I just conducted [wrote] a whirlwind of Articles as CTMU Apologetics; for all those CTMU Diehards out there; here’s some ‘Fighting Words’… join my Substack now: gwilford.substack.com
@gregmwilford.>>>>>what do you think of these refutations about the ctmu{NOT ME WHO WROTE} :okay so, I dont really get why I need to repeat myself but here we go. 1) saying that there is a feedback system and then saying that the system is timeless, if you can have feedback without the present moment please let me know 2) the only grounds to stand on are flawed, its the argument that the universe came into existence because of a being, but before it claimed that matter and mind are one in the same 3) an insistence that the metaphysical is real, and currently no given answers as to any logical flaw which is obvious. 4) the saying that there is nothing and that the system is self constrained to achieve a goal which is its own meaning. its obviously stupid because constrained means there is something else that can exist. assuming he simply means that the system has its own goals and doesnt break itself to complete them fine ig? but that means that the system can decide things outside its feedback system which was established earlier, aka I dont know what you want me to assume other than its a god. if you want a god I can give you one, hey I am lily holmes. god has many logical flaws, but he made 1 claim which was the system is self constrained, this either means that there is stuff outside the system, and if not I can interpret what he said as the system doesnt break itself to keep its own goal, but then you get to a point where I just have a god which is logically inconsistent. if you have a system which has a goal and is keeping the status que its more acceptable but he didnt write it so I am not being nice. 5) he just doesnt know what the word objective subjective etc means. 6) this is the most amazing claim, the entire theory is built upon the 3rd solution the determinism versus randomness, which is amazing because he just assumed that both exist to make his point that there is a third bridge where its literally logically impossible
@gregmwilford years ago when this understanding first resonated with me, I too felt the need to try to convince others. I found the universe reflects back to us what we put out. You have such greatness within you. I wish you all that you hope for. And perhaps a bit of peace and harmony...and maybe a little less need for fighting. Both externally, but mostly internally. The words we choose to utter are unbridled insights into our inner workings. I'd love to continue to enjoy your work.. perhaps you could start writing for your fans. I recommend forgetting academic approval. Now is the time to pursue knowledge what brings you joy and wonder. Then share and explain that to evoke even more joy and wonder into our world. Write for the kids in all of us. Help them understand.
God Bless You for the Heartfelt warmth of Your Words and Your Soul. I do believe everything You wrote and I will strive to be positive in all respects possible to Me. If You read My Substack I believe You will see this very vein in My Work. Regardless of Naysayers and critics (which do exist) I want Prosperity For All and will work to produce 4 positive thoughts for every 1 negative. I have been so blessed by Fans such as Yourself and also the brotherhood of the CTMU Compatriots We have started. In the Name of Jesus Christ I wish You a Merry Christmas to Your Family from Mine!
My Grandfather understood the Love of Abundance and Prosperity for All the World and he fought in WWII at age 16 and lived through the Great Depression-if He can Strive and Hope and Dream so can We! God Bless Your Soul
It's like we are in an escape room, and only the extremely brilliant can figure out the clues... and then when they do they find the most complicated words to tell the rest of us.
@@Amazology Interestingly I was listening to an interview with Chris and Curt Jaimungal where Chris says, and I'm paraphrasing: By seeking the truth in this reality, we are contributing to creating reality. We are making reality real by seeking and finding our truth.
Thanks. That was nice and clear. CTMU says what ontological mathematics implies: Reality is a language talking to its self about itself. CTMU enriches my appreciation of ontological mathematics.
Thank you! I loved this. Much Respect for your level of understanding! I feel like the CTMU is a precise description of reality, I don't know because I am striving to understand it but I feel like it will take a lifetime! But I also believe it can be fully comprehended in a lifetime
If we work together such as in this community we can quickly foster understanding that is a team effort and mutually supportive. I grow greatly in encouragement hearing comments like yours friend. Best of luck learning the CTMU I think you could do it over the current horizon as we will all work together. Cheers!
Thanks for making this video. I think its important to have discussions and understanding around things like this even if you don't agree with all of langan's ideas still very interesting. I read his ctmu about 2 years ago now. Still pondering the ideas in it. And there are many.
I can follow this but I have enough background to do so. I sometimes wonder if philosophers even recognize the jargon level of their conversations. Especially when we use last names to refer to an idea that requires understanding of another set of books. Yes, it's efficient but influence comes from spreading ideas and I do hope that this pursuit exists for the betterment of mankind. I realize ELI5 is a separate skill but a necessary one to promulgate any intended benefit. The trick is keeping a video under ten hours while keeping it interesting and accessible. I'm mostly thinking out loud here to think through how to help. Maybe others will see this and have more ideas.
2 points: 1 philosphy is really important as there is truths that cant be scientifically measured. espesially in this ctmu as reality is language. 2. I noticed same thing, it feels you need to be also mathematician to understand whats being said. And b. it seems they are able to make important things nullified and you can always speak around obvious thing ( if you dont really love truth ) without never getting to the point
I was just thinking about how humans always need nail clippers or things made by tools. An actual wild human without any steel or fire is a sad desperate creature. If we're actually just spiritual beings having human experiences, then maybe this video is my spiritual steel. Something something alchemy. My analogy is bent.
Very simplistically, the CTMU points at the unmeasured universe. We know that we change how we see things by actually observing them, measuring them. Previous to that, in their unobserved state, they all fit together into a cohesive whole. Once we observe and start picking it apart, it doesn't fit so neatly together anymore. The CTMU shows its original state. Then we start planking with it, showing the disconnections, which he explains can be reconnected by looking at induction as eventually bridging those gaps. It's a way of thinking that creates inclusiveness on the cosmic scale. "Relative" to us, given that we apply dualism to everything instead of simultaneity. It's really quite ZEN. He shows how we "interpret reality" instead of our actually experiencing it directly.
Very good sir, I’m sure my audience will be glad to read this comment. ‘Unmeasured Universe’ could almost be applied to metaphysics as a whole but I will take it to heart that this is what the CTMU provides us. Thanks, I’m learning more through these comments I swear. Best,
You are not picking anything apart when you observe it, it's just another reaction, same as if an unobserved asteroid collided into another unobserved object. Things happen, that doesn't mean it's getting "picked" apart.
@Jake-oq2bq I disagree, and this breaks down into nothing more than a semantics argument. Things like collapsing wave functions don't support your statement either. Things can exist without human observation.
Hi, Greg - I haven't had a chance to watch much of your videos (just enough to see you are a pleasant person and not attacking Chris :) I do plan on watching a few and will give you feedback as I have time (Chris, unfortunately, doesn't have the time or inclination, atm). From your writings, I do see a couple of points of departure in terms of theological models, but of course, much more similarity. I put your NL in my recommendations at substack. So refreshing to see someone with discernment approaching the CTMU with an open mind. A rarity! Keep up the good fight :)
I’m humbled Dr. Langan, I have already had more people migrate to my Substack after your recommendation. I can’t tell you how much it means to me to have such support for my work. I think that if you watch my videos you’ll see a big leap from my (Guided Interpretation) January of last year [with 7.6k views] to my (Guide for Dummies) this year (January again - 2 months ago) with [1.6k views and climbing]. Where the point is how much I refined my own understanding of the CTMU in the past year. I am driven to continue refining my understanding and hope to display this commitment in the future with more videos. The other point I’ll note is that I have never asked Chris personally for answers, so what you get in my work is the representation of what the next generation can derive from the extant written material that Chris has put out. From the collected papers I purchased in print and some half notions I’ve received from others over emails and communications. Any faults or inadequacies concerning my understanding are my own fault, but I am aiming to improve (refining greatly). Thanks for your time and consideration as well as the praise of my person, I really pray that Chris and Yourself are well. Sincerely Greg
This is some fascinating stuff. In classical theism, God is defined as existence itself. So within the CTMU, you could say it’s describing how all of reality is God having a conversation with himself about himself. Classical theism is also very similar to weak panentheism, and Langan himself said the CTMU is closest to panentheism. Excellent video.
Greg, I've watched many of your videos and they've been super helpful; including this one. I've read the ctmu in the past and got lost, but I've recently come back to it and it's started to make more concrete sense. Would you by any chance be open to the idea of discussing specific ideas about the ctmu with your viewers?
Yeah absolutely, you seem very positive. I have a Telegram channel connected to my RU-vid. Check it out under the ‘about page.’ The channel name is ‘The Schizoid Organ’ just message me and I think it even supports phone calls if you hook up your phone - all while staying anonymous phone number I believe. I will look forward to chatting or messaging with you. Just hit me up, best regards. (And if for some reason it’s not working comment back here and we’ll sort it out).
@@gregmwilford Unfortunately telegram doesn't allow me to message you while only being a member of the channel, but if you post any of your contacts through the channel then I could message you that way.
Hey Adrian if You’re still into the CTMU, I’ve started a Facebook Group called the ‘Compatriots of the CTMU’ I remember our chat and thought if You’d like to join You’re more than welcome and I hope in fact that You do, best regards
Does the terminal domain contain all space-time, matter, energy, and forces of nature(gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) sound, light, ect. Does the Non-terminal domain consists of only unbound telesis?
Can you cite a page or saying about ‘terminal’ vs. ‘Non-terminal’ domain in Langan’s CTMU; out of all the work I have in my mind I don’t recall this terminology. Perhaps Mathematical Metaphysics could answer you better. As far as I know Langan draws a box in which Reality is and nothing is outside the box. But if you could reference your question to specific quotes with pages I could read and answer you effectively
"If you can't explain something simply you don't understand it well enough yourself." You hit the nail on the head, Gregory. I've listened to Chris being interviewed for about 6 hours all told, and I have YET to hear him relate an explanation of his theory in such a way that, say, a bouncer might explain to a bartender so the bartender could understand what the hell the guy was talking about.
Explain Einstein's relativity in Bartender talk...or have we all just silently agreed we "understand it." Or, do you put in the work and learn the vocabulary, learn the language. You spent "6 hrs." and you can't speak "Spanish" yet......so there must be a flag on the play? What is YOUR responsibility in the arrangement? Besides the bib and high-chair?
@@kmg3658I have heard many academics give a bitesize, laymen-friendly explanation of special relativity, to a point I could offer a paraphrased version myself to an unfortunate bartender. CTMU, not so much. Its not a criticism of CTMU, its the very real issue that hardly anyone can make sene of Chris’ explanations, so hardly anyone can have a go at explaining it simply.
I am imagining myself having an angry discourse with myself, not with words, but with modal logic. Imagine yelling at yourself in calculus? What would it feel like to trap oneself in a square root as a prime number? Imagine feeling that firsthand? Must be something only higher-ordered telors can process. Wittgenstein arrived at some similar conclusions with the connection to logic and language and reality. Of course, my ever favorite description of reality as itself is something being indescribable ultimately. The Tao that can be expressed is not the true Tao. Much like how Kant said one cannot experience the Noumena itself. Something like that. Now I am realizing that Plato's dialogues are the perfect metaphor for reality as well. God in dialogue with Godself using us as proxies, whereby we pantomime our existences but are really all the same singular stream of consciousness given plurality by infinite freewill.
That's why we use Trust Love for the Axiom discerning others therefore self towards Truth And Oneness. serving others harmonising Resonating within the true self Ty Ty Ty
Questions: 1.) How do we know that reality is a language? You say that reality is a language that talks to itself about itself, language is not merely a descriptor of phenomena but the phenomena themselves. How would that work in a world if humans weren't around to describe it? How do we know the laws of logic exist independently?
I must be dumber than dumb - clear as mud to me. Thanks for trying though. All I know is, we are made of the same constituent parts as the entire universe, what Sagan might call star stuff, so then we are a rare pocket of the universe that is conscious and able to reflect upon itself.
Covers some good points such as holography (The universe as a hologram is the main theme of philosopher Henri Bergson). However, he overlooks the methods (such as meditation), by which mind transcends itself and taps into Pure Consciousness in the state of Samadhi/Satori. This is beyond language, and thus the Buddha remained silent on the subject. But later Shankara (788-820), called Pure Consciousness, "Sat-Chit-Ananda".
Pantheism is the belief that God is fully in nature and nature is all that exists and people are partially God along with birds and fish and trees. Panentheism is the belief that the intelligence of God is what keeps the universe consistency suspended across time in every location in every direction… leibniz was a panentheist trying to synthesize Descartes and Spinoza and trying to find a compatible position between the two.
Bravo for delving into the nuances of language as it relates to both encoding and decoding in the realm of knowledge, and reality itself. It's enlightening to see the focus on language itself, which offers a broader perspective, rather than getting fixated on encoding alone, a common trend in many theories. Both the author and you deserve commendation for this insightful overview. Regarding panentheism, I must express my skepticism. I understand its principles, but I find certain aspects potentially problematic. This is not to say it completely undermines the entire philosophical discourse, but it seems to clash with the views of influential thinkers like Aquinas. His pivotal role in shaping our understanding of nature and science - the very bedrock of civilization's advancement - is undeniable. Aquinas proposed that God is transcendent and omnipresent, yet distinct from His creation, the universe. This aligns with the traditional theological view that differentiates the creator from the created. To illustrate, it seems less logical to equate a creator with their creation. For example, suggesting that a person who embodies logos is synonymous with a RU-vid video they made, or is 'within their circle of being', strikes me as a flawed analogy. In all languages and cultures, there's a clear distinction between the maker and the made. This principle doesn't change when discussing the created universe. Truth and language are inextricably linked. To suggest that the universe is God, as panentheism might imply, appears to be a philosophical error. It's a viewpoint shared by some regions that did not advance in understanding the universe as comprehensible, a perspective pivotal for scientific and cultural progress. I'm open to the possibility that I might be misinterpreting the panentheistic view.
I'm actually going to have to watch the original to understand this explanation. I don't know what anybody got on their IQ test but I got drool on mine.
Sooooooo........ The universe is in a state of Quantam Superposition and our consciousness is what causes the waveform to collapse and that shared experience is our reality here in this dimension?
How does this differ from ideal language theories of Rudolf Carnap et al, apart from the added religiosity? As a class of theories these fell foul of Tarskis undecidability of truth theorem, an adaptation (to discourse) of Godels Incompleteness theorem. I dont see a way around this problem for these types of "ideal" or mathematical langauage theories. I dont suppose Chris knows about this (Godelian) problem with his approach (that dooms it, a fortiori, from the start). Sad really.
If these were to actually heal someone then yes. If not then it would be fantasy content of thought which has no semantically given or quantifiable outcome in reality. When I say ‘an equation on a chalk board’ it usually has to be a formula which carries out in reality to have isomorphism.
The CTMU is nothing more than a parody of metaphysics from Parmenides to Heidegger. It’s all circular, a system of pure jargon and self-referentiality. That’s why even after like twenty years they can’t make it presentable enough to appeal to anybody but an uneducated niche on the internet. Can’t polish a turd.
9:38 panentheism is the idea that God (the global operator-definer) is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it. No correction necessary.
What is one able to accomplish by understanding this stuff ? I come from an occult philosophy and metaphysics background and that understanding of nature produces many wondrous powers. This seems like a lot of thinking for basically no reason. Like what is the purpose of all of this ? Not being rude I hope I genuinely want to know, because it seems to me there are already much better descriptions of reality out there that actually produce tangible changes and results in perception and reality itself.
Firstly, does everything need to have a clear or immediate use? Second, the CTMU is, or describes, what holds everywhere and always, or a universal pattern. Many patterns prove useful in some way or other. At the very least it provides a kind of mental anchor. The "meta-pattern" that everything follows some pattern or symmetry is certainly useful to keep in mind!
@@alltrue857 I suppose nothing has to be useful necessarily but, a metaphysical knowledge of the cosmos certainly can be. Humans can do miraculous things with the proper understanding. But ctmu is not that. I appreciate your answer though. If you really want to dig deep into the truth, studying hermetic philosophy isn’t a bad place to start. You’ll be able to prove you have the truth by the results you achieve. Results such as spiritual enlightenment, longevity, the ability to heal others, telepathy, and clairvoyance, just to name a few. That said I do think it’s awesome that people find ctmu interesting and it helps them find their place in this vast universe of consciousness. Also I’m not saying it’s wrong either, to e fundamental nature of reality allows for many different and equally valid perspectives. But again you can tell how accurate you are not by how logical it appears to be but the results you’re able to manifest in your meditation practice based upon this understanding. Also you will find that the fundamental philosophy of life has existed since ancient times and is kept in symbolic form within our religious texts and mythologies. The entire creation of the cosmos from the beginning to the end (same point ) is laid out in profound depth beyond the average persons comprehension. When Langan claims he has the most accurate picture of reality any man has had, he isn’t considering the ancients or even people that exist today but stay hidden. Edit: I don’t know ctmu well, does it posit a purpose for Creation and existence?
@@Xirrious Yes I certainly do not rule out religious or spiritual traditions! The CTMU follows from statements or sayings that cannot be negated and so is as general as anything can be. Where it touches upon teleology, or purpose, it simply states the necessary truth that Being at bottom is it's own telos, or purpose.
@@alltrue857 check out hermeticism too. The basic principles are likewise fundamental and if ctmu is truthful you’ll find tons of overlap that helps add new insight
Yes, it's word salad. The problem with these "theories of everything" is that they do not produce anything tangible. To call this "science" is unfair - it is conjecture. If Langan is as smart as Einstein, where are his innovative equations? Plus, IQ tests are bunk. If you have to tell me how smart you are then I'm not sure you're that smart. The dude is no Edward Witten.
@@agt5jx87It's not meant to produce anything tangible except a better understanding of reality but you can only produce more tangible works with a better understanding of reality though.
I think one of the weaknesses of the CTMU is that Langan underestimates how visual humans are. He over-emphasizes language where in reality we are all visualizing the concepts as our primary mode of understanding. Reality is experienced visually.
yes but the CTMU was made with someone with 200iq and people with 100-140iq like most us are are trying to understand the CTMU. There is only so much simplification you can do to explain something so complex to someone with average intelligence. It will be no different with AI it will understand the universe at a far greater scale than we can even comprehend
@@perc-aiEinstein, Newton, Copernicas, & every other genius who, not only advanced, but revolutionized our understanding of reality, was perfectly able to do so. Convenient excuse. This the classic fallacy employed by every quack, kook, charlatan, schizophrenic, & their apologists, with a "Grand Theory of Everything".
@@ubahfly5409 he has already published his theory but everyone already dismisses it without reading it. DO u really think the theory of everything can be summed up in one sentence lol? Like what do you expect "aliens made it all". The theory of everything is going to be extremely complex the avg person will not be able to completely understand it. Do yourself a favor and try to reread it over again, one take is not enough.
The fact that a circle is drawn around (the reality medium, or mathematical superset) the dualisms such as mind-matter, subject-object, observer-universe are inside the circle and the binary or sentential logic of language then extends over the dualisms. Such that mind and matter touch, are coupled or are otherwise isomorphic (they are the same exact dot point on a diagram is another way of looking at it). Then this means that our language is radically even more real than understood before as it couples with reality or isomorphically is reality. Binary logic is just the building block of our language, actually he’s says it’s two valued logic 2VL. This isn’t new except for the application of isomorphism and extension over dualism. And this is described in his paper on the Metaformal system which is the language of the CTMU. Cheers.
@@gregmwilford Im going to check that paper out. You seem like a good person. I hope you will not take whatever I say personally. I used to get into forming cognitive theories and all sorts of far out ideas myself too but I later learned how fallacious most things are these days. Crap... I gtg take care of a cpl things but I wouldn't mind explaining my views later if you don't mind
And I generally don’t get offended when discussing ideas, the only trouble I have come across is when guys attack my character; which I sense wouldn’t be the case with you here. People can have divergent perspectives and experiences and come to a fair exchange. So I look forward to and welcome you to express your thought and feelings- again best regards
Well, it's contents can certainly be chopped up and tossed around. But the principles of the theory are really quite simple. As an example, the concept of "syndiffeonesis" simply means that any two things, A and B, must have something in common. If they did not, they would not have even this fact, or relation, in common.
This is probably off topic but, since you follow CL I have to ask your opinion. Ive read that CL believes many conspiracy theories like the 9/11 truthers, white genocide, and others. My question is, how someone so obviously intelligent (far more than I) who can come up with theories like CTMU would believe such things? Maybe you do as well but, as hard as it is for me to wrap my mind around CTMU I find it much harder to understand why someone so smart would believe such a things. 9/11 for example rest on the premises that 100s if not 1000s of people at the upper levels of government could coordinate 9/11 and keep it a secret. Just understanding human behavior this would be an impossibility. But, the reasons why they would stage 9/11 are even more head scratching. I hope this is not taken as me being judgemental. It's really me trying to understand where that level of paranoia comes from. I know the government has done very shady things but, things like that seem to be completely disconnected from reality. Am I wrong? Maybe I am...I just don't know and was hoping perhaps you could give me some insight. Thank you and thanks for the information you provide through your channel.
Could you cite specific statements of Chris with time stamps or pages numbers. Usually when someone makes an association like “CL believes 9/11 conspiracies” it is largely unsubstantiated and hearsay. I only believe something I’ve heard directly, and anything said is always said in context with implicit meaning. Whereas hearsay and the news media take things out of context and over-invest statements with explicit content. Often done as a smear. And with 9/11 there are grey areas of gradation to the issue ranging from conspiracy to established fact. Now I don’t think George Bush or anyone in the government planned 9/11, that is, the ‘conspiracy outright.’ But I think it was established on PBS documentaries I saw 10 years ago that the government was guilty by neglect or dereliction of duty. The NSA and CIA possessed mutually beneficial information on the hijacker terrorists but because of compartmentalization they refused to share with each other or to work together effectively to prevent 9/11 with existing Intel. Now this is not conspiracy but something of what actually transpired. So if you tell me CL believes in conspiracy I’d like to see the receipts (though I hate this overused phrase ‘receipts’). Also White Genocide is highly plausible in light of the murder of South African farmers. So that’s not contentious with me despite the bugged out highly loaded term ‘White genocide’ which the left uses as a dog whistle to discredit the phenomenon as a reasoned belief of Conservatives who simply point to emerging phenomena in the third world. Again I think the court of public opinion is debased and often idiotic. Hope this goes some way towards a response if not an apologetic. Best,
Tom, are you aware that there are classified programs and documents more than 50 years old that must be legally declassified but are being illegally "withheld" on pretextual security grounds? We're talking thousands of people over half a century. Look into compartmentalization, silos, SAP's, USAP's etc. That's the nature of classified programs. Keep chipping away at assumptions by finding counter examples. Don't assume Chris is right or wrong - disprove each assumption by finding a lack of counter examples. A funny thing happens when you stare deeply into it - and it's not comforting.
I'm not sure how old you are, but it sounds like you have a bit to go. Just your ability to ask "am i wrong?" suggests you will probably go far though.
@@gregmwilfordthanks; you have a merry christmas too; to strengthen telesis you can remember a wholey quinta cross:1, passion,2 practice,3 competence,4 repeatability,5 telesis
Langan doesn't know what he's talking about. Ultimate Reality is That which always, outside time and space, Exists, and that is Divine Mind, or Consciousness. Phenomenal reality is the totality of created phenomena, everything manifest, meaning the universe of existents, which stems from the Divine Mind. Language is simply, only symbols/words to describe existents (and their actions) and the relations between existents. And existents are anything that exists, including mental and emotional phenomena. Language can also be used to describe imaginary or metaphysical ideas. Logic is simply and only the non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality. Logic is not the Logos. The Logos is immanent Consciousness, or Soul, itself.
Trying to witness this is going to be impossible in its present form. If you tried this on a street corner you would hold people hostage instead of engaging them. Think dumber. How would you explain this to a 3rd grader?
Do You understand the reference to the ‘guide for dummies’ series of educational books? It’s not a dig at Your intellect, it’s a self effacing comment of humility. Didn’t mean to call anyone truly Dum, but We’re all dummies at certain points in Our lives or learning something new. Have a Merry Christmas, God Bless!
@@gregmwilford You preface by asking if I know about the series of educational books then you end it by saying the two dumbest words you can combine namely god and bless. You do you mate and I will do me. It is not just you that have this top-down mentality, the rhetoric surrounding this suggests that this caters to people who presumably are quasi-intellectuals with superiority complexes, the syntactical tautologically bullshit is absurdly stupid. You cant use it to solve anything.
The problem with CTMU is that it reduces beingness to processes in nature. Langan is to much focused on mathematics as he claims that conventional metaphysics have produced nothing in the last 2000 years. This argument is nonsense, because mathematics did not do something like that either. He uses mathematics in a different way, why cannot the same be done with conventional meyaphysics. Langan is very analytical, that is his strength but also his weakness. That is also why this theory will never be popular as it hardly describes the things we really care about, like beingness and consiousness. He reduces these things from the wrong conception of self generating as his tautology argument is wrong. This is because he confuses the tautology in ittself with the content of it. The tautology is an expression of relationship of T/F whereby the relationship between them is seen as true, while the content of the tautology is a category of T/F, not a relationship. So a tautology cannot be seen as correct because of its content, because a category is not a relationship. The truth of the tautology as an expression of relation which cannot be judged by a content that depends on this relationship in the first place. That is why his selfreferentality goes into logical problems.
This was far from simple. I didn’t know what most of the words you used mean. You needed to explain those terms otherwise it’s just a word salad for the layperson.
I am not sure he really understands much of this himself to begin with. As an example, the notion that "reality is a language" really follows from the fact that if something was entirely indescribable or unnameable this would not describe or name it. (Bhartrhari's paradox, and maybe the Berry paradox, might be useful to look up) The same goes for the rest of the principles of the CTMU. They are, or follow from, the self-constraints that come with any statement or saying.
Add to that…a somewhat monotone drawl-like voice. I have to listen to this many times frustratingly. God, I hope something more easier to listen to comes along.😕
What do you use to convey it? (Think of all the time which has past....compromises....which allow you to even have my Question slap your eyeballs, and you transpose it to reality at thought speed.... or just do the same exact thing, and kick it to "nonsense." Either way I'm charging you for the Word Bridge, to even start...🙂.)
If ‘You’ cant quite follow this eloquent and surprisingly well connected explanation then you might be trying too hard. Ego can stifle creativity. You don’t have to be well-versed in mathematics to get this
