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

1. Impenetrable terminologyAs I have written before, it seems to me that the CTMU theory uses terminology that is unnecessarily complicated. Perhaps Langan's is trying to cover up for the lack of substance, or maybe he is just a logophile [1].PRO: My opponent claims that the CTMU is intentionally obfuscative, difficult to read, does not conform to the criteria of mathematics, and is not worth attempting to understand. In particular, he jumps to a quote without mentioning the definitions for the terms described earlier in the paper on what is meant by the principle of "hology" (or self-composition). This indicates to me that my opponent is not actually interested in understanding the CTMU for what it is, and instead seek to show how it is impossible to understand after jumping ahead without a proper introduction to the subject.My opponent wrongly assumes that I skipped ahead in the text [2]. Although some of the terminology is defined before, it is difficult for the reader to remember all the terminology. For example, Langan uses the words synetic, and diffeonic. These words cannot be found in any dictionary. Langan does define these words, but they are merely synonyms for sameness and difference. But why would he not use these more common words then?Another word that he uses, topological, is not defined anywhere in the text. This is a word that is not often used outside of mathematics. And within mathematics it has a very specific meaning. But in mathematics it refers to a topology. But the topology used is not described anywhere in the text. According to Wheeler's "it from bit" doctrine, reality is discrete. So the topology Langan is indirectly referring to must be the discrete topology, but such a topology is rather uninteresting. On the other hand, Langan also cites algebraic topology, where he illustrates "the boundary of the boundary is zero". Algebraic topology for discrete topological spaces is trivial. But his examples suggest spaces that are not discrete. But then it is not clear how it fits in with the "it from bit" doctrine.But my opponent is perhaps more guilty than Langan if it comes to obfuscation. The excerpt that I cited in the previous round contains a lot of terminology that is unclear to me and most likely to the voters here as well.2. Bluff your way into mathematicsPRO still has not explained how the book [3] supports his argument. Does PRO agree that book [3] that he cited has nothing to do with his argument? Also, I am waiting for my opponent to explain how CTMU is related to compatibility relations of bialgebras, the Yoneda Lemma etc.PRO: There are many interesting parallels with on-going developments in academia which I've noted above.Such parallels only exist in a very superficial way. It seems to me that Langan borrows various concepts/results from various areas of mathematics and physics and puts them in a different context for which these concepts no longer make sense. For example, he uses the idea of "boundary of the boundary is zero" in algebraic topology, and gives his own esoteric spin on it to make a principle that he claims is valid in a much larger generality.PRO: Even though some may find his style of presentation distasteful, this still does not address the substance of his ideas.If one goes into more depth of the CTMU theory, then it becomes clear that it does not have much substance. At best, it is an unproven philosophy. The obfuscation does not necessarily invalidate the theory. But given that the theory does not have much substance, it seems that the obfuscation is a means to cover up for the lack of substance.3. What is CTMU good for?Langan makes strong claims about CTMU:"The CTMU is a theory of reality, or TOE, that has been constructed according to this blueprint. If, as a rationalist, one insists that absolute truth and knowledge are exclusively mathematical, then the CTMU is mathematics; if, as an empiricist, one insists that they reside exclusively in our direct perceptions of reality, then the CTMU is embodied in our direct perceptions of reality (including our direct perceptions of the comprehensiveness, closure and consistency of reality). The truth, of course, is that by the method of its construction, it is both. But in any case, would-be pundits who cling blindly to folk-epistemological "absolutes" like truth is never more than provisional, science is inherently without stability and there are no such things as absolute truth and knowledge are urgently in need of an intellectual awakening, and until it comes, should refrain from disseminating their irrational opinions to others who might gullibly mistake them for fact. Such truisms have their contexts, but these contexts do not include the highest levels of discourse regarding truth and knowledge, and they do not include the CTMU."(TOE=Theory of Everything)It is not clear exactly what CTMU can be used for. Even though it is supposed to be a TOE, one cannot derive any useful physics theories from it. If TOE would contain general relativity, quantum physics, string theory, or theories that can replace them, then it indeed would be very useful. But it is not at all clear how CTMU can help develop such theories that have predictive value. The CTMU does claim to have a proof of God, and that would be useful. However, this proof is just a version of the traditional teleological argument and is really nothing new. So at best, CTMU is a philosophy and a way to look at the universe, and not anything special. [2] http://www.megafoundation.org......