The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is True Metaphysics

Langan's CTMU theory is not very valuable. The goal of theories in physics and mathematics is to explain difficult and complicated theorems and phenomena in terms of weaker statements and principles. However, it seems that CTMU seeks to obfuscate rather than to explain. signs of obfuscation1. Impenetrable terminologyIn order to describe his theory, Langan uses an excessive amount of terminology. Sometimes introducing new terminology cannot be avoided. However, the clarity of Langan's expositions suffers greatly because of all the new words he invented. A sentence like:"Hology is implied by MAP because reality is closed under composition and attribution; it is implied by M=R because reality is composed of syntactic operators with generalized mental or cognitive functionality; and it is implied by syndiffeonesis and MU because it is an expression of the relationship between the global spatiotemporal medium and its contents."is almost impossible to read. Some of the terminology is explained, but often this is done poorly. Imagine 59 pages of sentences like this. Certainly not an invitation to learn about CTMU.Again, such an excessive amount of terminology is not justified. The article reads like an advanced scientology manual. (I suppose that Scientology could be considered a competing theory. In fact, there are some signs that Langan's ultranet is a cult like scientology - but less extreme. [2])2. bluff your way into mathematicsThe entire article [1] reads like an exercise in "bluff your way into mathematics". A lot of mathematical principals are cited, but Langan does not go into depth about any of them. Essentially the whole article [1] is 59 pages of definitions, and hardly any logical deductions. ----------I am sorry to say, but some of the arguments my opponent wrote suffer from the same kind of obfuscation.1. Impenetrable terminologyI merely repeat PRO's argument without further comments, as the excessive terminology speaks for itself:PRO: Koinotely refers to the "common expressive medium", "synetic medium", or "diffeonic potential". It is produced by "unisection".Isotelesis refers to the "diffeonic relands" or the "actualization" of diffeonic potential. It is produced by "reverse unisection".If unisection is thought of as the fusion of parts, reverse unisection could be thought of as the fission of "wholes".Koinotely refers to Conterminality and Isotelesis to Coextensivity, telesis being the common component, the former is concerned with connectivity and coherence while the latter with self-similarity and consistency. The self-similar motif is reminiscent of the flower of life, though with 19 non-overlapping "isotelic" circles (local telors) packed into 1 "koinotelic" circle (syntactic unisect or global telor) which covers them all, the circles and their constructive-filtrative layering can be thought of as spheres or hypersurfaces if you can see it as such, this relates logic with resources (as in the linear logic program uniting logic with linear algebra) or state-syntax duality with the packing-covering duality, where issues like optimization and the conservation of freedom (and information) become relevant. As far as self-determinacy is concerned, the diameter of the larger circle is defined in terms of the smaller circles, and the space for the smaller circles are defined in terms of the larger circle, with each circle being 5 sub-circles wide, and simultaneously/reflexively, the number of circles definable within 1 circle is 19. 19x5=95 represents "teleoplection" or the entanglement of local (isotelic) and global (koinotelic) utility functions, (what is globally optimal is automatically locally optimal due to a property of convex geometry). Teleoplection is a self-dual relation/process (as are Chu Spaces), and is involved in how complexity arises from simplicity from/through self-consistent entanglement (or coherent inner expansion/decoherent requantization of subjective/objective states in syntactic operators). The fractional multiplier 5/19 (koinotely/isotelesis) and/or conversely, 19/5 (isotelesis/koinotely) is representative of the scale invariance and the universality of conspansion. Visually, inscribed in each circle and sub-circle are 19 circles per 5-diameter circle, when/where circles overlap they create new inner expansive domains which add circles or constraints/subtract space or freedom while contracting/expanding as they divide diffeonetically/multiply synetically, with outward inductive and inward deductive processes mirroring each other. So each circle can be considered koinotelic within its own domain, while being isotelic to a higher and/or for a lower level domain. This can be formulated as koinotely(isotelesis)=isotelesis(koinotely). On the left side of the equation, koinotely distributes over isotelesis, acts as the "memory" or model of past/present domains topologically including the right side of the equation, where vice-versa, isotelesis distributes over koinotely, "anticipating" or modeling the "future" as a codomain of the "past/present", it descriptively includes the left side, where abstract potentialities are rescaled as they are actualized in situ.2. Bluff your way into mathematicsPRO writes: I will share some ideas, terms and a formula which helped me clarify a few of the basic concepts, and refer diligent researchers to the book, "Moonshine Beyond the Monster: The Bridge Connecting Algebra, Modular Forms and Physics". For the right-hemisphere dominant I also rendered some concepts as metaphors.Pro cites here the book [3]. Being I dilligent researcher, I checked the book. The book is absolutely legitimate, fairly advanced book in mathematics. It concerns the Monster group which is the largest finite simple group, and some of its representations (the "Moonshine module"). The problem is: How does it support any of Pro's claims. It seems completely unrelated. The terms koinotely, synetic, deffeonic, isotelesis, conterminality, unicsect, telor, etc. do not appear anywhere in that text.PRO: While I could go on about how the "compatibility relations" of bialgebras could be useful in modeling "incentive compatibility" and the partial ordering of preferences or "types" in mechanism design theory, however rather than using "types", employing extensive sorts (scaled or weighted "utility") and intensive properties (scale-invariant or didense topoalgebras), which relate to Lambek's pregroups and their grammar have left/right adjoints, and the isomorphism of inward/outward modules in Pratt's algebraic formulation of the Yoneda Lemma, or self-reference in terms of automorphism groups as they relate to Langan's space-time-object triality, which would shed some valuable light on the mysterious relationship between finite algebraicity and infinite modularity, or finite alphabets and infinite productions...I will refrain from expounding further on my own insights on the relative value of CTMU, until my opponent builds a substantial case.This sounds like more math name-dropping to me, but I would be interested to see how all these different areas are related.Proof of God? Langan claims that he has a proof of God. But his argument is basically the old teleological argument. Langan claims that everything must have a cause, otherwise it is "magic". But if we define this cause as "God" then we have merely replaced "magic" by "miracle". Also, Langan assumes various "principles" that seem far from evident to me. He chooses these principles on philosophical grounds, but these principles are not proven using rigid mathematical/logical arguments. Given the large number of definitions and presumption, there does not seem to be a lot that can be explained with CTMU. And the things that can be explained, are more or less already contained in the assumptions. [1] http://www.megafoundation.org... [2] http://www.polymath-systems.com...[3] Terry Gannon, Moonshine Beyond the Monster: The Bridge Connecting Algebra, Modular Forms and Physics, Cambridge University Press. http://f3.tiera.ru...(CUP,%202006)(ISBN%200521835313)(493s)_MP_.pdf