Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

From CTMU Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Chu spaces, coalgebras, etc.

I'd like to add something on Chu Spaces, Coalgebras and other ideas in theoretical computer science which I noticed have similarities with concepts found in the CTMU:

"Chu spaces offer a uniform way of representing relational and topological structure simultaneously. This is because Chu spaces can represent relational structures via a generalization of topological spaces which allows them to represent topological structure at the same time using the same machinery." http://chu.stanford.edu/

Chu Spaces: Automata with Quantum Aspects: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.83.7742&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Information Transfer across Chu Spaces: http://www.illc.uva.nl/Publications/ResearchReports/PP-2000-02.text.pdf

Coalgebras, Chu Spaces, and Representations of Physical Systems: http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/files/2506/RR-09-11.pdf

Lawrence S. Moss Articles: http://math.indiana.edu/home/moss/aarticles.htm

-Koinotely (Hamid Javanbakht)

Thanks, Hamid! I've created a new page for links to work related to the CTMU. Tim Smith 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is there a contradiction between ctmu and the multi universe theory? Not multi universe from Quantum mechanics, But the theory that claims that were other universes before this and the singularity came from them. Blabla (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There does seem to be a contradiction, given that by "universe" we mean the real universe, AKA reality. In the CTMU, reality is all that exists; by definition, there is nothing external to it spatially or temporally. In particular, there can be nothing "outside reality" or "before reality". This rules out universes other than or prior to our own.
On the other hand, if by "universe" we mean some lesser region than reality as a whole, then even so, I think Langan would argue that if our universe is truely self-contained, it can still be regarded as identical to the real universe. This is because any useful description or prediction extracted from a theory involving multiple "universes" could be developed within our own universe by self-containment; in effect, the other universes could be treated as internal to ours in a logical sense.
Lastly, if by "universe" we mean some lesser region of reality that is not self-contained, then it and any other such regions would all be part of a greater multiverse, and this would then be the "real universe" addressed by the CTMU. Tim Smith (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Umm.. But who said that the reality of other universes is like ours? Maybe they are totally diffrent and and we cant logically be treated them like we treat our universe and then the rules of ctmu arent valid there and therefore arent valid at all.. what ctmu can say about that? Blabla (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The CTMU says that can't happen. By the principle of syndiffeonesis, nothing is "totally different" from anything else. Reality is defined on self-containment and perceptual relevance. Anything sufficiently real to affect our reality is inside it by definition. If the reality of another universe were "totally different" from ours, it would be unable to affect us, making it irrelevant and therefore unreal. For more on syndiffeonesis and the self-containment of reality, try pages 16-18 of Langan's paper. Tim Smith (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Publications by Langan

Does anyone know if any of Langan's book/s going to be released? Is Langan okay? I understand he is getting old, it has been many years and I have heard nothing about the book being released. Any ideas?

Hello. Assuming your awareness about Chris' background, condition and his academically-deceased status quo, you would probably know the answer to the many Whys generated by his actions. But I'll answer you anyway.
First, Chris' has been alluding about publishing Design for a Universe for over a decade. I recently have corresponded with his wife about that, and the book should be out in 2014, or so. Precisely when, I don't know.
Second, and likely the most important thing you have to keep in your mind, is that Chris really and completely is in charge of exposition(s) and/ or publication(s) of the CTMU material.
Now, after scanning and absorbing every bit and byte of information is out there about Chris' and the CTMU, I think it's quite easy to boil down things to a simple syntheis. Given what he's trying to do, under his adverse conditions, while serially being rejected and ignored by academia, he's odds are well night impossible. Technically and legally speaking, he's just a college dropout, that is, taking out of the equation his extreme levels of general knoweledge and the ability to squash most professionals academics with his pinky finger. (One of the many proofs for this you can find here.
Again, I could go on, and on, and on. Advice: read more about him.
Regarding you question if he's okay, well he's in his sixties now, perhaps still bodybuilding! So he's probably doing better that most men in their sixties, at least physically speaking. He also has a trick knee! (Which can be quite painful, especially for weightlifting.)
So I think that's about it. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
Have a nice day. Michael (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. I understand Chris has other priorities and is in charge of his publications, I honestly find it a shame that so many people have insulted his work without fully understanding it, criticism is fine, personal attacks are not acceptable, I know that can really hurt a man's morale, but from what I do know about Mr. Langan, he is mentally strong, personally we have both shared a similar abusive childhood, so I can relate to his probable pain and enduring spirit. Anyway, there are people out there who do support the theory, I happen to believe in it, I also believe what Mr. Langan said on an interview about 'adopting a logical approach', he may be unrecognized, but I think there is real potential in his theory and his work. I am a young Ivy League freshman, who possibly will develop better credentials in the academic society, although my work is not in cosmology, I will attempt to make the theory more known in the respective academic communities, whilst attempting to ensure that more silly hatred is not thrown towards Mr. Langan.

I'm glad he's okay, I used to do bodybuilding, too busy now trying to wrap my head around complex work, I got a bad back from weightlifting when I was younger, never had a trick knee, but I imagine it would be painful. Well, I think of it as having warrior spirit and mentality.

Have a nice day %)

--JhUSA (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"cat mew"?

Can anyone confirm the pronunciation is 'Cat Mew', I've heard Chris call it the 'C.T.M.U', but never cat mew...

--JT1480 (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That pronunciation appears in the Esquire article:
The result of ten years of solitary labor, the CTMU—pronounced cat-mew—is, says Chris, a true "Theory of Everything," a cross between John Archibald Wheeler's "Participatory Universe" and Stephen Hawking's "Imaginary Time" theory of cosmology.
and in "The Resolution of Newcomb's Paradox":
This generalization, as developed by the author, is called the CTMU, or Computation-Theoretic Model of the Universe (the acronym has a mnemonic pronunciation: cat-mew).
I've heard him call it the C-T-M-U too, perhaps for clarity. I'll add a note. Tim Smith (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


Ahh I see, thanks, I've never seen that before, thanks for the clarification.

--JT1480 (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)