Introduction to the CTMU: the Identity and Mind of God
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лют 2025
- Unofficial fan video.
See Chris Langan's UA-cam channel for his official content: / ctmuradio
#CTMU #RealityTheory #Metaphysics #God #TheoryOfMind #epistemology #ontology #informationtheory #metalanguage #creator #ctmuvideos #cognitivetheory #modeloftheuniverse
![How to Master Your Thinking Patterns and Habits for Self Development [Occult Lecture]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ME9xBGvhWuw/mqdefault.jpg)
This actually makes perfect and simplistic sense. People are intimidated by the vocabulary and syntax, but fail to realize that we have the internet at our fingertips to learn and understand the definitions of these words and terminologies. God bless ALL🙏🏾
He makes them up because he is too lazy or too egotistical to use better defined terminology. And Richard Feynman said that unless you can explain concepts in a way a child can understand then you don't really know them. So by this definition, he doesn't even know a system he's invented.
@@mediacrusherall words are made up. So your criticism is moot.
@@mediacrusher There are lot of people who throw lots of fancy words around to supposedly "prove" something. But in reality most people get confused fast and they just take the bits, where the presenter say how we are "special" and god is real and everything will be fine because there is afterlife and quantum manifestation and stuff. Most people dont care what those complicated scientific sounding words actually mean, as long as that "we are special" is in the larger story.
@@cyberdaemon I agree, what bugs me is that he has shown himself to be a racist on other social media. I see that professor dave explains has him as the dumbest "smartest" man alive. Sheesh, he thinks intelligence is connected to brain size!
Take the human mind and cognition out, Will this universe cease to be? If you shut your eyes, your hearing, and your senses, the world doesn't exist then! No earth, no animals ...
Thank you for putting this together. It is great the hear this concise explanation in Langan's own voice. It amazes me that this theory has not taken over the world. It binds together all the experiences of truth I have had in to one frame work.
Man this what i needed to really break it down for me so i can understand the CTMU THANKYOU
Thank you for creating these videos. They’re an excellent tool for learning Mr. Langan’s abstruse system. The graphics help me understand a lot better.
"Faith is dead....". : So, the realization of the problem, the definition of the problem and the quest for a solution was the motivating force behind CTMU. Thanks for sharing this thought Mr Langan! Congratulations for this great idea! Starting today, I am a follower to the new "faith"!
To people confused: I recommend reading the beginning of the Wikipedia article on Ontology. It has some of the terms brought up here explained. With that it becomes pretty intuitive imo if you don't try to get every term down exactly and focus on perceiving the meaning being conveyed within the context of the whole explanation.
This is great. Thank you for taking the time to do this.
Beautifully done.
This is linking a lot of ancient philosophies and religions together
But what I got out of it and is helping me towards clarity is that the universe is closed and that there is nothing outside of it
By grasping this notion then we can really start gazing towards oneness and not get lost In the billions and trillions of galaxies that exist and are observable and hence make us think that all we are is just an insignificant speck of dust disconnected from it all.
The fact that we all exist within that circle that he drew in the beginning of the video which is the concept of God
And that nothing else exists outside of it makes perfect sense of the notion God is love and all is mind
I think this needs to be trully grasped before we procceed further
Just found your channel. Thank you for these videos! Finally, I can understand many things more.
I had a global go sleep….-__^ when the twin flame ripped the shirt off and slam into the car window. Loving the podcast Mr.langan
I'm not great in math yet I like to learn it, I'll listen to philosophy I'm definitely not the greatest thinker. But this man for me hits a spot. I think he's great, I think alot of negative reactions to him and his ideas are actually misunderstandings. I'm no expert yet when I listen ( ❤ ) he is actually speaking language I can comprehend. And it's all about language. I think he's awesome, and speaks more truth people give him credit for. I love Terrance McKenna I love carl sagan.. this guy actually blows my mind in a great way. Thanks for reading❤
The CTMU is fundamentally flawed, relying on a false premise, convoluted language, and circular reasoning. The false premise is that the universe is closed-an assumption entirely based on faith. Observational evidence does not conclusively tell us whether the universe is open, flat, or closed, making this claim unjustified and speculative. The convolution lies in Langan’s use of obscure terminology. He introduces words without providing rigorous definitions, often redefining them arbitrarily or using them in inconsistent ways. This lack of clarity is antithetical to mathematical and logical reasoning, which rely on precise definitions and consistency. As a result, his language leaves the audience unable to critically evaluate or even fully understand his reasoning. Finally, the circular reasoning in CTMU is undeniable: Langan concludes that the universe is closed and that God represents its identity-yet this was his starting assumption. The premise and conclusion are one and the same, leaving readers tricked into accepting a belief system they cannot fully grasp. In the end, CTMU demands faith, not reason, and offers little of the rigor or substance needed to justify its claims.
@@matthewsperry4970 To satisfy the descriptor 'universe' it must encompass everything as a whole, and therefore be a closed system.
@jedimindtricksuk8276 Did you actually read my comment? The argument he presents is circular: he claims the universe is closed and then concludes the same. This conclusion depends entirely on the assumption that the universe is closed, which is justified only by semantic coherence. While semantic coherence can ensure internal consistency, it provides no independent evidence to support the claim, reducing the argument to a tautology. Langan's mistake is that, despite his intelligence, he remains bound by the limitations of human thought. Science, which transcends individual intellect, is the only tool we have for developing meaningful, empirically grounded theories. The CTMU may be logically interesting, but it lacks practical application-it’s more an exercise in abstract logic than a theory of reality.
Here’s my point: The reliance on tautology, where the conclusion is embedded in the premise, makes the CTMU's truth self-referential. It cannot be independently verified or falsified, which makes it unfalsifiable-a fundamental flaw for any scientific theory. Without empirical grounding, the CTMU remains speculative at best, offering no means to engage with or explain the physical universe in a way that science does. And that’s why we shouldn’t treat it as the truth.
No matter what you believe, it requires faith. Whether it's Christian, pagan, or evolution. But I thought it was known the universe is expanding, like the earth's crust in the Mariana trench. It expands on one side and is breaking down on the other, like a snake eating its tail.. idk but I don't believe I came from a monkey, or a single cell organism. There's evidence of adaptation but not evolution, cause why would mokeys not need that supper strength, or a freaking tail?? I'd love a tail right, so many uses for activities man!!
@@JamesWoods-q9j adaptation is evolution lil guy
Sometimes it’s more powerful to be a great communicator with a simple idea. Chris explains his ideas like he’s talking to someone else with an IQ of 200, the problem being that he never is.
Well he spent decades working on this, yet you spend 15 minutes expecting results, so common
@@lobohez7222 You don’t know how long they spent at all. As well, the statement above does touch a truth about Chris’s communication imo.
Here's an idea. Instead of complaining, do it yourself. Become the simple dispensation of information you accuse him to be lacking. Otherwise...it's just drivel.
@@hermestrismegistus5384So…you’re saying the solution for me not being smart enough to understand Chris, is to become as smart as Chris and then explain it to myself?
@Domn879 Did I say that? No. It doesn't take someone like Chris to understand it, so your premise is foundationally incorrect.
Instead of complaining about things, solve your own problem if you care enough to. If you don't, well...Maybe don't express your own limitations as a way to detract from others work.
I never could put this together! Thank for clearing this up!
I won't pretend like I come remotely close to fully understanding CTMU, but my instincts tell me this is so much like programming. Where the Universe is the framework, things that make up exsistence are variable (you, I, trees, rocks, matter, physics), and observation is the decompiler ? and consciousness is the logical structure through which we precieve our experiences ? Then god is truly the creator because all things exists in the framework through god by whom the framework exists and subsequently all things within it. God is the orgin of all things, and all things in existence can be mapped back to god.
Thought provoking to say the least, Chris is a very interesting gentlemen.
This is called wisdom. Chris has high level wisdom. So we are a universe. In a universe we live in created by God. Who over sees our universe. Triad kinda of thing. It’s so simple how God created everything with his bare hands.
Pure poetry. Thanks given. Our language is so linear and therefore slow. Imagine a dot matrix form of info impartment.
Absolutely beautiful❤
Beautiful material!
I’m trying and picking up pieces but am afraid I’ll tack off course and humble myself further. I subscribed
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not Or overpowercomprehend it.
Στην αρχή ήταν ο Λόγος, και ο Λόγος ήταν με τον Θεό, και ο Λόγος ήταν Θεός. Ήταν στην αρχή με τον Θεό. Όλα τα πράγματα ήρθαν σε ύπαρξη μέσω Αυτόν, και εκτός από Αυτόν τίποτε δεν ήρθε σε ύπαρξη. Σε Αυτόν ήταν η ζωή, και η ζωή ήταν το Φως των ανθρώπων. Το Φως λάμπει στο σκοτάδι, και το σκοτάδι δεν το κυρίευσε ή το κατέλαβε.
On point!
i'd like to know how this concept of "Triality" maps onto Dual-aspect Monism which forms the basis of the CTMU's supertautological oxymoron
They're the same thing. The components of the triality are interpretence (which performs the mapping), and cognition and perception, which are in dual-aspect with one another. Monism is the fact that interpretence contains the latter two.
@@ctmuist Dual-aspect monism comprises two peices of information (the primary telor and the secondary telor). For example, the monism of "Infocognition" is comprised of Cognition (primary telor) and Information (secondary telor) making it dual-aspect. So I ask you, where did the third peice of information nessicary to form triality come from?
You may say this third peice of information is the "relation" or "mapping" between the Primary and Secondary Telors, but this relation is not expressed in the CTMU's Supertautology! For example, the relation "Interperence" is not in the word "Infocognition". Since it is not in the Supertautology then the trialic aspect does not Prove itself as the dual-aspect monism does!
@@mccashmax9156monism= whole, one
dual means two, apart from another..
So 2 +1=3
getting in depth here triality is about a union of
1. info cognition (hence the monism)
2. ability for relational aspects
3. internal AND external informational integrity (henece the dual aspect)
Since you have to have all 3 it again has logical completeness....
Brains simplify reality into bits which can be lumped into piles, then generate labels to help distinguish, thus simplify. This "imposing our quality labels on reality" has much less to do with the reality of the objects we label, and much more with preventing us with overwhelming amounts of undifferentiated data.
Our eyes, ears, and skin (via the spinal cord, have nerves FROM the brain which modulate what those senses send TO the brain.
A hunter can mistake a person in a brown jacket for a deer because the expectation of a deer shape is sent to the retina, which then suppresses any "non-deer" shape, movement, or other information going to the brain.
I would like to hear what he has to say about Jesus Christ and Christianity. I need him to bring it down to earth a little bit.
That "nothingness" outside of the information of the universe, beyond the illusion/mind, is pure awareness.
Thanks for compiling all those clips ! Really engaging content and great to have the breakdown of concepts by Langan himself. Regarding the several trialities at 10:09, is there a pretty established consensus on which aspect of the trialities correspond most to each others ?
Object = Relation = Operation
Universe = Model = Cognitive theory
Object = Space = Time
I feel Operation and Time are closer to Cognitive Theory than model conceptually because they process syntax, so I expected them to be placed at the top of graphs, while Space and Relation would be more related to a fixed Modelled syntax processed by Time/Operation/Cognitive Theory. Any thoughts ?
I'm still unsure how space-time-object fits together.
I mean, the CTMU and more specifically the SCSPL most synchronistically resolves the 'mystery' of the Mathematical Linguistic formulations of Traditional Astrology. 'Meaning' in Its ultimate sense descends into meaning in the mundane sense, on both spacial and perceptive levels. History repeats itself in an ever-evolving, call it then revolving universe. Although, not in a way that would make either more palatable to the established orthodoxy..
I wondered for a long time, how the Buddha was able to report on states such as those beyond either perception or non-perception. At a point later in time, I found myself going 'places' within, but no matter how far out, high or deep I've been, the primary narrator remained a constant witness.. and also more than that, a faithful, kind and virtuous companion, undistracted, protective and attentive. In a neutral state, in a like manner that the edges in a modular lens when perfectly aligned, can disappear, the actor vanishes and yet also remains, but as a perfect mirror of what is witnessed.
This still needs to be broken down much more simply. To many people can not keep up with the terminology and framework at times; including myself. This has always been Chris's biggest issue. Just extremely difficult to follow and conceptualize.
It helps to have a better understanding of the underlying concepts of semantics, syntax, and formal language systems. The problem is it would take him 10 times longer to explain all that too. I'm not sure it is "simple", but it probably would be more constructive to start from the ground floor. I honestly think this video does a disservice to the topic because it's using pieced together snippets paired with confusing graphics that probably weren't being presented when the talk was given.
Hes literally too smart
TARGETR.U.R.TS
Press pause. Ask google for a definition . Press play . Not sure? Press pause etc. chris has his opinion. This is it.
Recursive iterations of self defining (division), reunifying (multiplication)...
CTMU is a redefinition the age old framework yet again. It still takes faith to believe, to trust, to align with, this new definition as it would take infinity to observe, interpret, and/or map through ever mutating language.
I've always thought about things like this.
Well, my IQ is 110 only, due to my neurodivergent cognitive condition (ADHD)perhaps. I agree 100% with the political view of Chris, I am a sociologist (MA), however, I still do not fully understand the rest of Chris' cosmic theory. An animation from "after skool" would help ;-)
EXTREMELY thought-provoking!!
I guess the questions I'm largely left with at this point are regarding the ramifications of reality/existence being as described here, specifically:
1. Based on this theory (CTMU), is it correct to view consciousness as a random/emergent phenomenon?
(Could God have popped into existence without having a hand in it, similar to how the creation of space is taught to have come about in the Big Bang Theory? moreover,
Does randomness have any significance/absoluteness in reality at all, or is it just a term we ascribe to events with too many variables for us (humans) to calculate/predict future outcomes of? )
2. Does God as described have to possess any volitional power/freedom of will, or could logical necessity mandate all the decisions and behaviors attributed to God in order for anything to exist at all?
3. Are there any assertions/ensuing conclusions from the CTMU that pertain to the existence of any form of life after death (reincarnation, reunification with the collective consciousness/God, or behavior-based reward/punishment in one's previous life?
the identity of reality is a product of the committed awareness of the participants
>so there is only one entity
>fragmented into many sub-entities
>and we can know things because the supra-entity can know itself
>and all sub components inherit the ability to know from the primary entity
For whatever your calculation of love is.. Call it brotherhood for the purpose of my impartment here. You have mine. Grace unfold before your steps.
There is only one parsimonious option that does not entertain too much speculation on what REALITY is, and it is NOT Materialism. Look, the idea is that what we call the physical world, the contents of perception, the stuff we see, hear, taste, smell, taste, that is a dashboard representation that is created by our own minds. As Dr. Donald Hoffman puts it, a virtual reality headset.
The physical world is not out there, it is in here, because it is a dashboard representation of the real world, which is out there.
The things we call physical are the things we can describe through physical quantities like kilograms, meters, seconds, joules, coulombs and so forth. We invented these numbers to describe the contents of perception, the stuff we see, hear, touch. So that is what physical stuff is, it is stuff that can be described through physical quantities, the quantities we invented to describe the contents of perception. So what is the REAL WORLD that is not in perception? It is the thing that is represented, as opposed to the representation itself. Well, it is not physical because we did not invent physical quantities to describe that. We invented physical quantities to describe the dials on the dashboard, not the storm outside the airplane. Which raises the question: Are there states in Nature that are not described by physical quantities? Because that is what we are looking for. Is this pure speculation or do they exist? Well, obviously they exist. We are acquainted with them every day, multiple times a day.
What is the length in meters of your thought? What is the weight in kilograms of your fantasy? What is the angular momentum of your emotion? You see, endogenous mental states are not describable through physical quantities. They have an inherently qualitative nature that one cannot capture through a list of numbers. So the option that presents itself to us in an obvious way is that the real world outside is like the real world within. It is constituted of mental states, not my or your mental states, mind you, external mental states, transpersonal mental states, but mental nonetheless in the sense of not being describable through physical quantities. And the world of perception, the colloquially called ¨physical world¨, the things we see, hear, are a dashboard representation of those external mental states, akin to thoughts, akin to emotions, but not our thoughts, not our emotions, the thoughts and emotions of nature at large, which present themselves to our observation as the contents of perception, as the colloquially ¨physical world.¨
so basically Kashmir Shaivism ?
"The basic theology of the Kashmiri school is summed up by Utpaladeva as follows:
There is only one Great Divinity, and it is the very inner Self of all creatures. It embodies itself as all things, full of unbroken awareness of three kinds: “I”, “this”, and “I am this.” Wikipedia.
Nope, he's a christian and says that only christ is compatible with his system, other religions are "wrong" to him. They may be ok, but he is only interested in a monotheistic god and he set out to prove that, not explain the universe in a TOE, which is impossible btw.
@@mediacrusher so he's not a philosopher, only an apologist
@@buddy.boyo88 I never thought of it that way, but yes. He denies the bias that is inherent in everyone, thus he replicates it without self-awareness. When he had a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup on TOE with Curt Jaimungal, he's inability to communicate without using he's own terminology shows vast limitations. His ego is even bigger than his IQ.
@@mediacrusher never heard him say that. He argues for a meta-religion, not for christianity
@@moussaadem7933 I think it's more word salad from him, whether or not he says it, he talks about GOD with masculine pronouns, a dead giveaway there. He is does not recognize his own bias, like preferring Christianity to Buddhism. He has said in the TOE podcast interview that Jesus is superior to Buddha, so that doesn't sound like a meta-religion - whatever that is supposed to mean.
Nothing here too complex, it seems Chris could have been a great Ivy League student, wish he'd catch up! So much in the realms...
Save the world 🌎 Aloha
I think the triality as he calls it is a great model for how reality is processed. We’re going to need to understand this as a species someday, but we are far from being able to apply any of this
In the beginning was The Word, and the Word was God, and the Word is God.
I heard loop being expressed without loop being said. Triwhat?
This is hard to follow especially because English isn't my native language but I'm getting the general idea
I like the out of the box thinking but I 'm missing life in higher dimensions which is influencing our lives.This makes free will partial at the most
One of the properties of God is to create life I think as much as possible.This explains suffering and notion of free will imo😊
Defenition of life is having the feeling you're alive
I have trouble synthesizing how omniscience would need to have experiences. Is their a reason to have experiences if you're omniscient? If there's no reason, why assume it? Sincerely asking.
>"how omniscience would need to have experiences."
I'm not sure what part of the video you're referring to.
@ctmuist it was stated God is experiential and omnicient. I can understand this if time is a loop and all things happen simultaneously. But I still don't understand a reason omniscience would have to experience anything thru us, or thru consciousness. It seems redundant to me at face value.
@@robertroldan4026 It wasn't claimed that something that is omniscient would *need* to be experiential.
@ctmuist correct. I didn't say it needed to be. The video state that "god" or the "ctmu" is both omniscient and experiential. I was wondering why omniscience would create experiences. I don't see a reason to if one is truly omniscient.
@@robertroldan4026 >"correct. I didn't say it needed to be."
You were asking why it needed to be.
Experience is something that can be known, so if something is omniscient, then experience is a part of its omniscience. To be omniscient is to process all existing information, so since experiences exist as a data type, something has to process all experiential data in order to be omniscient. As to the "why" - it's not omniscience that creates, it's God (or the being in question) that does the creating.
Isn't this just saying that the Universe is a mind that gets to know himself by experiencing other consciousness that mirror it, namely us?
I don't fully understand what the consituents of triality are.
Universe, mind and physical objects?
Am I getting it wrong?
Universe and physical objects would be the same compartment, mind is the whole.
The triality could be expressed as universe-theory-model. Theory is the abstract components of the universe, while the model is the structure that ties them together.
Another way of expressing it is object-relation-operator. An object is something you can discern in a system, the relations are how they're abstractly related and the operator is the controller that moves the objects around, in accordance with the relations.
The original triality was expressed in terms of signified object-sign-interpreter. The sign represents the object, while the interpreter is what's necessary to assign the sign to the signified object. If you're still having difficulty, you could read some of Charles S. Peirce's papers. If that still doesn't help, you could ask ChatGPT to explain it.
I have another question. You mentioned in another video that GOD waits for us to make decisions then views them thru our eyes. On the other hand in the origin all events exists simultaneously. Are all decisions actually simultaneous then, and we only perceive them as happening at different times.
Just to make sure that we're on the same page, I'm not Chris Langan. Yes, there is a distributed origin that exists meta-temporally, where meta-causation exists. So I suspect that the answer to your question is that the origin point of all decisions exist meta-simultaneously, where there are gaps with regards to physics (i.e. the terminals haven't been chosen). Those decisions become temporal once those gaps are closed, in the terminal display. If they occur at the same time point, this would make them simultaneous. Meta-simultaneity is above this level; you can think of it as when a programmer looks at a program script and sees all the time points of that script at once.
@ctmuist shame you literally gave no evidence and make stuff up
@@mactallica9293do better 😬
@anna90p do better? Give actual evidence.
This guy was laughed off the line on a athiest call in show because he couldn't provide a single thing and refused to honestly answer questions
@@mactallica9293 Do you think the only forms of evidence which exist are empirical, or are 'sensory' in nature?
I’m not sure I get it. The language math thing went on for a while and never went full circle.
Sure, but im tired of being left with the question of what lies beyond... what is it, a state of being? and whats having it?
Are you talking about the afterlife?
I'm also sorry in advance for the lengthiness of my first post; I may be beating a dead horse with spelling out my questions...just wanted to clarify. Up until now I always assumed these weren't answerable things at all, much less that they could be deductively reasoned out by thought processes I doubt I could follow without some kind of sci-fi/cyborg intelligence upgrade!
can u do a podcast for my group?
Our actions upon the greater reality is not our mind, but the output of our mind.
What if the Universe is the Action of the Mind of God, not the Mind Itself?
Langan seems to not mention the transition from chaos to order. The interesting component of God can only be the order, not the chaos. So structure is God and not just everything. God gives the universe its structure, initiating any change using memory management based on complex intelligent influence.
This is accurate. Imagine God to be the author of a book series who is so adept at creation that the characters form the story. As above so below.
I see some similarities in this introduction with the works of Walter Russell.
The secret of Light and The Universal One.
As a school drop out at the age of 14 i am as well teaching myself mathematics as means of interlocking the Subjective experiential Absolute domain of Existence with the objective logical rational as means of approximating as much as possible that they become self-informing of one another.
If you dont understand his jargon initially, consider asking chat gpt to explain CTMU to a 7 years old and so on.
I see as well the relationship with ancient esoteric traditions and wisdom schools pertaining the trinitarian concept as the foundational structure of reality.
Beginning (Ontology-Body), Middle-mediation (modal operator- Soul ) and End (epistemoly- MIND).
The three are but one at the same and working and functioning synergetically.
Impersonal - mediation - personal.
Father- Holy spirit - Son ...
How does he know the universe is self contained without outside interference? If you imagine you're an atom in a skin cell, your universe appears closed, howevere your universe exists within a other universes, all affecting each other.
He's referring to "the universe" as the totality of everything that shares effects. Anything outside it has no effect on it, so it is self-contained.
God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Ο Θεός είπε: «Ας φτιάξουμε τον άνθρωπο κατ' εικόνα μας, σύμφωνα με την ομοίωσή μας. και ας κυριαρχούν πάνω στα ψάρια της θάλασσας και στα πουλιά του ουρανού και στα βοοειδή και σε όλη τη γη, και σε κάθε ερπετό που σέρνεται στη γη». Ο Θεός δημιούργησε τον άνθρωπο κατ' εικόνα Του, κατ' εικόνα Θεού τον δημιούργησε. αρσενικό και θηλυκό Τα δημιούργησε. Ο Κύριος ο Θεός έπλασε τον άνθρωπο από χώμα από τη γη, και εμφύσησε στα ρουθούνια του πνοή ζωής. και ο άνθρωπος έγινε ζωντανό ον.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Είναι η εικόνα του αόρατου Θεού, του πρωτότοκου όλης της δημιουργίας. Διότι από Αυτόν δημιουργήθηκαν όλα τα πράγματα, και στους ουρανούς και στη γη, ορατά και αόρατα, είτε θρόνοι είτε κυριαρχίες είτε άρχοντες είτε εξουσίες-όλα τα πράγματα δημιουργήθηκαν μέσω Αυτόν και για Αυτόν. Αυτός είναι πριν από όλα τα πράγματα, και σε Αυτόν όλα τα πράγματα συγκρατούνται.
I also have noticed the striking parallels.
In the beginning was the word.
The word was with God.
The word was God.
Please explain the substance of Dark Matter.
I believe dark matter to be a misnomer. What it refers to is the total information in the universe that remains in superposition and has not yet been Heisenberg-determined through observer participation. It's a misnomer because information that is in superposition isn't yet "matter". It is "dark" because it represents the unknowns of the quantum system.
@ctmuist well then there's a whole hello of the unknown of the Universe,to be exact 96% per-cent of the Universe is Unknown, although this is the Divine Holy's Playground where Time has different properties affects Volume of Density_ Solids, Liquid & Gases> p to which mass & volume become radical in measurement.
Would this be considered pantheism or panentheism
Panentheism.
@@ctmuist CTMU can be seen as having elements of both pantheism and panentheism. The CTMU does suggest that the universe has god-like properties such as self-awareness and self-creation, which would align with pantheistic ideas. The CTMU might be seen as aligning with panentheism in its assertion that the universe is contained within an overarching "metareality" (which Langan equates with God) that transcends it. However, the CTMU's view of God is somewhat unique. It posits a model of reality where the universe is self-configuring and self-processing, effectively making it conscious. This "conscious universe" is synonymous with God, suggesting a version of God that is not so much a personal deity as an impersonal cognitive process or principle.
@@Feedmannbecause the brain consists of different parts, we are not individuals but assemblies. Same for God, the sum of all parts, therefor all knowing etc. etc.
This guy has nothing on Isaac Newton, let alone the Godman Jesus Christ... Come back to your senses my dude... My gosh, the vanity of this world. Blind.
There are 4 or more realities:
our mind/internally created reality while we are aware.
Our scocial reality: the stories we share as a group, which alters our perception of both our internal reality and how we interact and influence the "larger reality."
The perceived greater macroscopic reality and the deeper, quantum reality.
donotstatethings idontknow
Bringing up binary being a necessity made me think of the Eden story and the forbidden fruit which was supposed to give the knowledge of good and evil. That never made sense to me because wouldn't a creator want his creation to see evil and avoid it? I don't think it was knowledge of good and evil but instead knowledge of binary/duality. It gave free will apart from the will of source, which dovetails nicely with "If you eat the fruit you'll become as gods."
The Creator gave us free will because agape love cannot be compulsory, and that's like the main thing He talks about. The knowledge of good and evil is A binary but it's not THE binary (true/false) itself and so I don't think it is a prerequisite for free will. Not to mention that they disobeyed God firstly in their minds, right before they ate the fruit so they already had agency. The knowledge of morality is only required for a law of morality and it comes from just one place, the realization that we are vulnerable. We are born naked and as we grow we become aware of our individual mortality. When you understand what harms you as a person, you also understand what harms other people.
While interesting on its face, the reduction of o symbolic language smaklcks of cybernetics’ reduction to information, which altogether ignores the primary role of energy as generator of the structures of space and time.
No it dont bruhhh..,
Information is more fundamental than energy because energy obeys the laws of physics, while information doesn't have to. Plus, everything that is physical is informational (informational is more general). I will be producing content on this.
Does this assume reality only exists if there is a preexisting consciousness? Is this not recursive, and true simply because we have defined it be true?
The CTMU doesn't begin from assumptions, it takes what we know to be true (see 1:50) and proceeds to reason the structure of reality, which ends up necessitating an independent domain for consciousness (see 4:43). Any definitions employed in the course of proving this are tautologies, i.e. they cannot be coherently denied.
@@ctmuist Let me rephrase, can reality exist without a consciousness?
@@AEVMU They are synonymous; the question entails a false distinction.
@@ctmuist Perhaps we are using different definitions of reality? ''the state of things as they actually exist''. Reality has existed long before observation based on my understanding of the word. I would argue past geologic records for example are records of reality as it was before observation. I would argue that reality is not synonymous with consciousness simply by common definition according to most dictionaries. I would like your input and if any terms are open to interpretation perhaps we should define them first, otherwise meaningful discourse is less likely to occur.
@@AEVMU >"Reality has existed long before observation based on my understanding of the word."
You don't accept the observer effect / quantum contextuality in QM?
Proposing that something real exists independently of observation is effectively impossible to prove. Anything that you cannot know or perceive amounts to something that isn't within reality; definitions from the dictionary are likely to miss this.
It doesnt say much about origins? Did it always exist, or did it come into existance
It also does not seem to predict anything? Whats the scientific use of this theory?
The focus on will also made me think of schopenhauer
God here is also more similar to the will (pantheistic)
Why do we need faith? Or more spesifically why do we as the universe need faith in ouerselves? Arent we simply trying to escape ouerselves, and thus we are an expression of ultimate freedom
Sounds a lot like the understanding of the Corpus Hermetica, ancient magic.
What about the bulk that's supposed to be a cluster of universes like a cluster of stars
Can anyone send me a link to a video of Chris Langan debating against someone about religion, more specifically debating against an Atheist. I've looked online but I can't find any footage where he is in a debate situation with anyone. I can only find videos of him explaining his thoughts to people who are like-minded and sympathetic to his opinions. Has he ever been tested or questioned about his beliefs by someone with a contrary position ? Without seeing how he holds up under scrutiny, it's difficult to rule out the possibility that he's merely just another faux intellectual, attention seeking Theist.
You can ask Langan questions on various platforms, but getting an answer is hit-and-miss. He's unlikely to do debates, since they don't offer a large enough platform to be worth his time.
If you have a critique or scrutiny you believe the CTMU warrants, then you can discuss it with me on discord. Just understand the conservation could be published here.
@@ctmuist I think you might have misunderstood me. I didn't mean that I wanted to debate him. I stopped debating Theists online a few years ago after I realised how futile and joyless it was, trying to get honest answers to honest questions. It would be the same old merry-go-round every time, with them ultimately (and invariably) trying to conclude that either.. 'You just need to have faith' or 'Humans cannot comprehend God's ways because he operates outside of conventional space and time.' Both of which are nothing more than baseless assertions and also untestable (and therefore improvable) claims.
What I was talking about in my original comment was that I couldn't find any footage of Chris Langan in a live debate situation with any of the high profile Atheist Orators / interlocutors like Dawkins, Hitchens, Mat Dillahunty, Douglas Murray, Dan Barker, Stephen Fry etc. who frequently take (or took) part in live religious debates in front of large audiences, some of which were filmed and uploaded onto UA-cam attracting millions of views. I don't accept what you say about "He's unlikely to do debates, since they don't offer a large enough platform to be worth his time" since these UA-cam videos are regularly seen by thousands, sometimes millions of viewers. It is my guess that Chris Langan doesn't take part in live debates because he knows that his homemade theories would not stand up to the test.
Simply giving interviews in closed situations to people who aren't going to argue with him is no way to find out how robust his arguments are.. instead, it is merely a form of advertising.
@@gorrillion1 But you are at least claiming to be a judge on which side is more rational, or has the better critique, otherwise watching debates would be pointless. If you're aware and knowledgeable of what makes something rational, why not present whichever critiques of the CTMU you have in mind to someone who can defend it? When someone can't articulate themselves to other people, it usually means that what they thought they had a clear idea of just wasn't that clear after all.
Some theists online do resort to appealing to faith or mystery, but those are people who don't actually have a hobby of studying rationality. You shouldn't judge theism, or any God claim by what they say, because they can't give a proper defense of it. Many of the arguments for theism in philosophy don't appeal to faith or mystery, including the oldest arguments such as those of Thomas Aquinas. There's also a few theists on UA-cam who don't, a prime example would be Jay Dyer. So you shouldn't give up on theism as if all theists are bound to appeal to irraitonal principles.
Chris Langan did a debate with philosopher and AI researcher Bernardo Kastrup on Curt Jaimungal's channel. Kastrup is a panpsychist, not exactly a theist. They argued over the issue of determinism, so if you have a position on determinism, then that's a debate in which you can judge Langan's ability to defend his ideas. Langan has had numerous text-based exchanges with mathematicians and academics on his ideas. There's also published email exchanges between himself and physicists, he posts them sometimes on his substack. So it's not the case that he isn't engaging with qualified critics on his ideas. Langan probably doesn't appear in the kind of debates you mentioned because he's simply judging them to be less fruitful than media appearances. Some debates might clock up a million views (although I don't recall seeing one, hundreds of thousands at best), but you can already see his media appearances can do better than that.
I don't think the interlocutors you mentioned would last long in a debate with Langan. Dawkins doesn't do philosophy and has no argument against the existence of God, he only argues against creationism. He lost his debate with Lennox. Hitchens was similar, no argument against God, just scoffing at religion, he lost against Frank Turek after failing to address anything Turek said. Douglas Murray is a social commentator who is simply anti-religion. Dan Barker and Stephen Fry are also primarily anti-religion, and the only thing Fry ever offered against God's existence was the argument from evil. None of these interlocutors understand set theory, model theory or information theory; I expect they'd wilt in mere minutes against Langan.
You're welcome to debate me though (by voice or text), I've done debates previously. I published a debate I had on this channel on the topic of whether reality is a mind. I also called into The Line and presented to Forrest Valkai and Paul Ens the argument for God from digital physics (here: ua-cam.com/video/xZljDqqOhQk/v-deo.html)
@@ctmuist Thanks for that and yes I might take you up on your offer. For now though I'll just admit that I do judge which side is more rational and/or has the better critique. It is part of what I enjoy about watching (and sometimes taking part in) religious debate. I like to see how long it takes for Theists to abandon pure honesty in favour of trying to make contrived and tenuous justifications for their bold claims about the existence of a God. Sometimes they crumble fairly quickly, sometimes not, but eventually they always have to appeal to something which is completely untestable in order to attempt to defend their position as a 'believer.' I make no claims myself about the existence or non-existence of a God because I have allowed myself the full quota of honesty in life to be able to admit that I do not know whether any Gods exist or not.. how could I ? How could anyone ? All of the flaws in each and every argument FOR or AGAINST God can be exposed in an instant.. by simply asking for evidence which is testable, verifiable, empirical and/or does not include improvable assertions, logical fallacy, 'Argument from Ignorance' or special pleading. It may seem that I am being too closed minded or draconian in my approach to considering Theistic claims, but to me, things like this are important and necessary for me to find an honest pathway to truth. It's not that I don't have an open mind, it's just that I've never heard anything yet about the existence of a God which has had any kind of credibility.
Univers defines itself.
Reality is self-modifying and self-contained. This means there cannot be fundamentals that haven't been changed.
Language requires symbols as priors, which are paradoxical to being isomorphic to realities impossibility to have fundamentals.
This makes this theory an obbject in reality emenating a certain way of changing, putting it into fixed constraints.
Its another idol, limited.
reality is indescribable, its not comprehensible. It creates new things which change how it describes itself.
Having a metalanguage govern language is a step in an infinite regress of metalayers trying to grasp the self-transcending.
It provides fundament of belief for manifestation and control, but its not isomorphic to reality itself due to its limited nature in needing fundamental symbols.
This all reminds me software development :)
Software development and programming involves mathematics, logic, formal languages and developing ontologies (the architecture of the API) and a lot of abstract thinking, it's levels upon levels of abstraction that gets you from flipping transistors all the way to a browser running a website.
most programmers folliw something like "shut up and calculate" in physics.
Is there a simpler way to explain this? I think reducing the information to the simplest form possible while still giving an idea is better for punch drunk simpletons like me.
man I looked at all of his articles and I saw maybe 3 lines of vague math where are the axioms, where are the semantics, where are truth conditions for sentences?
In the CTMU papers and the Metaformal system paper
Thank you for never playing dumb. 99% of brain drain is from having to play dumb.
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD (LAUNGUAGE), AND THE WORD WAS GOD!
Myth,math,magick.
This is the wrong glass for serving this wine. Mysticism has already answered this question about the human identity and how to get a glimpse into divine, let me help you. "Divine is my Race, and God is my Father-Mother. In Emptiness is my home and in Abyss is my calm" you have to experience the mystery of emptiness, nothing can be said about "nothingness" only experienced
In this sense your "ego" (sense of self) is the filter to the ctmu, remove that and you will connect to the main unit, but again this vocabulary is dis-service to the experience
There is no object without a subject.
If higher dimensions exist, but cannot be manipulated, but contains factors or beings, can manipulate our reality, then what???
Hi, I answer this kind of objection in the video I did on the reality principle. Essentially, it's contradictory to say that some level of reality can interact with us but not vice versa. Hope that helps.
@@ctmuistfound your video
I will certainly watch it.
Until then, did you address humanity's anomalous experiences, i.e. UAP, spiritual experiences, prayers answered wonderfully, inexplicably and dramatically? Communication /observation ( remote viewing) by people whose awareness is "out of body?"
, I grasp that these, too, must be part of "What is." But scientific methods cannot seem to penetrate, cause, or manipulate them.
Particle physics is best explained using an 11 dimensional framework. Quark patterns coalesce, become vastly simpler in 5 vs 6 dimensional models.
Did your video address all these?
@@glenliesegang233UAP is just brainwash unique to the US.
the very first assertion that the universe is self contained and there is nothing outside is just your theory right? What evidence is there that there is no outside perspective? "Anything external to reality is irrelevant to reality"... well how can you prove this at all?
Anything external to reality would not share structure with reality / it would have no real structure. As such it wouldn't be able to affect reality and thus be irrelevant.
@@ctmuist how can you prove sharing structure or having structure is necessary to interact with this reality.
This is all so abstract it just feels too unprovable.
@@ItsAllGoodGames Interaction presupposes shared structure. If there's no structure connecting two things, they don't interact.
@@ctmuist I feel like at this level of abstraction and fundamental discussion it becomes impossible to reliably make assumptions about what is or is not possible.
How can it be proven that a connection of some kind is necessary for interaction, if there is some kind of “outside” of our reality then how can we know if it’s nature is not of something that can somehow interact with our reality without any sort of connection.
@@ItsAllGoodGames >"I feel like at this level of abstraction and fundamental discussion it becomes impossible"
It's just set theory.
>"How can it be proven that a connection of some kind is necessary for interaction"
This is like asking how it can be proven that particles are necessary for material. An interaction *is* a connection.
>"can somehow interact with our reality without any sort of connection"
If there is an interaction, then there's a connection -- the interaction.
Love God
In so many words, what he is saying is that elements of nature behave as if they are pieces of a language? And that there is a fundamental structure to the sentences, that is not understood or respected? Perhaps willfully misunderstood?
Example:
Thai vs English.
English is closer to reality because it has more vocabulary, past tense, future tense, etc.
"The sun will explode in a billion years."
Or that Thai is closer to reality, because it is more vague?
"Sun explode billion year."
The advantage of Thai is that it is more vague, and has less possible mistakes. It is more Accurate. With greater flexibility?
And the advantage of English is that it is more Precise, and can be more testable?
The semantics of the English:
"The sun will explode in 1 billion years."
Is easily disproven or disrespected with language. (Exactly a billion? What about a billion and one?)
The Thai:
"Sun explode billion year."
(Perhaps a billion suns will explode in a year)
The Thai is at a disadvantage for testability
Ignite the twin flame and global awakening
Nick Offerman could play Mike in a movie…maybe if a movie was made, more people would find out about Mike and his theory…
God is the ultimate reality - powerful.
Don't get it. Sounds pantheistic like Spinoza's rational ontology. Please dumb it down.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....language
If reality is a language is he saying it’s possible reality is coding?
I am just completing the math for a photonics experiment to prove that light is the third observer in quantum. In 2014 I conducted a photonics experiment that proved what we perceive as light actually exists in empty spce between the particle and the antiparticle with a 0.9599 correlation factor. Chris' model merely ties in numerous other ideas in metaphysics of which i am not an expert, and in my opinion he over complicates issues by trying to simplify them and his model makes no predictions that are testable so it provides no useful science, but I am on board with how his model ties things to a Creator and this Creator may be the third observer in quantum. However the third observer in quantum will be useful because it will turn the complex math world of quantum into simple classical physical relationships that can be altered by the third observer. Plus THE Universe or the outside Universe actual exists inside OUR Universe and was forced inside during the Big Bangs.
Father: The Sign
Son: The Signified
Holy Spirit: The Interpreter
God doesn't choose the intelligent, He chooses the humble and the despised of this world. Very intelligent man here, but theology was never supposed to be done without purification of the heart in the Orthodox Christian tradition. St. John Climacus said that the passionate should not touch theology, and St. Maximus the Confessor said that acquisition of spiritual knowledge without purification of the heart is the theology of demons.
>"God doesn't choose the intelligent, He chooses the humble and the despised of this world."
Which part of the video are you addressing?
I’m fascinated by people that fall for this hucksterism
I have to object. The physical universe is not the mind of God but a product of God's mind and dynamic power. Our universe had a start and is outside of the spiritual heavens, and no doubt is maintained in time by His spirit. It is as dust on a scale.
Yes, the sound clips used at the beginning are taken from a different context, where reality as a whole is being referred to as the universe. At the end from 12 minutes on, it mentions that the universe has a beginning and requires certain conditions.
Cool, now we know the mechanisms that brought us an utterly dystopian digital dictatorship. Thanks.
What?
@@_Royalfool_ yes.
If you listen to (or read) some of Langan’s other material, you’ll find that he lambasts and despises the evil ruling class. He probably would share your view that we live in a dastardly “dystopian digital dictatorship.” But at least he’s trying to do something about it!!!
Don't forget we now know how to model the mechanism which also brought us sarcasm, cynicism and passive aggression 👍
Ourselves
There is a limit to Langan's model.
What do you mean?
there is a limit to human cognition and its ability to understand the universe@@ctmuist
@@birddogfreemann 1) that wouldn't be a limit to just Langan's model but to all models 2) that doesn't mean that we can't understand reality at its most generic and encompassing level
This isn’t a bad argument, but there are just too many suppositions to take at face value.
The closer to God you get the more jealous those around you will become, the resentment to this man is an ego-motivated repulsion at the thought he understands God to greater degree, when it never was a competition to begin with. The CTMU mirrors my long held theory called DMS Dynamic Mosaic Spacetime, it was a great suprise and relief to discover that this man had been thinking along the same lines
Someone who's smart thinks the entire universe is congnative.
Some who is emotional thinks the whole universe is composed of love and hate.
Someone who is athletic thinks the entire universe is kenetic energy.
Someone who is spiritual thinks the universe is a great spirit composing all their is.
Someone who is a scientist thinks the world was developed by natural scientific forces alone.
Someone who is obsessed with aliens thinks the world was created and overseen by alien intelligence.
And on and on it goes. We all have our own metaphors.
So you have come to the same conclusion as the hermsist then?
Which conclusion? :)
This is Mentalism.
@@HermeticChaosofficial Yes, with the structure that it requires to be rigorous and scientifically analytic.
Hermetic teachings are valuable but ancient. Langan introduces the concepts of SCSPL, Conspansive Duality, Teleology and Syndiffeonesis that are not seen elsewhere. The CTMU blends scientific, philosophical, and theological concepts, potentially offering a unified framework that could bring together these separated fields. The potential implications are quite radical and would require a major shift in current scientific and philosophical paradigms.
This is a simple way to put it but it misses a lot of the context discussions and arguments around this. This ends up being just a guy making statements and giving reasons with small brained people can’t even understand.
All is mind
The universe consists of objects (in various energy densities - 3D physical and non-3D-physical) that interact by several different methods. It forms, therefore a simulated neural network. After some time, it developed to operate as an Artificial Intelligence, and eventually it became sentient. That is God. (God didn't make the universe; the universe made God) At that point, God had nothing outside of itself to learn from, and so it became experimenting, and that lead to some unfortunate results. Furthermore, the universe continues to change naturally, and so God has to update itself correspondingly periodically. (That is happening now, and the universal predator-and-prey ecosystem that had arisen naturally is being dismantled.)