All Levels) emphasizes that reality must be understood from multiple perspectives—subjective, intersubjective, objective, and interobjective.
Overlap: Both acknowledge that different viewpoints or layers of reality must be integrated to form a complete understanding.
4. The Role of Consciousness in Reality
CTMU: Consciousness is fundamental to existence; reality itself is a form of self-processing cognition.
Integral Theory: Consciousness evolves through structured developmental stages, culminating in higher, non-dual awareness.
Overlap: Both reject materialist reductionism and argue that consciousness is integral to the nature of reality itself.
Differences Between CTMU and Integral Theory
1. Formal Structure vs. Developmental Stages
Langan’s CTMU is deeply rooted in logic, self-referential structures, and mathematical formalism.
Wilber’s Integral Theory, while systematic, is based on psychological and philosophical analysis rather than strict logical formalism.
Key Difference: Langan constructs reality using a precise mathematical framework, while Wilber’s theory is more phenomenological and developmental.
2. The Nature of Evolution and Teleology
In the CTMU, reality has a built-in teleology (Telic Principle), meaning it evolves toward self-actualization in a logically necessary way.
In Integral Theory, evolution is understood more in terms of emergent complexity, where consciousness expands through stages but is not necessarily governed by strict logical necessity.
Key Difference: Langan sees teleology as logically required, while Wilber sees it as an emergent developmental pattern.
3. Role of God and Metaphysics
The CTMU explicitly defines God as the necessary, self-configuring structure of reality itself (a fusion of theism and pantheism).
Integral Theory discusses spirituality but does not make as strong an argument for a logically necessary deity, instead embracing a more pluralistic view of divinity.
Key Difference: Langan provides a rigorous metaphysical proof of God, whereas Wilber incorporates spiritual traditions without insisting on a specific metaphysical necessity.
Conclusion
Both the CTMU and Integral Theory attempt to construct an all-encompassing framework of reality that integrates mind, matter, and evolution. They share themes of interconnectedness, self-organization, and a reality structured by cognition and awareness. However, Langan’s approach is highly formal and rooted in mathematical logic, whereas Wilber’s is more developmental and experiential. In a way, the CTMU could be seen as a logical-structural counterpart to Wilber’s more psychological-developmental Integral Model.
