Thank you for your interest in Chris Langan and the CTMU!

Due to the high volume of emails requesting private or group conversations with Chris, we established a scheduling system for these discussions through the Zoom conferencing platform about five years ago.

Chris typically holds one or two calls each week. This often results in a waiting list of four to eight weeks. Due to the many challenges we are currently facing, we have had to cut back a bit further. Chris' schedule will open up after the New Year. If you would like to chat with him, please contact us via email (info@ctmu.org) sooner so I can add your name to our waiting list. Thank you and enjoy a blessed holiday season! ~DrGenie

Read more

Read more

Do you believe in God? What about karma, intuition, and psi?

Where do we draw the line between that which we are willing to believe, and that which seems so far-fetched that we deny it instinctively? Does the emotional or aesthetic appeal of a construct influence whether or not we consider it possible? What if we were to find compelling evidence of a global force influenced by human events...events like the fall of the Soviet Union, the death of Princess Diana, or the 9-11 attacks? What would such a discovery mean? This is what we asked Roger Nelson of Princeton’s Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Unit about the controversial Global Consciousness Project.

The GCP team contends that research on the timing of certain mechanical anomalies demonstrates that human beings are in direct communication with not only each other, but the laws of physics themselves. They assert that our intentions may instantaneously influence reality over great distances despite the presence of hard physical barriers. Human consciousness, they theorize, sometimes produces something resembling a nonlocal field, individual conscious minds combining to generate dynamic fluctuations in the very fabric of spacetime. And this, they say, may prove the existence of a coherent worldwide entity...a Global Consciousness

The GCP team has placed 38 “eggs”, quantum-effect random number generators that report their readings to Princeton at 30 second intervals, in various locations around the world. The results are carefully examined for correlations during worldwide events of high emotional magnitude. And if you believe these results, they are nothing short of amazing. (A report of the EGG response on 9-11-01 can be found at: Formal Analysis, September 11 2001)

We recently had the opportunity to discuss the Global Consciousness Project with its principle investigator, Roger Nelson. Some of the questions in the dialog were collected from Mega Foundation members, while others were written by Chris Langan and Gina LoSasso. Many thanks to Dawn, Angell, Andrea, and others who submitted questions and ideas, and a special thanks to Roger Nelson for taking the time to discuss this very intriguing project with us.

Chris Langan for the Mega Foundation: Do you see any link between your work and that of Carl Jung, who described a collective unconscious?

Roger Nelson: As is the case with practically all of language, the meaning is subtle in Jung’s attempts to talk about difficult, deep layers of the cosmos. To the extent I correctly extract from his metaphorical efforts what Jung felt in his heart of mind, we are interested in the same thing. Jung places his bets on static registries (but he would disagree if he could respond) and I place mine on growth and interaction and purposive will to the future. Yet, I think we really are talking about an entity with the same purposes and structure. What we talk about is much deeper and more complex than our constructions, and our metaphors are but the ears and tail of the elephant.

CML: How do you envision the individual’s subjective experience of the GC? Will it be like inner voices, clairvoyance, precognition? How will it differ from individual psi effects?

RDN: Frankly, I have no way of predicting that. My best guess is that for now there will be no subjective experience beyond the feeling of communion we all probably have in good meetings and shared aesthetic experiences. I imagine our direct experience might be modeled by that of neurons in a brain.

CML: Will the GC constrain our wills as the will of the hive constrains the will of the honeybee, inducing a gradual, subtle, subjectively undetectable tendency for individual human volition to serve the utility of the collective rather than that of the individual? Or do you see it as manifesting primarily on the objective level, in the form of more frequent and more profound instances of synchronicity (both good and evil)?

RDN: Think of the brain/mind. Is the will of the neuron constrained by its participation in a network? Does the honeybee lose anything? Gain? Is what the honeybee does consonant with its nature. The first manifestations of a GC might be something like an intellectual appreciation that could lead to more sensible personal decisions and actions. If there ever is a GC in the grand sense I suppose we will know something about it because we are self-reflective, but I suspect it will happen because we have acceded to a natural (neural) role. It does not have an ominous connotation for me, but I recognize that the cowboy mentality so prevalent the US may work hard to reject consciousness in order to maintain a vaunted freedom.

CML: How does this project fit into the work of Teilhard de Chardin? Do you see the Global Consciousness as approaching an awakening? Has it been your observation that this phenomenon, such as it may be, is getting stronger or nearing a culmination...an Omega Point?

RDN: Teilhard urged us on to the future with great conviction and elegant, even poetic arguments. But he was such a patient man, and so deeply cognizant of vast histories that he saw clearly he was a little ahead of his time. He said be patient, it will be perhaps 10,000 years. I don’t see the Global Consciousness awakening, really, though I wish. Instead, I wonder if there is a glimmering, like a barely noted alteration in a long slumber, or the first few functional interactions that form in the blooming, buzzing confusion of an infant’s mind. No, the timescale is much too long to observe any movement to an Omega Point.

On the other hand, we humans do have a choice between consciousness on personal, social, and cultural scales, versus the suicidal recklessness of self-deception and willful blindness to the needs for balance and design. It may be just wishful thinking, but I suspect that bending our energies to a peaceful and healthy life for all of us (which incidentally implies getting some sense into our reproductive heads) would immediately begin to amplify the glimmerings and accelerate us toward omega. Might take only 8,000 years.

CML: You seem to see the human race as having 8 or 10 thousand years to muddle through its mounting difficulties, whether or not it receives significant guidance from a fully-awakened global consciousness. Yet, many people regard such an awakening as a necessity of salvation rather than an eventual outcome contingent on our long-term survival. Might the rising dangers faced by the human race, and by the planetary ecosystem that sustains it, serve to accelerate the awakening? Is the GC yet capable of any level of constructive or proactive response to human input?

RDN: There are many levels of consciousness in evolution. See Ken Wilber’s nice Brief History of Everything. I ponder what capacity the GC might have in helping us to wake up. It will be subtle, and will be in forms such as this EGG project I run. Here’s an image: The GCP/EGG project is a rivulet, running down its slope to join others to form a stream. That stream may combine with others into a river, and I pray that many rivers will reach the ocean and color it with peace and creativity. What you choose to do that is conscious of the future is another rivulet.

CML: What possible explanations are there for this hypothetical phenomenon? Specifically, what do project members believe the Global Consciousness represents?

RDN: This is perhaps too long a story. I will take one of the possible intents of the question: What do the GCP results represent?

My first response is an indefinitely long list of alternative explanations: mistakes, poor experimental protocols, improper analysis, unconscious selection, deliberate fraud, coincidence, synchronicity, experimenter psi, projections of global consciousness, active future observer effects, active information actualized by need, the Coyote at work, the Earth saying Please, wake up!

CML: Regarding experimenter psi and future observer effects, have you made any attempt to run tests or take precautions that might rule this out?

RDN: It is on the list, but at this point we still are mainly focused on evidence that there is something to explain. We have not found any obvious tests, and do not know how these sources can be ruled out. On the other hand, inferential and logical arguments are possible, and they appear here and there, in the context, e.g., of asking about effects of geographical distance, which is often not the same as subjective distance.

CML: Oh, and sorry for asking what may be an indelicate question, but do you mean that one or more GCP members believe that other members may have engaged in acts of scientific fraud?

RDN: My somewhat tongue-in-cheek list is a hodgepodge of explanations that might be offered — not by me, but by variously motivated interpreters. Fraud is a favorite of skeptics, whether or not there is any possibility for it. No, I seriously doubt that people familiar with the GCP imagine anyone in the project may have engaged in acts of scientific fraud.

As for the rest of the 70-odd people who are members in some sense, I can’t say, but it’s a good guess that we have about 70 opinions.

CML: Is the GC experiment based on any particular motivating theory, e.g. the Penrose-Hammeroff theory of quantum consciousness?

RDN: No. The closest thing to theory in the sense of your question is hmmm, if psi works for one person, it should for groups.

BTW, I think it is may be more Hameroff-Penrose. The fact that global consciousness is supposed to affect physical devices (the EGGs) seems to imply that the concept is being physically interpreted.

CML: Does global consciousness, or for that matter any kind of consciousness, have a physical model?

RDN: No. We are far from good evidence that consciousness can affect physical devices.

Personally, I don’t think so at this stage of our development. But it isn’t necessary for the eggs or the GCP effects.

CML: So you place no stock in psychokinesis? The term “Engineering Anomalies” (as in the name of the Princeton Laboratory) almost seems to embrace the concept a priori. To what extent are you affiliated with, or sympathetic to the research and conclusions of, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab?

RDN: Psychokinesis is a word. We don’t use it much because it has unpredictable effects when heard by others. In my opinion the statistical anomalies we see can best be modeled in terms of information, not energy — which psychokinesis implies for many people.

Our measures are statistical; they are correlations; they do not require or imply physical effects. There is indeed considerable counter-evidence to such models. As for having a physical model for consciousness, there are stalwart efforts, but no, I don’t think we can say the search (or the creative effort) has met with success.

CML: If great apes have higher intelligence and, in short, possess consciousness, is it your opinion that they (and perhaps other animals as well) could absorb, process, and perpetuate some part of the Global Consciousness?

RDN: Yes, and fish and birds, flowers and trees, and (gasp) rocks.

CML: What method of randomness do the EGGs employ? Are they tapping into the absolute randomness of the quantum level of reality through such quantum phenomena as radioactive decay? Is this randomness supposed to be the input through which GC affects the devices?

RDN: Quantum indeterminate sources, including Johnson thermal noise and quantum tunneling in solid state junctions. No radioactive decay sources. Read the Web page and links for more detail. The last part of your question is harder, but the answer to what I think you are asking is yes in a sense. Randomness means un-determined, and may mean labile as well. There is a relationship to order and disorder, and hence to entropy. Possibly what constitutes an input, in your terms, is information that is somehow present in the world and related to our consciousness states, and that can somehow be absorbed into the real statistical distribution generated by the random event generator. I think consciousness is a reservoir of order and information, and that it is active information. Where there is some need for it, a question it could answer, a disorder it could put right, that virtual information can be actualized.

CML: Does distance between the location of a world event and individual EGGs located in various world locations seem to correlate with intensity of response?

RDN: Mixed results. In the cases we have analyzed, it seems distance matters in some, but not at all in others. I suspect we need a better question. The distance that likely is most relevant is in consciousness space.

CML: The term space suggests the need for a metric. Do you have any ideas regarding the metric of consciousness space?

RDN: Good question. I have ideas, but not formal ones. Consciousness space is nonlocal, it is the space of mind, which captures your mother’s face, the face of the moon, and the face of Taurus with equal immediacy in spatial terms. In consciousness terms, most probably your mother’s face (or some other loved one) is nearer because dearer, wherever she actually might be.

CML: What do you find most convincing about your results so far?

RDN: Long term consistency.

CML: Indeed, it is very hard not to be convinced on the basis of your graphs that the eggs must be sensitively embedded in some probabilistic medium that transmits veritable shock waves of correlation associated with the occurrence and reportage of important unexpected events. Have you achieved any subclassification of your results in terms of the various kinds of events generating the shocks?

RDN: Very informal. At some point, given a sensible matrix not informed by the results (which means I can’t create it), we can see if there are classes. Intriguing candidate subsets (e.g., natural disasters, shocking events, meditations, ...) begin to form in my perception/reading of the results. But thus far, the indications are a mixed bag, separable into persuasive clusters, but only by post hoc sorting.

CML: The GCP is clearly not a mainstream scientific investigation. Do you feel that work of this type bears a stigma? How is Academia reacting to the study? How has this reaction affected its progress?

RDN: Yes, some people, especially scientists, suspect they know how things work, and when they confront a phenomenon without a reasonable fit into the standard models, they prefer the models. It is hard work to overcome a lifetime of direct, even if abstract, experience. Academia doesn’t know much about the GCP. I try to avoid publicity, including in the academy, though this must change at some point. There having been no reaction, the effect on our progress is salutory.

CML: Are you optimistic regarding the chance that someone will come up with a new model of reality that more readily accommodates this kind of phenomenon, and thus hasten acceptance of your results throughout the intellectual community? Are you encouraged by the work of any theorists in particular?

RDN: I’m optimistic, but not holding my breath. There are a number of appealing attempts to stretch good models for the purpose, and any number of heartening interpretive modeling efforts that go a bit outside the box. I don’t expect any hastening of acceptance of my work on this ground, however. Progress in theory, while interesting to watch, is glacial. Empirical work is more persuasive of its own acceptability at this point.

CML: How does the GCP differ from other paranormal research? Do you feel that the existence of paranormal phenomena is unequivocally supported by scientific evidence?

RDN: Not much difference from other professional, high-quality research (in any discipline). Bigger team, longer term, more startling question, otherwise science as usual. Ah, I should admit to fostering the aesthetic perspective more than I think is usual in research. The evidence for certain anomalous correlations is truly excellent. But I can’t tell what rings in your head when you hear paranormal phenomena. So I can’t directly answer your question.

CML: I was thinking of positive results that have emerged from studies undertaken at places like SRI and PEAR. What do you think of these studies, and the standards of validity applied to them?

RDN: I work at PEAR, so have the opportunity to see every aspect and every step of the way to experimental results. I began my professional involvement claiming to be 100% skeptical and 100% open minded. I would still claim that, but might now put open minded first. I know the PEAR results to be clean. As for SRI and other labs, I know and respect the people involved. Obviously I do not have the full-spectrum insight into their research, but I don’t doubt its validity in general. One of the best possible validity standards is correspondence or similarity of results across many independent labs and researchers. We have that.

CML: Does the study endorse or rely on any particular theory of paranormal effects, for instance the DAT theory?

RDN: No.

CML: You expressed hesitancy about gaining publicity for this project. Why? Is there fear that publicity would somehow introduce confounding factors into the study?

RDN: Yes, not fear, exactly, because such a change will be part of the study. It is more practical: I wouldn’t have time to do the work that interests me most, and that is the point of the project, if I also am to be interviewed or be on radio shows, or to answer the flood of email inquiries that come with new people becoming excited by the project. I accept what grows naturally, and what (as is the case now) appeals to me as part of the path. I want to avoid the distractions of attention to the excitement, rather than the meaning.

CML: If global consciousness is considered a quantum phenomenon, then what part does quantum nonlocality play in its explanation? If the phenomenon is nonlocal, then why is the geographic placement of the EGGs considered critical?

RDN: I don’t know about considering it a quantum phenomenon, though there are some nice qualities to that metaphor. Some sort of nonlocality appears to be necessary to account for the evidence in a large body of research. But leaping to conclusions that all the implications of current models in physics are applicable is not something I can do. I find having the eggs distributed over the globe is cool, and aesthetically pleasing. I also have a well-developed design for a one-room GCP. But the main point is that we do not know much, indeed we know almost nothing about the relationship of psi effects to geographic distance (despite what we professional researchers suggest as the best interpretation of our skimpy empirical base). I don’t consider the placement critical, as you seem to have inferred, but it does allow us to learn something about this question.

CML: So are the eggs randomly distributed or are they aesthetically placed in locations that appeal to you?

RDN: They are opportunistically placed where a person expresses interest and a willingness to host an egg.

CML: What reason is there for thinking that there should be a linkage of any kind between global consciousness and the EGG devices being used to detect it? Why should the GC care about influencing these devices? Does the proposed linkage depend on the facilitative role of the EGGs in awakening global consciousness?

RDN: What reason... ? There are various meanings in your question, and as before, I will select one that appeals to me. On one level the reason is a development of steps: we think, we think we understand each other, we think we may even get non-sensory information from each other and the world, we think we may have an afferent channel too; we think it would be good to pay attention to unusual connections; we tell anecdotes that lead to research that makes us think more deeply ....

On another level the EGG is a natural and simple progression from laboratory work with individuals to field work with groups to the globe. As for caring, either the GC does or doesn’t care, and that isn’t relevant to the research, only to its interpretation. The latter will, as it always is, be flavored by each interpreter’s predilections. What proposed model?

CML: If the GCP turns out to be a success, what reaction is expected from the mainstream scientific community? From the public at large?

RDN: I consider it a success, already turned out. But it is also a work in progress, and it has the goal of learning something, not success in the sense most people seem to have for that term. The reactions that I have had suggest that scientists will be interested in understanding more, or mortified by the threat to science depending on their previous attitudes to research in this area. The public at large is excited, some proportion are heartened, a very few are enraged by the invasion of some god’s territory.

CML: Where do you see the GCP going from here? Will you retrace ground already covered in order to strengthen your results, or is there a plan for extending the research?

RDN: We will continue. It can be thought of as a replication database, but also as a resource for all manner of potentially instructive analyses. There are lots of plans for extending the research, mostly by implementing new analytical perspectives. What actually will happen depends on what grows organically, to a large extent. The GCP runs as a volunteer operation, so certain forms of planning are not present; instead we use envisioning, so to speak.

CML: The members of our group thank you for taking the time to engage in this dialog.

RDN: The pleasure was mine.

If Global Consciousness is a measurable phenomenon, then what is it measuring? The effect has been attributed to cell phone use, fields generated by power lines, and just plain coincidence. We asked physicist Tom van Flandern what he thought of the phenomenon:

TVF: I am extremely skeptical of statistically significant results that are so close to what chance would produce. There comes a point in any analysis at which systematic, rather than random, errors dominate, invalidating statistical conclusions. And when working so close to chance probabilities, it may be impossible to think of all the hidden ways that systematic errors might arise. To be intrinsically convincing, we need to see the result of a controlled, double-blind test that is well above what chance can produce. Until then, the default assumption must remain that no such phenomena exist.

What do you think?

Leave a comment

You can visit Dr. Roger Nelson’s GCP website global-mind.org

© 2002 Global Consciousness Project and Mega Foundation. All rights reserved.

Who can’t use a little more peace and quiet? This sound machine offers 64 distinct, scientifically engineered, yet naturally-recorded, sounds that promote deeper sleep, relaxation, and renewal. Unlike other white noise machines, its natural recordings are high definition and never loop, eliminating audio repetition for real-world listening experiences.

Read more

Being in complete control of the world financial system, you're filthy rich - rich beyond anyone else's imagination, in fact. But to distract and disorient the morons you've been robbing blind for the last couple of centuries, you claim to be "redistributing resources" in order to ensure "social justice". You "redistribute" those resources almost entirely to yourself, of course, but then money-launder your insane profits by sprinking a few well-publicized crumbs on Africa in order to "end hunger".

Question: How do you seriously weaponize the entire primitive, backward continent of Africa against every Western (White) nation, but leave most nonwhite nations perfectly intact?

Answer:

1. You claim to be "ending poverty" as you launder your money by providing limitless aid to the warlords and dictators of Africa and thus subsidize African reproduction, extracting the resources to do this from all and only White nations.

2. You tell the angry, low-IQ inhabitants of Africa that Whites are all slavers who bear total responsibility for all of their problems, for none of which they are responsible themselves. (This is a ridiculous lie that only an idiot would believe, but you own academia and the media along with the government.)

3. Using the national governments you've corrupted to illegally tear open the borders of White nations, you encourage (and often pay) Africans to swarm from the Dark Continent into White Western nations by the tens of millions like rapacious, unproductive, crime-happy, often-diseased locusts.

4. You point at them and cry "See? Thanks entirely to you White ex-Christians, the human population is growing out of control!" (In fact, Whites do not contribute to human overpopulation at all. Whites are the only group that is completely innocent of overpopulation - their rate of reproduction has actually decreased to dangerously low levels, enough to qualify them as "endangered". But you don't mention that.)

5. Using invaluable bioweapons research involving bioengineered coronavirus variants, you inaugurate a global pandemic. "See what you've done to yourselves?" you say to the White majority inhabitants of every Western nation. "Your filthy presence has spread the formerly harmless common cold to bats and pangolins, where it has mutated into a deadly plague! Damn you all! Stay in your dirty little shacks until further notice (but be prepared to vacate the premises when we foreclose on your mortgage)!"

6. With great fanfare, you introduce an unsafe, otherwise ineffective (but heavily monetized and highly profitable) spectrum of depopulation formulas, calling them "vaccines" in order to immunize yourself against criticism. (Any criticism at all would be "racist" and "antisemitic", and must be suppressed on sight.)

7. You make sure that as you viciously inject your horrid potion into nearly every White person in the world, as little as possible is given to Africans.

8. Laugh and count your money as the White race is demoralized and destroyed!

5 replies

Maybe you've also tried to grow in spirit or change something about your life or your future by using these types of affirmations. Today, we will examine the research and see if affirmations are really worth the effort of reciting them and how to employ them to the maximum benefit.

Read more

The CTMU

The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is a theory of reality as a self-simulation developed in the mid-1980s by Christopher Michael Langan. Some of the basic principles are discussed on this page but will be better understood in the context of the full paper.

Full ANKORT Paper

Share TELEOLOGIC: CTMU Teleologic Living

SOME BASIC PRINCIPLES

Reality Principle – The real universe contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance).

Syndiffeonesis – The expression and/or existence of any difference relation entails a common medium and syntax. Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or “difference-in-sameness”. Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality.

Principle of Linguistic Reducibility – Reality is a self-contained form of language. This is true for at least two reasons. First, although it is in some respects material and concrete, reality conforms to the algebraic definition of a language. That is, it incorporates (1) representations of (object-like) individuals, (space-like) relations and attributes, and (time-like) functions and operations; (2) a set of “expressions” or perceptual states; and (3) a syntax consisting of (a) logical and geometric rules of structure, and (b) an inductive-deductive generative grammar identifiable with the laws of state transition. Second, because perception and cognition are languages, and reality is cognitive and perceptual in nature, reality is a language as well.

Subscribe now

Metaphysical Autology Principle (MAP) – All relations, mappings and functions relevant to reality in a generalized effective sense, whether descriptive, definitive, compositional, attributive, nomological or interpretative, are generated, defined and parameterized within reality itself. In other words, reality comprises a “closed descriptive manifold” from which no essential predicate is omitted, and which thus contains no critical gap that leaves any essential aspect of structure unexplained. Any such gap would imply non-closure.

Mind Equals Reality Principle (M=R) – Mind and reality are ultimately inseparable to the extent that they share common rules of structure and processing.

Multiplex Unity Principle (MU) – The minimum and most general informational configuration of reality, MU defines the relationship holding between unity and multiplicity, the universe and its variegated contents. Through its structure, the universe and its contents are mutually inclusive, providing each other with a medium.

Hology – A logical analogue of holography characterizing the most general relationship between reality and its contents, hology is a form of self-similarity whereby the overall structure of the universe is everywhere distributed within it as accepting and transductive syntax, resulting in a homogeneous syntactic medium.

Supertautology – In logic, truth is defined by means of always-true expressions called tautologies. A logical tautology possess three distinctive properties: it is descriptively universal, it is closed under recursive self-composition, and it is internally and externally consistent on the syntactic and semantic levels of reference. 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.

In a supertautological theory of reality, it is unnecessary to assume the uniformity of nature with respect to certain kinds of generalization. Instead, such generalizations can be mathematically deduced… e.g., nomological covariance, the invariance of the rate of global self-processing (c-invariance), and the internally-apparent accelerating expansion of the system. (See MAP, M=R, MU)

THE THIRD OPTION

Determinacy and indeterminacy…at first glance, there seems to be no middle ground. Events are either causally connected or they are not, and if they are not, then the future would seem to be utterly independent of the past. Either we use causality to connect the dots and draw a coherent picture of time, or we settle for a random scattering of independent dots without spatial or temporal pattern and thus without meaning. At the risk of understatement, the philosophical effects of this assumed dichotomy have been corrosive in the extreme. No universe that exists or evolves strictly as a function of external determinacy, randomness, or an alternation of the two can offer much in the way of meaning. Where freedom and volition are irrelevant, so is much of human experience and individuality.

But there is another possibility after all: self-determinacy. Self-determinacy is like a circuitous boundary separating the poles of the above dichotomy…a reflexive and therefore closed boundary, the formation of which involves neither preexisting laws nor external structure. Thus, it is the type of causal attribution suitable for a perfectly self-contained system. Self-determinacy is a deep but subtle concept, owing largely to the fact that unlike either determinacy or randomness, it is a source of bona fide meaning. Where a system determines its own composition, properties, and evolution independently of external laws or structures, it can determine its own meaning, and ensure by its self-configuration that its inhabitants are crucially implicated therein.

UNBOUND TELESIS

In CTMU cosmogony, “nothingness” is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. In a realm of unbound ontological potential, defining a constraint is not as simple as merely writing it down; because constraints act restrictively on content, constraint, and content must be defined simultaneously in a unified syntax-state relationship.

TELIC RECURSION

Telic recursion is a fundamental process that tends to maximize a cosmic self-selection parameter, generalized utility, over a set of possible syntax-state relationships in light of the self-configurative freedom of the universe. An inherently “quantum” process that reflects the place of quantum theory in SCSPL, telic recursion is a “pre-informational” form of recursion involving a combination of hology, telic feedback and recursive selection acting on the informational potential of MU, a primal syndiffeonic form that is symmetric with respect to containment.

Cosmology, humanity’s grand attempt to explain the origin and nature of the universe, has traditionally amounted to the search for a set of “ultimate laws” capable of explaining not only how the universe currently functions, but how it came to be. Unfortunately, even were such a set of laws to be found, the associated explanation could not be considered adequate until the laws themselves were explained, along with the fundamental objects and attributes on which they act. This gives rise to what seems like an imponderable question: how can a set of laws, objects and attributes be explained except by invoking another set of laws in the form of an explanatory syntax that would itself demand an explanation, and so on ad infinitum?

The answer is hiding in the question. Laws do not stand on their own, but must be defined with respect to the objects and attributes on which they act and which they accept as parameters. Similarly, objects and attributes do not stand on their own, but must be defined with respect to the rules of structure, organization and transformation that govern them. It follows that the active medium of cross definition possesses logical primacy over laws and arguments alike, and is thus pre-informational and pre-nomological in nature…i.e., telic. Telesis, which can be characterized as “infocognitive potential”, is the primordial active medium from which laws and their arguments and parameters emerge by mutual refinement or telic recursion.

SCSPL

According to the Reality Principle, the universe is self contained, and according to infocognitive monism, it regresses to a realm of nil constraint (unbound telesis or UBT) from which it must refine itself. According to the Telic Principle, which states that the universe must provide itself with the means to do this, it must make and realize its own “choice to exist”; by reason of its absolute priority, this act of choice is identical to that which is chosen, i.e. the universe itself, and thus reflexive. I.e., “existence is everywhere the choice to exist.” Accordingly, the universe must adopt a reflexive form in which it can “select itself” for self-defined existence, with the selection function identical to that which is selected. This means that it must take a certain general or “initial” form, the MU form, which contains all of the requisites for generating the contents of reality. Due to hology, whereby the self-contained universe has nothing but itself of which to consist, this form is self-distributed.

By the Principle of Linguistic Reducibility, reality is a language. Because it is self-contained with respect to processing as well as configuration, it is a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL whose general spatiotemporal structure is hologically replicated everywhere within it as self-transductive syntax. This reduces the generative phase of reality, including physical cosmogony, to the generative grammar of SCSPL.

TELEOLOGIC EVOLUTION

Teleologic Evolution (TE) is a process of alternating replication and selection through which the universe “creates itself” along with the life it contains. This process, called telic recursion, is neither random nor deterministic in the usual senses but self-directed. Telic recursion occurs on global and local levels respectively associated with the evolution of nature and the evolution of life; the evolution of life thus mirrors that of the universe in which it occurs. TE improves on traditional approaches to teleology by extending the concept of nature in a way eliminating any need for “supernatural” intervention, and improves on neo-Darwinism by addressing the full extent of nature and its causal dynamics.

In the past, teleology and evolution were considered mutually exclusory. This was at least partially because they seem to rely on different models of causality. As usually understood, teleology appears to require a looping kind of causality whereby ends are immanent everywhere in nature, even at the origin (hence the causal loop). Evolution, on the other hand, seems to require a combination of ordinary determinacy and indeterminacy in which the laws of nature deterministically guide natural selection, while indeterminacy describes the “random” or “chance” dimension of biological mutation.

In contrast, the phrase teleologic evolution expresses an equivalence between teleology and evolution based on extended, refined concepts of nature and causality. This equivalence is expressed in terms of a self-contained logic-based model of reality identifying theory, universe, and theory-universe correspondence, and depicting reality as a self-configuring system requiring no external creator. Instead, reality and its self-creative principle are identified through a contraction of the mapping, which formerly connected the source and output of the teleology function. In effect, the creative principle itself becomes the ultimate form of reality.

The self-configuration of reality involves an intrinsic mode of causality, self-determinacy, which is logically distinct from conventional concepts of determinacy and indeterminacy but can appear as either from a localized vantage. Determinacy and indeterminacy can thus be viewed as “limiting cases” associated with at least two distinct levels of systemic self-determinacy, global-distributed and local-nondistributed. The former level appears deterministic while the latter, which accommodates creative input from multiple quasi-independent sources, dynamically adjusts to changing conditions and thus appears to have an element of “randomness”.

According to this expanded view of causality, the Darwinian processes of replication and natural selection occur on at least two mutually-facilitative levels associated with the evolution of the universe as a whole and the evolution of organic life. In addition, human technological and sociopolitical modes of evolution may be distinguished, and human intellectual evolution may be seen to occur on collective and individual levels. Because the TE model provides logical grounds on which the universe may be seen to possess a generalized form of intelligence, all levels of evolution are to this extent intelligently directed, catalyzed, and integrated.

LOGICAL THEOLOGY

Theology is ordinarily understood as the study of God and the relationship of God to the world, usually in the context of a specific theological system and a related body of theological opinion. It is considered to embrace the investigation of spirit, the human soul, teleology, and divine qualities such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

Traditionally, its preferred methods of inquiry have been rational rather than empirical, and have thus relied on a combination of faith and logic rather than observation. Logical theology shifts theological inquiry in the direction of logic and mathematics, seeking to reposition it within the domain of modern analytical tools including model theory, the theory of formalized systems, and the logical theory of reality.

Whereas standard theology takes the existence of God as axiomatic and then attempts, often naively, to characterize the relationship between its assumed definition and a more or less concrete model of reality, logical theology explores a logical formulation of ultimate reality for any divine properties that might naturally reveal themselves; given that divine law (if it exists) would necessarily incorporate the laws of logic and mathematics on a basic level, it seeks evidence of divinity in the context of a reality-theoretic extension of logic, the CTMU. The implied convergence of theology, mathematics, and science yields a reality-based theological framework with the strength and capacity to support realistic solutions to various real-world problems.

HOLOTHEISM

Holotheism is the theological system implied by logical theology. Its fundamental premise is that the Mind of God is the ultimate reality…that is, reality in its most basic and most general form. It is thus related to panentheism, but in addition to being more refined, is more compatible with monotheism in that its “mental” characterization of God implies that divine nature is more in keeping with established theological traditions.

HOLOGIC IDENTITY

The Hologic Identity concept is central to the spiritual philosophies of holotheism and panentheism. The diagram above illustrates the Hologic Identity between the self and the universe and the spirit. The Hologic Identity is based on the CTMU principles of hology and syndiffeonesis.

© 2000-2023 Christopher Michael Langan. All rights reserved.

Chris Langan's Ultimate Reality

You must do this all day long, every day, for the rest of your life. Make these essentials second nature. When you are ready to commit to that, watch the video below and make positive self-talk a part of your life.

The easiest way to get going is to start each day with a few positive affirmations and moments of gratitude. Two or three are fine. You will do more later; in the meantime, you set a positive tone for the start of the day.

It’s important to be consistent and firm when combatting negative self-talk, but the most important aspect is realizing when it’s happening and challenging it immediately every time. A good tool is reframing, but there are others.

For example, you catch yourself saying, “I’m not doing well” or “I’m having a hard time”, say instead, “I am rising to the challenge”, “I can do this”, etc. There are a lot of good cognitive-behavioural tricks to help manage internal self-talk. The ones we mention are just examples for illustration. We recommend that individuals explore several different approaches and use those they feel are effective.

CTMU Teleologic Living Resources

Below is a list of the affirmations included in our subliminal recordings at CTMU Radio. We have utilized most of these in our recent recordings. They are grouped by topic but listed in no particular order. Other than the Core Affirmations, which are utilized in all subliminal mixes of this series, not all affirmations were used in all recordings. As we incorporate more affirmations into future recordings, we will expand this list.

All of our subliminal recordings begin with the Core Affirmations that correspond to the levels of stratified identity in the CTMU Teleologic Living Plan. Also included in our subliminal mixes are general affirmations in one or more of the categories below. Each subliminal mix contains between 2 and 5 layers of voices to infuse peace and positivity. Affirmations are similar to prayer and, like prayer, can be incorporated into our daily routine.

[Core Affirmations]

My body is my vehicle. 

Read more

Read more

When you are making your New Year's Resolutions, you need to make sure that you are thinking about the whole picture. You should not only be focused on what you want to achieve in the next year but also on what you can do to help the world around you. For example, you can think about how you can help your local community and the world at large.

Remind yourself of the bigger picture

When making New Year's resolutions, it is important to focus on the big picture. It is easy to get caught up in the detail of each goal, which can cause you to lose sight of the overall goal. However, by focusing on the bigger picture, you will be more likely to reach your goals. Keeping your “eye on the prize” is a sentiment that captures this; it simply means keeping focused on the end goal for motivation.

One concrete way to help you achieve your goals is to create a list. Pick no more than three. You should then break each goal into smaller, attainable steps. It is also a good idea to create a plan for each goal. This will give you a more clear vision of how you can accomplish each goal. If you are struggling, you can use a friend or family member as a motivator.

Read more

Expires December 31st. Enjoy!

Read more

All of our subliminal recordings begin with the Core Affirmations that correspond to the levels of stratified identity in the CTMU Teleologic Living Plan. Also included in our subliminal mixes are general affirmations in one or more of the categories below. Each subliminal mix contains between 2 and 5 layers of voices to infuse peace and positivity. Affirmations are similar to prayer and, like prayer, can be incorporated into our daily routine.

[Core Affirmations]

My body is my vehicle. 

Read more

Listening to harmo…

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

The Golden Rules: 

9 Steps to Self-Actualization and Salvation 

through CTMU Teleologic Living

A teleologic lifestyle plan based upon Christopher Michael Langan’s Cognitive Theoretic Model o…

Read more

Part 1 - First 45 minutes

What is the CTMU?

The CTMU is a cosmology that describes the universe as a Self-simulation and outlines our role as actualizing agents of Teleologic Evolution. The CTMU is a framework in which to define quantum mechanics, explicate spacetime and natural forces, serves as a foundational metalanguage of absolute truth (*Logos), and provide a framework for a breakthrough in metareligious understanding. 

It has several levels of approach:

1. As a comprehensive metaphysical description of the structure and dynamics of reality, that is, of the trialic identity of reality, in which Cognitive Theory = Model = Universe);

2. As a logico-geometric system reflecting the self-containment or ontic-algebraic closure of reality (a kind of stratified “metaphysical operator algebra”);

3. As the Metaformal System or “ultimate language” which combines formal systems with their universes of discourse and couples ontology with epistemology (an attribution of existence requires knowledge of the argument); This can be characterized as “a language that talks TO itself ABOUT itself FOR itself”, for purposes of logical and experiential Self-identification;

4. As a metaphysical extension of physics which is conspansively self-dual, “expanding inwardly” instead of exploding outwardly;

5. As an ultimate reality self-simulation within a “metaverse”, or existential potential for any possible universe;

6. As logical theology, or a metareligious framework for the logical reconciliation of various faiths (by coupling faith and knowledge = metaphysical logic).

What is the relationship of physics to metaphysics and the CTMU?

Read more

Read more