User:Scarpy/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is a metaphysical theory of reality as a self-referential, self-generating mathematical language.[1][2] It is sometimes described as a theory of everything.[3]
Probably garbage
[edit]- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dirk-Meijer-5/publication/364352623_To_Be_or_Not_to_Be_in_a_Super-Deterministic_Cosmos_The_Concept_of_a_Retro-causal_Reconstructive_Universe_in_a_Self-learning_Mode/links/634e81c46e0d367d91a873ef/To-Be-or-Not-to-Be-in-a-Super-Deterministic-Cosmos-The-Concept-of-a-Retro-causal-Reconstructive-Universe-in-a-Self-learning-Mode.pdf
- https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/viewFile/918/921
- http://www.jamia-physics.net/phd/physjmi_thesis2020.pdf
- https://www.prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/viewFile/1787/1679
Relationship to intelligent design
[edit]Intelligent design relies on irreducible complexity, the idea that certain biological traits are complex enough that they could not have evolved in incremental modifications through natural selection.[1] The CTMU is one way for intelligent design advocates to answer the question of how biological traits of irreducible complexity come to exist.[1] As the CTMU indicates, creation occurs through a self-replicating feature of the universe, so irreducible complexity could be generated in a top-down way.[1] A similar line of reasoning follows for the explanation of the physical laws of the universe as part of the teleological argument.[1][2]
The seminal paper published on the CTMU appeared in the journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design[a] which was published by an organization associated with Christian creationism, the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.[3] CTMU literature also claims that the CTMU can be used to prove God's existence.[2] However, God as described by the CTMU is not a conventional anthropomorphic God, or a supernatural deliberate creator of the universe.[1][2][4] As the CTMU asserts that the universe created itself, a God as a prime mover that exists outside of the universe is redundant.[1][4] Rather the CTMU suggests God exists inside the universe[1] and the universe as a whole resembles a supreme mind or intelligence.[2][3][4] Furthermore, in the CTMU biological evolution is seen as progressing on top of self-generating processes of the universe.[3]
Role of language
[edit]- Languages progress in goal-directed ways attempting to maximize utility in specific domains.[2]
- These languages are self-perceiving, self-defining, self-configuring and self-executing. They create their own rules for development and ultimately are able to interpret themselves.[2][3]
- Preservation of perception creates information and requires cognition (as related to the name of the model).[3]
- Mind and physical reality are connected through a network of linguistic relationships as are individual minds to the universal mind.[2]
- In this model, time is an emergent relationship between languages, with later languages extending earlier ones.[2]
Influences and related concepts
[edit]- The CTMU derives some inspiration from John Archibald Wheeler's geometrodynamics and digital physics, but also criticizes it as "informational reductionism."[2][3]
- The CTMU shares some similar features with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's philosophy, particularly the concept of a world-spirit that over time gains knowledge of itself and eventually reaches a stage where "thought thinks itself."[1][3]
- The CTMU also has some similarities to Alain Badiou's attempts at using mathematical language to explain reality as a tautologically self-organizing and self-designing system.[4]
- The CTMU has much in common with cybernetics and systems theory.[3]
Unapproachability of papers published on the CTMU
[edit]Both artificial intelligence researcher Ben Goertzel and computer scientist Mark Chu-Carroll remarked that the material published on the CTMU uses terminology and neologisms in a way that makes it difficult to understand.[2][5][6]
Notes
[edit]- ^ Langan, Christopher (September 2002). "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory". Progress in Complexity, Information and Design. ISSN 1555-5089. Archived from the original on 2002-11-05.
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e f g h i David Redvaldsen (31 July 2019). "Chapter 5: Charles Darwin and the argument for design". In William Gibson; Dan O'Brien; Marius Turda (eds.). Teleology and Modernity. Taylor & Francis. pp. 197–202. ISBN 978-1-351-14186-4.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Goertzel, Ben (2015-10-19). "Langan's 'Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe'". The Multiverse According to Ben. Archived from the original on 2016-02-14. Retrieved 2019-09-25.
{{cite web}}:|archive-date=/|archive-url=timestamp mismatch; 2016-02-15 suggested (help) - ^ a b c d e f g h i Menzler, Nils (25 July 2019). "Chapter 2: Theoretische Vorarbeiten § 2.2 »Paraphysik«, »Parawissenschaft« und »Pseudowissenschaft«". Techno-Esoterik in der säkularisierten Moderne: Überzeugungsstrategien, Apparate und die Formung des modernen Subjekts (in German). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. pp. 41–43. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-27303-3. ISBN 978-3-658-27302-6.
- ^ a b c d Fusco, Mark Peter (1 November 2016). "Consciousness in the Wilderness of Mirrors: Trinitarian Kenosis and Created Difference in the Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar". University of St. Michael’s College.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Unknown parameter|degree=ignored (help) - ^ C. Chu-Carroll, Mark. "Another Crank comes to visit: The Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe". Archived from the original on 2011-02-14.
- ^ Chu-Carroll, Mark (2008-02-21). "Two For One: Crackpot Physics and Crackpot Set Theory". Good Math/Bad Math.