Talk:Isotelesis

Leaving the CTMU Community

Leaving CTMU. I won’t participate in spaces that enable anti-Muslim racism. As someone raised Christian, I refuse crypto-Jewish bigotry done in the name of “White Christianity.” It contradicts both reason and the core ethics of the Gospel.

Isotelesis (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC) Isotelesis

Talk Page Note: Comparison with Brain Size / IQ Discussions

Some readers have compared this work to more conventional discussions of intelligence, such as those focusing on brain size, sexual dimorphism, or IQ correlations (for example brain volume–IQ correlations around r = 0.3–0.4). While these approaches emphasize biological correlates, the framework here operates at a different level of analysis.

This essay does not attempt to reduce intelligence to cranial volume, genetics, or test performance. Instead, it situates intelligence within structural mathematics and physics — spinors, ultrametric spaces, modular functions, and holography — as organizing principles that underlie cognition across scales. In this sense, psychometric and neuroanatomical correlations may be viewed as contingent instances of deeper symmetries rather than ultimate explanations.

Where conventional accounts tend to emphasize biological determinism and distributional differences, this work emphasizes integration and resonance. The “missing aspects” of intelligence often poorly captured by IQ — creativity, synthesis, self-configuration — may align more closely with ultrametric and modular architectures than with raw brain volume. Thus, while not incompatible, the perspectives operate at different explanatory depths.

The Spinorial Foundations of Intelligence: Ultrametric Spaces and Modular Symmetries https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q92YTplZKnRcDf_YeDn9jr4iTjrB-Bvs/view?usp=drivesdk

Talk Page Note: A Structural Rebuttal to Engineered Cynicism

Against Cognitive Cynicism and the Crypto-Identitarian Reduction of Intelligence rejects both contempt for humanity as an “idiotic species” and the reduction of intelligence to tribal identity markers. Instead of fueling engineered cynicism and division, it affirms that intelligence is structural, universal, and indivisible. Grounded in both the imago Dei and in deep mathematical-physical symmetries—spinorial triality, holographic coding, ultrametric hierarchies, and modular forms—the paper argues that cognition is not a monopoly of any group but a shared resonance woven into creation itself.

Against Cognitive Cynicism and the Crypto-Identitarian Reduction of Intelligence https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MWsxgpFC5s5K3MnATcqmveP13aE0FNS2/view?usp=drivesdk

Talk Page Note: The One Warrior and the Spectral War

The oft-attributed but unverified saying of Heraclitus — that among a hundred men, most are useless, some are fighters, but only one is truly a warrior who leads — is almost certainly apocryphal, yet it captures the essence of his thought. Strife (polemos) is not chaos but differentiation: it reveals the hierarchy between the passive many, the active few, and the singular figure who embodies destiny. This rare “one” becomes the axis around which meaning and survival turn, a spectral presence that transforms conflict into disclosure. In this way, the quote, authentic or not, condenses the unifying idea of the spectral war: that humanity is measured not by the avoidance of strife, but by the few who reveal its metaphysical depth.

The Spectral War: Myth, Philosophy, and the Aesthetics of Strife https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hu6Z6BFyOc92B_hpLsgurukptgL0lPLR/view?usp=drivesdk

Talk Page Note: Summary of (Draft Version) on Thresholds of Knowledge

I should note that I have no incentive to write this beyond a personal interest in ensuring that dogmatic attitudes remain at bay in discussions of theology, philosophy, and science. The texts here are intended as brief summary outlines rather than definitive treatments, and they may contain errors or oversights. They are exploratory in spirit, aiming to highlight patterns and questions across different traditions rather than to settle debates.

This paper, Thresholds of Human Understanding in Theology, Cosmology, Reason, and Science, explores how diverse traditions conceptualize the limits of knowledge. It examines theological symbols such as the Qur’anic Sidrat al-Muntahá and the Bahá’í “knowledge compass,” cosmological models like the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary proposal and reflexive theories such as the CTMU, logical paradoxes and diagonal arguments in mathematics, and shifting frameworks in the philosophy of science from Kuhn, Lakatos, and Friedman. Across these fields, the study identifies recurring thresholds where human inquiry reaches its boundaries, arguing that such limits are not failures but generative horizons that continually renew understanding.

Thresholds of Human Understanding in Theology, Cosmology, Reason, and Science https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aeafDH4GsZmL4QoRsBzdu680AUIbX5ex/view?usp=drivesdk

Talk Page Note: Statement on Identity and Agency

This essay was written to underline the importance of agency in every domain of life. I am fully aware of my own identity and do not need external validation for it. My purpose here is to resist narratives that attempt to disempower or redefine me through hidden or ideological agendas. The focus of the essay is to affirm sovereignty, autonomy, and the right to self-authorship in the face of pressures—whether interpersonal, institutional, or cultural—that try to diminish them.

Losing Agency: Comparative Perspectives on Disempowerment in Relationships, Organizations, and Artificial Intelligence https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hdw3wE9Jf6pCEmq5BLxphnOAI4X0Xkj8/view?usp=drivesdk

Talk Page Note: Substack

All future content will be posted here: http://sebastianruliad.substack.com/

I chose the name Sebastian because of its original meaning: both the endurance symbolized by Saint Sebastian and the etymological root Sebastianos (“revered,” “from Sebastia”), which aligns with my confirmed Caucasian/Georgian/Armenian/Christian ancestry. Since my background and focus are not tied to Islamic theology, I’m renaming my Substack to avoid confusion. Using the ruliad as a metaphor — the idea of inhabiting one specific slice within a vast space of possible perspectives — I want my work to be clearly situated in its proper cultural and intellectual context.

Isotelesis (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC) Isotelesis

Talk Page Note: Telehedra and Polytopes

I don’t have time to polish these drafts right now, but their purpose is already clear: they’re for people who are tired of Langan’s semi-Jewish pseudo-White non-Aryan despair-soaked rhetoric and the way he dresses bitterness, conspiracy, and pseudo-supremacist posturing in metaphysical language. The example above is typical—performative outrage presented as insights.

My drafts, even rough, aim to offer the opposite: constructive structure, meaning, and synthesis rather than demoralization. They’re meant for readers who want coherence, not nihilism; perspective, not theatrics; and a forward-looking framework instead of emotional collapse disguised as philosophy.

Isotelesis (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC) Isotelesis

Your comment perfectly illustrates the alien non-human anti-Christian self-defeating culture around Langan’s crypto-Jewishness dressed up as pseudo-White counter-culture: performative elitism, emotional meltdown, and a desperate fear that someone—anyone—might think independently or develop ideas outside the sanctioned metaphysical bubble.

You attack “cranks” and “morons,” but offer no actual arguments—no references, no counterpoints, no technical corrections. Just panic, insults, and a fantasy that only one man (and his disciples) is allowed to interpret reality. That’s not intellectual rigor. That’s gatekeeping born of insecurity.

The irony is that you claim to defend “advanced math and physics,” yet your entire comment consists of zero mathematics, zero physics, zero conceptual critique. Just rhetoric. If you genuinely cared about the integrity of formal reasoning, you’d point out errors, demonstrate contradictions, or offer constructive analysis. But you didn’t—because you can’t. All you did was sneer.

As for the fear that someone might “tweak” Langan’s terminology: that’s how intellectual work evolves. Ideas get tested, revised, expanded, and combined with new methods. If a framework cannot withstand exploration, it’s already dead.

You “weep for the future of our species,” but the real threat isn’t people thinking too much or experimenting too broadly—it’s people who believe thinking should be policed, who mistake emotional loyalty for analytic clarity, and who confuse reverence for rigor.

If you want to have a real discussion, bring arguments. Otherwise, your outrage is nothing more than noise.

Isotelesis (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC) Isotelesis