Chris Langan - CTMU Briefly Explained - TOE 

''1. CTMU (Cognitive Theoretic Model of Universe) is a theory of everything. 2. There are two kinds of theories, of everything: 2.1 One of them is a physical theory, usually related to an unified field theory, which means the forces of nature are supposed to be unified into one General Force. But of course this is only part (section) of the reality as a whole. 2.2 CTMU is the theory of everything in the metaphysical sense and it has to conform to certain (assured) logical criteria. Those certain logical criteria in philosophy and metaphysics, govern what Theory of Everything has to be. (CTMU is therefore based on logical rules in base). 3. I like to characterize it as the language that reality speaks to itself, about itself.'' 3.1 It is a language. 3.2 It is an algebraic structure. 3.3 It is particular kind of language that reality actually uses to communicate with itself. 4. Reality uses this language, to make decisions regarding how it models itself. 4.1 Reality uses this language, to determine how reality evolves. 5. It can be modeled more ways, as for example: 5.1 Operator Algebra; 5.2 New kind of Quantization; 5.3 Reality self-simulation. ' 5.4 From the perspective of Quantum Mechanics it can be modeled as Quantum Meta Mechanics. 5.5 Like a metaphormal system, which is like a formal system, but generalization of the formal system. 6. A System that goes deeply into the nature of language. 6.1. Metaformal system which relates intelligence and intelligibility. 7. Ontology and Epistemology are coupled in. (Ontology -> What is reality? What is existence? + Epistemology -> How do we know what reality is?)

TOE is also Physics Tom Campbells work. He is not easy to listen to. Chris, when I slow my brain and really listen to you, I get it. Thank you...But I'll probably listen to it a few times. LOL, "...is that enough?". Your look was priceless.

8:03 through about 8:42 This description/definition of love is very helpful. I will be meditating on this.

Third time listening and very grateful for the exceptional delivery… great questions… thank you Chris for your continued work to get this theory out. Very much appreciated 🙏

4 people canceled for talking about the same subject but different names CTMU & Morphic Resonance or morphogenetic field theory or life fields * Alexander Gurwitsch - mitogenetic radiation-Morphogenetic field theory (1923) * Harold Saxton Burr - (life fields or L-fields)-book: The Nature of Man and the Meaning of Existence (1962) * Rupert Sheldrake -Morphic resonance (1981) is a theory proposing that memory is inherent in nature, with similar patterns influencing subsequent ones across time and space. * Chris Langan- CTMU is a metaphysical/philosophical theory of everything, a “theory of theories” in another term. It explains the deep nature of reality, its emergence, where it is headed and what its purpose is.

Excellent note about empirical sciences. Often the theories are proven just one time...a strict set of axioms is crucial and the foundation of truth as Mr Langan states.

While there may be some connections or analogies that could be drawn between the duality of syntax and semantics in formal systems and Stone duality, they are not directly related concepts. Syntax-semantics duality deals with the relationship between the form and meaning of formal languages, while Stone duality deals with a duality between algebraic and topological structures.

Would it be correct to combine matter and information theory?

Lightbulb went off for me: So in essence the substrate of reality is sort of combination of potential and self referential logic/syntax that self creates cognition, and spacetime is held within cognition? What can be, will be, and will arise in governance of logic/coherence? And really cognition is self referential logic at an infinite scale?

What about the actual infering of something like "anti-language"? Does still end up as part of the hierarchy of the fundamental language?

I am only about 80-90% certain i have understood CTMU, but without going into detail about what and why, could it be broken down further by stating, it is an 'a priori' approach to describe reality? And if so, what do you think about Hans Hermann Hoppes 'argumentation ethics', which is attempting to (in my view, successfully) describe objective morals with an a priori approach, that in most (if not all) ways seems to be compatible with CTMU or have i run into a language barrier i am unaware of? (english is not my first labguage, although i think it's decent) If you don't know Hoppe, he was the student of Murray Rothbard and has expanded on his argument for libertarianism/anarcho capitalism (ahem.. essesntially small scale monarchy). I'd really like to hear your perspective. The following is the copy/pasted (tl;dr) argument from Hoppes lecture/speach about 'argumentation ethics' (he goes more into detail in his hour long lecture, that can be found on RU-vid): "First, all truth claims, all claims that a given proposition is true, or false, or indeterminant, or undecidable, or that an argument is valid and complete or not raised are justified and decided upon in the course of an argumentation. Second, that the truth of this (1) proposition cannot be disputed without falling into a contradiction because any attempt to do so would itself have to come in the form of an argument, hence the a priori of argumentation. Third, argumentation is not free-floating sounds, but a human action. Namely, a purposeful human activity employing physical means, at least a person's body, and various external things in order to reach a specific end or goal. Namely, the attainment of agreement concerning the truth value of a given proposition or argument. Fourth, that while motivated by some initial disagreement, or dispute, or conflict concerning the validity of some truth claim, every argumentation between a proponent and an opponent is itself a conflict free, mutually agreed upon and peaceful form of interaction aimed at resolving the initial disagreement and reaching some mutually agreed on answer as to the truth value of a given proposition or argument. Fifth, that the truth or validity of the norms or rules of action that make argumentation between a proponent and opponent at all possible, that is, the praxeological presuppositions of argumentation cannot be argumentatively disputed without falling into a pragmatic or performative contradiction. Sixth, that the praxeological presuppositions of argumentation then, that is, what makes argumentation as a specific form of truth-seeking activity possible are two-fold. First, each person must be entitled to exclusive control or ownership of his own physical body, the very means that he and only he can control directly at will so as to be able to act independently of one another and come to a conclusion on his own, that is, autonomously. And second, for the same reason of mutually independent standing and autonomy, both proponent and opponent must be entitled to their respective prior possessions, that is, the exclusive control of all other external means of action appropriated indirectly by them prior to and independent of one another, and prior to the onset of their argumentation. And seven, that any argument to the contrary, that either the proponent or opponent is not entitled to the exclusive ownership of his body and all prior possessions cannot be defended without falling into a pragmatic or performative contradiction because by engaging in argumentation both proponent and opponent demonstrate that they seek a peaceful, conflict-free resolution to whatever disagreement gave rise to their arguments. Yet to deny one person the right to self-ownership and his prior possessions is to deny his autonomy and his autonomous standing in a trial of arguments. It affirms instead dependency and conflict, that is, heteronomy, rather than conflict free and autonomously reached agreement. It is, therefore, contrary to the very purpose of argumentation."

Concise and compelling. I should have come up with all that! 😅

.)•(..}•{..]•[../•\..)•(..}•{..]•[../•\. Just another comment and a Like for the algo. *************** We're all gonna make it. *************** Peace.

Robert anton wilson paraphrased: interacting processing; i can only tune in interacting processing; not only do i seem to be a verb, but the whole scenario universe seems to be a verb... i see no nouns, only verbs, non simultaneously apprehended

From when was this?

The world is everything that is the case.

Thanks again.

I suppose it also depends on what one understands our universe is. It is not like in science fiction, a sort of a bubble, and the multiverse like many bubbles. People like to visualize. In this case, it won't work. Could also be a flat piece of paper with no beginning or end, a joke by an entity with a sense of humor ...

And...tge penny dropped!