A brief summary of some CTMU ideas and Langan's paper on metareligion and the coming reality split (tech singularity vs. human singularity):
What are the CTMU's implications?
To summarize, the CTMU is a theory of reality-as-mind, in principle spanning all of science while permitting a logical analysis of consciousness and other subjective predicates (this does not mean that it has “solved all of the problems” of science and the philosophy of mind, but only that it has laid the preliminary groundwork). It provides the logical framework of a TOE, yielding an enhanced model of spacetime affording preliminary explanations of cosmogony, accelerating cosmic expansion, quantum nonlocality, the arrow of time, and other physical and cosmological riddles that cannot be satisfactorily explained by other means. The CTMU penetrates the foundations of mathematics, describing the syntactic relationships among various problematic mathematical concepts in a reality-theoretic context. It is the culmination of the modern logico-linguistic philosophical tradition, reuniting the estranged couple consisting of (rationalistic) philosophy and (empirical) science. It provides an indispensable logical setting for Intelligent Design. And perhaps most importantly, the CTMU enables a logical description of God and an unprecedented logical treatment of theology, comprising a metaphysical framework in which to unite people of differing faiths and resolve religious conflicts.
Here is an interesting exercise: get a copy of Langan's short piece "Omnia ad Dei gloriam" which is what Chu was referencing above. We all read it at the kitchen table and discussed it.
Then, get your copy of my book Secret History and turn to page 59 and read to page 72 beginning with: "In spite of the fact that we hold an “open opinion” regarding the source of this material," and read on for about a dozen pages or so. Compare to what Langan has written.
One thing that was not in Secret History was the idea of "soul smashing" which you will find in the Langan piece. That was from a session after SH was published.
"For the greater glory of God", someone can post this short piece from Langan, or leave a link.Here is an interesting exercise: get a copy of Langan's short piece "Omnia ad Dei gloriam" which is what Chu was referencing above. We all read it at the kitchen table and discussed it.
Right now it's only available for paying subscribers on Langan's substack: Omnia ad Dei gloriam"For the greater glory of God", someone can post this short piece from Langan, or leave a link.
Thank you.
The C's remark: "Humanity is still being created on D'Ankhiar" and when this cycle ends, we graduate to 4thD, humanity's original creation on D'Ankhiar - still ongoing - will also end.Today I wrote a small piece related to the subject on my blog: Paying attention left and right.
Since galaxies exhibit fractal properties, it is possible that even "at the point of creation" (if such thing even exists) they appear fully-formed. Much like fractals, there is a reason why a pattern forms, why galaxies aggregate in specific areas (for example, where there is a black hole—an attractor). But in this "non-linear" soup are also superluminal/instantaneous factors that have to be taken into account. Do superluminal waves "arrange" galaxies? Can entire galaxies pass through wormholes and emerge fully-developed?How on this photo we are "looking into the furthest past of this Universe" because the 13 billion years light needed to travel to reach here and "form that image" for the telescope.. So those galaxies seen right after the Big Bang, should not even be there (we should see some "galactic matter soup" instead), but we see completely mature, fully developed, very old looking galaxies! Too close to the theorized Big Bang - in linear time. So the entire Big Bang theory does not hold up.
A shorter way to phrase what i feel you are getting at is 'how do we know the laws of physics are constant in every part of the universe, and what does it mean if it turns out they are not?'.
A shorter way to phrase what i feel you are getting at is 'how do we know the laws of physics are constant in every part of the universe, and what does it mean if it turns out they are not?'. I feel like while we accept that gravity and time are somewhat mutable around black holes and such, there is a near-zero consideration for other variance. Of course this also opens up a venue of questioning whether both age and distance estimates of what we see on a large scale are (even close to) accurate. Personally, i accept that objects we have observed at enormous distances actually exist 99% of the time, but everything beyond that is speculation.
(See the video on Ark's blog: Forbidden Science )P.S.1. 01-04-23 A friend, physicist, sent me this morning a link to this video by Rupert Sheldrake:
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK
And there, in particular:
00:09:53
But I want to spend a few moments on the constants of nature too. Because these are, again, assumed to be constant. Things like the gravitational constant of the speed of light are called the fundamental constants. Are they really constant? Well, when I got interested in this question, I tried to find out. They're given in physics handbooks. Handbooks of physics list the existing fundamental constants, tell you their value. But I wanted to see if they'd changed, so I got the old volumes of physical handbooks. I went to the patent office library here in London - they're the only place I could find that kept the old volumes. Normally people throw them away when the new values (volumes) come out, they throw away the old ones. When I did this I found that the speed of light dropped between nineteen twenty-eight and nineteen fourty-five by about twenty kilometers per second. It's a huge drop because they're given with errors of any fractions of a second/decimal points of error. And yet, all over the world, it dropped, and they were all getting very similar values to each other with tiny errors. Then in nineteen fourty-eight, it went up again. And then people started getting very similar values again. I was very intrigued by this and I couldn't make sense of it, so I went to see the head of metrology at the National Physical Laboratory in Eddington. Metrology is the science in which people measure constants. And I asked him about this, I said "what do you make of this drop in the speed of light between nineteen twenty-eight and nineteen fourty-five?" And he said "oh dear", he said "you've uncovered the most embarrassing episode in the history of our science."
So I said "well, could the speed of light have actually dropped? And that would have amazing implications if so." He said "no, no, of course it couldn't have actually dropped. It's a constant!" "Oh, well then how do you explain the fact that everyone was finding it going much slower during that period? Is it because they were fudging their results to get what they thought other people should be getting and the whole thing was just produced in the minds of physicists?" "We don't like to use the word 'fudge'."
I said "Well, so what do you prefer?" He said "well, we prefer to call it 'intellectual phase-locking'." So I said "well if it was going on then, how can you be so sure it's not going on today? And the present values produced are by intellectual phase-locking?" And he said "oh we know that's not the case."
And I said "how do we know?" He said "well", he said "we've solved the problem." And I said "well how?"
And he said "well we fixed the speed of light by definition in nineteen seventy-two."
So I said "but it might still change." He said "yes, but we'd never know it, because we've defined the metre in terms of the speed of light, so the units would change with it!"
So he looked very pleased about that, they'd fixed that problem.
But I said "well, then what about big G?" The gravitational constant, known in the trade as "big G", it was written with a capital G. Newton's universal gravitational constant.
"That's varied by more than 1.3% in recent years. And it seems to vary from place to place and from time to time." And he said "oh well, those are just errors. And unfortunately there are quite big errors with big G."
So I said "well, what if it's really changing? I mean, perhaps it is really changing." And then I looked at how they do it, what happens is they measure it in different labs, they get different values on different days, and then they average them. And then other labs around the world do the same, they come out usually with a rather different average. And then the international committee of metrology meets every ten years or so and average the ones from labs all around the world to come up with the value of big G. But what if G were actually fluctuating? What if it changed? There's already evidence actually that it changes throughout the day and throughout the year. What if the earth, as it moves through the galactic environment went through patches of dark matter or other environmental factors that could alter it? Maybe they all change together. What if these errors are going up together and down together? For more than ten years I've been trying to persuade metrologists to look at the raw data. In fact I'm now trying to persuade them to put it up online, on the internet. With the dates, and the actual measurements, and see if they're correlated. To see if they're all up at one time, all down at another. If so, they might be fluctuating together. And what would tell us something very, very interesting. But no-one has done this, they haven't done it because G is a constant. There's no point looking for changes.
Since history is my main interest, this caught my eye:
'I said "what do you make of this drop in the speed of light between nineteen twenty-eight and nineteen fourty-five?" And he said "oh dear", he said "you've uncovered the most embarrassing episode in the history of our science."'
1928 was the eve of the 1929 economic crash that led to the Great Depression. 1945 was at the end of WW II which was brought on by the Great Depression. We are on the eve of a similar Great Depression right now, it seems, and also possibly facing a WW III.
I also wonder if fluctuating gravity waves could also be described as "unstable gravity waves" and is this just simply what gravity does? Also, could fluctuations in the speed of light be somehow correlated to the fluctuations in gravity? And, do both (and other unknown variables) have some profound effect on our reality, either on Earth or in the Cosmos?
The name of that period - the Great Depression - is interesting. Could it have been a period when gravity was increased, thus "depressing" reality, even to the extent of slowing light? That is, when gravity increases, the speed of light decreases?
Another speculation: does the mass consciousness of humanity have an effect on the "constants" of gravity and light.
Too bad no one in a position to gather the relevant data is curious enough to check these things out. It might even prove to be a predictive tool.
Who knows what kind of effects increased gravity and slower light might cause. I'll just note here, in addition to what I already commented, 102 years ago from 2020, there was the great flu pandemic... but, of course, it was a REAL pandemic. Wikipedia tells us:
"The earliest documented case was March 1918 in Kansas, United States, with further cases recorded in France, Germany and the United Kingdom in April. Two years later, nearly a third of the global population, or an estimated 500 million people, had been infected in four successive waves. Estimates of deaths range from 17 million to 50 million, and possibly as high as 100 million, making it one of the deadliest pandemics in history. [...]
"Most influenza outbreaks disproportionately kill the young and old, with a higher survival rate in-between, but this pandemic had unusually high mortality for young adults. Scientists offer several explanations for the high mortality, including a six-year climate anomaly affecting migration of disease vectors with increased likelihood of spread through bodies of water." (Spanish flu - Wikipedia)
The mention of the climate anomaly is a curious data point considering the fact that climate is a focus issue nowadays.
From 2023 back to 1929 is 94 years. The average of the two time spans is 98 years (and I'm just generalizing here off the top of my head about this), so one wonders if there is a cycle of fluctuations in the gravitational and speed-of-light constants?
Can't make much out of just two data points, but it does make one curious.