From CTMU Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for off-topic discussion. To start a new topic, just add a section at the bottom. Remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)

Thanks to Tim

Thanks go out to Tim for creating this page, hopefully this will aid in any off-topic discussions. I've moved a bunch of stuff here, feel free to edit this. --JT1480 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


I have a question that is somewhat off-topic, I was wondering if you (the reader/viewer) voted for a conceptual NASA space suit? If you did, or didn't... what design did/would you choose? What did you process to come to that conclusion?

--JT1480 (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of off topic, does anyone know that Chris' brothers, Jeffrey and Colter are on Facebook? Michael (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the average intelligence gatherer or stalker does know that, it's really not hard to come by, if you dig deep enough, you can find out a lot of... Things. Idolization or obsession can be characterized as a mental illness though, I'm not sure releasing their names may be a good idea, since people who idolize Chris may attempt to stalk his family, or even marry them. --JT1480 (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Am I supposed to take that personally, JT1480? However, I do consider Langan an inspiration and a role model. Some people would append a poster with Einstein in their bedroom, instead of a cross with Jesus. Just like they would with any other person they hold in high regard and respect (e.g. Artists). Take Leonardo da Vinci, for example. Virtually everything we know about him today, is a direct result of the investigative efforts of historians and people alike. Were they stalkers? I'm afraid not. And although Langan is still far away from enjoying a historical status of someone like da Vinci, in future things will could change. In conclusion, I'll allow myself to give you an advice: free your mind out of preconceptions, reach out for a good dictionary and do your best to fail-proof your arguments. Have a nice day. Michael (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, or as an attack, I understand Langan is highly intelligent, I just think people deserve their privacy. Clearly there are many people who despise Langan, I barely comprehend where the hatred stems from, but I have some ideas, anyway obviously Chris has been attacked online a lot... I just wouldn't wanna see it happen to more people. --JT1480 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Points well taken, JT1480. As for the disdain for Langan, there might one reason in particular for it: inability to detect self-perpetuating lessons of history. You see, most people who regard and credit Einstein for who he was, and for what he has done, are people who already were born in such a world. That is, in a world that has already recognized, Einstein as a genius. Were such people witnessing Einstein's work and life before his rise to the top, they might as well have insulted, ridiculed or ignored him. People who are hostile to Chris and his work, could very well be part of the above-mentioned scenario. Michael (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I blame: illusional intellectual superiority, ignorance and delusion. I appreciate your perspective, I just think most people have a low social IQ, at least online they do, according to some study. JT1480 (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's the opposite: on the Internet, everyone can be a genius! That's why not even wrong ideas like Langan's fade away. Anonymous (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

A Chris Langan comment I found

Dylancatlow (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That comment was originally made in the comment section of this page:

Anonymous (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I found a publication by Rice University's Introduction to Sociology:

Bouncer. Firefighter. Factory worker. Cowboy. Chris Langan spent the majority of his adult life just getting by with jobs like these. He had no college degree, few resources, and a past filled with much disappointment. Chris Langan also had an IQ of over 195, nearly 100 points higher than the average person (Brabham 2001). So why didn’t Chris become a neurosurgeon, professor, or aeronautical engineer? According to Macolm Gladwell (2008) in his book Outliers: The Story of Success, Chris didn’t possess the set of social skills necessary to succeed on such a high level—skills that aren’t innate, but learned. Gladwell looked to a recent study conducted by sociologist Annette Lareau in which she closely shadowed 12 families from various economic backgrounds and examined their parenting techniques. Parents from lower income families followed a strategy of “accomplishment of natural growth,” which is to say they let their children develop on their own with a large amount of independence; parents from higher income families, however, “actively fostered and accessed a child’s talents, opinions, and skills” (Gladwell 2008). These parents were more likely to engage in analytical conversation, encourage active questioning of the establishment, and foster development of negotiation skills. The parents were also able to introduce their children to a wide range of activities, from sports to music to accelerated academic programs. When one middle class child was denied entry to a gifted and talented program, the mother petitioned the school and arranged additional testing until her daughter was admitted. Lower income parents, however, were more likely to unquestioningly obey authorities such as school boards. Their children were not being socialized to comfortably confront the system and speak up (Gladwell 2008). What does this have to do with Chris Langan, deemed by some as the smartest man in the world (Brabham 2001)? Chris was born in severe poverty, moving across the country with an abusive and alcoholic stepfather. Chris’s genius went greatly unnoticed. After accepting a full scholarship to Reed College, his funding was revoked after his mother failed to fill out necessary paperwork. Unable to successfully make his case to the administration, Chris, who had received straight A’s the previous semester, was given F’s on his transcript and forced to drop out. After enrolling in Montana State, an administrator’s refusal to rearrange his class schedule left him unable to find the means necessary to travel the 16 miles to attend classes. What Chris had in brilliance, he lacked practical intelligence, or what psychologist Robert Sternberg defines as “knowing what to say to whom, knowing when to say it, and knowing how to say it for maximum effect” (Sternberg et al. 2000). Such knowledge was never part of his socialization. Chris gave up on school and began working an array of blue-collar jobs, pursuing his intellectual interests on the side. Though he’s recently garnered attention from work on his “Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe,” he remains weary and resistant of the educational system. As Gladwell concluded, “He’d had to make his way alone, and no one—not rock stars, not professional athletes, not software billionaires, and not even geniuses—ever makes it alone” (2008)

"Chris Langan’s story illustrates that: a. children raised in one-parent households tend to have higher IQs. b. intelligence is more important than socialization. c. socialization can be more important than intelligence. d. neither socialization nor intelligence affects college admissions."

"Why do you think that people like Chris Langan continue to have difficulty even after they are helped through societal systems? What is it they’ve missed that prevents them from functioning successfully in the social world?"

I believe I saw a film review by Langan, however I can't find it, anyway this may also be of interest:

--JT1480 (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JT1480. I'm sure that Langan would be happier if the university in question got interested in his theory, rather than his life. Furthermore, while Gladwell's book seems somewhat impressive, it's basically the common knowledge of most people who are, or were members of the sub-middle classes. Michael (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

He would be happier, but it's a sociology class, personally I dart around the 98th percentile, which is nothing too special (MAT, GMAT), however even I find the paper submitted to ISCID by Langan to be very verbose. It's taken me some time to interpret it. Hopefully the book that he plans to release will be easier for everyone to interpret. The only valid arguments I've seen against the CTMU are that it's highly confusing, personally the theory is of huge interest to me. Hopefully the jargon will be defined in his book, one of the main reasons people rejected the theory is because of the undefined jargon, however many do forget that it was submitted to ISCID. Tegmark's book, released this year looks good, my eReader is just too small to see the diagrams.

In regards to remote viewing, you may find the book 'Remote Viewing' by Dave Moorehouse of interest. I was actually going to send the Mega Foundation a copy, since I saw the Colloquy discussion, however I eventually discovered that postage was $80, I gave up.

--JT1480 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Discussion moved from Meta:Discussion#The People Speak.

Anyway, I actually did have a question, I forgot to mention it at the time, I wanted Chris to elaborate on psi phenomena, specifically the outer-body experiences he's had. --JT1480 (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I've written to Chris about the OBEs. Unfortunately, he never responded. By the way, how would you explain remote-viewing and (supposedly ongoing) precognition experienced by Chris? Michael (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You know, I'm not sure how I would explain it, I would really need to see results from a fMRI and an EEG. Interestingly enough, one could experience the same altered states of consciousness as Chris if one could get an EEG trace from his altered states, it could then be played through a rTMS machine. I would honestly love to investigate Chris' mind since it is a huge anomaly, furthermore I'd also love to study a number of geniuses who surpass the IQ ceiling tests.

Chris has discussed his brain size on a number of occasions, I do remember hearing Chris say that he felt he had a responsibility to make the CTMU, so it's unknown if cosmology and metaphysics are where his ultimate expertise lies, if it does then he may have a larger parietal lobe than the population norm. Theoretically one could 'grow' the parietal lobe, since learning literally makes your brain grow. However there are a number of variables that come into play, such as brain lateralization, acquired savant syndrome and such. Although it is of interest, I wouldn't recommend doing any longevity/human improvement on yourself that hasn't been tested well. Take radiation hormesis for example.

Binaural beats are of interest, however one shouldn't listen to ASMR videos due to the fact that it hasn't been studied to a decent point, there needs to be tests done using fMRI machines, it could potentially have negative affects. Nootropics have been around for a long time, however there are many non-responders, DARPA has allegedly made a new class of biological type nootropics, that are very promising, the downside is that you have to have a history of mental illness in order to use them, they are highly regulated.

There are a few things that people in the bell curve do believe enhances overall intelligence, however it's highly theoretic and intuitive.

It sounds to me that a neurotheologist would be able to interpret Chris' results. Interestingly enough, OBE's can be elicited from the angular gyrus, which executive functions include mathematical ability.

I believe that Chris' idea of that aspect of intelligence being 'something higher', or 'metaphysical', is correct, I cite personal experience.

I'm actually making my own theoretical framework (psychology not metaphysics) that basically shows how social disintegration is affecting everyone and how its occurring. One of the things I find of interest is how the average person is born a genius, Einstein said: “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

samskaras may also be of interest to you

--JT1480 (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't pay so much attention to high IQ people. They're nothing special, you can be one of them too if you learn to solve the trivial puzzles on these tests. This parapsychology stuff isn't so interesting either, it's bad science. Anonymous (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. If you're interested, you can induce OBEs. However, be prepared for an eventual baggage of associated psi effects, as pointed out by Chris. One time, during an OBE, I tried to memorize the serial number of my desktop. After the OBE, I got up and confirmed it. However, I never shared this experience with anybody. Too many people have too many preconception, biases and make too many assumptions. Indeed, the implications of such experience, break many fundamental notions for many people. Michael (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Your experience is either the result of your imagination or of deja vu. This sometimes happens to me too, I'll have a real-life experience and it'll feel as if I dreamed it before, even when I clearly hadn't.
You're welcome. I believe Chris stated that the CTMU was designed not to make those assumptions (rough quote), therefore there shouldn't be many assumptions here. Anyway, I believe I have had a variety of altered states, there are... Things that have happened that I can only really define as an off-shoot of a near death experience. I have synesthesia, so my taste sense actually gets put to work during lucid dreaming.
What you stated is very interesting, obviously a study should be conducted, with control groups and such, the angular gyrus is only the tip of the iceberg in a mathematical sense, the prefrontal cortex also plays a role, mathematicians find numbers and equations to be beautiful, but most of the work is done in the parietal lobe.
There are alternate theories, I tend to be somewhat secretive, so I won't discuss it here, but the only thing I'm certain of, is that we don't know enough to rule anything out.
I would love to study 'human calculators' and see if it can be acquired without savant syndrome. Muscle memory can actually improve math skills in those who suffer from learning difficulties, there are a few theoretical scientists in California who have developed systems to aid kids with various learning difficulties.
I have a friend who's a human calculator. Of course it can be acquired without any brain peculiarities, it's just like learning to read, at first you're very slow to recognize the symbols and put them together, and then you get faster and faster, until it looks like magic. It's nothing special, and it's a fun skill to learn, you can do it in a few months maybe, even more quickly if you memorize big times tables (this is what the pros, like Shakuntala Devi, do). Anonymous (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I do disagree with Chris' notion regarding intelligence insofar as I don't believe discipline would play a large role, since happiness actually increases overall intellect.
Interestingly enough I used to be a prodigy, until the age of 9, when I suffered a large blow to my head. I too started speaking around 6 months of age and I also had in depth knowledge of a range of areas, it's a shame that my intelligence was impacted by the blow to my head, I do have highly superior autobiographical memory though. So I'm not exactly sure how intelligent I could've been. Regardless I still believe the overall bell curve idea to be largely metaphysical.
You're probably nothing special, and you probably never were. Anonymous (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I tend to be more 'right brained', in the arts, math doesn't appeal much to me, which is unfortunate, I wish it did, lol. --JT1480 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Math doesn't appeal to ANYONE at first! It's like learning how to read, it's mental torture, so everyone hates it at the time, but you should learn to do it anyway because it makes you smarter, many times smarter than Langan. It also gets you a non-druggy (i.e., non-impairing) high, like exercise, after you do it for a while, and then you're hooked, you can never escape. Anonymous (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Michael. Can you elaborate on how can I induce OBEs? I find it extremely interesting! Thanks. ShwartzS (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, ShwartzS. I advice you to read the works of Robert Monroe and Robert Peterson. In this link you'll find the step-by-step guide by Robert Peterson. Read it all. You can read his entire book for free on his website. Michael (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in purchasing a device capable of producing altered states, you could research the Shakti Coil system, otherwise known as the God Helmet. --JT1480 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Magdy Kamal

Looks like the high IQ community just got another anomaly, Andrew has an IQ around 230, what do you think?

Parallel Universe Alternating Device?...

--JT1480 (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be premature to call him a "genius" yet. I read that he's a manic depressive, suffers from ADD, ADHD and is also autistic. Extreme ability does not necessarily come with a disability. And Chris is an example of that. Also, nobody but a fool, could say that he holds "world's highest IQ". That's an unwarranted assumption. Michael (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Michael, I agree, there isn't any real evidence to support the idea that he may be a polymath, although the pure definition of genius does vary, societal perceptions usually hold that it's a person with high intellect, who has gone down in history as a notable genius (such as Einstein), in itself this is kind of stupid, I do believe Langan is correct about modern genius' and their ties to academia.

I think this is just a case of savant syndrome, most of the ceiling IQ tests are largely spatial, so it's no surprise. The media labels anything they want, as long as it draws attention, so they can gain revenue. Russia Today features BS propaganda 24/7. I have been monitoring the Snowden disclosures for example, I tend not to go to Fox, CNN, etc, since each article is heavily bias, I use cryptome instead, that way I can actually see evidence and facts, likewise many people should theoretically do the same instead of scumming to cultural pressure.

FYI, I do tend to go off topic, I guess it's because I have a lot on my mind. I am interested in his "parallel universe device", I have no doubt that it's either a joke or a theory. --JT1480 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Chris Langan and neuroscience

I thought it may be wise to start another topic, since the previous one was somewhat large.

Chris stated that he can remember nearly every dream, according to the University of Iowa, a person who can remember nearly all of their dreams, is highly creative.

Chris stated that EEG results showed that he was sleeping, this leaves the obvious question: what stage of sleep?

A copy of Chris' EEG trace would be absolutely amazing, since you can play EEG traces over rTMS machines, thereby inducing effects on the average person. One could even play it over a very affordable Shakti Coil device.

Chris stated: “I infer that the ability to manifest or retain consciousness in various brainstates varies among individuals”, this is a very true conclusion...

Chris apparently has OBE's very easily, just by sitting down. One theory would indeed be that Chris' angular gyrus is... An anomaly. An above average AG (angular gyrus) can:

1. Activation of the angular gyrus shows that not only does it mediate memory retrieval, but notes contradictions between what is expected from the retrieval, and what is unusual. The angular gyrus can access both content and episodic memories, and is useful in inferring from these the intentions of human characters. Furthermore, the angular gyrus may use a feedback strategy to ascertain whether a retrieval is expected or unusual.

2. Recent experiments have demonstrated the possibility that stimulation of the angular gyrus is the cause of out-of-body experiences. Stimulation of the angular gyrus in one experiment caused a woman to perceive a phantom existence behind her. Another such experiment gave the test subject the sensation of being on the ceiling. This is attributed to a discrepancy in the actual position of the body, and the mind's perceived location of the body.

3.There may be neurological disorders that disturb metaphor and synaesthesia.This has not been studied in detail but we have seen disturbances in the Bouba/Kiki effect (Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001a) as well as with proverbs in patients with angular gyrus lesions. It would be interesting to see whether they have deficits in other types of synaesthetic metaphor, e.g. ‘sharp cheese’ or ‘loud shirt’. There are also hints that patients with right hemisphere lesions show problems with metaphor. It is possible that their deficits are mainly with spatial metaphors, such as ‘He stepped down as director’

4. Since 1919, brain injuries to the angular gyrus have been known to often cause arithmetic deficits

These four points tie into Chris' life fairly well.

1. “ The angular gyrus can access both content and episodic memories” 2. “stimulation of the angular gyrus is the cause of out-of-body experiences”

3. “There may be neurological disorders that disturb metaphor”

4. The angular gyrus plays a large role in calculation and arithmetic.

From this I think we can narrow down to a conclusion. For those that are interested in 'working out' your angular gyrus, I would recommend learning. Both rTMS and tDCS only last short term, but may have better effects.

Discussions on Genius, Chris Langan's interview with A. Jensen is availible via the Mega International web complex, it features a few interesting intelligence based questions. --JT1480 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

New Books, coming soon

Finally found the alleged titles of the new books coming soon, visit this link for more information

You can support the Mega Foundation by purchasing something here, too:

--JT1480 (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

In this link, it says: Coming this Spring!. And that's a screenshot from 2003! That incontrovertibly proves, that he has re-written these books over and over again. Also, could somebody tell me how could MegaPress publish a book written by Ayn Rand? Michael (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe Langan did a foreword on the book. --JT1480 (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Your questions for Chris

Hello. Since I have few questions for Chris, and since I have some contacts in the Mega Foundation, I welcome you to post here your questions for Chris. My contact will be forwarding these questions for Chris. That way, there are more chances for us to get answers from him. Michael (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael.

1. What code of ethics is supported by CTMU?

2. In an interview, you said that human consciousness operates over large sectors of time rather than from moment-to-moment. Can you explain how this works?

Dylancatlow (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Michael, thanks go out to you, your contact at Mega, and Chris for the opportunity.

I was wondering (if it's not too personal), what sleep state Mr. Langan was in during the EEG trace he had during his childhood? and what are some of the things Mr. Langan has experienced in regards to psi phenomena, i.e. precognition examples or OBE examples? In regards to a previous discussion I had with Michael, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Langan may have a larger angular gyrus than the norm, which could explain why Mr. Langan experiences OBE's and mathematical savant skills. As I have previously stated I do believe a large part of higher intelligence to be theoretically metaphysical, the idea of the superconsciousness or 'universal intelligence' is of interest to me personally, has Mr. Langan had any experience associated with the superconsciousness or 'higher consciousness', etc?

Thank you again for this opportunity, I look forward to supporting the CTMU in the near future and donating more towards the Mega Foundation, which is basically the only one of it's kind for the severely gifted.



--JT1480 (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Dude, Langan is not a mathematical savant, and you should save your donations for some other cause. Anonymous (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Michael

I wonder if Langan would like to be interviewed by Nikola Danaylov (aka Socrates) at Singularity weblog ?

I know for a fact that Nikola is very interested in this. I suggested it to him some time ago and he really liked the idea and send an email to Langan. He didn`t get an answer so I suspect it might not have been the apropriate email-address. As you can see, he has had many big names on his show and Nikola himself is highly intelligent. I think an interview made by him would be far more interesteing than Errol Morris/Peoples Speak/Coast to coast. I also suspect it would be much more interesting for Langan and probably that he would get a chance to explain more about the CTMU. (Nikola is an impressive guy to listen to, and he would be one more point of data in accordance with Langans (and others) claim about the correlation between headsize and intelligence (with all possible respect to Nikola Danaylov)).

If Langan is interested he could contact Nicola and he would be glad to hear from him. I beleve Nikola might have used info(at) when he contacted Langan earlier (in case he wanted to check)

Please check out singularityweblog. If Langan were to appear on the podcast he would truly be in good company (Michio Kaku, Frank J. Tipler, Noam Chomsky, Ray Kurzweil and many others).

Can you please forward this to Langan?


I know for a fact that if a statement on here is ultra-profound Langan will see it... same with the Facebook CTMU group and various forums. He sees a lot, but doesn't have time to reply to it. Which is understandable. When one reaches a peak in a particular subject area, they become less inclined to teach others. The information is out there. Langan has turned down many interviews in the past, good luck. --JT1480 (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's great that Nikola / Socrates is interested in interviewing Langan. I've heard a few episodes of the Singularity 1 on 1 podcast, and it seems like a good venue for Langan to discuss his ideas. It would be interesting to hear Langan in conversation about accelerating technological change, artificial intelligence, transhumanism, the singularity, etc., and how the CTMU relates to these things. I hope this will happen. Tim Smith (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Me too.

I beleve that Langan is more interested in talking about his ideas than his own life. Media, on the other han, seems more fascinated by his "good Will Hunting"-like story. Nikola is different and he also seems really smart. I think it could be interesting for Langan, Nikola and us, and maybe even be benefiscial with regards to the credibility of the CTMU and Langan. The last part due to the quality of the interview, more explanation of the CTMU than in other media apperances, and also in light of the other guests on the show.

I hope you will forward this information Michael.

(Just want to mention that english is not my native language, so the quality of my writing will be not be perfect).

--Brusmaskin (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I've wanted to start my own podcast for years. My idea is to interview people that I find interesting--Langan, of course, being one of those people. I've floated this idea to Genie, but have not heard back. My idea was that all of us on the CTMU Wiki would compile questions or themes that we want to hear Chris answer or speak on and I would work them into an interview. I haven't heard back from Genie about this, but something tells me that it is in the realm of possibilities. Let me know if you are interested in helping me set this up (my e-mail is While the Singularity podcast has a large viewership (Nikola does a fine job), I'd trust myself to conduct a far better and more insightful interview with Chris (or most of the thinkers that have appeared on that podcast). Cdipoce (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Michael, here are my questions to Chris Langan: 1) Without any intended invitation for the Grim Reaper, do you have plans in place for posthumous preservation and/or distribution of your work? Regardless of opinion, it would be a shame for it to be swallowed by time, obscurity and happenstance. 2) How close would you say we are to artificial intelligence and where do you stand on the threat some believe it poses? 3) Do we have any reasonable chance for a post-scarcity society and what are the most promising fields of energy production that deserve the most attention? 4) Is time travel and/or faster-than-light travel possible? 5) What *is* subjective experience (and/or consciousness) in CTMU terms and operation? ...Thanks! BRA1N-b0X (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Online Disinhibition Effect

I saw a recent post by someone who supports and uses this Wiki (name withheld), on a debating website, the user wanted to have some questions asked about the CTMU, and then reply to them, using Langan's quotes. The first replies he got were profoundly stupid, with no real observable intelligence in any of the comments:

"1) WTF, is Langan on drugs or what? 2) What words rhyme with syndiffeonesis? 3) Is that how they do logic on the planet Langan comes from? 4) Why isn"t Hology the study of holes? 5) Why is it that eugenics advocates always exemplify the very underbelly of the gene pool?"

etc, etc.

We have seen this behavior played out time and time again. I remember reading something online about most YouTube users for example, only graduating high school, the same was the case with a variety of websites, graduates used very little popular websites... If we consult this chart we can see that these people (high school dropouts/grads) would statistically be at or below the 90 IQ range. In Mr. Langans case, autodidactism is somewhat of a rarity, so I suppose we can ignore that when looking at heavy stats.

Now the online disinhibition effect is the partial or complete abandonment of societal norms online due to things like dissociative anonymity, imagination and minimization of authority. This is a part of the reason that people tend to 'troll' others online.

I believe that this abandonment is aiding in social disintegration, we can see this all the time on the news, from 5 year olds copying nefarious behavior online, to 12 yr olds murdering their friend, to people making real world, prank troll videos.

My question for you (audience/viewer) is: what do you believe society could due to stop this problem at its core?

--JT1480 (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, JT1480. First, regarding the correlation of IQ and general life outcomes, I think such statistics are in many respects half-baked and misleading. They are replete with obvious assumptions. For example, according to such statistics, someone like Chris, should have been an academic star today. They are misleading, because they lead people to assume that someone with a PhD, is inherently more intelligent (as opposed to more conformed) than a high school dropout. Speaking of ODE, you make kind of a loaded question. In order to "stop" anything, you must to know what makes it going, and what's it's purpose. Take trolling, for example. In order to stop a troll, you woud only need to answer this: what needs he/she satisfies by trolling? Many people who troll, stalk, bully or harass on the web, have problems in their own lives. The people who make the best trolls (and stalkers), for example, are psychopaths. Unsurprisingly enough, many people who bully online and offline, were themselves victims of bullying(!) Now, I don't want to bore you, by analyzing behaviors of trolls, stalkers or bullies. So I'll leave it at that. So as you can see, your question is far too general to be asked definetely. You might as well ask: What makes people steal, commit murder and crimes of any sort? And what measures can we take in order to suppress those behaviors? Michael (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Trolling is just a way of fighting authority and destroying nonsense like the CTMU. It's not the result of people's personal issues, and it's ethically necessary. Here are some examples:
-Trolls R Saints
-Michael is a poo-poo head, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Trolling is a sacrament because it makes the debate automatically uncivil, throwing everyone into the mud together so that authority is removed and winning the debate is only dependent on being right, not on how nicely you write. In conflating trolling with crimes like thievery or murder, you're doing propaganda in a silly attempt to hide the fact that the CTMU is being soundly demolished online. Luckily there are trolls here, like me, who are willing to do their counter-propaganda in the service of all that is right in the world. Anonymous (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's me btw:

I've been discussing the CTMU on that site for about 8 months. I would love it if some of you joined in with me :)

Dylancatlow (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Correct, it is a half-baked assumption, however it would explain why so many people seemingly say the most 'retarded' things. Autodidactism isn't all that common, and if it is then it's usually GED holders, who statistically have a statistically lower IQ. the psychology behind trolling is the ODE, and these links explain why one, who doesn't necessarily suffer from psychotic tenancies, adopts a bully role:

I don't believe they are pure psychopaths by definition, perhaps ASPD, but the news tends to make inaccurate assumptions all to often.

Anyway, once you have researched the ODE you should understand what I'm getting at. I personally think that the internet needs regulation. People may see this as a minimization of freedoms, however it's really not, considering that anyone can download anything if they are content on doing so. Specifically, I believe that there should be an international standard adopted that makes all the major websites liable for damages if their users engage in illegal discussion (including racism, bullying etc), in turn that would cut off bullying almost at the source and it would decrease exploitation. The exact methodology one would adopt is... unknown, however I would expect less anonymity and more authority.

Basically you want to starve the troll of their food, which is anonymity and minimization of authority.

I would discuss it Dylan, but the "New Atheist" type, who wants to destroy any and all religious related papers, really bugs me.

--JT1480 (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Trolling is sacrosanct, and everyone should be doing it. It is a process of leveling the playing field, so that ideas cannot pass on their own authority but can only pass by being correct. CTMU defenders would do better to present their idea in a rude, insulting, forceful way, although it is not a good idea, it is pretty much meaningless, so it would lose in the long run like all philosophy does. Anonymous (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, JT1480. I never said that "they are pure psychopaths". But that they make best trolls, by virtue of their traits. And I don't think that the internet can be regulated. Why? Well, take into consideration these two facts. First, any website of any nature is a web property. It belongs to either one person, or a group of people. Second, the internet as a whole entity, belongs to no country or person. Regulating the internet, would thus ammount to regulating personal property, freedom of speech, expression ecc. You see, no country has the legal authority to regulate, what people can or cannot say or do, on the internet. That is because, no demoratic government can be called such, while dictating what one can or cannot do, on one's own website. What we truly need, in order to solve this and other problems, is an increase in global intelligence, wisdom and maturity. Michael (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Making major popular websites have to abide by rules is what I mean, YouTube for example, "freedom is a right, not a privilege". I have thought about a 'mass awakening', however regulating the internet just seems easier --JT1480 (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Regulating the Internet would be a horrible evil. Anonymous (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ayn Rand and Anthrax writings by Chris

Hello. I found another two writings by Chris. The first is On Ayn Rand's Philosophy, the second is Anthrax and the Common Man: Forewarned is Forearmed. These writings were both published in Noesis-E, but they are unavailable to the public. So how I got them? It's a long story. Michael (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


Dylancatlow (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've found that refining the Google Search results for 'Chris Langan' and the CTMU by week and month, have yielded better results. This way one can see all the news regarding Chris and his theory, I do so because... I want to get the book the second it comes out. One could also set up Google Alerts to search for the CTMU.

Heres another useless forum talking about the CTMU... when saying 'useless', I am referring to the highly intuitive and illogical assumptions many users tend to adopt, they fail to interpret the CTMU (mind you the main paper was published to an intellectual discussion group), and in turn they just decide to call it a fraud or something along those lines. The link between academia and self education is somewhat annoying, insofar as Tegmarks mathematical universe received much praise, whereas Chris'...

--JT1480 (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Take it easy, JT1480. I would say that 99% of people that criticize Chris' work and ideas, are either utterly confused and ignorant, or are being pathological trolls like the infamous Mark Chu-Carroll. When you read comments from such people, it's only natural to get annoyed. After all, such people are not in the business of studying and understanding Chris' work. Again, take it easy. Michael (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I also have found a paper on the overview of the Search On Thr Fly technology written by Chris, when he was working for Virtual Logistix (ViloX). However, it seems unavailable. You can't find everything with Google, JT1480. The writings that I posted yesterday, were found as HTML code. Michael (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The ViloX paper's available at

Anonymous (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine, I... Am suffering from an illness that has no cure, my mind is dying and my body along with it, I have found I get stressed all too easily now. I do apologize for my behavior, it's just getting harder to control. Anyway, I have gotten personally annoyed after people overestimate their intelligence in a specific area. For example during the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombings a bunch of Reddit fools decided to use their superior detective skills to find the bomber, leading to an innocent, dead mans mockery.

I remember finding that, I wasn't sure if it was a dream or not at the time, since my computer used to erase history on browser closure.

--JT1480 (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to answer this: is the source of your illness mental or physical (body)? Sometimes, people who are overly susceptible to other people's problems or attitudes, have themselves problems that are not being addressed properly. They deflect the attention from their seemingly irresolvable problems, to solve problems of others. Solving other people's problems, yields, in fact, feelings of personal achievement. Think of it as personal resolution/achievement by proxy. This defense mechanism makes sense if your illness is terminal. If it isn't, then it's a self-defeating, self-destructive attitude. Again, no offence intended. Does this make any sense? Michael (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not neurological. --JT1480 (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Dylan Catlow Debates

Hey Dylan. I was looking through your debate history when I stumbled across this post:

I don't know whether you genuinely believe that 0.999... is not equal to 1 in the real numbers or whether you were just playing devil's advocate. If you really do believe that, I have to say you're totally wrong. The way the real numbers are defined 0.999... = 1. The shortest proof is as follows:

1/9 = 0.111...

9(1/9) = 9(0.111...)

1 = 0.999...

Multiplication and division are well defined over the reals, though you seem to believe otherwise, after the reals themselves are defined, which can be done axiomatically.

So what's your case?

Anonymous (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's from a long time ago lol. I don't believe that anymore. In fact, if I remember correctly, I later conceded in the comments section of that debate.

Dylancatlow (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's all right then.

Anonymous (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Links of Interest

These could be added to sources.


(Interesting .pdf )


- Wounded Warriors (mentions)


- The Powerfood Nutrition Plan (mentions)

- The Worldwide list of dissidents scientists (mentions)

- Christian Scholars Review (mentions)

- Esquire (mentions)

- Protocols for an Apocalypse (mentions)

- Uncommon Dissent

- Vilox

- Ayn Rand

- Anthrax

- Outliers

- Language Parsing

- High IQ Discussion regarding psi

- Johnny Asia & Langan

- Guitar Genius

- Russian Academia

- "Master" (strange)

- [ Some Theoretical and Practical Results in Context-Sensitive and Adaptive Parsing](Langan referenced)

- Esquire

- Unified Theories of Reality

- Cheating the Millennium (video, Langan not featured)

- Triple 9 discussion

- Music for the Highly Evolved (sadly the mp3's are down)

- bare pdf

- Mouse

- books Chris may read

- Toward an Ultimate Theory (not released, book is regarding TOE, CTMU)

- Design for a Universe (un-released)

- Mega Books

- Songs by Johnny Asia, a musician Chris labelled a 'guitar genius'

- hermann hesse steppenwolf

- Uncommon Wisdom Paperback – January 1, 1989 by Fritjof Capra

- the unbearable lightness of being


- Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

- Small intellectual group (PHD) responding to Langan

- CTMU Countdown

The Portable Chris Langan

I'm pleased to announce that The Portable Chris Langan has already sold 16 copies on Amazon, and has been downloaded 450 times on Mediafire.

Attention Dylancatlow

Hello, Dylancatlow. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, I'll point out that you're engaging in legally actionable behavior. It doesn't matter how small is the amount you charge; you're profiteering anyway. I, therefore, ask you to desist from selling Langan's work before it's too late. Michael (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't do that. I'm far more interested in seeing the CTMU grow in popularity than I am seeing the law respected.

Dylancatlow (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC) I posted that before I knew who he was. I've found the Portable Chris Langan on so many sites for free, that I didn't bother looking into it anymore. --JT1480 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't profit off someone's writing without asking them for permission. Anonymous (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think if you advertised it (made appealing CTMU stuff) people may find it more to their liking... Try subliminal advertising or something (if it's legal in the nation in which you reside). I just made an example of a subliminal image, although other methods tend to work much better. I've heard that 'New Atheists' have actually used subliminal audio to convert theists. Fun fact.

Anyway the photo I uploaded pretty much explains how it works. I advise against it, this in no way is endorsed by Chris Langan, I've never even spoken with him. He would probably be against such an idea. Ideally the coolest idea would be to arrange the disaster in such a way that it spells 'CTMU'. I did this for a fun example, don't get any ideas though...

--JT1480 (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Subliminal anything can't change people's minds. Anonymous (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Dylancatlow, consider yourself warned. And remember: by disseminating indiscriminately Langan's work, you're exposing him to all sort of potential risks. It's in nobody's best interest, to place your wishes, hopes and visions of what and how the CTMU should be, ahead of those of it's author. Be responsible. Michael (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Rick Rosner: fate of the universe

Here's what Rick Rosner had to say about the fate of the universe.

I've never seen this on YouTube...


--JT1480 (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's on YouTube, posted by this account: Rick also has a popular Twitter following these days at His posts are pretty funny.

I don't think Rick's idea that the universe is much older than it appears holds much water. It's true that the observed matter density influences estimates of the age of the universe, but it would take truly enormous amounts of hidden matter to give an apparent age as big as Rick's guess. The fact is that astrophysicists have already taken all this into account in the most precise estimates of the time from the Big Bang, which are about 13.798 billion years. Anonymous (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I just posted a Tweet to him, I've spoken to him before actually. Anyway, I thought the same thing, I do believe the Giga (??) Society posted a paper on a similar topic, I will try to find it. In response to your reply to the scanned documents, you're welcome.

William Sidis

What do you think about this theory of the universe published by William Sidis, a child prodigy

Pretty neat for something created so long ago

--JT1480 (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a nice idea but was conclusively either false or irrelevant, depending on its scope, even at the time. I'm not really impressed by this work, especially considering that in 1925, physicists developed matrix mechanics:

Anonymous (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


I'm impressed, especially the whole dark matter section. I'm fascinated with observing science in the 20s... then comparing it to the standard 21st century models.

--JT1480 (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It might sound impressive at first, but it's not so original. Laplace's ideas about "dark stars" over 100 years before were closer to describing black holes and dark matter than Sidis's. These notions were all floating in the air, and Sidis was barely closer to figuring any of them out than any other amateur physicist at the time.

Anonymous (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how old Sidis was when he published it, but he was more than an amateur, he was very young for his age

--JT1480 (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's amateur work. He took a few undergrad classes in physics and astronomy, so what? That was just as trivial for any researcher in those fields then as it is now. He was young, but that doesn't mean much. He was like any prodigy, I'm sure he had classmates who knew the material better than he did.

If you honestly compare Sidis's work to the work of any astronomer or physicist from the same era, you'll see how amateurish it really was.

Anonymous (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't call being a physics, mathematics and astronomy prodigy, attending Harvard at 12, 'amateur'. But I understand your perspective.

--JT1480 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's silly, going to school early doesn't make you more competent. Anonymous (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Having trouble with logic?

Stanford has a free online course in logic ($10 fee for a book). It serves as an introduction.

There is an honor code, and it's integrity has to remain in tact. Do not discuss the course here, if you wish to take it.

--JT1480 (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Chris Langan's Personality

Some members here will know that I enjoy studying geniuses at times. I paid a well known company a small amount, to find Chris' MBTI type, with surprise they found:

"We have now researched Chris Langan and we find him to be ESTP.

If this assessment surprises you, I would direct your attention to these URLs:

Particularly, Langan projects an image of a "larger-than-life superman," someone who is not merely cerebral, but rather combines brains and street smarts and comes out as the "alpha" in every exchange (whether in an interview or on a game show or at the bar he works at). Despite his subject matter, he seems to have little sympathy for long-winded, hair-splitting philosophy - for instance, it seems he has not found it necessary to address the points made by classical philosophers such as Hume and Kant and he would probably say that those two are overcomplicating things. In this aspect he bears a resemblance to Ken Wilber, another Se dominant who takes on the same big questions.

We also find Langan to be what Theodore Millon terms a compensatory narcissist, i.e. a narcissist with negativistic and avoidant features - meaning he has a grandiose sense of his own superiority, but ambivalently vacillates between resenting and turning his back on a world that does not acknowledge him as superior, and then turning around and doing something to call attention to himself and court admiration."

I have seen people on forums trying to figure out what his MBTI type he is, and like me they thought he would probably be an IN-- however, I am very happy with this company's analysis. The psychologists had researched Chris very thoroughly; I even sent them links of crucial documents and videos. I have researched this some time, before I asked for their help, and I am confident they are correct. I originally suggested he may be an introvert, however if one delves into introversion and extroversion we can see he clearly is not.

--JT1480 (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Dylancatlow (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC) If I had to guess, I would classify Langan as an INTJ. He's said he doesn't feel fully comfortable unless he's "back in-front of his desk doing what he loves, which is investigating the nature of reality". He also spent many years as a forest-fire lookout, which was totally solitary, and he has commented that he was "perfectly happy that way". The rest of their analysis is completely absurd. All of their remarks equally apply to Ayn Rand (in fact, the similarity is shocking), who is universally recognized as an INTJ personality. These people don't know what they're doing.

They also said he hasn't addressed the points made by Hume and Kant, which is just blatantly false.

I don't know Christopher Langan personally so I can't assess this personality profile, but--as Dylancatlow mentioned--Hume and Kant are two philosophers specifically addressed in CTMU-related essays and discussions. Cdipoce (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

YouTube Video

Every comment I glance at is utterly foolish.

It's a shame there is such a huge misconception going on. I think the best way to help the misconception, isn't replying individually to people, but by increasing traffic and trends towards the CTMU. The average reader knows very little about metaphysics in general, so obviously someone has to simplify it down.

--JT1480 (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right. The 'understanding' of metaphysics held by a typical YouTube user or blogger doesn't go far beyond pithy slogans like "every theory must make testable predictions" or "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I think it's a shame as well, but I prefer not to hold them in contempt, as some people simply never had the opportunity to study mathematics or philosophy in any great depth. And while sometimes it can be infuriating when they criticize something they've merely skimmed over, I feel that the 'dressing-down' of CTMU-critics can verge on unconstructive mean-spiritedness (this applies to my past behaviour, which is why I now tend to shy away from online CTMU-arguments). Cdipoce (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The thing that bothers me is the ad hominem attacks... Anyway, anyone know where I can find Langan's 1 vs. 100 episode? I can't find it on YouTube anymore...

--JT1480 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

New CTMU Audiobooks

Just letting everyone know that I recently uploaded some audiobooks to Youtube. They include Chris' ISCID discussions, his megaboard discussions, his posts in the "Another Crank Comes to Visit" thread, and some of his essays. You can find the links on the CTMU sources page.

Dylancatlow (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


I am ordering Chris Langan's 20/20 video from ABC, however I cannot post it online due to the terms of use. If anyone is interested in purchasing a copy, let me know and I'll send you the e-mail and subject line. --JT1480 (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it worth seeing? If so, then I'd like to know the email, etc. (also, it would be awesome if you could upload it so megaupload or something).

Dylancatlow (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well you do get to see Chris taking an IQ test, which invalidates any Ron Hoffelin skeptics. You have probably seen them on YouTube: "chris langan is stupid he take one IQ test online it is not even real"... you know, stuff like that.

I believe the neuroscientist confirms he has an IQ of 190-210.

All of Langan's videos that have appeared online keep getting taken down on YouTube, so I'm thinking of archiving some material. It doesn't take long and if he does go down in history as a notable, everything can be easily accessed. Now there was one interview that none of us have probably seen. It was on a TV interview show, similar to The Circle. I believe Michael asked if anyone has seen it. I may try to order that too.

The only issue is that I cannot post it online. Since they are the only copies, they would know exactly who put them online. It's strictly for home viewing only.

I'll see if there's a different point-of-contact for the videos and send you an e-mail. --JT1480 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

IQ tests are stupid.

Thanks! Send the files to

Dylancatlow (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you made any progress uploading the interview?

Dylancatlow (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Fun Facts

I decided to collect some facts about Chris that you may not know; I have put them in a type of 'profile' format.

Age: >60 Nationality: American Ethnicity: Hispanic

Growing up as a kid: Langan was bullied, as we all know, but what you may not know is that Jack Langan was a journalist, who often covered town corruption, which made him highly controversial.

When Chris started living on his own in Long Island, he had several reptiles

Chris rode a 1985 Shovelhead Harley Davidson, with a bored-out 1187 cc engine.

Chris has a small electric piano, and he has been known to edit music; he probably uploads them somewhere online.

Chris has an electric guitar and he has been playing it for a long time

Chris likes Johnny Asia's music:

Chris used to eat tuna and water for breakfast and he does like steak and fries. Chris wanted to be a vegetarian, but he said that the body isn't supposed to work that way.

Predator and Pumping Iron are Chris' favorite movies

Chris has been contracted by Disney Research in the past

--JT1480 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, ok, be careful not to idolize the guy, he's only human. Anonymous (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

He's Hispanic? wut.

Dylancatlow (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes he is Hispanic. Don't ask me how I know. --JT1480 (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. What part Hispanic? I've seen pictures of his siblings, mother and grandfather, and none of them looked Hispanic to me.

Dylancatlow (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

She looks Hispanic to me... Regardless, if she isn't, then it must have been his father. There probably aren't any photos of him, because he wasn't around. --JT1480 (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was invited to The Ultranet LinkedIn group a few years ago, and Chris Langan has replied to some of my emails several years before that. Due to privacy concerns, I withdrew from the group. I do not want to quote his words, and I do not know his genealogy, however he has mentioned that for the most part his ancestors came to America in the 1600s for religious freedom, and as far as he knows, none of them owned slaves. Chris may point out that Hispanic is a partial subcategory of White, especially in the case of "Spanish-speaking" Celtic-Iberians. Usually Hispanics are "Mestizos" or a mixture of Indigenous Native Americans and European Spaniards. From the few emails I do have from Chris, I would infer that he isn't Hispanic, even if he doesn't consider himself White, even if he had Spanish-speaking ancestors. From my experience, considering his stance on University affirmative-action policies, he may have once made a point of identitying as Hispanic to bring attention to the problems associated with unfair admission and staffing policies. I read his father died in Mexico when he was five years old. Mitt Romney's heritage may be traced to Mormon settlements in Mexico, that doesn't make him Hispanic.

Considering that Chris Langan (or his alter-ego Eric Hart who almost goes as far as sympathizing with the goals of Nazi eugenics) publically supports anti-dysgenics (screening for diseases, a Manhattan-project scale reversible birth control vaccine required by the age of 10, controlled breeding and genetic engineering), and considering how some SS officers escaped to Latin America, where Spanish-speaking Europeans have settled in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil among other places in Latin-America, there is definitely a subcategory of White/Hispanic.

"In the Spanish system of racial hierarchy, the sistema de castas, mestizos/pardos, who formed the majority, had fewer rights than the minority elite European-born persons called peninsulares, and the minority white colonial-born whites criollo, but more rights than the now minority indios, negro, mulato and zambo populations."

My personal view is that the unity of society depends on the unity of the family, and that the consent of both sets of living parents is one of the preconditions for marriage, and that sex outside of marriage is not legitimate. I believe that as our scientific understanding advances, so must the horizon of our spiritual understanding, as the purpose of marriage and reproduction is certainly important for future generations to learn. Someday, science and religion will be considered as the minimal and maximal ends of the same knowledge generating, belief affirming enterprise.

Mereon (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Abraham

Increasing Publicity

I have been thinking about how to increase the publicity of the CTMU recently. After reading Art of Knowing's section on solitaire, I started thinking about how well the CTMU may be received if someone were to create a video game of the CTMU...

I don't really have any video game making experience, but I do think the idea is a good one.

--JT1480 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Economic Circuitry: An Exercise in Trans-Dimensional Engineering

This paper will be posted on arxiv later today. For now I'm linking a discussion on reddit attacking my work: I was unaware of CTMU till about an hour ago, although I am very excited to dive into as it appears I have independently developed a similar theory and actually devised a workable mathematically based logic framework to develop tools that have direct applications in Economics and Public Policy.

The primary basis of my theory as I have devised a multi-dimensional utility function that differentiates between utility derived from direct utilization of the good/service and that from trade of the good/service. I then abstractly defined a game theory framework that integrates this into space-time relationships and then demonstrates the existence of a space-time-thought continuum in a metaphysical sense and hypothesize that it indeed can model physical reality as well.

I may have completely lost my mind, however I have been convinced for over a decade that the consequences of my model are true and I am looking for collaborators to help me develop it into something workable.

--Jlind0 (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

One Body

I often visualize that the entire universe is the molecular makeup of God himself. Everything is relative to size as we know it. Take Earth: Earth being the basic unit of a chemical element, an Atom. The living creatures on Earth moving in different directions and different speeds would be the equivalent of protons, neutrons and electrons. We are basically one small atom in a universe of unfathomable amount of other atoms that make up a living thing, GOD. As we individually are God's of the molecules of our own bodies, the life of the smallest things in our body may be thinking the same things we are: what is out there and where did we come from.... Hoot68 (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)