Talk:Generalized utility

From CTMU Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I deleted this page because it was lacking in comprehension and execution. I then typed up one which is more informative and intelligible, which I then deleted because I am unsure of whether I should have independent work on this wiki. I also share a similar back story to Langan, have been tested as immeasurably high on standard IQ tests, was stomped in the face by academia, and have been generally faced with far more problems than a young adult should face. Since a young age, it has been my goal to hold the universe within my mind and to help induce global human self-actualization. Through independent study and mentation, I arrived at the T.O.E., which is of course necessarily CTMU isomorphic. I made my run through and independently derived physics, mathematics, philosophical theories and the like as they were necessary to fulfill my goals. I independently derived the CTMU and all of Langan's other published works. However, as I am only 18 years old, my independent derivation of the CTMU makes me more impressive in terms of time constraint. I have come to this wiki because Langan's terminology is so effortlessly and seamlessly produced that I thought of the same exact words to express my T.O.E. as Langan did for the CTMU; so aside from a few differing terms, I merely translated my terminology into Langan's and viola! An understanding of SCSPL which mirrors Chris's himself. I am currently studying and developing SCSPL and working to unite the CTMU with real world problems so that they may be resolved from within its tautological framework. My question is: If I understand Langan's material by total isomorphism with my T.O.E., and my T.O.E. is indistinguishable from it, would you accept my independent work on SCSPL to be featured as content on this wiki?(whether it be explanatory or original extensions thereof) SCSPLmetaphysician (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello, SCSPLmetaphysician. I think we should be conservative in what we post to the articles. The focus should be on explaining Langan's concepts as he has described them, rather than on presenting new insights that go beyond what he has said. Our audience will include people new to the CTMU who are trying to understand it for the first time, so we should try to explain things at a very basic level for them. Actually the previous version of the article, contributed by User:Eire, was a nice beginner's introduction, so it might be good to restore it, perhaps with more advanced material at the end. If you like, you can put your independent work in your userspace (at User:SCSPLmetaphysician), where there is more leeway to take things in your own direction. Tim Smith (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Major changes to articles shouldnt be conducted without a discussion and notifying the relevant authors. This is a collaborative process where everyone works together to make something of use to the interested reader. There's a place for everyone's contributions whether they be complex or simple and Tim is a great editor overall for smoothing everything over. It's important that we be polite and communicative and take each others views into consideration in the final product no matter how much/little expertise we individually have. Eire (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Interesting, I'll keep that in mind. However, you might want to correct the spelling mistakes first. In the previous page it says "generalised" instead of generalized. SCSPLmetaphysician (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2014‎ (UTC)
Thanks, I'll fix it. ("-ised" is an accepted variant spelling, but Langan uses "-ized", so I guess we should try to stay consistent with him.) Tim Smith (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)