Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

The CTMU Club

56 members • Free

The Honored Few

4.1k members • $50/m

29 contributions to The CTMU Club
Question for Chris and CTMU Enthusiasts:
What if information possesses an "energy-mass" quality? Could what we perceive as "dark matter" actually be a form of information? This perspective invites us to explore the relationship between knowledge and the fabric of the universe. How might this reshape our understanding of dark matter within the CTMU framework? ?
1 like • Jan 6
Hey man, for future reference try to be more concise. I'm gonna leave this post up but try not to be excessive.
"Professor" Dave Debunked!
Hi guys, I have been working on this for a while and thought I'd share it here. I posted a comprehensive video definitively debunking any argument "Professor" Dave has made against the CTMU, starting with dismantling his slander and disinformation regarding @Chris Langan's IQ. I go over everything relevant to the CTMU and Chris in this video. I would hugely appreciate it if you guys gave it a watch, I worked very hard on this.
2
0
2 likes • Dec '24
He does a wonderful job dismantling the only actual claim Dave makes and does a good job demonstrating the CTMU basics. Needless to say, Dave is a coward with no understanding of logic or philosophy.
Evolution vs. Creation
Both "creation" and "evolution" are co-utilized by reality. This can be supertautologically verified through sufficient logical induction. i.e. think about this thouroughly enough and it's obvious that both creation and evolution exist and are used by one another to get shit done in the universe. ------------------------------------ Either God created evolution or evolution created God. In either case God -as described in most religions- would be perfectly capable of creating programs of evolution. If only to carry out his will with greater efficiency than he otherwise would if he were to divinely intervene in every single event, of every size, every second, of every minute, throughout the entire universe. It is logical that God would very well implement both evolution, and free will; perscribing both to the life forms through which are created. If only to assist him in shaping reality, and then divinely intervening when or if needed, to keep reality on the path he intends. Free will, mechanism, and evolution, are co-utilized with devine intervention in the operation of reality. All four of these things absolutely exist, they are used together, and they ought not be toiled against one another in this manner that has allowed them to rather bizarrely; split, and to compartmentalize the minds of hundreds of millions of passionate, truth seeking individuals that have been interspersed throughout the droning public -for thousands of years. Religious folk, intellectuals, artists, athletes and warriors; all who are passionate and truth seeking. There is no reason not to mutually open up our minds to one anothers views and values; to potentially realize: that we each hold a peace to the puzzle that lies before us.
0 likes • Dec '24
It's a dual-aspect monism :)
Question's about the dualistic nature of the two semi-models.
Does the non-terminal domain generate the terminal domian? Does the non-terminal domain do this through descriptive endomorphism? ----------------- Bound telesis is simply raw unbound telesis from the non-terminal domain: that has been configured into matter or energy; as it enters the ternimal domain. Correct? Descriptive endomorphism generates particles into space from unbound telesis. Correct? Linear ectomorphism then generates objects such as: atoms, molecules, stars and more -with those particles. Correct? Should the main body of unbound telesis not shrink as more of it becomes bound telesis and generates into particles?
1 like • Dec '24
I'll try to answer your questions one by one. For the first one, I don't think the correct expression would be that the non-terminal domain generates the terminal domain, as generative grammar does that. Generative grammar takes the inputs (the non-terminal) and gives you the outputs (terminal). For more on this I suggest you read Chris's paper on the Meta-formal system, wherein he explains this in depth. I think it would alleviate much of your confusion. I haven't read it in a long time so my knowledge is a little bit rusty. As for the second question, it is also addressed in the same paper. I don't want to mischaracterize something and risk the possibility of giving you false information so i'd tell you to read the part on conspansion in that paper wherein endomorphism is part of the process of conspansion which is a part of the self-dual distribution mapping of the generative grammar. Bound Telesis is not raw unbound Telesis, the distinction between the two is made because once you limit UBT in any way it is no longer UBT. UBT doesn't 'shrink', if you mean it either physically or ontologically. Not physically because it is not a physical phenomena, and not ontologically because UBT is simply Telesis without any configuration, Telesis with configuration would be regular telic potential which is a distinct category. In other words, to my knowledge, UBT is not shrinking because Telesis is being actualized. UBT is static. I apologize if I'm not being clear enough.
1-10 of 29
Omni Azyzz
4
76points to level up
@omni-azyzz-4613
In Telesis, we trust

Active 47d ago
Joined May 12, 2024
Powered by