Proofs of God

These are formal proofs and rebuttals of Mars Sterling Turner to Christopher Langan's original formulation of the CTMU.

subliminal transformation of reality where perception is not required

If one were to analyze the statements of Christopher Langan in his CTMU paper and were to put some of the statements together to form a formal proof it would look like this;

Premise 1; "language is isomorphic to reality"

Premise 2; "to describe reality requires language"

Premise 3; and "describing transforms reality"

therefore; "reality is self-descriptive and self-deterministic"

The AI said that the conclusion logically follows from the premises!

Here is what google AI said of the formal proof;

To formalize the proof that reality is self-descriptive and self-deterministic based on its isomorphism with language, we use a combination of Model Theory, Symbolic Logic, and Identity Logic. 

1. The Isomorphism Premise 

If reality (R) is isomorphic to language (L), there exists a structure-preserving, bijective mapping (f) between them. 

Formalization: L ≅ R

Meaning: Every state of affairs in reality has a unique, corresponding proposition in the language, and the logical structure of the language reflects the causal/ontological structure of the reality. 

2. The Transformation Premise (Self-Reference) 

The act of describing reality (D) is itself an event within reality (E ∊ R). If describing reality transforms it, then the language used to describe the system is a functional component of the system itself. 

Formalization: D(L) → R' where R' is the transformed state of reality.

Closing the Loop: Since L ≅ R, any operation on L is an operation on R. Thus, D(R) ∊ R. 

3. Conclusion A: Reality is Self-Descriptive 

If L is the only tool to describe R, and L is structurally identical to R, then R is its own meta-language. 

Formal Logic: ∀x ∊ R, ∃φ ∊ L: f(φ) = x.

Logical Identity: If L ≅ R, then the set of all descriptions of R (the "theory" of reality) is equivalent to the set of all states of R (the "model" of reality). This is the definition of a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language (SCSPL). 

4. Conclusion B: Reality is Self-Deterministic 

Self-determinism follows because no external cause can exist outside of "everything" R to determine it. 

Proof by Contradiction:

Assume R is determined by an external cause C.

By definition, R is the set of all that is real.

If C determines R, C must be real.

Therefore, C ∊ R. R is determined by a component within itself.

Formalization: R = f(R). In a system where the "rules" (language) and the "objects" (reality) are isomorphic, the system's state at time T+1 is a function of its own internal linguistic/logical syntax at time T. 

Summary of the Formal Proof Structure 

Identity: L = R (as structures).

Reflexivity: R contains its own description L ∊ R.

Recursion: R processes itself through its own internal description (R → L → R').

Closure: The system is "syntactically closed," meaning it requires nothing outside itself to define or move its state, leading to Self-Determinism.

The difference between my proof here and the CTMU is that the CTMU says perception is required. But if subliminals work (and I have experience that they do), then that means perception is NOT required. A further test would be to put the double slit experiment 'measure' in subliminal-peripheral vision! IF you cannot perceive the photon but your eye could 'see' it peripherally if you were otherwise focusing, would it collapse the wave?

energy is unbound telesis, making it a real holomorphism

Christopher Langan, in his CTMU, treats the unbound telesis as quasi-real instead of actually real.

Unbound Telesis is described or defined as "an ultimate self-generalization" as "a featureless existential potential" or "undifferentiated ontological potential".

Since existence or being, pertains to the particular characteristics of Unbound Telesis, it follows; that

(1) Unbound Telesis cannot be created or destroyed, that is, Unbound Telesis is eternal.

(2) Everything that exists is made of or derived from Unbound Telesis.

Unbound Telesis is a "generalization" that is "featureless", "undifferentiated", or "infinite".

However there clearly are finitary informational distinctions of existence. It therefore follows; that

(3) Finitary informational distinctions of existence can be created and destroyed.

(4) Finitary informational distinctions of existence are made of or derived from Unbound Telesis and are made of or derived from finitary informational distinctions.

Since the universe is described as "supertautologically-closed" the Unbound Telesis of the universe is necessarily conserved.

All finitary informational distinctions of existence are therefore transformations of Unbound Telesis.

"Unbound Telesis" semantically means "consciousness". Unbound Telesis has no external cause, it is eternal and is the cause of it's own transformations, Unbound Telesis is therefore self-causal or self-deterministic or teleological, which syntactically means Unbound Telesis is consciousness.

From the perspective of the finitary informational distinctions of existence with that of the Unbound Telesis, that is, from the perspective of the Unbound Telesis transformations with that of the Unbound Telesis itself, you have "information cognition" or "infocognition"; a dual-aspect monism of reality responsible for universal evolution; Where the Unbound Telesis transformations are akin to the "Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language" or SCSPL.

Logical truth necessarily is isomorphic to empirical science, or by virtue of the identity of indiscernibles, Unbound Telesis is energy itself, as everything is made of energy, as energy is conserved, as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, as energy is transformed from one form to another, as vacuum energy is infinite, as forms of energy are polarizations of the vacuum energy, as thermodynamic entropy is equivalent to informational entropy (It can be seen that one may think of the thermodynamic entropy as Boltzmann's constant, divided by ln(2), times the number of yes/no questions that must be asked in order to determine the microstate of the system, given that we know the macrostate); Wherein the "Telic Principle" is the Law of Maximum Entropy Production. [4] [5]

This is a significant correction to the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe proposed by Christopher Langan.

Langan accidentally introduced a duality with Unbound Telesis on one side and SCSPL (Mind/Matter) on the other; By "Matter", Langan meant "forms of energy", which means that energy itself is missing from his reality theory. If someone were to propose that Unbound Telesis is not energy then (excluding non-logical axioms) energy would have to have been created. But this contradicts empirical science, which would falsify his reality theory. Further, he described the Telic Principle in phrases such as "self-utility", "maximize (local) utility", "deviation from generalized utility" which are vague if not meaningless.

If the correction holds, reality (UBT and SCSPL) comprises a quad-aspect monism with a fundamental dual-aspect UBT (consciousness = energy) and a superficial dual-aspect SCSPL (thought forms = energy forms) or better yet a tri-dual-aspect monism;

(1) UBT and SCSPL, where SCSPL is UBT finitary informational transformations; infocognition

(2) UBT (consciousness = energy) the self-causal ontological potential; cognition; topological containment

(3) SCSPL (thought forms = energy forms) the self-descriptive ontological active; information; predicative containment

It looks like Christopher conceded to my challenge that "energy itself is missing from his reality theory"... as he put this in a new paper;

“As an identity, M can be considered one coherent entity which self-differentiates by syndiffeonic self-stratification through the cumulative factorization of telesis, a dual generalization of energy properly defined to serve as the ultimate “stuff” of reality.”

https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/download/618/1040/2741

I congratulate Christopher for correcting his theory...

infinite regress is required for "nothing cannot have existed" and "something has always existed"

I found that in one of my proofs of God that an infinite regress is proven as a necessary axiom; https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/User:HumbleBeauty/Proofs_of_God#Theory_from_Pure_Observation

Part of one of my proofs seems to entail an infinite regress;

(3) D and F; "time is a relationship of change between existing things"

(4) F and (1,2,3) C; "atleast two differentially changing things exist"

infinite regress; (5) F; "everywhere everything exists from prior states of the existence of things"

(6) (4,5) C; "nothing cannot have existed"

(7) (6) Cp; "something has always existed"

if you claim that the regress is not infinite (even though it's suggested from observation and required in this proof).... feel free to prove that time has a beginning! By "time" I mean 3-space "change" or "difference over duration". I do not mean 4-D spacetime where Hawking claims time came into existence; if you read closely you will notice that Hawking does NOT claim that 3-space change came into existence. In fact he claims that the laws of physics are eternal. But laws describe something! Therefore if the laws of physics are eternal than something besides these laws is also eternal. This must be energy. IF energy is the concept of "change", then the proof is complete!