วีดีโอ

Einstein did not love 3D space since he defined his theory in Minkowski 4d space. Conceptual mistakes are corrected by great scientists/philosophers. Keep learning sir and perhaps you’ll be quoting Chris Langan soon.

@@holymathradio the "3d space" footnote is the crux of this comment? not the fundamental failings of, jee i dont know, not saying anything that can be meaningfully be understood, discussed, and applied? are you joking?

Langan uses the language of formal systems, formal languages and automata to describe the system of reality. He comments on Kant and wittgenstein for his concepts on Mind/Reality mapping. He treats general relativity and quantum theory in the evolution of reality. It’s all state-of-the-art and cut and dry. On the other hand, you quote « Einstein » to explain that reality needs to be reduced to simple things like 3D space. Your credentials on what is « babble » are therefore not too great based on my remark above.

Thanks for the feedback ! If you found interesting pieces, I recommend getting familiar with the CTMU concepts and author subsequent writing. It will bring axis of reflexion and technical vocabulary for these topics. Some of my intellectual journey is also documented on this channel. I’ll keep in mind to reinforce talking without notes as an improvement axis. I definitely have had some success on topics that I had in my mind for days and delivered without notes. Some of the aspects of the CTMU such as the 3-partition of syntactors as (global, agentive and subordinate) appear more complex and less primary than the simple ideas of theory of reality grounded on a logical tautology let’s say. However, these « simpler » concepts of logical tautology could be deceptively clearer because thought of abstractly. The CTMU makes sure than no abstract concept floats in the air (which would be hard to explain) but rather gives them the structure to emerge and reflect reality.

dont criticize him for using notes, these are very complex topics and it is no small task to even write a comprehensible script about it, that does not mean he doesnt understand it.

You can make your theory harder to falsify, by ensuring many paths don’t blow it, but ultimately the burning candle of your theory can always be blown by one you have not explored (or by a « change of global laws of physics »). My metaphor stands. The problem of induction is real. I am not arguing that scientific method does not work, I am pointing out the fact that the reason scientific method work is because a rational framework makes it work. Short of it, it is comparable to believing in magical ghosts granting the blessing of the scientific method to mankind. The criticism is that academia does not draw the implications of that framework, and wrongly applies the scientific method to topics that are known by other means proper to that rational framework (namely, logical induction). The CTMU gives a rational ground to knowledge and truth.

@@holymathradio "but ultimately the burning candle of your theory can always be blown by one you have not explored (or by a « change of global laws of physics »)." i see a number of problems with this statement (whether or not they are intentional). first, you say the burning of the candle can always be blown by one you have not explored. There is a gap here. Given a truth, a theory is either right, or it's wrong. In other words, an apple falling down is due to gravity: this statement is either right or wrong. If it's wrong, then yes, the candle can be blown out by some experiment. But consider the alternative: what if it's right, and gravity is truly what caused the apple to fall? in this case, no experiment you could ever try would blow out the candle, because this "candle" is true. This brings me to my next point: the candle metaphor is flawed. Candles have the connotation of impermanence. They can be blown out or the wax can be fully used up. But when we talk about a hypothesis, the hypothesis may very well be right (even if we can't prove 100% and only 99.999% that it's possibly true, even if we never know for sure it's right, nonetheless it could still be an accurate depiction of reality). Given this, wouldn't the candle analogy be flawed? if the hypothesis is true then i think a more pert metaphor would be an unbreakable wall. We can punch this wall, we can use a catapult, we can throw whatever we want at it and it won't break. Going further with this analogy, humans will never know for sure that the wall will never break. They can try new experiments like nuclear weapons, they can try even more powerful future technologies. But if the wall is truly unbreakable, that is, the hypothesis/theory is truly correct, then nothing we do can break the wall. Nothing we do can blow out the candle. This is the point of the scientific method. To continue to test, to analyze, to try to find a flaw, and the more we test, the more we analyze, the more sure we are that the wall can never be broken, that the candle can never be blown out, that the theory holds.

also i dont really understand your point about the problem of induction. How does this relate to what we are talking about?

If that helps, the wax of the candle is permanent and does not run out in my analogy. I recommend using the vocabulary of the CTMU for precise concepts on reality (the CTMU Singularity TH-cam channel is a good source of information).

The only unbreakable thing is the will of G.O.D. I cannot comprehend your wall. I understand that you mean a fixed unbreakable ontology, that you would approximate with epistemology up to a point where you would feel 99% sure that there is a wall, but my candle is epistemology. Your « theory that there is a wall » still lit up like a candle, and is shining as long as you test it, with the possibility to be blown away (with your 1% chance however your compute that). Again, the wall could disappear on your next attempt for all we know, so I don’t understand how your build your probability of 99% short of higher framework of knowledge going beyond experiment. The CTMU gives you the ingredients required to explain why there is a wall, where it originates, why you perceive it. It is a framework where knowledge is without structural gap and in which empirical findings can be stored

What do you think of his series StarTalk ? Great watch in general. I mostly dont agree with his classification of truths

@@holymathradio Neil himself is a source of what he calls "political truths" -- falsehoods repeated over and over again until they are generally accepted. His Bush and Star Names story being a good example of Neil's "political truths". Neil repeated this false account of President Bush's 9-11 speech for eight years, from 2006 to 2014. Then in 2014 Sean Davis called him out. A lot of the explanations on StarTalk are wrong. His explanation of the rocket equation left me wondering how he got past Physics 101.

How is your day going my friend ?

The point is that rational « a priori » knowledge has a structure. There is an equivalence class of religions on the level of the proper description of reality (the rational intersect logically induced). The fundamental denial of Christianity seems irrational as truth preserves the fundamentals of Christianity

what the fauci are you yapping about oh my science you are so annoying

@@holymathradio oh but it doesn't. anyone can make a conclusion/truth appears rational with the right premises. But if the neither the premises nor the conclusion is measurable then the rationality of it is questionable.

My rationality would be questionable according to what ? (Rationality) There is a seed of knowledge. The accepted storytelling of the theory of knowledge using mythological characters from the theory of evolution (restricted to materialism), has energized the free investigation of the global telor by academia and proved partially successful, but it has not properly identified secondary telors and the overall structure of truth. That’s why academia fails to account for ultimate reality and mankind. Reality is logical and generative and cannot be measured by experience lest all it ever did was experimenting on itself via global distributed law. But reality has global/local dual aspects (you being an example of a local instance of reality). Reality binds Telesis generatively and keeps an overall rational structure, in a unified truth.

@@holymathradio according the lack of measurement, something can't be logic if it can't be measured.

Some of us consider Christopher Langan, through the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, upgraded our understanding of knowledge. Faith and knowledge are coupled. It is rational to have faith in a unified agentive G.O.D., and Christianity becomes a language referring to this rational G.O.D. Evidence is embedded in a rational framework that unifies truth inside the self-configuring self-processing CTMU.

It's hilarious to me that someone so steeped in the Dunning-Kruger effect is attempting to use it to bolster their own delusions. 😅

Sphere can be modelled with 3 lines in euclidean space. 4D numbers can also be used (quaternions) to represent 3d rotations and sphere. However, I would argue the underlying math of quaternion (the coordinate of each vector coordinate) are real numbers represented on a line.

Hey ! Some of us believe we live in the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" described by Christopher Langan. In this TOE, , reality models itself (talks to itself about itself). Theory, model and the universe are 3 aspects of the same identity of reality. That's where I come from with the distinction of terminal/ non-terminal reality and the importance of the existence of the lines in the model of curves.

Thanks sir ! Indeed, a curve is not just « a curve ». A curve exists because it is perceived (I adhere to the CTMU idea that objects stem from infocognitive monism, I.e. the curve is properly defined both as the information and the syntax that structures the information). In other words, the syntax of perception of the curve (what you called abstraction) adheres to its essence. And the syntax of perception of curves that I know involve lines. Even if curves are found in terminal reality, lines might then precede them in the non-terminal reality that generate and properly identify them. Thinking about it further, the best mathematical tool to define quantities with curves might be the Fourier Transform. With the Fourier transform of a function, a signal becomes the sum of weighted cosine waves. Each cosine wave has a coefficient depending on its frequency. The Fourier transform is the function that gives you the coefficient for each frequency. It describe most functions with « waves » (any integrable functions « finite energy », and also some infinite energy (infinitely periodic) with diracs) . Does the Fourier transform means that « waves » are also a proper way to model the world ? First, the Fourier transform has « linear numbers » everywhere in its coefficient and inside encoded frequencies. I adhere to my own definition of numbers which generate numbers « together with a line ». So actually all mathematics might be generated non trivially from a line. x+x is like adding a vector on a line. These are the numbers used in the Fourier transform to organize and identify the waves with frequencies and weighting coefficients . Even forgetting those « linear numbers », you will notice that a line cannot be encoded by the Fourier transform. In other words, Waves and curves cannot describe lines ! Line beats curves just as Rock beats scissors. Everything I know tells me lines are more elementary and powerful that curves. Making them a better building block of reality (or show me a « curved » number system). On another point, I define multiplication from the real numbers, so I can uniquely identify that we could define 1 as that which satisfy 1*1=1+1, i.e. define our own same exact number system with 1*1=2. Most mathematicians define multiplication from natural numbers by induction. They are less prone to generalize past the conventional usage that we have assigned to constants. My argument to ignore natural numbers induction, and to rather define numbers directly from real numbers, is this : a house does not come into existence by the mind arranging atoms together. Rather, the mind arranges bricks together. Even though natural numbers are more « elementary » and microscopic than real numbers, real numbers are then understood directly from real numbers (0,1,+infinity) due to the higher level of complexity they exhibit . Their high level geometrico-logical axiomatic definition matters for their definition just as the map of the house make the house emerge. With this perspective why does 1*1 = 1? For all the beauty that the map of reals numbers must have, we look how to best organize the properties of numbers. If we are looking for symmetry, parsimony (esthetic standards), then multiplication becomes naturally (« canonically ») defined with 1 as 1*1=1 (which also matches with what you expect for natural numbers and common-sense meaning of multiplication). x+x = x * x also has a form of beauty to define a non-zero 1 start symbol, because you would have 0 + 0 = 0 * 0 and 1+1 = 1 * 1. And also infinity * infinity = infinity + infinity. It is not without charm. Maybe Terrence is unto something. But 0 + e = e, 1 * e = e and the related laws are probably the core properties to choose. That way, we partition the additive and multiplicative properties, keep high symmetry between their expression and attribute them to specific constants (0 and 1 respectively). Then, we only join addition and multiplication where they need to meet (distributive law). This separation of the signature (+,*) of numbers is a better candidate for what generate numbers. Especially because numbers are not just about combining + and * (if that was the case, x + x = x*x would be perhaps more desirable). They also, need continuity and a generative principle.

The proof of God resides in metaphysics. Where G.O.D. is Ultimate Reality (as proved by the CTMU), this is another arrow in the quiver of those that believe G.O.D. spoke through Christianity. Specifically, numbers can be modelled with constants that reflect the christian Holy Trinity. There might be other interpretations of the mathematical trinity, but the "stock of christianity", i.e. its credibility, perhaps went 1 notch above (as far as I am concerned). As far as the 3 constants merging into 1, the trinity makes sense as a whole to build real numbers.

Congrats on making it here !

Yesterday was the The Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, « Trinity Sunday ». With the right equality sign, the equation 1=3 might be onto something ;) Unless you like counting inside the multiple of 3s, in that case 1’*1’= 1´+1´+1´=3’ (cf. 3*3 = 3 + 3 + 3). But 1x1 =1 describes the canonical multiplication with the related multiplicative identity and should be a better equation without context ;)

@@holymathradio ✝️🌹

My take is that the sum of three 1’s and three, share a numerical identity, via diffeonic syntax. Although a square peg can be the complement of a round hole with topological scaling and reshaping, the initially stated diffeonic aspect may prevent it to fit depending on whether these dynamic transformations are grammatically allowed in your given stated-universe. Either the universe allows transformation and it fits, or the initial difference remains. A key idea of the video regarding infinity is that if “infinity” wants to emerge with a given structure relative to (0,1, infinity), then all the real numbers emerge. Instead of distributing infinitesimals, onto a point-wise medium that would require infinitesimals to begin with to receive the infinitesimals (a sort of unsatisfying loop left in the air) , you can make the real number system solve the “will of 3 constants”. Father, Son and Holy Spirit work for me as primary interpretations of the constants (with some secondary permutations), but I am guessing you can find aspect of the Shintoism trinity as well.

Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" by belief and practice, as well as by birth. (in quotations for in reality he was a Muslim, one that declares that God is One) He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims. Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted [James 1:13) God cannot be tempted (John 1:29) Jesus was seen (1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God (Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man (Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn (Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died (1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die (Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation (Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation (John 4:6) Jesus grew weary (Isaiah 40:28) God cannot grow weary (Mark 4:38) Jesus slept (Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep (John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful (Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful (Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing (Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing Soon after Jesus had selected his twelve apostles, according to Luke, he " gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them: 'Take nothing for your journey, neither staves nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter, there abide and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." This is the entire charge of Jesus to his apostles when he sent them out to convert the world, as reported by Luke, who claims to give the address or a portion of it, and that presumably the most important portion, word for word. The language here attributed to Jesus conveys no idea that he had any purpose of founding a new church. Neither here nor anywhere else, in the language attributed to him in the New Testament, does he explain the phrase " the kingdom of God " to mean a new ecclesiastical organization. In several passages he does use it to signify the celestial dominion after the destruction of the world; and this is therefore presumably its meaning everywhere. The gospel of Matthew is much further than that of Luke in its report of the charge of Jesus to his apostles: "These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I am come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother... He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." This charge, as reported by Matthew omitted nearly all the main ideas that would have been appropriate in an address instructing the twelve to preach the foundation of Christianity. It does not say whether Jesus wished to reform or to supersede Judaism; whether his principal purpose was ecclesiastical, moral, political, or sanitary. The remarks about healing the sick and casting out devils is the most explicit of all the instructions.Certainly no reader can learn from that charge that Jesus intended to establish a new religion; and much less can he learn any feature of the faith or discipline of a projected new church. And this address is that portion of the New Testament where such information should be given most clearly. He made no doctrinal definition and no ecclesiastical organization. He did not use the key words of the original doctrines necessary to Christianity or a new church, nor the keywords of ideas afterwards associated with Christianity, such as Incarnation, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation. The subjects to which the most space or most prominence is given in the sayings attributed, in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission. The new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity. Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity: "And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church" -Homily 17 Section XIX On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.” -Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5 There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. The names of many of these books, and the texts of some, are preserved. Distinguished saints and learned fathers of the faith openly commended the invention and acceptance of false- hoods designed to aid the conversion of the world to what they believed to be truth. Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1 God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

Since numbers are understood as an elementary model of metaphysics, they require a formalized understanding of metaphysics . The CTMU is the kind of precise metaphysical language in which to embed the Christian faith and the related number interpretations. This channel explores the CTMU in other videos

Hey, I am generating these images with Chat GPT to illustrate concepts in my videos. I am hoping to gather these images and have a useful collection of illustration of metaphysics at some point. Glad you like it. What are you looking to do with that specific image ?

Hello there ! Follow-up on this, just published all my images. You can find the text prompt I used to generate it. imgur.com/gallery/confessions-of-ctmu-part-2-pN7b8Ig

Appreciate thanks

Any (light) content you recommend as an introduction to this faith ?

Thanks!

Not following every correspondance you are suggesting. The trinity mostly suggested in the video is the Sign/Interpretant/Object, as in the Semiotic theory of Pierce. Langan has often referred to this as additional commentary to his ANKOR paper. As far as the Christian trinity is concerned, I explore how it may be interpreted in the CTMU theory with a broad brush, I do not have a fully formed theory to share.

Sure. The voice visualization is done using : animusvisualizer.webflow.io/ and the pictures are drawn with generative AI (DALL-E). Some pictures are hard to get but some are surprisingly quite on point at the first prompts Besides that, I just record my screen on a mac using quicktime player, and edit/insert pictures with Final Cut Pro.

The problem if consciousness isn’t computable is that you have no reason to believe in any production of it. It defeats the concept of consciousness and perception while it is self-evident that these aspects are part of reality. Chris Langan approach is to outline specific reality requirement (syndiffeonesis = difference in sameness, multiplex unity = multiplicity in unity), as principles that solve the paradoxes they describe. You need to reach a point where consciousness is computable and truth value can be ascribed to perception thanks to deep structural co-dependance between perception and logic, but also between perception and reason to exist (reality has nothing but itself to inject reasons to exist)

0:25 encountering his anomaly

0:59 it has been said, 1:13 CTSM says

You did not finish the video past 1:13 :) ?

Thanks for your thoughts ! Yes the CTMU provides a ground for logical empirism, drawing the broader causal relationships in which it is included. I understand the reticence to rely on Logical Induction given the imagination of the human mind. However, probably the worst kind of Logical induction is no general induction at all, where causal gaps fill the “scientific language”, and everything is glued together by magic and no meta-relationship is drawn. Knowledge becomes segmented with forcibly enforced fake boundaries drawn by people claiming they have logically induced the right boundaries for their field of work (they have faith in their “waters” rather than logically inducing a rational universal model of the world). Just like Kant, they kill knowledge by segmenting the process of logical Induction to their own locally functioning models, and leaving everything else to “Noumena” solved by other people. This amounts to distributed irrationality and only works because the world actually has a universal rational model holding things together. In the CTMU, the Arche of the world is not Water, but the CTMU itself. A self-reflective, self-configuring, self-processing Language. The CTMU does not prove any invented faith but gives an interpretation framework through which to understand what anything including faith is about, based on the general logical induction. The CTMU says that large parts of religious faith, including Christianity, refer to real ingredients of the CTMU and so real ingredients of Reality. Something your local mathematician believing in the waters of his mathematical symbols probably has no conception about and no impetus to investigate (to the detriment of knowledge and rationality)

@@holymathradio Thanks for your reply, I see. While I do not see an unconditional proof without premises though, it’s still a fascinating approach. Viewing it through the lense of hyperstition might be an interesting endeavor. Would you say that Langan fits in the broader anti-correlationist/speculative realist current in contemporary philosophy? It doesn’t seem that far of, regarding the post-kantianism.

Your Model seems to be what is the case when you identify yourself with the Father. Then Jesus is at your right hand, but what leads you there would be the attracting Holy Spirit at +∞ rather than an orthogonal complex dimension with i. That would be my partial interpretation of the model if 0 was man. The thing with i is that it rotates to -1 (the opposite of the son), so it is difficult to interpret it. I see i as Jesus Himself rotating in Heaven on the unit circle, where the positive semi-circle becomes identified with the Jesus-Ascended-in-Heaven, while Jesus proper remains at 1

@holymathradio Interesting stuff, do you have any formal education in maths?

Thanks for that very informed post. Yes, Einstein did not end Space, neither Langan Logic. Both revolutioned these concepts in important ways. I take liberties with the technical language to paint a picture and draw parallels. You understood correctly my identification of Absolute Logic with the idea of a naive "complete stack of all knowledge, truth or logical derivations". More profoundly, it is a rejection of determinism by external set of laws. I kept the idea that CTMU remain highly logical by asserting that Langan gives the general invariant holding Reality/Logic together. My point is mostly that Logic stems from itself and is distributed, so there is no unified deductive theory that will lock and freeze beings in a "block of Logic". Logic is not static, but fluid. Relativistic, but also locally self-generated (and globally redistributed) by Telors. We are frozen in the super tautological aspect of Logic according to langan, but this grants us some amount of self-configurability. I am rather like a painter with intuitions I wanted to convey rather than a technician using precise language in that video, and the people technically aware of the nuts and bolts can interpret with a more detailed understanding. Even though Gödel attacked the idea of the block of Logic, I am not aware of a theory that resolved those problems. Scientists are still looking for the external set of laws that will explain phenomena/consciousness/…. 5:02-5:12 Yes, Langan gives a justification for modern science. When I say that their methods will fail, it is as regard the comprehensiveness rather than specific content produced . 6:01-6:13 Langan theory of reality is linguistic and so could be partially represented in such a way, but it is a blend of geometry and linguistic. This video is inspired by a short clip of Langan explaining to Michael Knowles that his idea that Reality had to be both linguistic and geometric came to him at 14 year old on his ranch. Regarding the passage : 6:14-6:17 , Langan has conveyed multiple time that "nothing moves". Logic is written within syntactors as syntax is getting re-written and layered deeper inside the objects. The contraction intuition should be correct, as long as the inner expansion is coupled with the re-quantization. The proper full intuition of Logic might be an oscillation of conspanive cycles rather than a contraction, I took 1 aspect of the conspansive manifold.

@@holymathradio Thank you for your response 🙏

Cocorico l'ami.

It means that I am from France :) congrats on suggesting the true answer !

What do you understand by self-resolving Paradox ? It seems to refer to the idea that the double inclusion of reality with itself ("topological" and "descriptive"), resolves the syndiffeonic sameness with difference "mystery" of the universe, but definitely one of the hardest point to fully map and grasp.

In the context of reality, an implosion. Not in the context of reality, clarity. As a kind of sounding board, I've generally bounced ideas between philosophies and religions. For instance, I don't see how Re-incarnation is compatible with Christianity as Christopher Langan talked about in a recent clip on his CTMU Radio channel on TH-cam. I do count the possibility of a past incorporeal life, as par Psalm 137. As a thought experiment: between Jesus and a Chess Grandmaster, who should technically win during his earthly ministry? Symbolically does chess represent itself "Topologically" and "Descriptively." Post and Pre-ascension, it would be no contest. Does Syndiffeonesis apply also to the theory? @@holymathradio

If god only can "speaketh", why anyone thinks this would be "perceiveth ". Nobody speaks that language anymore. Talking in an old-south-west-suaheli-dialekt will have a similar "perceiveth"-chance.

Swahili is expressive. (it's a bit of a meme?) The Lord's Prayer was written in Swahili as the theme song in a PC Game Civilization 4. "Baba Yetu." Abba in Aramaic. If people in Africa have I.Q's of 60-80. How else but expression? Perhaps to some extent they emulated the Whigs in the UK? In the US there was a split into the Patriots and Sons of Liberty. @@guruware8612

Thanks for those references. I am not sure all of them will apply to the same degree as Jesus sitting at the right hand of God, but the analogy definitely applies. Exodus 15:12 - “You stretched out your right hand and the earth swallows your enemy” another one on theme

@@holymathradio Exodus 15:11 would imply to me God as one person. Like effectively to me, Elohim would be finite & derivatives of the Christ, but not the Christ. John 1:19-20"This is the witness of John.... Not the Christ." In the fullest sense Jehovah is the Father. "He who has seen me, has seen the Father." Though God could have made a different choice. Tent of Joseph or tribe of Ephraim. Psalm 78 67 And he rejected the tent of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, 68 But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved; Psalm 137:1 137 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down; yea, we wept when we remembered Zion. Or as a Dual Aspect. God is often referred to as Jehovah Elohim. Except Psalm 50 Swedenborg supported a dual-aspect monism. Psalm 50 God, Elohim-Jehovah, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof. 2 Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined forth.

Thank you ! Appreciate the creative input from the CTMU community.

Thank you

Thanks for the support ! Appreciate it