Reality as Self-Aware Dual Aspect Ontic-Nomothetic Medium

[Spellbound]

I came across the following written piece from Brandon Clifton.

Brandon Clifton

November 28, 2013 at 4:52 am

Great news! In Chris Langan’s CTMU (acronymic for Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe), God is mathematically proven to exist. To answer your question of where God came from: the global syntactic operator (God) manifests Himself as a self-aware dual-aspect ontic-nomothetic medium combining subjective/objective aspects, being derived from a realm of zero-constraint (unbound-telesis); He is a self-configuring, self-processing language (or SCSPL) capable of coherent self-generation. Keep in mind this is the only cosmologically acceptable form of causality – that is, self-determinism. I’m even running a blog on the theory. Additionally, the theory is a logical tautology (an unconditional truth); this eliminates any exclusively-atheistic approach to reality. The CTMU is a theory of post-Aristotelian intellectual evolution – take in mind we (humans) have not had a major advancement in logic for the past 2000 years (since Aristotle). God’s existence can now be scientifically and mathematically defined; He is no longer just a belief, but the absolute truth of logical tautology.

http://travellingwithgod.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/where-did-god-come-from/

 

[Sarkus]

Spellbound, for Pete's sake, stop preaching!!!
How many times have you been told about not doing this!
To post nothing but a quote from someone else, with no additionally commentary, no discussion, no purpose whatsoever other than to repeat the information, is preaching!
Please stop it!
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it is, yet again, related to Langan's CTMU but it has everything to do with the manner in which you post.

 

[Spellbound]

Spellbound, for Pete's sake, stop preaching!!!
How many times have you been told about not doing this!
To post nothing but a quote from someone else, with no additionally commentary, no discussion, no purpose whatsoever other than to repeat the information, is preaching!
Please stop it!
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it is, yet again, related to Langan's CTMU but it has everything to do with the manner in which you post.

Relax, I'm not preaching. I'm merely quoting a written piece of Brandon Clifton's most vital notes on God.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I came across the following written piece from Brandon Clifton.
Brandon Clifton
http://travellingwithgod.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/where-did-god-come-from/

The guy suffers,. much like you, from an inability to apply logic.

God is mathematically proven to exist. To answer your question of where God came from

No it's not.

God’s existence can now be scientifically and mathematically defined

No it's not.

He is no longer just a belief, but the absolute truth of logical tautology.

Also wrong.
If you START with the premise "god exists" and work - with the (undeflectable) intention - to show that it's true then it's no surprise that you end up with a tautology.

 

[Spellbound]

If you START with the premise "god exists" and work - with the (undeflectable) intention - to show that it's true then it's no surprise that you end up with a tautology.

Reality is a tautology.

Brandon Clifton

December 3, 2013 • 11:16 pm

I seem to have thrown out a few advanced terms that don’t have a (standard) dictionary definition…be that as it may, this document provides precise definitions for everything: http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
Self-resolving paradox := a paradox that resolves itself by it’s very construction, and is in this way immune to irresolvable-paradox (think of an object determining the details of *it’s* existence, for example). Furthermore, here’s an exemplification of reality (a *dual-aspect*, ontic-nomothetic medium) containing itself from without: the real universe topologically contains all and only that which is real, and that which is “real” descriptively contains the real universe (as you can see, if we define two senses of containment on the aspects of the same object, namely the terms “real universe” and “real”, this statement is free from contradiction). – This amounts to the term “real” describing the real universe from within (descriptive containment), while the real universe contains all that is real (topological containment); this object (reality) contains itself from without because you have a temporal feedback loop, namely “the real predicatively contains the real universe which topologically contains the real which descriptively contains the real universe which topologically contains the real…etc. ad infinitum”; reality is thus self-contained; thus and so, we have done away with an infinite-explanatory regress and employed a self-contained feedback loop that provides it’s own origin and continuity.

 

[Sarkus]

Relax, I'm not preaching. I'm merely quoting a written piece of Brandon Clifton's most vital notes on God.

Which is PREACHING!!
You are adding nothing of your own... you are merely posting another person's work!
There is no support for what he is saying, and nothing that you add that supports his claims.
You are simply preaching, and you have been told enough times that this is what you are doing here.

 

[Spellbound]

Which is PREACHING!!
You are adding nothing of your own... you are merely posting another person's work!
There is no support for what he is saying, and nothing that you add that supports his claims.
You are simply preaching, and you have been told enough times that this is what you are doing here.

Please read my response to Dywyddyr.

 

[Spellbound]

“Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.”
Isaiah 43:10

Reality is self-distributed.

 

[Sarkus]

Please read my response to Dywyddyr.

I did read it - and you didn't respond to him other than to post more quotes from the same person as from the OP as if that explains anything.

Your conduct is the epitome of preaching.
Please stop it.

 

[Yazata]

To answer your question of where God came from

the global syntactic operator (God) manifests Himself as a self-aware dual-aspect ontic-nomothetic medium combining subjective/objective aspects, being derived from a realm of zero-constraint (unbound-telesis); He is a self-configuring, self-processing language (or SCSPL) capable of coherent self-generation. Keep in mind this is the only cosmologically acceptable form of causality – that is, self-determinism. I’m even running a blog on the theory.

Ok... so how does that wave of weird jargon answer the question of where God comes from?

The closest it comes is saying that God is "derived from a realm of zero-constraint (unbound-telesis)" Which sounds suspiciously like saying that God comes from an imaginary realm where anything goes. I guess that the idea is that since anything goes in this realm, there's no problem in saying that God pops out of it. (Or an invisible unicorn or a celestial teapot, but never mind that.

And even if we accepted that God comes from the "realm of zero-constraint (unbound-telesis)", we would still be left with the problem of where this hypothetical realm of anything-goes comes from. (Turtles... all the way down.)

 

[sculptor]

OK
forgetting "GOD" for the moment...
Any thoughts on Chris Langan’s CTMU?

 

[Spellbound]

Ok... so how does that wave of weird jargon answer the question of where God comes from?

The closest it comes is saying that God is "derived from a realm of zero-constraint (unbound-telesis)" Which sounds suspiciously like saying that God comes from an imaginary realm where anything goes. I guess that the idea is that since anything goes in this realm, there's no problem in saying that God pops out of it.

Yes.

And even if we accepted that God comes from the "realm of zero-constraint (unbound-telesis)", we would still be left with the problem of where this hypothetical realm of anything-goes comes from. (Turtles... all the way down.)

Yes. Good question. Reality comes from itself (self-generating) and contains itself (self-containing), so this realm is but pre-existent (it does not exist yet/ until it exists.

 

[Spellbound]

What we call "reality" is not actually real. The only thing that exist is the consciousness which is likened to a wave-function or spirit. Separation between man and God is thus an illusion. Only reality as God exists. I would venture to say that all of the distinctions brought about by man's making of this illusion as "real" (as in separating reality as a whole which was noted by David Bohm) is the cause of all the warring that has been going on and belief that we are not observer-participants who collapse the wave-function which is the source of our feuds.

 

[Dywyddyr]

This half-wit troll has been perma-banned more than once (starting, IIRC, with Nicholas1M7), why is he still here?

 

[Spellbound]

This half-wit troll has been perma-banned more than once (starting, IIRC, with Nicholas1M7), why is he still here?

You are wrong. The fact that I've been allowed back is due not to your lies that's for sure. You think you know everything but you in fact know nothing.

 

[spidergoat]

Why add the unnecessary step of a self-generating creator? The universe itself could be self-generating because it shows no evidence of needing intelligence.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You are wrong.

I'm wrong?

The fact that I've been allowed back

Um, you say you've "been allowed back". Is that not an admission that you HAVE been perma-banned in a previous guise?

is due not to your lies that's for sure.

Which "lies" would they be?

You think you know everything but you in fact know nothing.

Nope.
I don't think I know everything.
But I do know that I know more than you.

 

[Spellbound]

I'm wrong?


Um, you say you've "been allowed back". Is that not an admission that you HAVE been perma-banned in a previous guise?


Which "lies" would they be?


Nope.
I don't think I know everything.
But I do know that I know more than you.

The only thing I've ever seen you do on these forums is criticize and take every opportunity to call someone wrong. You've never once contributed anything of depth or substance. I can call you on this because I am supremely confident that you cannot prove me wrong. If I am the one who should be banned then explain why. If not then it will prove that you think you're some kind of hot stuff when in fact you're a pathetic waste of space and you are the one who should be banned. Once again, you contribute nothing in the way of explanation or support for your criticisms.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The only thing I've ever seen you do on these forums is criticize and take every opportunity to call someone wrong. You've never once contributed anything of depth or substance. I can call you on this because I am supremely confident that you cannot prove me wrong.

Maybe you should read threads outside of your own limited rubbish.

Once again, you contribute nothing in the way of explanation or support for your criticisms.

Ah yes... this from the guy that persistently ignored my links and direct quotes on the other science forum.

 

[Sarkus]

If I am the one who should be banned then explain why.

Because all you do is preach. You clutter up the religion and philosophy forum with threads of "Reality is God", or "Reality is Real", or "Reality is X" etc, all rehashing the same idea of Langan. And you generally do so with merely a quote and nothing of your own.
That is preaching, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Once again, you contribute nothing in the way of explanation or support for your criticisms.

Yet it is you who contribute nothing in the way of explanation or support for the claims of others that you peddle on this forum. You merely quote Langan or some commentator on Langan, and nothing else, or maybe perhaps some trite addition such as "thus reality is X" as if that is an explanation.
You also continually make assertions ("Only reality as God exists" etc) with no proper explanation at all other than recourse to the same source than you originally quote, regurgitating Langan and the few others, and you add nothing of your own.
When you start actually supporting what you claim people may take you a bit more seriously and respectfully. But as it is you wear a preachers outfit and should be treated accordingly on this forum.