Christopher Langan is Unnecessarily Verbose

My opponent seems to think that if something can be described in fewer words, it is necessarily verbose. Of course, that is obviously absurd. I don't think my opponent really believes this - he's merely in "debate mode" and has acquired a rather severe case of tunnel vision. Virtually all philosophers go into more detail than is absolutely necessary for conveying their theories (as well as virtually all writers on all topics). Something is only verbose when it contains words or sentences which don't clarify, or clarify things which has already been explicitly stated, and can be safely eliminated without affecting the quality or clarity of the writing. Let's take one of my opponent's sentences as an example: "Those observations are all subsumed under my simplified version - they offer no additional impact to his point when conveyed separately, and, as such, doing so is unnecessary." Is "and, as such, doing so is unnecessary" really *necessary* to say? No, but it doesn't mean it's verbose. 1. Academia fails to realize that it"s unfit and unwilling to judge ideas outside of its confines. Those observations are all subsumed under my simplified version - they offer no additional impact to his point when conveyed separately, and, as such, doing so is unnecessary. His views on academia are made plain in both statements, though the second is much more of a summation than the first, which is perfectly fine - the point still gets across. - Not really. In fact, your simplified version misrepresents his point. His argument was not merely that academia is unwilling and unfit to consider outside views; it's unfit in part BECAUSE it's unwilling. I.e., since it is an intellectual closed shop, it is incompetent to judge his theory since it has little experience in dealing with such ideas. 2. Simplified: In order for a relation between two things to be recognized, they must first share some "supporting medium" at the most basic level " two things on different "planes of existence", so to speak, cannot be compared. As such, all real things must share a common "backdrop". The term "syndiffeonesis" is, in itself, unnecessary - the concept is clearly explainable without the need for the invention of neologisms out of thin air. - My opponent apparently doesn't understand the function of terms. Concepts are *never* explained in terms of the names we give them, they merely make it easier to talk about the concept. The term is not made out of thin air; it brings together "syn" and "diff" (two roots which are already defined) into a single term. The only reason Langan had to invent the word in the first place was because he was describing a concept which had not been thought of before (at least not in such precise terms). Kant had to invent the word "noumena", yet no one would complain about that. Language is always evolving, and new words have to start somewhere. Langan's idea of a "medium" is essentially common sense, and therefore doesn't need explicit explanation past merely naming it as a medium. - Not really. When most people think of a medium, they think of something which contains something else. The notion that the medium imposes order on the things it contains might not be obvious to some people. The "stratification" of a syndiffeonic relation is completely irrelevant to any practical understanding of the CTMU, and, as such, is unneeded verbosity. - No it's not. In fact, if someone were to miss that fact, the very concept of syndiffeonesis would appear contradictory. Moreover, the stratification is necessary for explaining the conspansive structure of the universe, which is necessary for explaining how reality self-configures. Monism is directly reached by the statement "all real things must share a common "backdrop". The fact that two things can be different in some aspects but not all is clear from my statement - "at the most basic level" shows that there can still be differentiation above it but not at it, which is exactly the same conclusion Langan reaches. - "Backdrop" is a mathematically imprecise term. This sentence doesn't convey nearly as much information as the original. It doesn't tie the term "syndiffeonesis" to the concept. It doesn't clarify what is meant by "supporting medium", and how it relates to the objects. It doesn't explain how a syndiffeonic relation is stratified. It doesn't pursue the implications of this concept (that reality theory must ultimately be a monic theory). It doesn't explain that two things can be different, their difference just can't be irreducible. 3. Simplified: Nothing referencing anything outside of reality is coherent. MAP is self-evidently connected to the Reality Principle, so an explicit statement pointing that out is unnecessary. - When proposing a principle such as MAP, it is perfectly reasonable to say what it is based on, even if it might seem obvious. What's more important: saving some people a second of time, or ensuring that everyone understands what you mean. Contradictions are, by definition, incoherent. The logical conclusion of my formulation of MAP is that reality is responsible for everything, since reality is everything, so of course it implies that reality is responsible for its evolution and structure. That's just one step of deduction away from my statement, and that step did not need to be drawn out like in Langan's writing. - Yes, but it explains *why* it is contradictory (and thus incoherent). 4. Simplified: Cartesian Dualism fails because, for mind and matter, if they were on different planes of existence, to be related, they must share a medium in common " therefore monism. The diagram was inherently unnecessary, hence the exclusion of any mention of it. The principles in Langan's writing are all represented in my statement, so there is no issue. - In order to demonstrate that the diagram was pointless, my opponent must prove that it did not help anyone grasp his argument better, or that there was no reason to think it might. Appealing to the fact that it is "obvious" to himself isn't a valid argument. 5. Simplified: The universe, since it cannot be compared and measured to anything "outside" it, cannot be said to grow or shrink " things can only be measured inside and within the bounds of the universe. MAP is a self-evidency that doesn't need to be referenced every time it is used. It's absurd to state "I'm using the law of identity" every time you solve a simple math equation - why is constantly bringing up MAP any different? - The only reason MAP is used in the first place is because it is thought to be a self-evidency. Does that mean it is pointless to spell it out? Of course not. That would imply that Aristotle was wasting his time when he wrote about the syllogism. The *implications* of MAP are even more necessary to spell out. My statement didn't give an example of a fraction being multiplied for a reason - it's unnecessary. - Again, this is irrelevant. "Doesn't explain that an expanding universe would be logically indistinguishable from a universe with shrinking contents (which becomes very important later on)." Again, things are verbose when they spell every simple conclusion out when doing so is unnecessary because the reader could have came to that conclusion themselves.