# Talk:Beginner's introduction

I mean no offense to previous contributors, but in my view this "introduction" is not much better than noise to a novice reality theorist. I cannot see why we are not very closely following the example of Christopher Langan's 1998 "Introduction to the CTMU" on this page. I guess it's a race to fix it. Good luck. ONOMALOG (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Mereon:

By all means contribute your introduction, I didn’t write anything here under main pages in my own words, I just added to the word bank and provided quotes as definitions, others offered their simplified versions, once I mentioned self-adjointness I was basically asked not to contribute to the main definitions since my research became too technical for general audiences…nonetheless my research will continue and I will be happy to review your recommendations, understanding that it is not up to me what others have already decided without me…but I will see if it is technically adhering to available written material.

Self-adjointness in Quantum Mechanics: a pedagogical path https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.14490

“Observables, Disassembled …

An observable is (at least) an assignment of symbols in a mathematical or linguistic structure to a set of physical occurrences associated with an experimental setup.

This necessary condition on observables amounts to what philosophers often call a representation. It plays an essential role in the interpretation of quantum observables. For example, consider any of the classic models of textbook quantum theory that refer to some self-adjoint operator A as an ‘observable’. Such a statement satisfies our minimal criterion so long as it implicitly assumes an association between language and reality: for example, distinct experimental outcomes may be associated with distinct eigenstates of A, while registered values on a detector are associated with the corresponding eigenvalues. Alternatively, experimental outcomes might be associated with elements of a projection valued measure, or more generally of a pos- itive operator valued measure (to be discussed below). In general, a great deal of modelling and physical experiment is required to establish such associations between physical occurrences and mathematical language in an interesting way. However, at this stage, our minimal requirement is only that some such association exist. … The thesis of this paper is that the orthodoxy should be given up: there are many physically and philosophically interesting ways to have a non-self-adjoint observable. In particular, the self-adjointness property may be broken down into three ‘component’ properties: being normal, being symmetric, and having a real spectrum, each defined precisely below.” http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/14449/1/ObservablesDisassembled.pdf

What Size is the Universe? The Cosmic Uroboros http://physics.ucsc.edu/~joel/Chapter6.pdf

Mereon (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Mereon

There is no such thing as a general/technical audience distinction in the CTMU. In other words, we're all in this together; I don't know who in their right minds would have asked a contributor such as yourself (familiarity, regularity, theoretical acumen etc.) to refrain from editing the main definitions. They're probably dumb for that. Since you seem to be the only one here all the time, I consider you primarily responsible for the contents of the wiki; This page in particular is problematic for myriad reasons including its placement at the #1 spot on the Google SERP for "CTMU Introduction" and its inclusion of brain-dead sentences right from the get-go like:

"Matter can be reduced to atoms, atoms can be reduced to subatomic particles, etc, etc. Eventually, if we keep reducing in this manner, we get to the most fundamental constituents of reality: information. The universe can be conceived as a vast arrangement of information: ones and zeros and the mathematical relationships between them."

Unless one is asleep at the wheel oneself or, you know, decides to assume otherwise (i.e. that the author is merely feigning stupidity) on a whim, that sentence is going to come across as being written by someone who doesn't know the first thing about reality theory, information theory, physics, cosmology, mathematics, or logic. Embarrassing moves like this are why atheist-nihilists are winning the war for our souls. There is, however, still time.

Regarding criticism on the technicality of your research... just write as if you don't already understand what you're talking about and stop quoting people for God's sake, man. That is, I suggest you simply write in your own words in such a way that just following the grammatical structure of your sentences is enough to get your point. Distinguish between semantically-loaded vocabulary like "semantically-loaded" and more or less purely grammatical vocab like "like", "and", and so on. If a word isn't included for primarily grammatical purposes, contextually define the ever-loving shit out of it over and over. That's what I do and strangers literally knock on the door to my mom's basement to find me and have me explain the CTMU to them. I don't know how it comes across to anybody else, but the way I see it, if you do nothing but quote shit it's obvious you're scared you're gonna say something wrong.

Since it looks like it's only you and me here for now, I'll begin work on overhauling the main body of the site at my earliest opportunity, working backwards from this page to the main page and then making sure all the links from the main page don't suck either. I don't own any real property, I don't have a job, my friends and family think I'm worthless, I've got about 4 bucks in my bank account and I work 40+ hours a week for myself for no pay so it'll be slow going but I'll do it. Help would be greatly appreciated, but I see you're very busy on your um... user page so no pressure. ONOMALOG (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Mereon:

You can suck Chris Langan’s Jewish cock for all I care. Study real math and physics, get a job that pays enough to support a family, don’t fall for Langan’s Whiteness shtick, he’s a Jew, don’t try to save or protect his cult. If you don’t know the basics of quantum physics concepts then you are just falling for quantum voodoo. I suggested the term “self-duality” to Mr. Langan from my own research but again, you are either him or one of his lemmings, don’t let me stop you from either climbing or falling off the cliff of model-theoretic motivic integration. I am not responsible for the beginners introduction anymore, I am responsible for ensuring people above a certain level of understanding can do their own research. I will hold you primarily responsible for defending everything he says if that is what you want to be, but I will not, and if I don’t make the CTMU beginner’s introduction look more intelligent, good, it deserves to be read and written at the level of retardation that its followers believe in, if there are compatibilities to be found with modern math and physics to be gleaned from my quotes that is up to the diligent reader to look for. The top search result for Chris Langan should be that his real dad was a Jew and that he fools Aryans into doing his slave work.

“Motivic Integration: An outsider’s tutorial … Motivic integration over algebraically closed valued fields in the sense of Hrushovski and Kazhdan is a theory in which the measures are defined on sets defined in algebraically closed valued fields and the values lie in (semi-)rings built from an amalgam of algebraic varieties and polytopes.” https://math.berkeley.edu/~scanlon/papers/scanlon_durham_motivic_integration_outsiders_tutorial.pdf

“In model theoretic approaches to motivic integration, one associates a motivic measure to every definable set, and also the motivic functions are defined in terms of definable objects. In this course, I will give an introduction this kind of motivic integration, probably mainly following the approach by Hrushovski-Kazhdan: This consists in abstractly defining the most general measure possible using abstract nonsense and then working out what the ring actually looks like where that measure takes values.” http://modvac18.math.ens.fr/courses.html

Mereon (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Mereon

Dear Sir,

I do not take any offense to, nor summarily dismiss, anything you have said here except this assertion: "you are either him or one of his lemmings".

BS.

I am a totally free agent under God alone. Chris tried to get me to work for him, once; it didn't work. I have the wherewithal to publicly badmouth the guy for days, but I'm not interested in that until the world lives as one, or at least until I think we have a good chance of getting there. Forgive me, but you appear to be butthurt about something regarding him. What gives? If you deign to answer this line of inquiry of mine, please use my user talk page.

I don't know my ancestry or ethnicity or care about that stuff at all. I consider myself a mongrel dog of no definable type or breed, and that's fine— this is a dog fight not a dog show.

What you've already added to the bottom of this page totally satisfies me in terms of my displeasure with the previous state of this article. Let's work together again soon. ONOMALOG (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Mereon:

Hi Gina, I know other girls who use words like “butthurt”…it isn’t lady like little sister. Now you said you were going to edit the beginners introduction, still I haven’t seen any changes to the description someone else made, but I will read it and provide my technical feedback for those not part of your social media personality cult.

Mereon (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Mereon

This part always tickles me. On discord they always think I'm really Chris and now apparently I'm really Gina! I guess I should take it as a compliment that I keep getting mistaken for people who are publicly known for being really smart lol. I'm literally just a real young nigga from the 6, nothing more, nothing less. You can't convince a delusional person of anything (or "unconvince" them, I suppose) but I would be wiling to video call or whatever else if you'd like. inb4 "they hired you to pretend like you don't work for them" lmao the absolute state of hamid ONOMALOG (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Mereon:

I have accepted video calls in the past, so if you have an invitation link and would like to talk face to face I am ready. I created the following Microsoft Teams Group for anyone who wants to discuss specific changes to this beginners introduction…I want to see who I am talking to.

Join 'CTMU Community' in Microsoft Teams. Use this link to get the app for free and join the community: https://teams.live.com/l/community/FBAm8sa1PhOUq4WnAI

Mereon (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Mereon

Brief Life History of Melvin Edward Letman (2 March 1924–16 January 1976) https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/MW93-HLC/melvin-edward-letman-1924-1976 https://www.geni.com/people/Melvin-Letman/6000000043047524488

“DINA LETMAN Funeral services will be conducted 3 p.m. Sunday in Bunker Bros Mortuary Chapel for Dina Letman, 85. of 1580 Vegas Valley Drive, who died Thursday in a local hospital Rabbi Phillip Shnairson. and Cantor Joseph Kohn. both of Temple Beth Sholom. will officiate with interment of to follow in Woodlawn Cemetery’s Temple Section Letman was a member of Temple Beth Sholom. A Las Vegas resident 15 years, she was born May 5. 1892. in Chernigov. Russia She was a homemaker Letman is survived bv her son. Harold Letman of Denver. Colo.; daughter. Charlotte Skolnick of Las Vegas, brother. Ben Factor of San Francisco. Calif, four grandchildren and 11 great-grandchildren;” https://newspaperarchive.com/obituary-clipping-oct-08-1977-453610/

“Brood parasites are animals that rely on others to raise their young. The strategy appears among birds, insects and fish. The brood parasite manipulates a host, either of the same or of another species, to raise its young as if it were its own, usually using egg mimicry, with eggs that resemble the host's.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasite

## Contents

- 1 Introduction to the CTMU
- 2 Introduction to Quantum Metamechanics
- 3 Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics
- 4 The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe as the Nexus of Spirituality and Cosmology: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Reality
- 5 The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory
- 6 CTMU sources
- 7 CTMU Q&A (1989-2005)
- 8 Mereon’s Edit Suggestions
- 9 Open AI Response 1.0

## Introduction to the CTMU

Introduction to the CTMU (C.M. Langan) https://web.archive.org/web/20180826180042/http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm

A Very Brief History of Time (1998) C.M. Langan https://web.archive.org/web/20180727055335/http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Time.html

## Introduction to Quantum Metamechanics

Introduction to Quantum Metamechanics (QMM) (2019) C.M. Langan https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/788

## Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics

An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics (2017) C.M. Langan https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/618

## The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe as the Nexus of Spirituality and Cosmology: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Reality

The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe as the Nexus of Spirituality and Cosmology: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Reality (1998-2000) C.M. Langan https://web.archive.org/web/20170212160547/http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Nexus.html

## The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory

The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory (2002) C.M. Langan http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Langan_CTMU_0929021-1.pdf

INFORMATION, PHYSICS, QUANTUM: THE SEARCH FOR LINKS J.A. Wheeler (1989) https://philpapers.org/archive/WHEIPQ.pdf

## CTMU sources

CTMU sources https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/CTMU_sources

## CTMU Q&A (1989-2005)

CTMU Q&A (1989-2005) https://web.archive.org/web/20060523223943/http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Q&A/Archive.html

## Mereon’s Edit Suggestions

However this binary distinction depends on an active medium common to their mutual definition in which 1 and 0 may be expressed as “difference in sameness.”

Mereon:

Now here is a quote from an outside perspective not approved by Langan or his Semi-Jewish Whiteness cult:

“Mutual information, as its name suggests, looks to find how much information is shared between 2 variables rather than just noting their commensurate “movement.” To grasp such a technique requires we understand information itself, and this brings us to the bulk of this article.

Information is defined as the resolution of uncertainty. This means an appropriate approach would account for the uncertainty inherent in any measurement, and this demands probability.” https://medium.com/swlh/a-deep-conceptual-guide-to-mutual-information-a5021031fad0

“A strong pedagogy would not only instill this sort of basic training, but make the battery of routine results more memorable by concentrating their essence in one or two basic principles that provide an explanatory basis for the rest. According to Lawvere 69, Lawvere 05, logic is an interlocking system of certain types of adjoint functors, and we believe putting those adjoint relationships front and center and seeing how the rest flows from them is an effective way to arrange the facts. … Proofs via adjoints

The properties 1., 2. of Proposition 2.1 may be proved by appeal to fundamental relationships between direct image and inverse image and the like, which category theorists call adjunctions (similar in form to adjoints in linear algebra). The advantage of this type of proof is that, despite its utter simplicity, it generalizes to much wider contexts (beyond elementary classical set theory).” https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/interactions+of+images+and+pre-images+with+unions+and+intersections

GALOIS CONNEXIONS (1944) BY ØYSTEIN ORE https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1944-055-00/S0002-9947-1944-0010555-7/S0002-9947-1944-0010555-7.pdf

“The Galois Connection between Syntax and Semantics … ‘Adjointness in foundations’ (1969), F. William Lawvere writes of ‘the familiar Galois connection between sets of axioms and classes of models, for a fixed [signature]’.” https://www.logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/Galois.pdf

Mereon (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Mereon

“PANORAMA OF P-ADIC MODEL THEORY … Experience has shown that multisorted languages allow to bring out the basic intuition that a valued field is somewhat an extension of the residue field by the valued group, through many precise forms of elimination (of quantifiers, or else) of the base field sort relative to other sorts. The simplest case is relative to the residue field and value group.” http://modnet.imj-prg.fr/Publications/Introductory%20Notes%20and%20surveys/Belair.pdf

“p-Adic Numbers and Generalization of Number Concept … The basic hypothesis is that p-adic space-time regions correspond to cognitive representations for the real physics appearing already at the elementary particle level. The interpretation of the p-adic physics as a physics of cognition is justified by the inherent p-adic non-determinism of the p-adic differential equations making possible the extreme flexibility of imagination.

p-Adic canonical identification and the identification of reals and p-adics by common rationals are the two basic identification maps between p-adics and reals and can be interpreted as two basic types of cognitive maps. The concept of p-adic fractality is defined and p-adic fractality is the basic property of the cognitive maps mapping real world to the p-adic internal world. Canonical identification is not general coordinate invariant and at the fundamental level it is applied only to map p-adic probabilities and predictions of p-adic thermodynamics to real numbers. The correspondence via common rationals is general coordinate invariant correspondence when general coordinate transformations are restricted to rational or extended rational maps: this has interpretation in terms of fundamental length scale unit provided by CP2 length.

A natural outcome is the generalization of the notion of number.” http://tgdtheory.fi/pdfpool/padmat.pdf

“The p-adic absolute value is non-archimedean. The completion ℚp of ℚ under this absolute value is called the field of p-adic numbers, which is therefore a non-archimedean field. Ostrowski's theorem says that these examples exhaust the non-trivial absolute values on the rational numbers. Therefore the real numbers and the p-adic numbers are the only possible field completions of ℚ.” https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/absolute+value

Non-Archimedean Analysis – A systematic approach to rigid analytic geometry, 1984 https://www.math.arizona.edu/~cais/scans/BGR-Non_Archimedean_Analysis.pdf

VARIATIONS ON A THEME OF BOREL: AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE ROLE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL GROUP IN RIGIDITY http://math.uchicago.edu/~shmuel/VTBdraft.pdf

“Non-Archimedean future time would entail the existence of a future moment T, such that for any finite duration y there exists a moment Now + y but less than T. Note that if such a future moment T existed, there would exist an infinity of moments such that for all finite moments y' , T − y' would be after every moment Now + y where y is a finite duration. Likewise, one may conceive of a non-archimedean past. One may distinguish singularly, multiply and infinitely non-Archimedean times.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Archimedean_time

Generalized probabilities taking values in non-Archimedean fields and in topological groups https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0512427.pdf

Two Essays on the Archimedean versus Non-Archimedean Debate https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.4509.pdf

“Non-Archimedean Geometry and Physics on Adelic Spaces … Since a measurement means quantitative comparison of a given observable with respect to a fixed value taken as its unit, it follows that a realization of the Archimedean postulate is practically equivalent to the measurements of distances. According to the uncertainty (1.1), it is not possible to measure distances shorter than 10−33cm and consequently there is no place for an Archimedean geometry beyond the Planck length. By this way, standard approach to quantum gravity, which is based only on Archimedean geometry and real numbers, predicts its own breakdown at the Planck scale. Hence, a new approach, which takes into account not only Archimedean but also a non-Archimedean geometry, seems to be quite necessary. The most natural ambient to realize both of these geometries is an adelic space, which is a whole of real and all p-adic spaces.” https://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0306023

## Open AI Response 1.0

Explain the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)

The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is a theory proposed by American philosopher and physicist Christopher Langan. The CTMU is a form of cosmological theory that combines ideas from metaphysics and theoretical physics. According to Langan, the CTMU proposes that the universe is a self-aware, conscious entity, and that the fundamental nature of reality is fundamentally cognitive in nature. This means that the universe is not only made up of physical matter and energy, but also of thoughts and ideas. The CTMU also proposes that the universe has the ability to think and process information, and that this fundamental cognitive nature is the source of all physical laws and phenomena. https://chat.openai.com/chat