Christopher Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

[Laura]

Well, whoever has access to making comments might like to suggest he read "High Strangeness" or "The Wave" and give a link to online version. I've done the heavy lifting collecting data and he seems to not be inclined to do that.

 

[Bluegazer]

A brief summary of some CTMU ideas and Langan's paper on metareligion and the coming reality split (tech singularity vs. human singularity):

It is in that substack where I found Langan's work. I admit that his ideas are very good and very much in tune with what has been expressed and researched in the forum and Laura's work. Even so (and I left my comments also in the substack) that some of his ideas are not as new as they seem. Here I agree with Laura, where it would seem that Langan has not done the heavy lifting (and that is somewhat ironic because the man does weights!).

 

[ark]

Today I wrote a small piece related to the subject on my blog: Paying attention left and right.

 

[Chu]

I don't know much about him, but yesterday we were reading a small article of his, and it sounded like a whole bunch of word salad to me. With such smarts, if he can't say it simply and coherently, he's too "abstract" for my taste. The message was very simple (Atheist got it wrong), but he managed to make it 5 pages long, with not much substance. Or so I thought. I'll check what he says about language, but now I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Natus Videre]

I have the impression that Langan created a "logical thought framework" in which the latest theories (quantum theory, relativity, etc) can be "plugged" to explain the nitty-gritty, mathematical details of reality. But don't these details also define the framework? Why doesn't he go "all the way" to the details and challenge the assumptions of modern "science?" Maybe that's not his goal... It seems like he derived a general, ultimate definition of God, and stopped there.

Common CTMU objections and replies - CTMU Wiki

ctmucommunity.org

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.

 

[Laura]

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.

 

[luc]

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.

Just a note that in my edition of Secret History, this part begins on p. 68.

 

[zak]

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.

"For the greater glory of God", someone can post this short piece from Langan, or leave a link.
Thank you.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

"For the greater glory of God", someone can post this short piece from Langan, or leave a link.
Thank you.

Right now it's only available for paying subscribers on Langan's substack: Omnia ad Dei gloriam

 

[lilies]

Today I wrote a small piece related to the subject on my blog: Paying attention left and right.

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.

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.

From those furthest parts of the Universe, how many years light needed to travel to reach here and "form that image" for the telescope..

I thought with that image we might be looking at remote parts of the still ongoing 'grand cycle'. Non linear, not a straight timeline, but a circle. How those remote galaxies might be closer to the beginning of Creation, the "grand time cycle". On same cycle we come close to home, to Milky Way, Orion, where humanity [was] and is still being created...

Its like this photo might be as looking straight at a remote portion of cyclical time, the grand cycle. Not at linear-time the astrophysicists are theorizing.

 

[Natus Videre]

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.

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 does consciousness affect the distribution of galaxies? If everything is about balance, the question becomes even more complex. For example, would the 3600-year "cleansing" comet cluster hit the earth in the next minute if all souled individuals awakened to objective reality? Or would earth be spared because it would become more positive, i.e balanced and less "attractive" to the comets?
What about another close planet nearby that would "watch" what happened to earth, would it be affected by the "cleansing" happening on earth even though it is not "ready" yet for "doomsday?"

The C's have said that our sector of spacetime would be promoted to 4D when crossing the realm border. What are the boundaries of that "sector"? Are they even physical or quantifiable? Does it depend on consciousness, a hyperdimensional "slice" of consciousness?

 

[truepositive]

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.

 

[Bluegazer]

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?'.

This is a bit off-topic but I am seeing that the issue regarding the variation of the constant or rather the variation of the speed of light or gravity is becoming somewhat popular in the forum.

For example:

The way to the Unified Field - 3

This subject raises great questions and has fascinated me for decades : it seems that with the introduction of the Theory of relativity (TOR), one has, more or less consciously, locked the curiosity, which must be what feeds any scientific research, and what is faulty (the disturbing facts and...

cassiopaea.org

Check how tall you are?

A bit of a curiosity that maybe doesn't mean anything, but thought I'd ask anyway incase it indicates something about Earth/gravitational changes. I measured myself about 6 months ago because I have virtually no disc left between my last lumbar and first sacral vertebra and I was wondering how...

cassiopaea.org

Perhaps attention should be paid to the occurrence.

 

[lilies]

I found Langan collinear after reading CTMU and the paywalled Omnia ad Dei gloriam. His stuff pretty much mirrors what is agreed on here. I found the Langan Wiki super-helpful. Especially in light of what the C's pointed out, how objective reality looks to them in 6thD.

My hypothesis on the physicality-illusion:
We as spirits are hovering in the ether in a trance state, anchoring ourselves to (near) something like G.'s (high energy) Rays of Creation, which radiates like a Sun and constantly produces 'heliospheric events'. When any such "coronal mass ejection" event from the Ray occurs and it touches our spirit bodies in the ether, we translate it as a physical event in our '3D-Earth' group-dream.

When we feel pain and experience "death" here, we may be directly translating real 'Soul burn injuries' suffered in the Ether - from accidentally hovering close and touching a high energy Ray of Creation. If such spirit burn injury is too severe, then we "lose anchor" / lose focus on the 3D-Earth group dream. Stirred we switch into a new trance: we begin reading '5th Density Wave' instead. There we heal and Life-Review our collection of memories gained in the previous 3D Earth illusion.
Then by choice we re-focus on the old 3D-Earth dream and call it "Re-Incarnation".

We dream up a series of complex experiences (our lives): we learn lessons - our FRV changes -, so we gradually "shake ourselves more awake" ==> progress into 4thD Sleep, then onto 6thD 'light trance', then to 7thD complete wake-state.

Therefore all is physicality illusion from our subjective viewpoint. All is spiritual existence from the C's objective viewpoint. Physicality and spiritual existence reduce to same: Langan's Syndiffeonesis. Because its the same spirit that is dreaming both states up while in either 'Short Wave or Long Wave Cycle Sleep'.

 

[Laura]

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.

Regarding the laws of physics, or "constants", Ark is publishing a series on his blog that included, the other day, the following:

P.S.1. 01-04-23 A friend, physicist, sent me this morning a link to this video by Rupert Sheldrake:

​

(See the video on Ark's blog: Forbidden Science )

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.

I wrote a comment to the blog as follows:

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.

And then a second one:

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.