Christopher Langan … the smartest man? 130


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 are not the same thing, and so what can sometimes happen, as in this case, is that very smart people can dream up very clever 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 crazy idea. To illustrate that point, he does not appear to understand what a theory actually is as the word would be normally used within a scientific context 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 of the scientifically literate 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Bottom Line: Smart? Of course. But right? Nope.


Leave a Reply

130 thoughts on “Christopher Langan … the smartest man?

  • Tane Mcdonald

    i reckon howard berg (the speed reader) is the smartest man alive, although ive no idea on his views about god or anything theres no wikipedia article on him and all he ever talks about is reading…

  • Silverpen

    I listened to a 3 part YouTube of him talking and was quite disturbed by some of his ideas, spoken by a true irrational, arrogant Mensa member. For ex: He states that freedom is not a right but a privaledge, but people act as if it’s a right. Wow. Freedom is neither. It’s the state of the human mind. We have the freedom to choose, say yes or no, think in whatever ways we want.
    Another one is how he uses logic, sans rationality and experience, to state how a bigger head equals more intelligence (but also stating it hasn’t been proven, just to give himself an argument out). I’m here to tell you I know people with much larger heads than me who can’t fight their way out of a paper bag.
    I don’t think he’s the smartest person alive because intelligence encompasses more areas of the mind, not just outdated narrow IQ tests. I know a few Mensa people given into very strange fear based or self engrossed ideas that fall short of including the world around them, thus I state the word arrogant; no real perceptions or vision of effects.
    Thank you for speaking out.

    • UnChild

      I agree that he seems…self satisfied… in his own intellectual capacity. Perhaps that bothers me because his I.Q. is so much higher than mine, I don’t know. The hallmark of intelligence is realizing how little you know in so far as the ocean of truth is concerned. The way he smugly says that Charles Darwin was “way down in the dumps at a 135 I.Q.” is absolutely pathetic and shows his beef with Darwin right out the gate. Truly pathetic. Who, in their right mind, doesn’t respect Charles Darwin? A scientist by any real definition and someone who revolutionized the way we see ourselves as humans and the way we see all other life forms. Not to mention the statement was rude, plainly speaking, and highly arrogant. You would think the smartest man alive would be smarter than that. He basically stated that even brilliant people are far beneath him. My I.Q. is somewhere between 130 and 135 and I don’t call people who are clearly not on my level intellectual “dumps”. He knows that people with an I.Q. of 135 are labelled “near genius” by pretty much all I.Q. tests that exist, and that they are in 97-98th percentile of American citizens in terms of I.Q., so to say what he said is ignorant. You can have an I.Q. of 135 and be a genius. Genius is not a matter of I.Q. It’s a label, really, often given retroactively. Chris has had to give himself that label because he has not earned it. History will be the judge of Chris Langan. I hope he does something great for the human race. A mind like his, if it is what he would have us think–an equal of Einstein or Newton, will no doubt make MONUMENTAL discoveries. Sir Isaac Newton went into retreat from the Bubonic plague for 18 months and in that shirt time he invented calculus, the field of optics, and gained insight into the laws of planetary motion. This event is regarded by intellectuals the world over as the most startling display of human intelligence that has ever occurred in recorded history. When Langan makes revolutionary breakthroughs in science, mathematics, philosophy, astronomy, physics, etc. then we will know the truth. After all, who else if not the smartest man alive can make such breakthroughs.

  • Jona Denz-Hamilton

    Maybe all it takes is an open-mind to consider the possibility that “intelligent design and evolution are compatible”. Isn’t being able to think BEYOND a sign of intelligence? Doubt but keep pondering!

    • Leo

      People always protect their turf. Religious or non religious. Some brave souls actually want to “know”. And they change as their inquiry leads them to change their views ( former Atheist Apologist Anthony Flew becoming a Deist comes to mind).

      Why not interview Chris Langan, and have him answer your “hard” questions about his theory?

    • Eric

      Considering the possibility of ID, is one thing. Asserting that ID is a fact, is another thing. And being able to “think beyond” is a sign that someone has an active imagination, which isn’t necessarily an indication that said person is particularly intelligent.

  • WD

    This thread will simply not die. I can’t even comment on the idiocies displayed by either side of these issues. I have not seen a single person quoted here who spoke with anything even remotely resembling “intelligence”, other than myself. And yes, I will say that, because yes I am smarter than any of you. (PhD, Mensa…an IQ in the top 10,000 people living today on planet Earth, blah….blah…blah. If you don’t believe me, I don’t care.) To those who argue that what I have to say is not relevant, or that I am an inbred mother-lover, I don’t care. The idea that passive aggression is some form of “ultimate logic” can’t be any more insane. All refuted thus: Let the preceding and following words be considered to have been the response to all further comments. Now how long will you go. how many iterations and idiocies will be uttered in response? Each permutation only indicating a greater and greater stupidity. Knock yourselves out… : )

    Do you even realize the difference between “intelligence” and “logic” versus common sense and reason? Because if you did, you would understand why “intellect” and the “logic” born from it produce such insanities as the thought and comment “I DO NOT EXIST”. If you can not instantly grasp why this is fallacious, I can’t even respond to you because you lack the brain cells to understand. Period. Relate a spiritualism to a science so that both are codified in a “TOE” (theory of everything)? what is “God”? How do we define “God”? (For crying out loud). To exist you must love and be loved. Love just a “silly emotion”? A “trick of glands and hormones”? No, idiots, love is a function. A mathematical reality as well. Here is your “Super Theory” of “everything” : That which does not love and is not loved, does not exist or will cease to exist shortly. This based not in the ramblings of Wordsworth and other poets, but also as an evolutionary aspect of mathematical probability and psychology. Yes, the MIND. forgot about that one didn’t you… : ) A TOE? The mathematical (scientific) and spiritual application of the following statement (and if your synapses don’t fire quickly enough to “get it”, that is not my problem…) ” LOVE DIVIDES AND SUBTRACTS NOTHING! “

        • Stan Hudson

          WD…You’ve no clue how silly you are. You didn’t mention entropy and how we live in a negatively entropic local ‘universe’ due to the sun’s energy input here, and how it creates a pressure toward higher levels of organization. That’s what love is, thermodynamically. Easy enough to explain, but you instead berate before the fact. I’m sure you have some kind of higher dimensional curved space nonsense explanation why that behavior is prophylactic, but it’s really just being lazy.
          As for your PhD, it shows you can please the committee that granted it, nothing more.

    • Eric

      So, you’ve asserted that “love” is a function, but how exactly are you defining it? What exactly is this function, and why is it necessary for existence? How can you demonstrate that “love” is necessary to exist?

      Also, (unless you can elaborate, and/or reword to correct a possible misunderstanding here) it seems as though you have contradicted yourself. You said: “To exist you must love and be loved”. Yet you ALSO contradictorily said: “That which does not love and is not loved, does not exist or will cease to exist shortly”. So…which is it? Because, if something will “cease to exist shortly”, that means it currently DOES exist. Yet, according to you, “To exist you must love and be loved”. Therefore, it shouldn’t exist at all.

      Also, how are you defining existence? Do mosquitos exist? Do mosquitos love, and are they themselves loved? Do all humans love? How have you determined this to be true?

      You can claim whatever you want about your intelligence, but based collectively on your lack of detail, logical flaws, and poor grammar, I simply do not believe your claims. Irrespective of what I believe, self aggrandizement is simply a rhetorical element, and does nothing to support the validity of your claims. I am of the opinion that it isn’t working very well for you as a rhetorical device either.

      • Walt

        Eric,

        Ah yes, as predicted. How many iterations will you go… : ) There are no contradictions in my assertions if you understand the concept of “then” and “now”, as well as the global implications of the statement.

        Now, Eric…I really did not have to respond to this at all, but I am afraid I am going to have to pick on you a bit in order to make a point about 99.999% of those humans who consider themselves highly intelligent. I am sure you are convinced that you are highly intelligent and that your comments were “deep” and fraught with erudition. They were not. Not even a little bit.

        This may bruise the ego a bit, but not one thing you said was a mark of an intelligence greater than needed to pump gas at the local filling station. You assume that you are quite bright because you are convinced (as many are) that a simple passive-aggressive loop is a superior logic, when it is as simple as an amoeba. All that is required of this “intellect” is to shift the definition (or the words) and then claim that the premises do not apply or require a clarification which you make sure is impossible. It is an absurdum loop and that is all. The village idiot could do it. You simply attack and pick apart a premise claiming it as “mere rhetoric” or an improper or incomplete definition of the terms applied (terms you conveniently shifted in order to bolster what you say enough that it won’t appear too blatantly idiotic…)

        Eric, if I met you in person, and we sat and had coffee and discussed this, I would show you that the base of your logic ultimately reduces to you claiming that I can not prove that you exist. Your argument never varies much from its single thought which is to deny to absurdum, common sense and reason in favor of your ego being “right”. You argue the ego in the argument and not the truth of the statements. And I will tell you also, because I have done it many times. I would loop you in to your own logic and reduce you to literally screaming at me the only thing you ever asserted at all, which was not even an argument, but simply screaming over and over again ” “NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT!”

        It is an ego that is convinced of an intellect and knowledge it does not posses. You believe you are intelligent when you assert that I can not prove that you are not incorrect. Loop the loop my friend. All I see is a monkey screaming and shaking his bone at the sky. That is how smart you showed yourself to be. And I know in advance your mind won’t accept that, and you will respond as all passive aggression shall, wielding your wondrous loop and comparing yourself to Aristotle and Plato…I really needn’t reply further. Proceed with your iterations, but you are being a BAD MONKEY! : )

      • WD / Walt

        And while you are gearing up for the next bone shaking, maybe this will shake you up in in relation to the “logic” you think you are using, and the “intellect” you think you have. I could have just as easily argued that you would claim I could not prove that you were not, not incorrect, which is an inversion of what I said before. Your “logic” works either way because it is only one idiocy over and over again : The argument ” I AM NOT INCORRECT”. Until you understand why that can be “true” in logic and an absolute idiocy in the eyes of common sense and reason, no one can help you, monkey boy… : )

        • Eric

          So…you have not addressed the issues I brought up, at all. I asked you about specific points, and you avoided all of them, to merely make false assertions about opinions I have not stated, and attack strawmen. You laboriously spout rhetoric, and avoid actually addressing the points. You claim that I probably think myself to be highly intelligent, and this is a false assertion. However, YOU have claimed YOURSELF to be highly intelligent, but you have yet to substantiate these claims, and you work to solidify your name in the opposite direction, with every bit of nonsense you offer.

          You make baseless assertions about vague concepts such as “love”, and then when questioned about them, you give no substantive rebuttal or explanation whatsoever. You simply CLAIM that you could “show me about the base of my logic” if we sat down in a “coffee shop”, yet you give nothing to that effect here. You are full of basic ad hominems and elementary rhetoric, so far.

          I have not “shifted definitions” at all. Where are you claiming I have done so?

          You are deluding yourself if you think you have made any real argument here. Poisoning the well and strawmen are two of the weakest and most transparent of fallacies, and that’s about all you have given so far. Keep avoiding. That must be satisfying.

    • Silverpen

      “This thread will simply not die”. Quit complaining and shut up; Don’t contribute. So contradictory and unintelligent, WD.

      • WD

        That is the point. : ) I can only shake my head sadly at your response. There was not a single thing that was contradictory in what I stated. Nothing was unclear. The problem lies in your use of a flawed logic in the basic assumptions that form how you viewed the statements, how you think in general and how you formed your response. It is currently part and parcel of the basic cognitive paradigm of most human beings and it produces erroneous thinking. Any truly intelligent person would have never argued with my statement, because they would have immediately realized that to prove it incorrect, they would have to prove that they themselves, do not exist. You are correct about one thing. I can not contribute further because you simply lack the intellectual base needed to comprehend what is being said. By choice actually, not by genetics entirely….: ) The truth is never insulting. it is simply the truth. As of a necessity, all the rest from me to you is silence…………….

      • WD

        Another, simpler way to describe it is that to those intelligent enough to understand what I said, no further explanation or defense is necessary. To those who lack the intelligence to understand what was said, either by choice or by design, no further explanation or argument will ever be sufficient.

        • Eric

          You’re a fool. You are merely deluding yourself, or trolling. I have exposed the logical flaws in your argument, and you have done nothing to correct them. You have only asserted that you are intelligent and that anyone who disagrees with you is simply not intelligent. This is just nonsense, baseless self aggrandizing, not a sound argument. Anyone can clearly see where I have shown your argument to be flawed, and if YOU can’t understand that, then YOUR intelligence is insufficient.

  • Phine Richman

    I stumbled across this page when I was looking to see if/how Mr. Langan addresses Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem with his own CTMU theory, as I experienced difficulty proceeding in the paper with this nagging concept in my mind. I want to give the man’s theory a fair shake and I was afraid that my immediate thoughts about the two were coloring my interpretation of the CTMU Theory. So bear in mind that I have not read the entire paper by Mr. Langan yet; simply because I stopped to investigate my immediate skepticism/concerns with reconciling the two. Therefore, I do not have sufficient information at the moment to comment on my thoughts regarding CTMU. I do find it to be interesting, at the very least because we know that our current mainstream models are flawed and/or incomplete. So my the following is only regarding the contents of the writings posted by “Dave.” (Whom I’m not sure if this is the author of the opinion-piece or merely someone who posted it without reference.)

    On the issue of God: I know only of a video or two in which I’ve heard Mr. Langan reply in a direct affirmative when asked about if he thinks that God exists. I do not know if this was edited or if Mr. Langan was replying with more respect to brevity than explanation. I was turned off by this seemingly curt response to this question. Personally, I do not think it is very responsible of a person to answer such a question without first asking how questioner defines “God.” In my experience, I have never encountered any definition of that word that is either illogical or incomprehensibly vague. I am currently of the opinion that anyone proclaiming to be able to even define “God” is most likely delusional. It may be that I am presumptuous in my thinking that the human mind is incapable of providing a satisfactory definition of something resembling what I have been told God is.

    While the author of the piece above does make some important distinctions regarding a few items (e.g. results of an IQ test a and association with correct interpretations of reality), there are a few glaring issues with the author’s post that undermined their credibility to me:

    “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).”

    An apparent grammatical error (excusable) forced me to read this sentence twice to try and understand what the author meant. But more importantly, the statement which links to a paper by Mr. Langar that is being used by the author as a reference to illustrate their point, is immediately followed by a recommendation for readers to not look into that unless they are “really curious.” That is not a scientifically responsible manner to make a criticism. And it prompted me to read the entire document posted by Mr. Langan. I did not find the issue that the author alludes to. I thought that Mr. Langan actually attempted to “refine” rather than “redefine” the concept of what the word ‘theory’ means.

    Lastly the author lists as their #3 “recap” of “crap”:
    “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.”

    Unless I’m way off base, the author states that Mr. Langan “doesn’t understand the difference between…statements and facts…” Ok, it appears that the author made a statement that they think is factual about Mr. Langan’s capacity to differentiate between a statement and a fact (when they differ.) They are not guilty of the exact accusation they levied. That is quite remarkable, considering how they use terms like “kook”, “crap”, “bullshit”, etc. I would be embarrassed if I said or wrote anything resembling this level of hypocrisy.

    • Phine Richman

      My goodness, grammatical/spelling errors noted at the following locations of my comment:

      So [s]my[/s] the following is only regarding the contents of the writings posted by “Dave.”

      “But more importantly, the statement which links to a paper by Mr. [i]Langan[/i]”

  • Daniel Von Kram

    This is simply a compilation of statements, un-cited and completely worthless for any sort of review of the model. Also, what you don’t seem to understand, is that it is a model. He is trying to define axioms for reality based on logical rationalism. The point is that physics, with set axioms cannot observe itself, he is trying to find axioms fir the nature of physics, which exist outside of physics. He lays these suggestions down from rationalism, them tests them.

  • Rick Rosner

    So you’re basically saying that since you don’t agree with him; “He’s wrong and not smart and you are.”?

    The rest of this article is just double talk mixed in with word salad.

  • Rick Rosner

    So because you don’t agree with his opinion regarding Intelligent Design, you’re basically saying “he’s stupid, and I’m right.”?

  • Prem Chopra

    I’ll fuck your mother’s corpse asshole!!!! Don’t fucking question the smartest dude on the planet…
    You probably don’t have a job…. Waiting for Adsense revenue…. Believing in nwo shit… You cunt… You ought be killed and your head mauled by Dogs!!! Oh wait what am it saying!!!
    The best way to deal with inbred pussies like you is to ignore you… U don’t exist.
    P.S. I like ur mom’s tits

  • Zach

    So… you’re saying that God could NEVER set up evolution. He’s probably not smart enough to figure out -every- single thing that would be necessary for life to evolve to develop sentience. THAT could never happen

  • Suckone

    Only people who have no time on there hands and little depth of information processing sit around and criticize the work of others. I guess you have the whole universal order wrapped up, huh? What are you doing to help the world and be a human of value? It’s people like you that are ruining our society by doing nothing but criticizing without your own real hypotheses.

    • zas97

      There is a lot of people who belive in things that make nosens like miraculus cures like homeopathy and other bullshit and this people use internet to spread their ideas, thats why Marc and other critics are needed, to stop this ideas and prevent society being harmed from them, and yes wrong ideas can be really harmful just look at the vast quantity of brilliant scientist that have been burned by the catholics.

    • Eric

      Firstly, I think you meant “Only people who have TOO MUCH time on THEIR hands…”. But irrespective of that, why is it necessary to have one’s own “hypothesis” in order to address someone else’s? Also, you are criticizing this person’s criticisms, and with flawed logic while you’re doing it. It is important to criticize, scrutinize, and test ideas to see if they hold up, or to reveal actual and/or potential flaws.

  • Konrad

    Hi Walt, hope your good

    Been busy with work – you know how it is… deadlines etc. I thought we might need to clear this one up, you know, this statement below:

    Your only possible argument when its core and key variables are examined which is ” I AM NOT INCORRECT ” And that is absurd not as an insult but as a “logic”.

    A divergence of opinion is good for shoring up what you thought was TRUE, maybe wasn’t TRUE after all… or, when you have spent lots of time researching the negative parts of the puzzle, you should be able to use a fair judgement to derive an intuitive amount of TRUTH from that specific subject. As I said previously, the word your looking for is ‘DISCERMENT’ when dealing with people matters > instead of what you keep referring to as ‘LOGIC’. Shifting definitions is not my style – if you truly understand a matter you should be able to explain it simply, this should resonate in your output, the written word, speech and actions.

    The term ‘LOGIC’ can never, be appended to how people think – logic is a string set of principles, an audit trail of defined events, LOGIC CAN BE SEEN around the globe for you and I Walt….pre-determined or ‘instinctively wise’ creatures, plant life, sea life derivatives etc… under a microscope these organisms seem to be ‘organised’ – completing routine functions, almost as if somebody had ‘programmed’ them to complete certain tasks.

    You see, a collaboration of microscopic organisms working together on a global scale…i.e, the same ‘built for purpose’ living ‘thing’, don’t even know their true outcome do they??
    Atomic sized organisms being ‘governed’ by a set of pre-programmed’ principles, actioned by different ‘date-‘timestamp’ event handlers… You not find this peculiar?? Knowing that the water has micro-organisms that cleanse and the earth soil is busy while we sleep – all for a purpose that is larger than they will ever know….. without these ‘robotic’ creatures we wouldn’t be able to live would we? Are we not dependent on plant/tree life to breath on this planet and on and on….. even non-symbiotic relationships you have to account for – has someone put them there? Would this statement be FALSE? Or, could it be through deductive reasoning that this statement is TRUE? Or in my mind, as you say ‘I AM NOT INCORRECT’ – ok… I guess this sort of means TRUE in my book, ……… add some insight into the mix with a well researched negative picture that has been built, then I could say that ‘What I think is TRULY TRUE’.

    Unless you are talking about a systematic approach in syntax where of course, you could have ‘FALSE’ as the system operates on its basic routines, as variables are inputted manually / automated, you would deduce what is TRUE, defining this statement after viewing historical data for patterns > it would still be a mean average though, but as close as you can get – so you could never say it is TRULY TRUE, because, a variable, after all is a variable! – a similar math principle to wisdom of the crowd – allow people to guess how many jellybeans in a jar and after so many guesses you actually get an approximation.

    So establishing as a fact these organisms have scripted executable actions, a mathematical constant or physical constant, with in most circumstances, especially micro, dependent or you could even say controlled variables (deep beneath the earth, silt bed, non-weather, man disturbances).
    We know symbiotic relationships exist and this is TRUE – just like a Bee and the pollen it collects (pattern sequence)… Science will recognise that these two have a relationship and have dependencies on each other for survival (I don’t mean the ‘survival of the fittest’ nonsense either). Repeatable patterns are fundamental to ascertaining TRUTH.

    So, thinking about these basic examples in which there are literally millions of ‘pre-programmed robotic workers’ busy as we speak, you would discern, the mapping of the programmed cycle would have to correlate to a pre-defined plan,
    A. they are ‘living’ which we cannot comprehend there consciousness, let alone a ‘routine’ set of behavioral functions’ without the ‘brain’
    B. working for a higher purpose – helping, yes helping a sustainable set of life forms moving on the earth surface
    C they are part of a ‘colossal’ organised hierarchy of lifeforms – each having unique attributes, each having unique lifespans, each having unique reproduction
    D some work as a ‘team’ and other lifeforms as individuals to ‘get the job done’

    We can only simulate what we understand…….. I hear people calling this world a ‘simulated computer program’, only after the matrix film (Plato) – isn’t it funny that complex mathematics required to deliver this program in all these organisms is never mentioned??? Its certainly not written in ‘C’ is it haha? Yes, a further understanding of the holographic theory adds surprising results with variables, electrons popping in and out, appearing random, but I would think are unquestionably built for purpose and unfathomable from the Ancient Of Days. It’s a code that can never be found because we can only create inanimate objects… we cannot breath life into the objects – this statement is TRULY TRUE

    I understand that any person can articulate their knowledge into a persuasive construct – lie to others etc. What you thought were indelible facts and all you ever knew turned out to be impossible to verify, however, in your mind you are saying ‘I AM NOT INCORRECT’…. the realisation that all you ever knew never existed in the form that you thought it did, could lead to a depressing complex behavior, maybe feelings of defamed and disillusion, bitterness and anger…. knocking your confidence depending on age and circumstance could lead to these human effects crouching at the door.

    Walt – you can hold out for eternity hanging on science to deliver – the problem is the very people or celestial beings in charge of this planet, have spent thousands of years hiding the truth from us. All we have is discernment and insight to conclude these matters. All the books on earth about Psychology wil give you basic paradigms, but as you know, we are still individuals, in a unique set of circumstances. You can be programmed as a child and develop deeply entrenched reasoning’s – this is what the television network is for, looks like they are winning the core battle – most adults could be sat round the box every night misplacing their own energy resonance, replacing their taste with well prepared ready meals, lowering their intellectual capability by feeding from that table.

    “Your free to do what we tell you to do” ……………..fortunately, some of us are enjoying the capitalist benefits, making our life easier through technology and availability of food, the basics. The Mind Control, especially in the land you are situated takes my breath away, an offset to the surrounding wealth, this is the sacrifice for material slavery I guess. You are by far the most advanced civilization on earth in wealth, agriculture farming, transportation, engineering, finance, computing, science and military might. I’m sure you know the darkness what is going on behind the scenes though, on the surface the glossy facade is appealing…. once you dig, you unearth some disturbing collusion’s and barbaric experiences. Philosophically, Division is the strength of the current system, informing peoples that they have no purpose, you came from animals, get what you can when you can, live once. it’s opposing twin is Unity, we can only observe these matters yet there is no ‘hope’ in ‘division’ and ‘displacement’ of peoples… your only way forward is a ‘Unified’ approach to understanding where ‘hope’ comes from a ‘belief’ – view the patterns of events, confidence in these leaves you ‘without aberration’.

    “You cannot slave for two masters – you will hate one and love the other”

    Regards

    Konrad

    • Walt Downs

      Hi Konrad,

      I had actually replied in a much more concise form in the previous conversations below. The messaging format on this page is rather clumsy and newer posts can get lost in the comments…8) I was thinking of a way to put It terms of a simple reason. I would like to thank you for your willingness to debate this with me. If we consider what you are saying which is essentially that due to the “complexities” involved nothing can really be “proven”. What is a “logic” if not a scientific method of thought, a structure. A structure designed specifically to attempt to *PROVE* things. Yet via this logic you have proven only that you can not prove it. If the “Logic” can not “prove” anything, then how can it be a logic? If that is the case, what is the solution then? It is not really that radical. The error lies in the assumption that all is “false” until “proven” true, which this “logic” has proven you can not do. So, simply say that ALL is Truly True. That may seem simplistic, but it is a KEY VARIABLE that exists in the structure of this system. This logic. So, it is CORRECT to assume a ? is TRUE until it is proven unequivocally false. When you do this you will find your final outcomes, singularly and as a Totality will converge to ! = YES or TRUE or ? not as “false” but as indeterminate. Then we can converge to a point where ALL that is ? will diminish until eventually all that is TRUE will be known. And as a bonus if you will, you may eradicate “mental aberration” in the process(theoretically, at this point but it deserves study…) Granted of course, there will be things that are false, but now we can ad that in and consider that in light It is rather amusing to think though that such complex systems as you mentioned can be adequately handled via the simple ” ! ” or ” ? ” Regards, Walt

  • Walter Downs

    Konrad,

    But now that you have been duly informed of the psychology involved, Let me present to you another form of my argument.

    Your “Logic” states: It must be True beyond Reasonable Doubt. That oxymoron “Reasonable Doubt” should be an “alarm bell” that there is a problem….8)

    It is to say: I doubt until there is a reason I find acceptable.

    as an equality to that : I assume it is false until True to my satisfaction.

    Now all you have to do is “shift” any argument presented so that it is NEVER acceptable to you and you can remain as NOT INCORRECT.

    NOT is a negative. INCORRECT is a negative. which is NOT FALSE = we must be SO because we are NOT FALSE?

    Is that the same as TRUE ? We do not know yet so now separate NOT and FALSE and normalize it to FALSE FALSE or NOT NOT

    NOT NOT must be SO because NOT NOT can not be NOT? This resolves in to absurdity….etc

    That is a GODELISM if you will and why you accepted it inverted as “True Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”….It allowed you to be NOT INCORRECT.

    Now HERE is MY ARGUMENT in Total :

    “No Truth is Unreasonable”

    Is there any TRUTH that you find unreasonable ?

    If not then that PROVES that “Truth Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” is Doubt that is Unreasonable and can not be Truth and….(absurd)

    Yet there ARE some things you consider TRUE, Right Konrad ? Are they Reasonable ?

    And if you fight this argument now it is only because you are trying to prove that NOT INCORRECT is OK….8)

    Regards,
    Walt

  • Walter Downs

    Konrad,

    My apologies for the posts as new posts and as responses below, as I was also dealing with discussing ongoing personal projects and several people face to face, while responding. The format editor of the page is also jumbling the structure of the sentences and paragraphs. You can read about these assertions of mine soon in either Scientific American, or several other magazines dealing with psychology and philosophy. If we continued, my arguments would become shorter and more concise, while yours would begin to lengthen in proving that you were not incorrect. Finally, we would be at a point where I simply stated : I AM ! or I AM ? CHOOSE. And the only “defense” or argument left you as “NO! NO!….not not not….” or (hopefully) TO LAUGH at NOT INCORRECT as absurd!

    Regards,
    Walt

  • Walter Downs

    Konrad ,

    And because I am a “fun” guy what about our friend Godel ? Here is the “sleight of hand” that Godel used: FIRST he declared all “resolutions” as TRUE or FALSE, THEN he increased the argument to GLOBAL proportions so he could say that there could be no COMPLETE or PERFECT system. Then he REDUCED the argument to INDIVIDUAL terms so that he could say we as fallible could not “Solve IT” and so he could avoid a “GOD” or perfect system that would simply say “bullshit” that is absurd ! (I hope you are starting to see what I
    mean when I talk about “shifting” definitions…!!!) It is called “Having your cake and eating it too…”

  • Walter Downs

    Dear Konrad,

    Evidence to the contrary, I am not a cruel man. So please read my responses, but bear in mind that while I am having a bit of fun with you
    and poking you here and there, I am laughing, hopefully with you. I have argued these points many times, and because what I assert is true
    I can predict the outcome were we to continue. You would either go insane or suddenly start laughing your butt off at how absurd things can
    get 8) The problem with Skepticism….etc is that it PREDICTS (as self-fulfilling prophecy) that eventually if you go long enough ALL WILL BE FALSE.
    The “Rub” if you read this Right, is that if that is True we would have never existed to begin with. Think of it this way…You will work hard to find
    the “cards in the deck” that prove to your mind that I am somehow not right and thus you are NOT INCORRRECT. But by doing that you establish
    that I was statistically TRUE FALSE for the number of cards you played. If you kept that up what I predicted would happen, indeed would.
    And because we DO EXIST, then the probability of my being somehow WRONG diminishes with every TRUE FALSE card you “play” against
    me. Thus I become more and more True because I was the Truth to begin with. And the outcomes I predicted ever more and more likely to
    occur for you. Which is by your “logic” to accept either insanity or laughter in realizing that my arguments are True.

    For the reasons I stated I will leave it at that…..

    Regards,
    Walt Downs

    • Walter Downs

      Konrad,

      Ah and very quickly on Hegel. the problem being that the concept of Thesis Antithesis and Synthesis, never manages to “Really” get past the “Antithesis” due to the
      reasons I pointed out and that we have been discussing. It sounds quite elegant and I was taken with Hegel’s philosophies myself when younger, but it just won’t work.
      Ultimately the only Responses in the Universe that are legitimate are ! and ? which is that “false” does not and can not exist. You are either YES or UNDETERMINED
      until such time as that U Value is determined as YES or TRUE….That is a “mind bender” I know, but that is the Truth if you contemplate it.

      Kind Regards,
      WD

  • Walter Downs PhD

    With all this stated clearly it is finally child’s play. The only arguments left to the Scientist/Skeptic/Nihilist/Existentialist….etc
    are not surprisingly, few in number. For the Illogic of how you frame your “logic” is self limiting in the absurd, while My assertion is limitless in its capability
    to argue the Truth of it, because it is a Dynamic Truth:

    Your arguments:

    1. “You are wrong because You are nonsense and stupid!” I respond with silence, for this is neither a Reasoning nor a Reason.
    2. “You are being “Philosophical” and We are talking about “Science”!” And you have merely “shifted” the “definition” of a term used to be able to assert you are not incorrect. That is desperation and neither a Reasoning nor a Reason.
    3. “You are comical, Let’s be SERIOUS about this!” How serious would you like to be? I am RIGHT. What is LEFT? 8)
    4. “You are being “narrow minded” in your viewpoint and not allowing for other “personal points of view””! Really? No Truth is Unreasonable.
    5. “Your argument is so broad minded it asserts a Global Truth which is specious.” No Truth is Unreasonable.
    6. “Your argument is circular and is just a BETTER circular argument than My argument!” No kidding…8) No Truth is Unreasonable.

  • Walter Downs PhD

    Though I may be accused of attempting to “Hammer this horseshoe” in to “submission”, I am only outlining many arguments because I know that I will face many iterations from those who embrace absurdity over common sense by attempting to make Common Sense appear to be absurd….8)

    The first absurdum takes the form of the argument : “Science shall prove a Truth by repeated experimentation and consensus. It shall be True unless sometime in the future it is found to be false.” Unfortunately this process of “Truth until Lie” inverts from a “Truth” in the Mind, to a Mind that assumes that ANY ONE is only True for a Time Being, until it is ULTIMATELY proven to be FALSE. That is the way the Mind “sees” such a “logic”. What now gentlemen….How many Iterations?

  • Walter Downs PhD

    The funny thing about Truth is just that. TO LAUGH. Truth can be argued from any angle I care to apply because it will resolve in similarity every time I argue thus. To assert that all is Truly True is to acknowledge an Ultimate Outcome of JOY and LIFE. To assert that all is Truly False, is to assume that eventually all is PAIN and NO ONE, and that is absurd, because it is Neither a Reasoning of a sound Mind, nor acceptable as a Reason of or for “Being”. Now, it is simply a matter of Iteration. How long will you go before you must admit that this is the Truth? How long will you “argue” an invalid “logic”. How many Ad Baculums will you traverse in denying the Reality of a Dynamic Truth? How many comments, how many words will you apply in the attempt? How much of Your TIME, will you expend? Thus the “count”. How long will you go….How many Iterations…..That is the Truth, and that is ALL. 8)

  • Walter Downs

    I am all for experimentation in the realms of what I have stated. Free your mind and the rest will follow. This is not a rhetorical statement, but one of either a spiritual or psychological/scientific nature as you choose to describe it to yourself. Try this (really try it!) Sit quietly and take a few deep breaths. Now tell yourself this: “I AM TRULY TRUE”. “ALL IS TRULY TRUE”. Now simply wait for the reaction from your Subconscious Mind and You as a Consciousness as well. My prediction is that several things will occur over the next few days for you. First, from the inner Id of your very being will scream a resounding “YES! That is what I have been waiting for!” You should also experience feelings of intense joy or a very deep calm, depending on the type of individual you are. In addition your conscious mind will go “bananas” in a “good way” with all sorts of new ideas and creative streams of thought. This is not “hyperbole”. It is a concrete experiment which you can try yourself. The results of such will be for you to ascertain for yourself….

  • Walter Downs

    Many times have I debated the points I mentioned with Skeptics as well as Nihilists and Existentialists. In every case without exception, those who faced me regardless of their
    “education” or native intellect were reduced to screaming at me (literally in many cases) “NOT NOT NOT NOT !!” Because dear Skeptic, the core variable of all such specious logic is the argument “You can not prove A because A can not be Truly True (absolute truth) ” In order to argue this way is to reduce the debate to the “logic” “You can not prove I am incorrect”
    which eventually boils down to “I AM NOT INCORRECT”……Another way to consider this is that to claim that NO ONE can be Truly True is to aver that all will eventually be Truly False.
    And to be TRULY FALSE is absurd because it is neither a Reasoning nor a Reason. (To the Mind’s inner dialogue that is spoken to “self”, ” I am THIS. I am That. I am good. I am Truly false. “I AM TRULY FALSE?” HUH ? “I AM TRULY NOT?” “What AM I…..?” WTF!…..WTF!….WTF!…..and there you have it. Take it as you Will…….8)

  • Walter Downs PhD

    Gentlemen, The flaw may simply reside in such comments as the “requirement” of “proof” upon any claimant of an argument. Not so much in the validity of asking for the proof of such, but in the hubris implied in it’s declaration as well as the rather “shady” things being done in the swift rape and shifting of a “definition” in order to support a “logic” which seems logical but is neither a Reasoning nor a Reason. To whit, your “defense” to ALL is “I AM NOT INCORRECT”. If you believe that a reasonable inductive argument I pity you….8)

    • Walter Downs PhD

      And in even reply to my own “jape” if you will, I would note that “I AM NOT INCORRECT” is passed through an inductive process and then presented as a convenient self-fulfillment, and claimed as a deductive Reasoning, reason or vetting….And that is, at best inane, and at worst…INSANE…8)

      • Walter Downs PhD

        Granted, I do not style myself a “skeptic” nor much as regards “labels” in general. As I sense the possibility in such “unfriendly” territory, impending attempts at swift mental decapitation, I will aver my IQ to be: 9…..For each who laugh, and for each who see in my words some humble form of veracity, I may add a 0 “tacked to the back” of that number….

        WALTER’S LAW: “Stasis within logic, is an argument that “All Shall Perish” before it can be proven Truly True. Ergo, not a logic but a Prophecy as “Truly False”. True “logic” lies in Common Sense and a Spirit of Reasoning and Reason presented as a Dynamic Truth. Only thus, able to cope or to cane within the confines of Truth, and not the Ego in the argument…” Walter T. Downs iii PhD

        • Konrad

          Hi Walter

          I’ve taken a look at your comments…. I cannot make any sense out of your narrative though, the formatting is incoherent, an obscure use of words and the sentence structure has no rhythm. Is this the result of academic training? A foggy, esoteric ramble, dressed for men who placate others with post-nominal letters.

          I’m still trying to decipher ‘WALTERS LAW’ : stasis is ‘motionless’, so it’s ‘Motionless within logic’…….. Walt… this isn’t mental decapitation, this is deductive reasoning.

          With respect, it looks like this is an old family relative quote, the words ‘thus’ and ‘ergo’, I’m assuming – interesting how the written language has changed, being presented, not in a ‘simpler’ format, but in a more palatable rhythm for all walks of life to understand.

          • Walter Downs

            Konrad,

            In that case, to you, my IQ is 9. Your understanding of the rhythm of what was written depends on whether you are a “musician” or a “computer”. If you are literally incapable of deciphering a more archaic form of writing, that is rather alarming. I would get have that checked out, If I were you. It may take several tries to decipher Walter’s Law, as what passes for a “logical” mind nowadays will rant and rave at it, because it realizes within the words, its own annihilation. I can provide a short version of this, however, if it will help :

            “Your “logical” mind is not so, for you “logic” instead of Reasoning and finding the Reason.”

            A Sample and Proof :

            Logic :

            “No Scientific Theory can be proven True by Scientific Method” ( A Common argument found in Skepticism ) This is a “static” argument.

            Reasoning :

            When we properly decipher the way the argument is written, we will find a form of the “Liar’s Paradox”.

            The argument is that A can not be proven True because System B is not “perfect” .

            However System B IS PERFECT and responds to the argument not as “True” or “False” but with either SILENCE, or simply “The argument or statement is ABSURD! ”
            Why would a perfect system respond to a ridiculously circular attempt to confound it?

            But lets go a bit further with this for you…

            Another way to decipher the way that “logic” was written, is that at its core, the argument is ” I AM NOT INCORRECT “…Let us consider how the Human Mind
            handles this “logic”…..Your Mind is literally trundling along, with the Subconscious “singing” to itself, “I am doing this…I am doing that…I am this….I am that…”

            Let us introduce in to that Mind now, the statement “I AM NOT INCORRECT”…

            The Subconscious Mind :

            “HUH ? WTF ! I am “NOT” ???? “INCORRECT” ???? DEAD STOP ! You have halted the natural ebb and flow of the subconscious.

            Now it will struggle to adjust : “Oh wait I see I am NOT WRONG. ” Let us proceed “I am not wrong I am not wrong, I am “NOT” …..”WRONG” !! ???? and here Konrad
            I will leave you with the realization that very soon the subconscious will be raging “WTF !! WTF !! WTF !!……” and that is all.

            This psychological phenomenon does occur and the “logic” I have shown you may well be the reason why. Though even now it is possible that your mind, Konrad, will be
            “raging” that all written can somehow not be “logical”. And that is because your “logic” sees within the words its own annihilation.

            • Walter Downs

              But perhaps you might still claim I am Obtuse. Very well, a contemplation perhaps. Kurt Godel, the “spiritual father” of much of this, and a Pantheon to the Skeptic, died at the
              age of 72. Do you know why? He had developed a paranoid delusion that someone was attempting to poison him. He refused to eat, and starved to death. In the years prior to this
              he had also apparently made his wife’s life a living “hell” with his paranoid ranting about how she was “out to get him”….This is perhaps an example of a subconscious attribute of the mind trying its best to “kill itself” to get away from itself.

            • Konrad

              Walt…

              Prevaricating around the bush is not my style – I prefer solutions, not more problems, and loathe vague ideologies. I didn’t mean to beach your ego while you were swimming past….you’ve been busy trying to paddle back to water after a much needed dry dissertation. There are a number of eggs lying in the sand beneath my feet, some soft, hard boiled, and some you’ve asked me to hatch myself !

              I find to ‘ponder’ is the best medicine, this is a good form of meditation…. this is my ‘true’ statement >>> I read all about the ‘LIARS PARADOX’ you are promoting > Greek, 4th Centrury BC > India 5th Century AD. I think this is where the confusion started and the egg laying begun.

              HERE’S THE BOTTOM LINE FOLKS:
              If a statement’s truth value is ultimately tied up in some evaluable fact about the world, that statement is “grounded”. If not, that statement is “ungrounded”. Ungrounded statements do not have a truth value.

              HERE’S PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
              Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems (1931)
              • 1st Theorem: “No consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an ‘effective procedure’ (e.g., a computer program …) is capable
              of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic).”
              • “There will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.”
              There’s a few more formulas out there but this is a fundamental problem in robotics – ”Recognition” isn’t easy to code, luckilly we have sensory perception as humans and also communicating face to face there is a built in mechanism……. blushing!!! You know, that embarrassing warm guilt rising in your cheeks.

              So Walter – Man has not and cannot create an algorithm – a formula for solving the problem through mathematics – so If I make a written statement, you, the reader has to ascertain whether it is the truth or a lie…unfortunately leaving you in ”suspended assumption” ..that is until you quickly decide – what the writer is saying is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’

              OK THAT’S DONE > let’s move forward – nothing gained from that

              Let’s use ‘discernment’ rather than the words ‘logic’, there is far too much emphasis on another spent word, and ‘how to apply it’ or ‘how it should be used’ or ‘you are saying this in your mind’ or ‘your subconscious is saying’ or ‘I am not incorrect’ or ‘I am correct’… we will be here for decades stuck in a loop!!
              ‘We all stack it up differently’ is the simple answer like I said – you have conventional wisdom, if you have learned from other scholars, this is good, if you become skilled by having experienced mentors, this is good. We search for answers to profound questions – is that not why we are here??

              The word ‘Scientific’ is used in a wrong context and seems to be a safeguard umbrella descriptor. The science list defines 633 sciences, arts and studies of various degrees, ranging from the common and esteemed (chemistry) to obscure (peristerophily). So I’m sorry, when you, or anyone says ”it’s not scientific”… that’s just not good enough. What science category>experiment>result are you claiming to be true, then I can evaluate it myself.

              You see, science isn’t as unified as you thought – in MEDICAL and FOOD SCIENCES – these isolated, controlled experiments are commissioned by business, for a specific reason… to make money! I mean, lets break it down into some world truths, never mentioned is that scientific medical treatment advancements, and biologically response understanding / surgery, have been through necessity; from early wars, motor accidents, the 20th century wars…. basically man made solutions from man made problems???? The machines I’m using now /computer/mobile are military and x-Uni taxpayer funded projects over 40 years in the making.

              Let us be detailed – the SCIENCE of PALEO-OSTEOLOGY – the study of ancient bones, this will help you conclude on truths in historic writings and social/economic and cultural circumstances – also we could include these on our expedition depending on the find and location:

              paedology study of children
              paidonosology study of children’s diseases; pediatrics
              palaeoanthropology study of early humans
              palaeobiology study of fossil plants and animals
              palaeoclimatology study of ancient climates
              palaeolimnology study of ancient fish
              palaeolimnology study of ancient lakes
              palaeontology study of fossils
              palaeopedology study of early soils
              paleobotany study of ancient plants
              paleo-osteology study of ancient bones
              palynology study of pollen

              These would be individually analysed by individual professionals > then a composition report produced > this is great teamwork!!
              Can we establish truth from this? To a degree yes, GEOLOGISTS report might be ‘a few thousand’ years out or in some cases ’15 million years’ only… lol, no seriously, this is proposed as fact. So, another person said, it can never be ‘truly true’ so we need to rely on ‘intuition’ and ‘discernment’ to move to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

              You really think that philosophy and science is not integrated???? As a whole, philosophy and the sciences are equal partners in assisting creative thought in its explorations to attain general truth. Philosophy doesn’t replace the specialist sciences, and does not command them, but arms them with general principles of theoretical thinking, a method of cognition and world-view. So Walter, in this sense; scientific philosophy legitimately holds one of the key positions in the methodology of sciences

              Lets look at some of the greats – the work of Galileo, Descartes, Kepler, Newton, Lomonosov, Mendeleyev and Einstein, generally in the work of scientists with a broader outlook you can find a greater understanding of our environment…philosophy and science is organically interconnected.

              PS – I have never ‘labelled’ yourself as ‘this’ or your thinking like this > ‘Existentialism’ etc. These are classifications written by academics that I have no knowledge of…. these papers are published, by individuals, devoting a lifetime because of a wealthy family, to craft words sometimes in isolation, with limited social interactions…. Kierkegaard is the father of this theory + 1830 was a more reverential society, although living as we do, dominated by Hegelian dialectics….. would like to read his work but it will not extend my life!!

              • Walter Downs

                Konrad,

                How many Iterations more would you care to go. 8) I will thank you kindly for conveniently ignoring the Truth and proving indeed
                my arguments and assertions, and your only possible argument when its core and key variables are examined which is
                ” I AM NOT INCORRECT ” And that is absurd not as an insult but as a “logic”.

                But by all means continue….
                How many Iterations, how much of your time will you waste. I am sure that wondrous mind of yours will make it appear so logical
                you can hardly keep from giving yourself a hug. 8) And you would be wrong, and I proved it, and because you STILL deny it,
                that is absurd not as an insult but as a “logic”.

                From now on, the more you study what I wrote the more desperate you will become and eventually all that is left
                for you to say is “not not not not not…” And that is absurd not as an insult but as a “logic”.

                But give us lots more names. Heap them on . Generalize them and reconfigure them, and play with them in creating
                a “logical fiction” of “Authority” by which you can justify a logic that is not. I have no further interest personally. But I am sure
                by the end of your iterations, whenever that may be, you will be most pleased with your creation and yourself. It will be false of
                course, but it will be a wonderful read for you are a smart man and will find many ways to mangle it this way and that. For a while……But
                Truth is a funny thing. Those who deny it are never content.

                • Walter Downs

                  Konrad,

                  Oh I am sorry. I forgot to refute your voluminous response in terms easily understood. You will find it in those I mentioned. You merely started shifting
                  definitions around as fast as you could go and adding and subtracting as needed…8) to create the “necessary” who what when where why and how
                  you needed to “finagle” to justify that you were NOT INCORRECT.

            • Konrad

              Hi Walt

              Beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) is the standard of proof used to convict defendants charged with crimes in the Anglo/American criminal justice system.
              Now this isn’t written into the constitution but an accepted form of arriving at a judicial decision. Yes, it has early Christendom foundations – starting with ‘resonable doubt’, however, the jurors thought they would too reap moral justice from the maker (blood guilty) because of convicting on this premise, hence the change to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as a comfort procedure. You know there is a bigger backstory to understanding pre-modern law more broadly

              I understand “No Truth is Unreasonable”
              Is there any TRUTH that you find unreasonable?

              I get this, and the statement is correct of course…. but you cannot say ‘Beyond unreasonable truth’ because it is not clear as an ‘ON’ or ‘OFF’ statement. Where, as the judicial system convicts on the premise ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’, a sensible phrase, when you consider the allowance for proof procedures, as the name suggests, an aim to achieve proof in cases of uncertainty. I can perceive judges being uncomfortable with beyond reasonable doubt, because they could view this as approaching the case with doubts or ‘how can I judge if I have doubts?’.

              Of course, the judicial system itself is geared for commercial gain, and ironically the very ones who represent the law, are taught in their own schools of education to ‘circumvent’ the principles they vowed to uphold. I suppose they are the ones, that everyday have to deal with the ‘Liars Paradox’….. :)

              Haha – Black is White and White is Black…….. of course I’m laughing with you, but in my mind I like closing the doors behind me. You have to decide on matters and the only way is to determine a true or false identity. We are the only species that can debate ‘the grey matter’, where every machine man has made has to be deduced to an ‘ON’ ‘OFF’ event handler. Now, bearing this in mind, I can stick by my guns with what I consider to be ‘TRUE’ > someone else could keep talking in my ear for the next 20 years saying ‘ARE YOU CERTAIN?’.
              Knowledge is a safeguard, it is no good doubting and living in ‘the grey matter’ is it? The act of ‘deciding’ alone leads to maturity as a human being does it not? We are defined by decisions we make in a life course, you can ‘shift’ different ideas around the board, if you run a course of trying to define the decision that has been made, you run the risk of becoming forever doubtful surely??

              Konrad

              • Walter Downs

                Konrad,

                This our real divergence in opinion I think. I assert that you have basically stated my case once again by adopting a “logic” which at its core is “I am not incorrect”. And that you ignore a very real psychological factor. You said you would not mind at all someone speaking in your ear over and over “are you certain” or even “supercalifagrilisticexpialidocious” for all it would matter.

                But if that were a reality, i.e. a man walking beside you saying this over and over again, you would be homicidal or suicidal within a month. 8) Will you now attempt to refute psychology as well? You did mention a very real factor in this in the “governor” of your psyche which you assert prevents such internal phenomena from affecting your conscious mind. This a tribute to your general strength of mind, and anyone really who shows NO psychological “quirks”

                The problem being that that is not the case for the vast majority of the human populace, and I assert that the very thing I am talking about may be the reason why. To a degree of certainty that such should certainly start being looked at and even tested for in the fields of psychology and general medicine. I also notice that you blithely sidestepped answering my question…LOL 8) Now I wonder WHY that might be. 8)

                Regards,
                Walt

              • Walter Downs

                Konrad,

                I already responded once, but I was thinking of a way to put It terms that would be powerful enough to command your assent via your ability to reason. First, I would like to thank you for your willingness to debate this with me. Notice that everyone else shut up. Contemplate why that might be. It is because you are one of the only ones thinking for themselves, as themselves. Consider what you are saying which is essentially that due to the “complexities” involved nothing can really be “proven”. What is a “logic” if not a scientific method of thought, a structure. A structure designed specifically to attempt to *PROVE* things. Yet via this logic you have proven only that you can not prove it. If the “Logic” can not “prove” anything, then how can it be a logic? If that is the case, what is the solution then? It is not really that radical. The error lies in the assumption that all is “false” until “proven” true, which this “logic” has proven you can not do. So, simply say that ALL is Truly True. That may seem simplistic, but it is a KEY VARIABLE that exists in the structure of this system. This logic. So, it is CORRECT to assume a ? is TRUE until it is proven unequivocally false. When you do this you will find your final outcomes, singularly and as a Totality will converge to ! = YES or TRUE or ? not as “false” but as indeterminate. You will then converge to a point where ALL that is ? will diminish until eventually all that is TRUE will be known. And as a bonus if you will, you may eradicate “mental aberration” in the process(theoretically, at this point but it deserves study…) Regards….Walt

  • Joshua Hale

    The height of ones intelligence has nothing to do with ones ability to posit an idea. Epistemology is what it is. It even has branches that dispute if knowledge is at all possible. However your statements on philosophy of language are true. I’m an atheist and bare a 131 IQ. However I have met people far smarter than me who are biblical literalist Christians. Regardless of how smart one may or may not be has little do do with ones knowledge, when we may only know and understand perspectives anyway, id est. We may know nothing at all.

  • Konrad

    I despise wasting my time, and rarely comment in forums…. egotistical commentary on trivial subjects distasteful, and as you should well know as adults, ultimately unprofitable.
    The Internet’s stimulus for research is unquestionable, however, the accessibility to individuals that promote ‘divisions’ really is unfortunate. To devalue his work because of his slight misuse of words for instance is non-sensible, he co-exists as a living being and we all ‘stack it up differently’…. I, as an individual believe there is a higher source of intellect than ourselves, one with dynamic energy that can create and control. While man discovers and unravels ‘amazing’ artifacts as he calls them, the veneration usually is deployed to the facility or individual who makes the ‘find’. With exception to the maker, this is fine, considering it usually takes decades to conclude on say…. maybe 1 or even 2-3 anomalies in the scientific community. Also, I think the term ‘intelligent design’ is a spent phrase, seeing as we are limited in our capacity and as one person has already cited, IQ measuring is a metaphor, relating to a number chart so we only understand the ‘capacity of ability’.

    Your limit as a human being you each know on a daily basis, you inevitably have to sleep, eat and find warmth. Your heart is your rhythm beater and your immune system your only defense…. all out of your control. It is a simple evaluation, where science can build on your appreciation of the finer detail that encapsulates these functions. Like most things in life, we all have to look forward and exercise faith in our own ability or possibly someone else, without knowing the road ahead you have to hang your hat on that ‘leap of faith’ in order to reap something positive. Seeing as science changes it’s theories, more discoveries adding confusion to the original theory etc, within months, years, decades or centuries, you can see why ‘an evolutionary’ approach with science is important, forever changing doctrines until man ‘fixes’ a measurable mean average. Even the speed of light has been made into a constant, this is what the text book teaches us no? A varying light speed would change the strength of molecular bonds…. this means physics theories would be inaccurate and the size of the universe as we know it different to what students have read, teachers taught……. light is a variable….woops!

    The comedy of written articles on evolution is breathtaking. The scientific appreciation of complexity is admirable, organisms, life etc; yet, all the while exercising faith in a simple theory of ‘natural selection’. Generations of biology students have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 126 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel. This is a primary problem, you have to make the intermediate fossils up – they never existed. I dare say I have met enough people in my short time to generalise the populist thinking or wisdom of the crowd, the more people I speak to though always say they do not have the time to check the ‘origins’ of any speculative claims, be it science or differing subjects. I do know one thing, there was a lot more history before Darwin ever walked the earth.

    There is an old saying that applies; don’t play chess with pigeons, I mean, no matter what anyone puts forward on these forums, the bird will shit on the board and strut around like they have won.

    All the best for 2016 everyone

    • Mike Sorakie

      Gary,
      Intelligent Design has a very, very specific set of beliefs and baggage that it has established. Intelligent Design, MUST have a designer, whom most who ascribe to the theory believe IS the christian god.
      If you were to say that IF there is a “god” who is responsible for creating the universe it is possible he chose to set the big bang in motion and employ abiogenesis and evolution to create the living things on the infinitesimally small planet earth and then allow chance to take over……maybe that might be possible but gods are not necessary for that any more than universe creating pixies or The Force?
      However if you are going to claim that that “god” exists outside time and space, e.g. you are still left with a very large conundrum, if all complicated things require an intelligent first cause, and this “god” is complicated enough to have conceived of and be the first cause of the universe and everything in it (even if it was an accident on “gods” part) then it follows that either this “god” MUST have a first cause.
      The creation of the Universe via the big expansion (the Big Bang was not an explosion like we typically think of explosions) and the creation of life via abiogenesis and all of the species that have ever populated earth via evolution might have been put in motion by a “god” or by “gods” or not, the simple fact is we do not know. All the evidence that we have is that these things are the best explanations for our Universe and all of the life that has ever existed on planet earth and they agree with mountains of evidence from different disciplines of scientific analysis. A “god” or “gods” are not required at all. The physical properties of our universe including the four forces and all the laws of chemistry are sufficient to have created everything without the existence of any “gods” at all.
      When I say “god” or “gods” I could be referring to your pet “god” or to universe creating pixies, or to computer simulation programmers or to anything, literally anything you care to make up in your mind. All his proof ends up proving is that at the beginning of our universe the “laws” of our universe were set as they are. A lot of hype for literally very little gain, it was just a lot of thrash to prove a premise that is much simpler to state. The laws of our universe are the laws of our universe.
      Finally if you are going to claim you god used INTELLIGENT design then your god is an incompetent engineer. Most places in this Universe and more places on earth than not are lethal to us. There are errors in the design of so very many biological systems. So unless your god is the god of engineering f- ups I wouldn’t go around touting intelligent design as there is absolutely no peer reviewed scientific evidence at all that supports the hypothesis of Intelligent Design.
      There are however vast amounts of evidence from many different disciplines of science that ALL support each other and prove that the hypothesis of Evolution is actually a Scientific Theory and IS A FACT.

      Richard Dawkins a biologist has a very good YouTube video on Intelligent Design, you might choose to watch it as he is a recognized expert in biology.

      Please make sure you understand the difference between the Scientific and colloquial definitions of the word theory before you respond.

      • Anand Vyas (@anandvyasorg)

        I am not a Christian, am not even Religious but I wirh Max Planck on this, everything we do postulates consciousness preceding matter. Its not a material world, its a world of ideas (Idealism). The hard problem of consciousness continues to be harder and harder to solve as we learn more about the Universe and ourselves, in fact David Chalmer’s latest latest TED Talk is about consciuness being prime. Sir Roger Penrose has come to similar conclusions. And maybe just maybe you dont understand Langan. I didnt see one thing on the “Theory” link thas was wrong. scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term “theory” can mean something different, depending on whom you ask.
        “The way that scientists use the word ‘theory’ is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public,” said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. “Most people use the word ‘theory’ to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word ‘theory’ refers to the way that we interpret facts.”
        The process of becoming a scientific theory
        Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn’t been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon – http://m.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

  • Dawn Combs

    just the fact that you call someone a kook who supports a “theory/hypothesis/whatever” that God is real and his intelligent design is compatible with science has proven to me i’ve wasted several minutes of my time looking at this post. (sigh)

    • Mike Sorakie

      Intelligent design is NOT compatible with science. There is absolutely NO peer reviewed scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis of Intelligent Design. Your statement is simply not factual.

      • vincentalewis

        Macro evolution is not a scientific theory. It is the religious doctrine of atheists.The fact that micro evolution occurs does not prove that macro has or can occur. It has not been observed nor can it be observed. In other words, it is not falsifiable. As you are aware, a scientific theory must be falsifiable. Therefore, the doctrine of macro evolution cannot be a scientific theory.

  • Reese Virgin

    Yeah, that whole “God” stuff certainly isn’t abstract enough for geniuses like you. Imagine what what you can’t imagine? Wow,…what a concept! Child’s play to someone like you, huh?

  • Jason

    It seems that Chris Langan’s use of the “G word”, in reference to Evolution and Intelligent Design, has caused an emotional response rather than a logical one. Simply remove dogma from the equation. I’m not suggesting that I’m in agreement with his complete theory nor would I suggest that intelligent challenges shouldn’t be made; I certainly have a few myself. It just seems there is more reactions than contemplation posted here.

  • GodIsBeyondHumanComprehensionYouDumbassPeaceOut

    is it even possible to have your head this far up your own ass. there is no reason human evolution and intelligent design are not compatible and if you can’t look beyond your narrow world view far enough to even understand that not every single one of your personal FEELings about how far human understanding actually goes is a scientific fact then i feel sorry for you

  • Joule Ruse

    What he’s missing is an understanding of community. He doesn’t seem to see that we use metaphors to create useful things. For instance, an economy is built up from metaphors: money never sleeps, time is money, money is green, etc. We use the economy, this metaphorical scaffolding, to pursue a political ideology.

  • Joule Ruse

    It’s been said that Langan is lacking in practical rationality, and I think this entire theory, which is beautiful and creative, is an example.

    He simply doesn’t understand figurative language and takes metaphors literally.

    • Daniel Von Kram

      In what instance had he ever taken metaphors literally? Thats just a total heap of fabricated nonsense, and an excuse to shame his theory with nothing to go on

  • Joule Ruse

    IQ doesn’t measure anything.

    Using ‘level of intelligence’ to mean ‘127’, is like using ‘income’ to mean ‘about 40,000 per year.’ It’s a metaphor. Furthermore, naming ‘127’ and using it about brain matter — not so different from using ‘1.27’ and using it about paper and coins. You name a value and you use it about a thing. But the value has nothing to do with the thing, only with our aesthetic attitude towards it.

    If Langan’s dualism is correct, then any metaphor like this assumes a dualism. Well, then we have the same question we had with monism: what are the underlying substances? We could say with IQ, that it’s mental-physical. But what about with money? what underlies that?

    We create signs. The universe doesn’t send us signs.

    • Dave Gamble Post author

      If you wish to claim that it is, then the responsibility for the burden of proof is yours.

      When faced with a claim … any claim … then the lack of any evidence is quite sufficient for the dismissal of the claim. For example if I claimed that pixies danced on my lawn each night but failed to provide any evidence, then you would not believe me.

      • sergegrenier

        Ok, wrong use of words, forget the word « prove ».

        I only wanted to say I see no reason why evolution and intelligent design would be mutually exclusive.

        For instance lets say my intelligent design is to go buy food at the grocery store nearby. I don’t know ahead of time how many steps it’s going to take me to get there, who I’m going to meet or not on my way to the store or back, what I’m going to think on my way, and a million other details that I leave to chance. Going to the store is « deterministic », what happens on the way is « nondetermistic ». I do it all the time, and it works fine.

        If it is true on my human scale that I can be both deterministic and nondeterministic at the same time, why would it be different on a universal scale ?

          • sergegrenier

            Replace « design » by « intent » if that helps you understand what I mean.

            Most of the time, when someone argues about the choice of words, it is because they can’t cope with the issue itself.

          • sergegrenier

            By the way, I am not arguing about the existence of an intelligence design. There may or may not be an intelligent design behind it all. But whatever the case may be, if there is one, it would make perfect sense that « evolution » was part of the design.

            • Mike Sorakie

              sergegrenier,
              You are misusing the words Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design has a very, very specific set of beliefs and baggage that it has established. I get the core of your argument but you are not talking about Intelligent Design, which MUST have a designer, (whom most who ascribe to the theory believe IS the christian god) especially when you allow for non-deterministic options.
              In essence if you were to say that IF there is a “god” who is responsible for creating the universe it is possible he chose to set the big bang in motion and employ evolution to create the living things on the infinitesimally small planet earth.
              However if you are going to claim that that “god” exists outside time and space, e.g. you are still left with a very large conundrum, if all complicated things require an intelligent first cause, and this “god” is complicated enough to have conceived of and be the first cause of the universe and everything in it (even if it was an accident on “gods” part) then it follows that either this “god” MUST have a first cause.
              The creation of the Universe via the big expansion (the Big Bang was not an explosion like we typically think of explosions) and the creation of life via abiogenesis and all of the species that have ever populated earth via evolution might have been put in motion by a “god” or by “gods” or not, the simple fact is we do not know. All the evidence that we have is that these things are the best explanations for our Universe and all of the life that has ever existed on planet earth and they agree with mountains of evidence from different disciplines of scientific analysis. A “god” or “gods” are not required at all. The physical properties of our universe including the four forces and all the laws of chemistry are sufficient to have created everything without the existence of any “gods” at all.
              When I say “god” or “gods” I could be referring to your pet “god” or to universe creating pixies, or to computer simulation programmers or to anything, literally anything you care to make up in your mind. All his proof ends up proving is that at the beginning of our universe the “laws” of our universe were set as they are. A lot of hype for literally very little gain, it was just a lot of thrash to prove a premise that is much simpler to state. The laws of our universe are the laws of our universe.

          • Anand Vyas (@anandvyasorg)

            I would say, as a Ph.D. i Brain Science and Physics, I would say for sure you dont know what design means or what you are talking about. Sir Roger Penrose has shown a very easy way to look at evolution. Since we know that the universe after the Big Bang was getting into an entropic state, then as we take the arrow of time backwards we will see we come to a statea of more and more order. Its simple logic. He calls it “expansion and inflation very much like Brahma and breathes in and out in the Hindu myths”, those are Sir Roger Penrose’s words.

        • Mike Sorakie

          Also you follow up comment is kind of a non-sequitur. There is a specific hypothesis of Evolution which has enough evidence to be considered BOTH a scientific Theory and scientific FACT. Then there is Intelligent Design which is a completely and totally different hypothesis which has absolutely no peer reviewed scientific evidence that supports it. As a scientific hypothesis it fails to meet its burden of evidence.
          There are two mutually exclusive hypothesis, one that fails, Intelligent Design, and one that has enough evidence to be promoted to both a Scientific Theory and scientific fact, evolution. It makes absolutely no sense that a hypothesis that fails to meet its burden of evidence could possible be regarded by a rational mind when there is a better alternative that has more than met its burden of evidence.

          The problem is that theists like to point to life and say that it is a proof of god or gods. It is not, that life exists just is, or it proves that life exists. We have good scientific explanations, Theories for how that life came about and then diversified into all the species we know of, Abiogenesis and Evolution, however those explanations neither require nor exclude the possibility of a god, gods, life imbuing pixies, a self aware learning computer or anything. The simple fact is we do not know. The fact that there appears to be order has more to do with the condition of being human, we learn by making comparisons, this is like that. There is BOTH order and chaos in the Universe and in Life simultaneously we as humans choose often unconsciously to see the order, the patterns and the “design” and ignore the “not design”, that is how our brains work, it helps us learn, survive and advance. It is exactly why optical illusions work we cannot process what we are seeing so we trick our brains into seeing what we expect to see, something that fits into our pre-conceived notion of order.

          Is a god or are gods responsible for the universe and life. WE DON”T KNOW. They are however not necessarily required for the universe and life to exist they are certainly not any more required than universe creating pixies, the flying spaghetti monster, self aware self learning computer simulations or any other first cause we might possible dream up as far as we KNOW.

      • Jason Moore

        “If you wish to claim that it is, then the responsibility for the burden of proof is yours.” Call this claim “C”. Dave, Can you prove that C is true?

  • itsnobody

    Your point on IQ is partially accurate, but Christopher Langan does not simply have a high IQ he also has a HUGE brain!

    He has one of the largest human brains, his cranial circumference is 25.5 inches…which means his brain is probably around 1800 – 2000 cc (cubic centimeters) if we use simple calculations!

    (Using the equation volume of a hemisphere (V = circumference^3/118.4) we would get a higher number, but it’s probably inaccurate due to fat and skin around the skull).

    The average human brain is only around 1300 – 1400 cc!

    I agree that IQ tests can only measure one aspect of cognition and believe that brain size and other factors are important than IQ.

    There are for instance some people with small brains but high IQs and others with large brains and lower IQs.

    Atheists just can’t handle what the evidence shows us that within the same ethnic group Theists are smarter than atheists.

  • timothylsingleton1962

    I maintain that most atheists are not, in fact, atheists.

    They are just royally pissed at the way God is running the universe.

    No one spends this much energy combating a make believe super Being unless they believe He is real.

    • Zardoz

      I’m an atheist because you’ve presented a model of the universe and provided not so much as a shred of evidence for it. The onus is not on me to disprove your claims, rather the opposite.

      Without that evidence, I am well within intellectual honesty to discard your extraordinary claim.

      I would expect more from someone with 17 bonus years on this planet over me than the tripe you just wrote.

      • itsnobody

        Says who? There aren’t any atheists who value evidence.

        For instance 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will even though the scientific evidence telling us that there’s no free-will is literally a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution.

        Even worse, non-determinism (usually used by free-will believers as evidence that free-will exists) falsifies evolution!

        But I don’t expect atheists to understand this they are in general stupid people….they can’t understand simple concepts like how things can’t evolve in a non-deterministic universe.

        They can’t handle that certain humans like myself have are chosen for certain purposes like modern science proves.

        Another point showing that atheists don’t value evidence is the fine-tuning of the universe.
        Atheists avoid this by invoking science fiction ideas like a countless number of universes with different physical constants…but if this were true this would mean that fairies really do literally physically exist!

        So the atheists’ cop-out to the fine-tuning evidence is literally the same as believing in fairies!

        So much for evidence mattering to an atheist!

        Of course the God that I believe in does not rely on the truth or existence of multiple universes or evolution.

        I already figured out how to experimentally prove it…although I’m uncertain as to whether multiple universes with different physical constants really exist I’m very certain that multiple timelines exist…but multiple timelines follow the same physical constants (like the many-worlds style) unlike other multiverse theories.

        I think it’s possible that multiple universes with different physical constants could exist but I’m not sure about it and even if they do it would still not contradict the God that I’ve discovered and almost proven to exist.

        There aren’t any atheists who value evidence.
        Enough said.

    • Eric

      How have you determined that most atheists are just “pissed” at god?

      Atheists aren’t “combating a make believe super Being”. There is a flaw in your comprehension here. Atheists (who actively debate these issues) are combating the CONCEPTS proposed by theists, not the ACTUAL god. The people motivated by these CONCEPTS are affecting the world.

  • Gary Drumm

    “Uh oh. Somebody has an opinion outside of the tribe. We’d better disprove his theory by discrediting his intelligence. Otherwise people might start listening to him. Everyone knows we are the only ones smart enough to figure out all
    of this stuff. We are the only real source of knowledge and understanding. ” – The “Skeptic” Community

  • Lique Walter

    Absurd ideas are the sign of an open mind. Logic is the lack of inventiveness used to prove itself.
    I’d say spending less time on discreditafying others and put those (supposed) pseudosmarty brains of yours to work adding to the stream of life rather than draining it.
    Relax – being right is hard on the nervous system.

    A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.

  • your name here

    Reading excerpts from his essays and “theory” is a bit like reading philosophy; no predictive capability, no way to test using experimentation, just speculation and big confusing words. He also seems to have a superiority complex, not willing to “dumb down” his language so that people can understand, and seems to think he’s above the scientific method.

  • Leo

    Does anybody know where this “IQ of 200” claim comes from? Is it just something Langan claims, or was he tested at some reputable place?

  • Thinkordie

    String Theory and its bulkier clone, M-theory, enjoy no real empirical, experimental, or observational proof, yet it is well received and considered by the most prestigious of minds to be the very best theory to unify all known things. Why?–mostly because of mathematical elegance and the doctrine on unreasonable effectiveness, etc. However, like a cryptogram that could be read with more than one, or more than several solutions, M-theory may well have no better claim to theoretically unifying the known laws of physics or comprehensively describing the whole of reality any better than the ptolemaic model describes the movements of the large bodies of our solar system–it does offer a model that can to some extent work, even make accurate predictions, but it’s just dead wrong. Well then, I make no claim here that the CTMU is an accurate theory of everything–quite frankly, I only partly understand it–but it is clearly something a little more than outright bunk, just as M-theory is something a little more than outright bunk. Where the CTMU is lacking is in application. It would behoove Mr. Langan to expand his theory with special application. I would really like for him–if it’s not asking too much–to apply his theory to some of the questions relevant to cosmologists and other theorists. So, then, what does the CTMU say about the chasm between classical physics and QM? What DOES it have to say about AI–I keep hearing it has a lot to say about AI, but I never hear anything further… If mr. Langan could bring his CTMU to bear on real–I mean specific–cosmological questions or questions related to physics generally, then I think he may enjoy something of a better reception. Look, if he could say something new and truly impressive about black hole singularities or something along those lines, I guarantee you he would no longer be out of the loop of credentialed academics. All, that being said, I do not believe Langan is a crank, a fraud, or a loon. He’s a brilliant man. If you don’t like a brilliant man believing in God?–get over it–and that includes Hawking, Dennet, Carrol, Dawkins, and countless others who not merely dismiss but despise religion and the idea of any sort of God–you may well call them abolitionists in this regard. In any case, this attitude is neither good science nor good philosophy. Well, anyway, the burden is on Mr. Langan to do more to show what the CTMU can do in way of application. For those of you so hell bent on expressing your contempt for Langan and his theory, well, it brings to mind the Shakespearian line, “Methinks the lady doth protest too much…” If you think it’s rubbish–Boy!–I’ve never seen so many people staring at garbage for so long a time and with so many remarks to make about it! I would thing paying no mind of it would be a more damning critique. As to Langan, he will need to do better than just words without application if he wants to be received better than the likes of Deepak Chopra or Wayne Dyer.

  • Michael

    I was totally about to say something like that except in 1 sentence or less. I was gonna say that even if C.L.’s theory is right, I feel bad for him because he is going to have to PROVE that there is a God, which I think he won’t be able to do.

  • Pervirtuous

    Are there any actual skeptics here? Truzzi said: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”

    But he also said: “In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new “fact”. Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of “conventional science” as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.”

    Chris Langan asks that everyone disprove his CTMU. I ask that he prove it, first. To write a paper positing something is not proving it. The paper, in my estimation, derives a wholly metaphysical conclusion from epistemological facts which cannot support a metaphysical conclusion, therefore, it is a non-sequitur.

    If you are going to trash the CTMU, have the decency to do so with facts rather than ad hominem arguments that are unworthy of a skeptic.

  • Whit

    Oh please not the old ‘IQ is just an indicator of how well that person does at IQ tests’ saw. Really? Well, a fast time in the 100 meters is just an indicator that you are good at running 100 meters!

    It’s not that IQ is the poor metric that the PC (yea, he was right on that) people claim and that Langan’s critics wish were true. However, it is clear that having a high IQ and holding a wacky idea or two are not mutually inconsistent.

    You can’t invalidate the utility of IQ by saying ‘well, he has wacky ideas and a high IQ therefore it says not much about intelligence’

    Tgst would only be meaningful if being intelligent meant an inability to hold some wacky ideas

    History has proven if not a positive correlation, there is at least a decoupling of the two

  • Jeremy

    This is utterly ridiculous, all This states is that we should discredit his work because he is attempting to connect things that the author personally believes either should not or cannot be connected. Moreover this article is essentially saying we should devalue all of his work because of his slight misuse of the word “theory”, yes I agree that that word may not have been utilized completely correctly in the CTMU however this article is using that as one of the main reasons that we should not believe in Christopher langans works which is a ridiculous notion similar to saying that we should not abide by the constitution should we find out that they mis defined a couple of words in there as well. Furthermore this states that there is a difference between IQ and actual practical intelligence, and that having i high IQ just makes you more likely to be able to rationalize nonsensical topics, there are many many things wrong with this statement including that that is not a complete definition of IQ nor is it completely correct in the sense that it doesn’t include the difference between practical intelligence (which could actually be used to help the authors case) and the kind of intelligence that makes you do well on IQ tests. Also the author used the statement that a higher IQ makes you more likely to rationalize outlandish ideas in support of his case when in fact it does the opposite and is quite frankly an ignorant and close-minded way of looking at things. If you rationalize something doesn’t that mean you make sense of it and if you make sense of it shouldn’t that support the case that you are an intelligent individual, not tear it down for trying to connect things that aren’t compatible. Though the author tries to get us to discredit Christopher langans intelligence and works because he tries to connect “incompatable” things. Go ahead and read the first paragraph of the article again if you don’t get what I mean. And finally, this author has used no evidence and, I dare say, no topical, logical reasoning to defend his stance, he merely says in essence that Christopher langan tries to connect things that shouldn’t be connected (again that is an opinion further degrading the point the author tried to make) therefor he is not as smart as he seems and then the author goes on to attempt to defend himself with nontopical illegitimate points.

    I am a 15 year old highschool student and I have done a lot of reading on the CTMU and I believe it does have very legitimate and valid points supported with factual evidence and theories proposed by other world renound scientists

  • Steve atwood

    So glad you expose these phonies. I’m just learning about them for the first time. Hey, talk to your friends about this Faraday guy. Oh, he’s got all these brand new ideas nobody (and l mean nobody!) has EVER heard of, and it’s not based on any proven science of anybody, the guy’s a compete joke. He reminds me just a tiny bit of that crackpot Langan, except this guy didn’t even start college, l think he was only in school until he was 14 or 15, l’m not sure. He’s got these insane ideas about spinning magnets creating some kind of invisible energy, or using some kind of invisible energy to make a motor work.
    But beware of this guy! He’s evil. He belongs to some kind of pseudoscience cult. Do you remember that insane looking lunatic who was always pulling ideas out of his ass based on no previous science–that ultimate loser, Einstein?? Well, that flunky Einstein had three pictures on his wall: one of lssac Newton(huge fake), James Clerk Maxwell (this guy actually liked Faraday’s ideas– another complete nobody), and finally, Michael Shit-for-brains Faraday. I believe because that Einstein had their picture on his wall proves scientifically that they are all part of a big cult!!! Probably terrorist, or pedaphiles or perverts. Listen to some of that Einstein “science”: “lf a cluttered desk is sign of a cluttered mind, is a clear desk a sign?”—- now what the hell is that supposed to mean. Sure, my desk is clean. Man, l wish they’d bring back the Spanish Inquisition, man, me and the boys would get some torches and pitchforks and clean house. They’re all stupid bastards.
    I just wish any of them were half as smart as you. They don’t even have a web page like you do.
    Hey, my mom wants to know if you have a girlfriend. She’s just asking for my sister. My sister thinks you must be real good looking because you’re so smart. She wants to know what kind of girls you like.
    Later, dude. Power to the people.

    • Dave Gamble Post author

      Claims require evidence if they are to be accepted, Mr Langan simply has daft claims, and nothing of any real substance.

      • Al “Snoops” Reid

        As I’m not in any way half as clever as MOST of the posters, I can’t afford to get too involved in the discussion. However, a couple of things make me feel more than a little confused. If, as your detractors claim, Langan is correct in his assumptions, why has the main body of the scientific or even the theological community not been proclaiming this proof from the rooftops? Where is his, if correct, much deserved Nobel prize? Are his admirers simply holding on to his shirt tails in the vain hope that they might someday be able to defend themselves and him by stating “I told you so”? Or sadly (btw, I hate starting a sentence with a conjunction, but, needs must when the devil drives), is this simply another case of the desperation or the religious need to justify their ignorance?

    • Existential Engineer

      I thoroughly enjoyed your post, even more than the direct arguments from the minds with whom my own sided. You gave me a great laugh before I start some deep reading on psychological abnormalities. I greatly appreciate your writing style and I hope you spread your words elsewhere as well. Thank you for the spirit of your words!

    • Toby Worth

      Haha, I love this answer, you’re bang on! Small shrivelling minds receding from their own egos, desperate to protect what little they think they understand about the world. I don’t know if anything Langan says is right, but the vitriol and closed-loop thinking on display here is laudable. Bravo, sir!

  • Harry

    I believe in Langan and I am some random quack named Harry. My name isn’t even Harry, it’s Jeff. Besides the point, you didn’t really make any points.

    Maybe analyze a sub-set of his work, that would be much, more productive. You didn’t even quote anything from his vaulted (or infamous) CTMU. C’mon man!

  • Harry

    “The problem with IQ, is that it only measures your cognitive potential not your actual cognitive ability or intelligence. The higher it is, the more probable it is that you can justify and rationalize almost any insane crackpot idea.”

    Both of your points in this quote are wrong. IQ measures your Intelligence quotient which is indicative of g or generalized intelligence ability. Basically how quick people pick up on things.

    The second point, given a higher g one can rationalize illogical things easier. The opposite is true.

  • Anonymous

    “Obviously wrong, since you just made to decision to do so.”

    It was my moral obligation to do so, given your unjustified attack on Langan’s work.

    “He spouts meaningless bullshit, Langan spouts meaningless bullshit … that by any standard is the same style, but you may in fact be correct, I’m just guessing. Should I apply the same guess to you? Nope, on the basis that your IP address is in Ontario, Canada. However, it is still rather odd that those who wish to defend CTMU also wish to remain anonymous.”

    No, that is *not* the same style. Regardless of what you think of Langan’s work, you have to acknowledge that when he appeared here (http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2011/02/11/another-crank-comes-to-visit-the-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe/), or here (http://onemansblog.com/2007/11/06/smartest-man-in-the-world-has-diarrhea-of-the-mouth/comment-page-2/#comments), or here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Langan#Just_wondering), his use of English syntax was definitively different than A free man’s. Moreover, Langan did not use a pseudonym in those altercations. Does A free man’s IP address actually justify such suspicion?

    It’s also noteworthy that oneonewasaracecar, an opponent of Langan and his work, remained anonymous as well.

    “You then proceed to dismiss a valid observation by oneonewasaracecar … you do indeed admit that Langan makes up words and terms (your term, “neologism”). Anybody who wishes to communicate a valid logical argument needs clarity, not made-up words. Semantic gymnastics impresses nobody except the gullible.”

    Think of all the specialized terms used in mathematics or physics. It would be extremely tedious to communicate ideas from those disciplines without the specialized terms. Langan’s 2002 paper on the CTMU uses far fewer specialized terms than the average mathematical paper, and the definition of each of his neologisms is made clear therein. Not only are they useful, but they hardly increase the reading comprehension level needed to understand the paper.

    “Good for you … there are also folks out there you are excessively familiar with Klingon.”

    …or with the Oxford English Dictionary for that matter. If you are having trouble understanding parts of that paper, I can assist you. Simply ask.

    “You then proceed to tout evidence for Langan’s high IQ, I can accept that, but this is not evidence that he is right. Very smart people are still prone to touting bullshit, and as I’ve already explained, they dream up very complex rationalizations for it.”

    I know it’s not evidence that he’s right. I was merely responding to oneonewasaracecar’s statement, “It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Langan spent a lot of his time of practicing IQ tests until he got very good at them.”

    “You are of course being defensive because you have quite clearly embraced CTMU as “truth” in a manner that is almost religious. Personally I have no interest in (if you will forgive the metaphor) discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin until somebody clearly demonstrates that angels actually exist. You find truth and meaning in CTMU, I get that and can only wish you the best of luck with that. Least you wonder, I’m being genuine when I say that, I believe in the concept of freedom of thought. As for myself and many others, it is not for us, we find nothing credible in it.”

    It’s not a matter of faith, and I’m sure that Langan would agree on this point. As oneonewasaracer so pugnaciously addressed, the CTMU is a supertautological theory, and if you read the part that I cited of Langan’s 2002 paper, you’ll know that this means that the CTMU is built up of logical tautologies. That is, it is as wrong as the statement that 2 + 2 = 4. But I don’t expect you to take this for granted; a deeper look at Langan’s work, or failing that, a peaceable discussion concerning those of its tenets you object to will address this as is due.

  • Dave Gamble Post author

    // .. I really did not want to have to open this can of worms. .. //
    Obviously wrong, since you just made to decision to do so.

    // “A free man” does not write in anything resembling Langan’s style. //
    He spouts meaningless bullshit, Langan spouts meaningless bullshit … that by any standard is the same style, but you may in fact be correct, I’m just guessing. Should I apply the same guess to you? Nope, on the basis that your IP address is in Ontario, Canada. However, it is still rather odd that those who wish to defend CTMU also wish to remain anonymous.

    You then proceed to dismiss a valid observation by oneonewasaracecar … you do indeed admit that Langan makes up words and terms (your term, “neologism”). Anybody who wishes to communicate a valid logical argument needs clarity, not made-up words. Semantic gymnastics impresses nobody except the gullible.

    You also point out this comment … // “He draws comparisons between reality, language, mathematics and science and then asserts properties from one also belong to the another with no justification. He makes no summation of his primary argument and makes no claims up front. It is full of subterfuge.” // .. and observe .. // I disagree. In fact, I understand the entirety of the language in that paper //
    Good for you … there are also folks out there you are excessively familiar with Klingon.

    // Langan is actually no longer a bouncer. //
    Good for him.

    You then proceed to tout evidence for Langan’s high IQ, I can accept that, but this is not evidence that he is right. Very smart people are still prone to touting bullshit, and as I’ve already explained, they dream up very complex rationalizations for it.

    You are of course being defensive because you have quite clearly embraced CTMU as “truth” in a manner that is almost religious. Personally I have no interest in (if you will forgive the metaphor) discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin until somebody clearly demonstrates that angels actually exist. You find truth and meaning in CTMU, I get that and can only wish you the best of luck with that. Least you wonder, I’m being genuine when I say that, I believe in the concept of freedom of thought. As for myself and many others, it is not for us, we find nothing credible in it.

  • Anonymous

    I really did not want to have to open this can of worms.

    “A free man” does not write in anything resembling Langan’s style. If you think so, you are misled, pure and simple. Alternatively, if you truly believe that the only person willing to support Langan’s work is Langan himself, you are misled to an even greater extent. Perhaps you should simply pick up your reins, actually look into Langan’s work, and try your best to understand it before making blatantly false claims about Langan himself.

    Now I ought to reply to oneonewasaracecar.

    “I concur. I got as far as the phrase “super tautological” on the first page before I was certain he was not going to even make a coherent argument.”

    So you fled at the first sight of a neologism, making the assumption that Langan’s use of a neologism renders his whole argument false? *That’s* certainly not logical, especially given that the term “supertautology” is defined on page 32 as follows.

    “Since logic is the theory of truth, the way to construct a fully verifiable theory is to start with logic and develop the theory by means of rules or principles under which truth is heritable. Because truth is synonymous with logical tautology, this means developing the theory by adjoining rules which themselves have a tautological structure – i.e., which are universal, closed and consistent – and logically extracting the implications. A theory of reality constructed in this way is called a supertautology.”

    You next said, “He draws comparisons between reality, language, mathematics and science and then asserts properties from one also belong to the another with no justification. He makes no summation of his primary argument and makes no claims up front. It is full of subterfuge.”

    Isn’t it ironic that you criticize Langan for a variety of alleged failures possessed by the CTMU, and do not cite exactly where these alleged failures occur?

    “The language is deliberately obscure and reminds me of the first Scientology book: Dianetics The Modern Science of Mental Health. This article is like a talisman that believers don’t understand but wave it at non-believers. My guess is the intended choice you have is to wade through it or be told you aren’t intelligent enough to understand the genius of this man.”

    I disagree. In fact, I understand the entirety of the language in that paper. Quiz me if you will.

    “It seems strange that the smartest guy in the USA is a bouncer who pushes weights. Both of those activities seem pretty dull activities for a genius.”

    Langan is actually no longer a bouncer. He currently owns a ranch and works on it. As a bouncer, he did the work precisely because it was dull. It gave him time to think deep thoughts. Imagine what life would be like if you were the smartest man in the world. Entering academia would be infuriating, because everyone, even your boss, would have a shallower understanding of reality than you do. Entering a business would be equally infuriating. But at a blue collar job, your intellectual work wouldn’t be constrained except with respect to time.

    “It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Langan spent a lot of his time of practicing IQ tests until he got very good at them.”

    He achieved a perfect score on the old SAT, which was incredibly rare; in an average year, only 7 out of 1 000 000 testees would get a score above 1580, and the maximum score was 1600. That is, even while Langan was living an impoverished life with meagre access to books, he was testing at incredibly high levels on standardized tests. His success was not a matter of cheating. It is also noteworthy that results for the Mega Test were not published when he wrote it and qualified for the Mega Society, a 1 in 1 000 000 high IQ society.

    “The value of many Psychological tests can be lost if the person being tested is not naive about the test (the Milgram Experiment is a great example of this). IQ tests surely fall into such a category. If he did practice them, it would surely skew the results.”

    The Milgram experiment did not involve IQ testing.

    Now on to the original post.

    “The problem with IQ, is that it only measures your cognitive potential not your actual cognitive ability or intelligence. 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. (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”, so I’m not convinced he understands what a theory actually is.”

    A typical IQ test, and that categorization includes the tests Langan took, measures a combination of so-called crystallized g and fluid g. Fluid g most closely equates to “cognitive potential”, whereas crystallized g is a metric of actualized cognitive potential. That is, both the potential and its application are tested.

    Moreover, Langan’s use of the word “theory” is completely acceptable. In general, the word “theory” is used exactly as Langan defines it. It is only in scientific contexts that it takes on a more specific meaning that entails deeper empirical examination.

    “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.”

    And being really good at doing IQ tests correlates extremely well with being really good at solving all problems that come up in life. Langan’s concepts, incidentally, aren’t nearly as kooky as you claim.

    “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 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.”

    Like what?

    “Still not convinced he is a kook? well here is a nice dissection of Mr Langan’s CTMU nonsense.”

    No rational human would be convinced that Langan is a kook from your sophistical exposition up to this point. All you have done yourself is accuse Langan of misusing the word “theory” where he clearly does not. You have provided literally no other evidence that Langan is wrong.

    You go on to link to Tom Beasley’s equally opinionated blog. I have already addressed that blog’s work in its comments, so I figure I won’t do it twice unless someone raises an explicit point that I wish or need to debate.

  • A free man

    You folks, remind me of the ancient Greek sophists & Christians theologians; the unimaginative & uncreative closed mind class of their era.
    Little science people; the new closed mind elite of our era.
    Replacing old paradigms (philosophy/theology) with a new one, the scientific one, with the small-case letters.
    Supposed to be sophisticated, but in fact, full of circular close thinking with very little imagination in it.
    The kind of thinking that has nothing to do with PHILOSOPHY/MATHEMATICS/SCIENCE, with the upper-case letters:
    LOGIC,GENERAL RELATIVITY, QUANTUM PHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, COMPLEX THEORY, INFORMATION THEORY.
    You, false defenders of SCIENCE, closely entangled & limited by language and not even aware of it.
    Attacking with closed-loop arrows dart, oh, i/he/she gonna be hurt and discredited by closed-minded supposed logicians and scientists.
    Their is a big difference between SCIENCE & science.
    SCIENCE is synonymous with daring creative thinking outside the box.
    science is synonymous with closely trying to defend old paragigm with closed-looping thinking.

    “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light,
    but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
    Max Planck

    It is natural, to see you with that kind of opposite attribute.
    This way, i know by contrast, who i am.

    • Mike Sorakie

      If you are implying that Langan is thinking outside of the box you could not be more wrong. He is thinking inside one of the oldest boxes within the written history of man, trying to prove the existence of his god.
      His proof follows the basic structure of many, many apologist proofs that came long before him that have all been proven to be flawed. His intellect allows him to make it far, far more complex to wade through but in the end, he really has proven that somehow, the laws of our universe were set when our universe was created. WOW!!!!!
      He calls whatever set those laws “god” but his proof merely proves that the laws were set and that you can name whatever set those laws whatever your imagination can dream up.
      Universe creating pixies – Yep that works they exist and set the laws of the universe according to his “proof”
      Flying Spaghetti Monster – Yep that works it exists and set the laws of the universe according to his “proof”
      Deep Thought from Hitchiker’s guide – Yep that works it exists and set the laws of the universe according to his “proof”

      He has created a lot of THRASH, a lot of effort that really gets us almost nowhere. He has done a lot of work to prove that at the very beginning of our universe somehow the laws of this universe were set as they are.

  • oneonewasaracecar

    I concur. I got as far as the phrase “super tautological” on the first page before I was certain he was not going to even make a coherent argument. He draws comparisons between reality, language, mathematics and science and then asserts properties from one also belong to the another with no justification. He makes no summation of his primary argument and makes no claims up front. It is full of subterfuge.

    The language is deliberately obscure and reminds me of the first Scientology book: Dianetics The Modern Science of Mental Health. This article is like a talisman that believers don’t understand but wave it at non-believers. My guess is the intended choice you have is to wade through it or be told you aren’t intelligent enough to understand the genius of this man.

    It seems strange that the smartest guy in the USA is a bouncer who pushes weights. Both of those activities seem pretty dull activities for a genius. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Langan spent a lot of his time of practicing IQ tests until he got very good at them. The value of many Psychological tests can be lost if the person being tested is not naive about the test (the Milgram Experiment is a great example of this). IQ tests surely fall into such a category. If he did practice them, it would surely skew the results.

    • Mike Davidson

      I agree with you, oneonewasaracecar. Langan is a very poor writer who fails to make coherent arguments or come to any logical conclusions. He’s essentially a con man for those that worship extremely high IQs. He’s never contributed to any peer reviewed publications not because he’s so outside the mainstream, but because he’s spouts gibberish. His excuse is that he’s so much more intelligent than everyone, he has few or no peers. How convenient!