While we seek to reason about reality as a whole, how do we know for sure that everything ontically relevant to observable reality is intelligible to us in the form of human categories like "intension", "state", "mapping", or "telesis"?
[Is it because that which is totally unintelligible to human minds is irrelevant to reality at large? Is it because nothing would be intelligible - i.e., not even physical reality - if reality as a whole was unintelligible to human minds? Does it have to do with cogito-ergo-sum, in which the "sum" makes a reference to existence in general, meaning that the "sum" already implies the power of the mind to identify existence in general? That is, on some level, there cannot be an illusion; the mind has to identify the truth of global existence by identifying thoughts (cogito). But this kind of reasoning would also require the presupposition that the whole of existence is intelligible. If I assert the existence of the endomorphism D:S–>r∈S which dictates that reality as a whole S maps itself to its internal points/elements r as the hological syntax of identification D(S) which constrains our minds to identify only certain perception and concepts, including the Kantian forms of intuition and categories of understanding re-interpreted as ingredients of the ontic syntax of a global coupling of an intensional syntax and its extension, then I presuppose the intelligibility of S as a global int|ext coupling. There is a presuppositional loop that bothers me. The loop is: We remain in the limits of the mind; we treat the entirety of existence as intelligible; in this framework, we prove that everything is intelligible. On the other hand, a lot of reality is hidden (black box of which I am not the sole creator and in which effects must be coupled with the real causes as they are determined by existence itself - there cannot be an inconsistency between real causes and terminal effects, including human illusions), so there is no way to „test empirically“ the intelligibility of S = reality as a whole; i.e., I cannot make a set of observations that decides whether all of existence is intelligible in terms of certain human concepts (a lot remains invisible). When I say "bothers me", I mean that I am displeased that I don't fully recognize the supertautology, and I want to identify the supertautology; I refuse to accept that I don't understand that all of existence is actually intelligible ( = can be identified reconstructively and generically in a human mind). All reasoning is generated within the limits of the mind (limT(X), i.e. the limit of theorization about X). Either the limits of existence are identical to the limits of the mind (allowing for the potential of a valid ToE) or they are not in which case a valid ToE isn’t possible. If they are identical (syn(T)=syn(U)), then this ToE fact is recognized within the limits of the mind; and if they are, fundamental concpets like "intension" and "potential" should apply to ontic ingredients of existence.]
"How can I apply the CTMU to compose a perfect, Will-of-God aligned, God-venerating piece? What qualities define & realize musical perfection? E.g., Is Baroque polyphony & melody exemplary?" - For context, and unrelated to my question, I’m a music composer working to promote the CTMU through my work.
I first read the CTMU in 2022 before starting a family. Since then, I’ve been fortunate enough to bring two lives into this world with my wife. I disclose this because I’ve decided to align my mental processes to be CTMU consistent on a couple different levels, principally concerning ethics and honesty.
I swear I’ve observed distinct yet unprovable events that signal greater personal meaning and direction than most would entertain as possible. What advice would you offer about interpreting these signals correctly without getting too bogged down with esoteric interpretations? I’ve run into processing overload with this a couple times over the past few years. Thank you for your work.
I just want to understand more explicitly (for myself) how to view the more formal (or metaformal) aspects of the global utility function. Yes I think MU and syndiffeonesis are virtually just elaborated versions of the other. Actually I was thinking of the MU *grammar* form in my head, but I wasn't sure how to express it or if it made complete sense so I just wrote that and maybe Langan can interpret it the way he wants if he answers.
I already sent an email but I'll try my luck here. What are "black holes" in the CTMU and how do we interpret their existence if they're at all compatible with the real manifold.
Oh no I wasn't. I am (and was) not truly mad, I used those symbolically to represent a problem. I believe by now most moderators and administrators of that group know about my claim. They've been silencing me just like others have been silencing Chris from speaking the Truth... That's how it goes with that but people should know the Truth and shouldn't be quiet and accept that someone like me or anyone else talking honestly is banned without giving him or her a chance to justify their claims. It just shows lack of integrity and openness from those involved but we are always in time to correct our mistakes... unless we absolutely reject God which I am.
The snake whispered a thought of an "what if (something greater than what is)" and they were cast out of Heaven or the garden of Eden, by believing that was possible, into the world of illusion. Believing in "ifs" is the illusion and we are trapped in that world unconscious of the true meaning of that story. We became unaware of the perfection of this moment by believing that there can be a better tomorrow, not seeing that the future, just like the past are not something we exist in but that they exist in us in this already perfect moment.
If we are living and creating our existence. Would a group of like-minded individuals be able to rip reality? E.G., focusing on opening a portal? Or the reality have its guardians?
Apologies if this is not an appropriate metaphysical question, but what is the strongest argument(s) against multicultural advocates who attack patriots and nationalists who claim that race is irrelevant, and that only “culture” matters? And accuse you of “racism” for discriminating based on biological traits.
Personhood is illusion. Those who reject God to an extreme measure become psychopathic in nature. Redemption is possible for those who don't reject Him absolutely and those who do will be in Hell - but only when illusion no longer persists and God is Known by people of this planet.
photons are massless but they do have energy. E=hf where f is the frequency and h is a constant. Although E=mc² seems to entail that no mass gives no energy the complete equation is E²=(pc)²+(mc²)². And here for photons we have E=pc
Thank you for the opportunity! I'd be grateful for a description (caption) of the following CTMU diagram: https://assets.st-note.com/img/1742707635-bLvn8TQE1HxKM4J5XlC3I6oz.jpg Thank you!
I remember you asked that one in the past. :D
While we seek to reason about reality as a whole, how do we know for sure that everything ontically relevant to observable reality is intelligible to us in the form of human categories like "intension", "state", "mapping", or "telesis"?
[Is it because that which is totally unintelligible to human minds is irrelevant to reality at large? Is it because nothing would be intelligible - i.e., not even physical reality - if reality as a whole was unintelligible to human minds? Does it have to do with cogito-ergo-sum, in which the "sum" makes a reference to existence in general, meaning that the "sum" already implies the power of the mind to identify existence in general? That is, on some level, there cannot be an illusion; the mind has to identify the truth of global existence by identifying thoughts (cogito). But this kind of reasoning would also require the presupposition that the whole of existence is intelligible. If I assert the existence of the endomorphism D:S–>r∈S which dictates that reality as a whole S maps itself to its internal points/elements r as the hological syntax of identification D(S) which constrains our minds to identify only certain perception and concepts, including the Kantian forms of intuition and categories of understanding re-interpreted as ingredients of the ontic syntax of a global coupling of an intensional syntax and its extension, then I presuppose the intelligibility of S as a global int|ext coupling. There is a presuppositional loop that bothers me. The loop is: We remain in the limits of the mind; we treat the entirety of existence as intelligible; in this framework, we prove that everything is intelligible. On the other hand, a lot of reality is hidden (black box of which I am not the sole creator and in which effects must be coupled with the real causes as they are determined by existence itself - there cannot be an inconsistency between real causes and terminal effects, including human illusions), so there is no way to „test empirically“ the intelligibility of S = reality as a whole; i.e., I cannot make a set of observations that decides whether all of existence is intelligible in terms of certain human concepts (a lot remains invisible). When I say "bothers me", I mean that I am displeased that I don't fully recognize the supertautology, and I want to identify the supertautology; I refuse to accept that I don't understand that all of existence is actually intelligible ( = can be identified reconstructively and generically in a human mind). All reasoning is generated within the limits of the mind (limT(X), i.e. the limit of theorization about X). Either the limits of existence are identical to the limits of the mind (allowing for the potential of a valid ToE) or they are not in which case a valid ToE isn’t possible. If they are identical (syn(T)=syn(U)), then this ToE fact is recognized within the limits of the mind; and if they are, fundamental concpets like "intension" and "potential" should apply to ontic ingredients of existence.]
Q & A
"How can I apply the CTMU to compose a perfect, Will-of-God aligned, God-venerating piece? What qualities define & realize musical perfection? E.g., Is Baroque polyphony & melody exemplary?" - For context, and unrelated to my question, I’m a music composer working to promote the CTMU through my work.
I first read the CTMU in 2022 before starting a family. Since then, I’ve been fortunate enough to bring two lives into this world with my wife. I disclose this because I’ve decided to align my mental processes to be CTMU consistent on a couple different levels, principally concerning ethics and honesty.
I swear I’ve observed distinct yet unprovable events that signal greater personal meaning and direction than most would entertain as possible. What advice would you offer about interpreting these signals correctly without getting too bogged down with esoteric interpretations? I’ve run into processing overload with this a couple times over the past few years. Thank you for your work.
When a loved one passes away, can we communicate with them still, or have they moved on to a new incarnation?
May you express global utility directly in terms of telors/telons, MU form, syndiffeonesis, and SCSPL grammar?
I don't understand what are you asking here? Also, the syndiffeonesis is a more primitive concept from which the MU principle is elaborated from.
I just want to understand more explicitly (for myself) how to view the more formal (or metaformal) aspects of the global utility function. Yes I think MU and syndiffeonesis are virtually just elaborated versions of the other. Actually I was thinking of the MU *grammar* form in my head, but I wasn't sure how to express it or if it made complete sense so I just wrote that and maybe Langan can interpret it the way he wants if he answers.
Sorry, I didn't realize the MU *form* was the "seed" of the SCSPL grammar. But MU is an expansion on syndeoffionesis, not the other way around.
I already sent an email but I'll try my luck here. What are "black holes" in the CTMU and how do we interpret their existence if they're at all compatible with the real manifold.
How would you name and describe this world and your particular existence in it ? What could your future incarnations be like ?
What was the reason I was expelled from your Facebook group?
LOL!
This wasn't supposed to be funny, why are you laughing?
Maybe it was the angry emojis on a bunch of posts? My initial thought is that you were trolling.
Oh no I wasn't. I am (and was) not truly mad, I used those symbolically to represent a problem. I believe by now most moderators and administrators of that group know about my claim. They've been silencing me just like others have been silencing Chris from speaking the Truth... That's how it goes with that but people should know the Truth and shouldn't be quiet and accept that someone like me or anyone else talking honestly is banned without giving him or her a chance to justify their claims. It just shows lack of integrity and openness from those involved but we are always in time to correct our mistakes... unless we absolutely reject God which I am.
Shut up, you deranged *liar* and nutcase.
ahahah No I wont!!
How does protocomputation differ from hypercomputation?
This is the question I would like to submit, it is about SCSPL and time.
"Humans experience the present as a moving window of ~2 seconds. Is this due to semilanguage Ls integrating the subset Ro as a cognitive bound?"
1. What’s the full explanation story behind Adam and Eve/most of genesis.
Is it just a metaphorical story. Are they Jesus lineage, start of agriculture, real people, ect?
Thank you ✝️
The snake whispered a thought of an "what if (something greater than what is)" and they were cast out of Heaven or the garden of Eden, by believing that was possible, into the world of illusion. Believing in "ifs" is the illusion and we are trapped in that world unconscious of the true meaning of that story. We became unaware of the perfection of this moment by believing that there can be a better tomorrow, not seeing that the future, just like the past are not something we exist in but that they exist in us in this already perfect moment.
If we are living and creating our existence. Would a group of like-minded individuals be able to rip reality? E.G., focusing on opening a portal? Or the reality have its guardians?
Apologies if this is not an appropriate metaphysical question, but what is the strongest argument(s) against multicultural advocates who attack patriots and nationalists who claim that race is irrelevant, and that only “culture” matters? And accuse you of “racism” for discriminating based on biological traits.
What use does God have for a psychopath? What does he expect from a person who finds themselves with such a mental landscape?
Personhood is illusion. Those who reject God to an extreme measure become psychopathic in nature. Redemption is possible for those who don't reject Him absolutely and those who do will be in Hell - but only when illusion no longer persists and God is Known by people of this planet.
How can a laser beam warm or ignite something if it consists of photons which are massless = energyless ?
photons are massless but they do have energy. E=hf where f is the frequency and h is a constant. Although E=mc² seems to entail that no mass gives no energy the complete equation is E²=(pc)²+(mc²)². And here for photons we have E=pc