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

Pro's burden of proof was to show that CTMU is True Metaphysics. Here, true metaphysics means a unique theory that explains everything, a Theory of Everything (TOE). Langan, the author of CTMU, claims that CTMU is such a theory, and that this theory gives mathematical proofs of the existence of God, and the existence of souls, the afterlife etc. My burden of proof is that Langan's claims are exaggerated. CTMU is at best a philosophy, but it has little practical application and certainly does not have a valid mathematical proof of God.While studying some of Langan's text on CTMU the following two observations became clear to me:1. obfuscation: CTMU contains a lot of terminology. While terminology in mathematical and philosophical text cannot be avoided, the terminology in CTMU seems to be excessive. This is actually, also one of the reasons that it has been difficult to discuss CTMU. Any citation from CTMU would contain a lot of terminology that it would be difficult to follow for anyone who is judging this debate.2. abuse of math: Langan claims that CTMU is essentially "logic", or an extended version of it. However, CTMU clearly does not have the mathematical rigidity that one would expect from a logical/mathematical text. Principles that are valid in some strict mathematical context, are often used in a different context where those principles are not necessarily valid. One example is the "boundary of the boundary is 0" that is valid in algebraic topology, but not really beyond that. (This "boundary of the boundary" principle goes back to Wheeler, but Wheeler's text is essentially a philosophical text meant to inspire, but not necessary meant as a mathematically rigorous theory. Langan, on the other hand, does make such claims about CTMU.) CTMU combines many theories in mathematics and physics, but all in a superficial way.My opponent has used a similar style, using obfuscation and abuse of math:1. obfuscation: Well, I challenge anyone following this debate to understand what PRO wrote:"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. abuse of math: To support his theories, PRO 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"." However, it is clear to me that this book has NOTHING to do with anything PRO is saying. This was clearly a case of bluffing by citing a fancy sounding math book. My opponent has not refuted this.Other objections that I had:3. proof of God: Langan's proof of God is just the usual teleological argument. Perhaps he can show with cybernetics that there could be a first course, but that does not mean that there was one. And Langan also seems to equate "God" with "truth", "logic" etc.sure, logic exists, but that is not the concept of God that most people have.4. not accepted: CTMU is not a widely accepted theory. This does not necessarily prove that the theory is wrong, but it is perhaps an indication. The theory is not so new, and has been out for more than 10 years. This is enough time for scholars to have had a good look at it. rebuttals:PRO: Through a combination of ad hominem, red herrings, and guilt by association, my opponent has sought to prove that the CTMU is absolutely worthless.Langan, CTMU, and the megafoundation (the High IQ society that Langan founded) are closely related. For example, Langan uses the megafoundation as a platform for CTMU. Also, Langan seems the ONLY person contributiong to the CTMU theory. (In comparison, even though Einstein is considered the originator of relativity theory, there are many physicists that have contributed.) Langan says, that he judges other people's intelligence by whether they understand his CTMU theory. I think that CTMU may be a vehicle for self-promotion on the part of Langan. I only talked about Langan himself in round 4 as a possible explanation why the CTMU seems to obfuscated. I guess this can be construed as an ad hominem, but so be it.In the last round, PRO cites Langan on a TOE of Tegmark. I have no idea how this is related to our discussion, because I have never defended or even mentioned Tegmark's theory.debateAt several occasions, my opponent has refused to engage in this debate, and has blamed ME for it:PRO: I will refrain from expounding further on my own insights on the relative value of CTMU, until my opponent builds a substantial case.PRO: While I am eager to share my ideas with others, and how the CTMU has inspired many of them, I do not think my opponent would appreciate them so I will refrain from sharing more for the time being.PRO: While I could go much deeper on the topic of discussion, the CTMU, my opponent seems more interested in its author than his ideas.