There is a claim that Christopher Langan is the smartest man in the US. However, he also claims that intelligent design and evolution are compatible … really!! … in that case, I can only conclude that he is perhaps not as smart as many folks consider him to be.
OK, to be fair let’s clarify something – Intelligence and rationality and not the same thing, and so what can something happen, as in this case, is that very smart people can dream up very smart ways of rationalizing utterly absurd ideas.
The problem with IQ, is that it only measures your cognitive potential, not your actual grasp of reality. The higher it is, the more probable it is that you can justify and rationalize almost any insane crackpot idea. To illustrate that point, he does not appear to understand what a theory actually is and the word would be normally used because he has in effect redefined it. (Unless you are really curious, I’d skip that last link). Bizarrely, in there he appears to be using the word “theory” where most folks would use “hypothesis”, and that can be either due to simply not knowing, or may in fact be a deliberate ploy, all part of a word game, to justify some wacky conclusion.
OK, back on topic … the evidence that Chris Langan is as smart as he claims to be is … well, when he was tested it was discovered that he is rather good at doing IQ tests, but there does also appear to be a lot of evidence indicating that he touts completely kooky ideas and concepts.
So why am I babbling away about him? Well, when faced with the observation that “the smartest” man in the US believes in God, and has supposedly proved that he exists, I can only respond with the observation that he also appears to believe and rationalize a lot of other crazy stuff as well.
Still not convinced he is a kook? well here is a nice dissection of Mr Langan’s CTMU nonsense.
To recap: this “theory” of his has three problems, each of which is individually enough to discard it; with the three of them together, it’s a virtual masterpiece of crap.
- The “theory” consists mostly of word-games – arguing about the meanings of words like “universe” and “inclusion”, without actually explaining anything about how the universe works. It’s a theory with no predictive or descriptive value.
- The “theory” is defined by creating a new version of set theory, whose axioms are never stated, and whose specific goal guarantees that it will be an unsound theory. Unsound mathematical theories are useless: every possible statement is provable in an unsound theory.
- The author doesn’t understand the difference between syntax and semantics, between objects and models, or between statements and facts – and because of that, the basic statements in his theory are utterly meaningless.
The last link is of specific interest, because Mr Langan turns up in the comments section and is clearly not a happy chap because he proceeds to spew a load of ad-hominem ridden bullshit.