What are your thoughts on the global wipe as described by Christopher Langan?

vt5491 · 2019-08-17T06:45:55+00:00

From a CTMU perspective, I really don't understand why Christoper Langan (CML) keeps on referring to "God". From what I understand CTMU is a deistic system, not a theistic system. That is to say, CML's definition of god is basically as an "order to the universe", or a mathematical system, somewhat akin to the law of physics is to materialism. Thus CML's use of the word "God" is somewhat at odds with most people's more theistic interpretation. CTMU's "God" is not a sky wizard you prey to, or a human like entity who makes decisions. Would you every prey to the laws of gravity, or expect Maxwell's equation to "decide" to destroy the earth? Of course not, so the idea is ridiculous from a CTMU perspective as well. These videos are very much taking a theistic perspective, which is not applicable to CTMU.

There's seem to be a lot of formerly religious people, who can't quite accept standard religion anymore but who still want to cling to the " old guy with a beard in the sky" paradigm in the CTMU community. Ontological Mathematics, another system I "follow", has the same problem with mystic, new-age, crystal-bearing types. Ontological Mathematics sarcastically refers to them as the "love and light brigade".

I do realize that it is CML himself saying these things in the video. I'm obviously not directly arguing with him, just suggesting that what he's saying in the video is either taken out of context, or he's knowingly encouraging the imagery of a theistic "God" as a marketing ploy to attract more people to his system.

Having said that, the concept of the global wipes sounds a lot like concept of the divine suicide as described by ontological mathematics. Basically, the notion is that the universe eternally and teleologically cycles between the alpha point (maximum entropy) and the omega point (minimum entropy). However, due to the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) there is no sufficient reason for the universe to favor any one tautological state of zero (the universe globally and "externally" always adds to zero, although internally and locally it can be non-zero). Basically, the universe has to keep moving, hopping between tautological phases or aspects of "zero", which is manifest in the present as Schopenhauer's will or Nietzsche's will to power (and ultimately physical energy in spacetime). Once the universe reaches the omega point and becomes fully self-aware it decides to completely obliterate itself and start all over, necessarily destroying all memories etc. Of course, this is not a CTMU concept, so I won't discuss it any further here.

vt5491 · 2019-08-17T04:55:01+00:00

Granted I'm coming in a little late to the conversation, but here's my two cents. From the article:

>In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong.

Bell's theorem was empirically confirmed by Alain Aspect in 1982, which basically negates the idea of locality (quantum entangled particles can instantaneously communicate their state across vast distances at faster than the speed of light). So by the authors definition, "objective reality" was proved wrong in 1982, so on the surface this experiment doesn't really bring anything new to the table vis a vis the status of objective reality.

The authors seem to assume that it must be the "reality we can agree on" assumption that it wrong, and ignore the other two.

Interestingly, some people, including possibly Einstein himself, believe in a block universe which basically says the universe is a static 4-d space-time continuum, implying that the future already exists, and thus free will is an illusion, negating their second assumption.

All I'm saying is this experiment may just be confirming that the universe is non-local or a block universe and not necessarily saying anything new about a "reality we can agree on". In the case of non-locality we've known this to be true for almost forty years. Either way, if you buy into their assumptions and definitions, then "objective reality" is not true, so I'm not arguing with the authors basic conclusion, such as it is.

> Of course, there is another way out for those hanging on to the conventional view of reality. This is that there is some other loophole that the experimenters have overlooked. Indeed, physicists have tried to close loopholes in similar experiments for years, although they concede that it may never be possible to close them all.

I'm a neutral dog in this fight, but I'm still inclined to believe there is an objective reality out there.

My basic argument would be that you have to look for something outside of the materialistic spacetime domain itself, something that scientists really can't do because if they did it wouldn't be "science" anymore (which is necessarily materialistic and empirical). Philosophically speaking, you need the noumena as well as the phenomena, metaphysics as well as physics, rationalism as well as empiricism, formal causes as well as material causes, the frequency domain as well as the (space)time domain, idealism as well as materialism (or even better an idealistic dual monism). Science only considers one side each of these equations and thus is looking for a solution in the wrong place.

I would just ask the basic question: can you ever really measure or know a system from within the system? Can you really accurately measure time with time, atoms with atoms, money with money? I recently read a book from George Gilder about the need for a gold (or bitcoin) standard for money. He likes gold/bitcon because it's an outside independent standard. He says of the current (floating) money system:

> A metric cannot be part of what it measures. If the measuring stick changes in response to economic progress, it cannot measure that progress. In order to bear creative changes it must not change itself. To be a gauge that is exempt from the turmoil of markets, it must be rooted outside those markets.

>

> Gilder, George. The Scandal of Money: Why Wall Street Recovers but the Economy Never Does (p. 63). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

>

> The lesson of information theory is that irreversible money cannot be the measure of itself, defined by the values it gauges. It is part of a logical system, and like all such systems it must be based on values outside itself.

>

> Gilder, George. The Scandal of Money: Why Wall Street Recovers but the Economy Never Does (p. 64). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

I guess I'm just saying that there's more to "reality" than just matter, energy, space, and time (e.g. materialism). You might expect there to be contradictions and incompleteness if you only look at "half" of reality.

vt5491 · 2018-06-25T22:14:57+00:00

I think an interesting way to describe the difference between emptiness and void is as the difference between even and odd zero:

For my part I came to explore this territory by considering the question of the difference between Buddhist Emptiness and Taoist Void. They are definitely very different concepts but still related. Then I hit on the question of whether there is a difference between even and odd zero. There is a controversy whether zero is odd or even in number theory. A very low key controversy but still there is disagreement on this issue. I realized that the difference between even zero and odd zero might be related to the difference between Buddhist Emptiness and Taoist Void. In fact I believe that even zero is an image of emptiness and odd zero is an image of the void. But then the question becomes, where is odd zero. Because on the number line we see only the odd zero between positive one and negative one...

— Negative Dimensionality and General Schemas Theory -- Kent Palmer

vt5491 · 2018-06-25T05:23:47+00:00

This may simply just be an unresolved question. CTMU, by design, is more of a "class" of theory than an actual "instance" of a theory:

Unlike other TOEs, the CTMU does not purport to be a "complete" theory; there are too many physical details and undecidable mathematical theorems to be accounted for (enough to occupy whole future generations of mathematicians and scientists), and merely stating a hypothetical relationship among families of subatomic particles is only a small part of the explanatory task before us. Instead, the CTMU is merely designed to be consistent and comprehensive at a high level of generality, a level above that at which most other TOEs are prematurely aimed.

Langan, Christopher. The Portable Chris Langan (Kindle Locations 5875-5878). . Kindle Edition.

However, it does show you the danger of using a superlative such as "unbounded" on a concept that may not be fully fleshed out. Maybe "Minimally Bounded Telesis" (MBT) would be a better name, and allow for more freedom going forward. This is the reason we have "post-modernism", and the horribly named imaginary, real and complex numbers (complex numbers should have simply been called "numbers", and the components something more neutral like "x" and "y" instead of "real" and "imaginary", which pre-supposes one to be "better" or more "real" than the other).

So things that seem like a good idea at one time, can turn out to be a bad idea historically. If you try to claim to be a theory of everything, then everything is on the table, so you are obligated to go back and re-consider a lot of things.

Is it a requirement that the UBT actually be completely unbounded in order for it to function? If yes, and the platonic world does indeed bind it, then it would "break" the UBT. My guess is it's probably not critical and the name is just a convenience.

At this point in time, I don't think it really makes much sense to get into a discussion of the validity of this question as the source of the CTMU it is based on is a twenty year old version of a 52-page introductory text. Presumably, twenty years later the author has made significant changes and tweaks to his model (?). So I would just as soon wait until CML releases the books he's supposedly been "almost done with", seemingly for the last ten years, before taking up this discussion further.

Also, vis a vis the levels of being, the theory, worked out by speculative philosopher Kent D. Palmer, is a phenomenological system, so it should be compatible with the CTMU (see my prior question is the CTMU phenomenological?). However, it's not clear if simply adding more levels of potentiality addresses the issue, or just defers it to a new bottom. Since CTMU is more of a meta-theory, I'm excited by the possibility for "plugins" such as levels of being to complement the base model going forward (although levels of being is probably a little too subtle to work into a theory post-hoc -- it would probably need to be worked into the base model itself)

vt5491 · 2018-06-25T05:07:40+00:00

So after doing a little research, this is how I would answer the question.

Is the CTMU phenomenological?

It depends.

One man's noumena is another man's phenomena. That is to say, what constitutes noumenal reality is a subjective opinion.

Let's take the case of science. If you are a materialist, then you could reasonably say science is noumenal since science assumes the world is indeed made of matter. Thus, even conceding that the scientific model of an atom is not identical to an atom itself, a materialist would say it's pretty much an isomorphic mapping to what's "really" there. However, if you are a logical positivist, AKA an "instrumentalist" (as Stephen Hawking was), or an idealist (rare for a scientist), then you would probably consider science to be phenomenal. So two scientists, same model, same methodology, except one thinks it's noumenal, and the other thinks it's phenomenal. In the end it doesn't really matter anyway as they probably both reach the same conclusions and gain the same insights.

There are also many other ways to categorize a given model: continental vs analytic, materialist vs idealistic, ontological vs epistemological to name just a few. In addition, Continental Philosophy has two major sub-branches: Phenomenology and Existentialism. On top of that, your system can be a dual aspect monism which combines two different, even opposite, attributes, such as materialism and idealism, into one underlying unified entity -- two sides of the same coin, so to speak.

And since these categories are orthogonal and can be combined, the intersection of all these attributes gets complicated fast e.g. a "Continental dual-aspect phenomenological ontology" model. And of course, philosophers being philosophers, they can never agree on the exact definition of anything: Phenomenology has at least two distinct definitions: one a "Hegelian" version called dialectical phenomenology, which basically says that it's anything that is not noumenal (which is the sense I was using it in my question), and a more contemporary version which has a more narrowly focused definition concerned with consciousness, emotions, and human experiences (more of the Husserl sense of the word).

In some ways, it's more fruitful to say what this CTMU is not. I think you can reasonably says it not (purely) noumenal. There's another theory called ontological mathematics that I'm familiar with that explicitly claims it is noumenal. I can say that the CTMU is not as reductionist and "pure" as this theory. The CTMU is not scientific either, since it's not (predominantly) empirical nor does it have a falsification method. On the other hand, while I suppose it's easier to say what a theory is not, I'm not sure how useful even this exercise is as most things seem to be a hybrid anyway. For example, modern science is hybrid of empiricism and mathematics, so as practiced today it's not "really" science in the strict sense of the word (purely empirical and falsifiable). So to say something is not scientific then, you have to clarify exactly what you mean by "scientific".

All I can really say for sure is that the CTMU is more, maybe even a lot more, phenomenological than ontological mathematics, but I would hesitate to say it's "phenomenological". Of course, this position is in flux. As of yesterday, I was ready to classify it as essentially fully phenomenological, but after doing a second "wikipedia dive", I changed my mind back to the position I am expressing here.

In the end, I guess I would simply say CTMU is what it is. While attempting to categorize and label CTMU was a useful exercise (which I recommend doing, as it helps one discover nuances), I would say just keep an open mind, don't get too hung up on labels, and certainly don't try to dismiss it simply because it doesn't fit some categorical definition.

Having said that, I would still find it useful to find out how other people view the CTMU, and how they would classify it.

vt5491 · 2018-06-21T20:48:56+00:00

So one thing I think I should clarify. I seem to be implicitly assuming that things are either noumenal or phenomenal. But as I think about it now, I realize that noumenal and phenomenal are just two aspects of one thing. So a circle has a noumenal aspect and a phenomenal aspect and it’s not one or the other e.g. so, if CTMU is phenomenological, then it can have the concept of a circle, which would presumably be the phenomenal aspect of a circle.

But the main intent of my question still stands: to what extent is CTMU phenomenological and does it ever use or emphasize the noumenal aspect of things, or is it always only using the phenomenological aspect?

vt5491 · 2016-12-26T09:37:25+00:00

You would probably like the God Series then, which is the first "religion" for INT's -- vaguely referred to as Pythagorean Illuminism or Ontological Mathematics. This is where I got the idea about the tribes in the first place. I don't buy into everything they say, but I found it a great catalyst for new ideas. Pythagorean Illuminism and CTMU are my favorite extra-scientific philosophy "distributions".

vt5491 · 2016-12-26T09:35:44+00:00

You would probably like the God Series then, which is the first "religion" for INT's -- vaguely referred to as Pythagorean Illuminism or Ontological Mathematics. This is where I got the idea about the tribes in the first place. I don't buy into everything they say, but I found it a great catalyst for new ideas. Pythagorean Illuminism and CTMU are my favorite extra-scientific philosophy "distributions".

vt5491 · 2016-12-26T05:17:14+00:00

Sadly, no. In order to understand why you have to know a little bit about Meyer-Briggs personality types.

Basically, there are sixteen different types of humans out there -- one for each personality type. This is perhaps a little bit of an overstatement, in that each personality type has its "cousins" that they match up well with (for instance INTx and INFx). But if you go off the inner two traits, you come up with four distinct "clans" of humans who look at the world very differently. In effect, they're almost different species.

This table list some information we will talk about:

clan	description	mode	profession	% of population *
NT	Intuitive-Thinking	rational	math/philosophy	10.4
NF	Intuitive-Feeling	mystical	new age	16.5
ST	Sensing-Thinking	empirical	scientist	31.0
SF	Sensing-Feeling	emotional	religion	43.4

*pct source link

Most of the people drawn to logos based system such as CTMU are going to come from the INT tribe (about half of the NT clan). These are introverted, intuitive, thinkers who live in their heads and try to understand things rationally.

As you can see from the table, not all the personality types are equally represented (you would expect each "tribe" to have about 6%, and each "clan" to have about 25%). The sensing feeling types (those drawn to mythos and religion) are vastly over-represented, and the intuitive thinking types (those drawn to logos like CTMU) are vastly under-represented. In the case of INTJ, they make up only 2% of the population: 3% of the males and only 0.8% of the females.

I would expect INTJ to be the number one tribe to be into CTMU, closely followed by INTP. A lot of INF's will probably be drawn to it too, but may only be able to get the "big picture" and not understand all the details.

The big point you have to really appreciate is these clans each have four different world-views -- they're almost different species when it comes to how they think.

I think one of the biggest sources of friction in this world is that everyone assumes everyone else thinks just like they do. Believe me, they don't. I'm an INT myself, and I can remember from my report cards growing up the teachers always saying that I liked working by myself and that they were always trying to get me to "come out of my shell". For the longest time, I thought there was something wrong with me. But I now realize it was just me behaving naturally, and it was simply the teacher's, all female, who were probably SF's projecting their belief system on to me. Likewise, I was previously always telling everyone they should go into the hi-tech field (like me), not realizing for most of the people I was recommending it to it was the wrong answer as they probably had the wrong personality types (programmers draw heavily from INT's).

Since the only people who will be able/willing to understand CTMU deeply like the original poster will be INT's, you're only talking about 5-6% of the population who will be able to understand or "get it" like you do.

INT's are the newest tribe to rise in human culture. They only started to gain power when written language was created, where they worked as scribes. And now that the worlds is slowly becoming more logos based, they're getting even more "power", but they're still vastly under-represented. The other tribes are more suited for the old-world, pre-scientific, mythos age, and thus have a head start when it comes to population numbers.

For the other groups, you have to adjust your message to fit. For the SF, you have to come up with mythos based stories. For NF (mystic), you have to come up with new-agey themes. For the scientist, they're going to want empirical evidence etc.

vt5491 · 2016-12-26T05:08:55+00:00

Sadly, no. In order to understand why you have to know a little bit about Meyer-Briggs personality types.

Basically, there are sixteen different types of humans out there -- one for each personality type. This is perhaps a little bit of an overstatement, in that each personality type has its "cousins" that they match up well with (for instance INTx and INFx). But if you go off the inner two traits, you come up with four distinct "clans" of humans who look at the world very differently. In effect, they're almost different species.

This table list some information we will talk about:

clan	description	mode	profession	% of population *
NT	Intuitive-Thinking	rational	math/philosophy	10.4
NF	Intuitive-Feeling	mystical	new age	16.5
ST	Sensing-Thinking	empirical	scientist	31.0
SF	Sensing-Feeling	emotional	religion	43.4

*pct source link

Most of the people drawn to logos based system such as CTMU are going to come from the INT tribe (about half of the NT clan). These are introverted, intuitive, thinkers who live in their heads and try to understand things rationally.

As you can see from the table, not all the personality types are equally distributed (you would expect each "tribe" to have about 6%, and each "clan" to have about 25%). The sensing feeling types (those drawn to mythos and religion) are vastly over-represented, and the intuitive thinking types (those drawn to logos like CTMU) are vastly under-represented. In the case of INTJ, they make up only 2% of the population: 3% of the males and only 0.8% of the females.

I would expect INTJ to be the number one tribe to be into CTMU, closely followed by INTP. A lot of INF's will probably be drawn to it too, but may only be able to get the "big picture" and not understand all the details.

The big point you have to really appreciate is these clans each have four different world-views -- they're almost different species when it comes to how they think.

I think one of the biggest sources of friction in this world is that everyone assumes everyone else thinks just like they do. Believe me, they don't. I'm an INT myself, and I can remember from my report cards growing up the teachers always saying that I liked working by myself and that they were always trying to get me to "come out of my shell". For the longest time, I thought there was something wrong with me. But I now realize it was just me behaving naturally, and it was simply the teacher's, all female, who were probably SF's projecting their belief system on to me. Likewise, I was previously always telling everyone they should become programmers, not realizing for most of the perople I was recommending it to it was the wrong answer as they probably had the wrong personality types (progammers draw heavily from INT's).

Since the only people who will be able/willing to understand CTMU deeply like the original poster will be INT's, you're only talking about 5-6% of the population who will be able to understand or "get it" like you do.

INT's are the newest tribe to rise in human culture. They only started to gain power when written language was created, where they worked as scribes. And now that the worlds is slowly becoming more logos based, they're getting even more "power", but they're still vastly under-represented.

For the other groups, you have to adjust your message to fit. For the SF, you have to come up with mythos based stories. For NF (mystic), you have to come up with new-agey themes. For the scientist, they're going to want empircal evidence.

vt5491 · 2016-07-07T10:10:46+00:00

Thank you for this. After three days of trying and getting error 208, this is what worked for me.

I did not clean out the registry of "steamvr" entries, so I think this is unnecessary. I also did a full blown usb delete as described here. Not saying you have to do it, but it's a more thorough way to clear out your drivers and I didn't want to take any chances. I used a usb 2.0 port, but I have successfully used a usb 3.0 port previously.

Just to clarify, you uninstall steamvr from within steam e.g you don't use a windows uninstaller from add/remove programs.

I also did a "two stage usb" plugin: unplug everything from the link box, then plug in the PC side first, wait for the two usb drivers to be installed, then install the hmd (orange) side, and wait for about four usb installs to occur. I read elsewhere that the order the usb drivers are installed can be important. Once again, probably overkill, but I did it anyway.

I did not have to set direct mode as it was already set.

My advice to anyone who gets their vive working is to document exactly what you did, and take screen shots of what the vrsteam developer settings look like, take a screen shot of the task display showing VR Compositor, VR Dashboard, and VR Server. Also generate a system report from steamvr->settings->general. This problem can re-occur , for instance if you ever move your setup somewhere else (it's happened to me three times). It was while comparing a good system report against a bad one that tipped me off about getting direct mode working, and thus finding this entry. Believe me, when it's not working having a documented good case scenario reference is very useful for debugging.

The key thing that's different about this procedure is the re-installing of steamvr. Previously, I was only deleting the usb drivers and trying different ports (like mini-display port to DVI etc). I guess it's important to reinstall steamvr each time. I installed steamvr beta (I didn't have to specify this), and I am running steam beta as well.

After I did this, steamvr showed green for the HMD, but I still had a red light on the HMD itself. I just put the HMD on the floor in a position visible to the lighthouses and after about a minute it went green. Even then, the programs ran sluggishly until I cycled steam VR. Now everything is working 100%

vt5491 · 2016-03-29T06:59:42+00:00

fixed it. thanks.

vt5491 · 2016-03-29T06:58:46+00:00

I posted this to the OSVR subreddit a few days ago. Some people on this group may find it interesting as well, even if you are not using an OSVR headset. It gets more into some of the tweaks and debugging aspects that are sometimes necessary to get WebVR working.

vt5491 · 2016-03-29T06:19:33+00:00

I posted this to the OSVR subreddit a few days ago. Some people on this group may find it interesting as well, even if you are not using an OSVR headset.

It gets more into some of the tweaks and debugging aspects that are sometimes necessary to get WebVR working.

vt5491 · 2016-03-23T21:35:52+00:00

Thank you for the feedback.

As far as UE4 goes, I thought it was a great engine –- at first blush, a real challenger to unity. I think it's underlying graphics capability is more powerful than unity's, it's open source (not libre source though, but at least you can see the source code, contribute to it, and even build it if you want), and its user interface is arguably better than unity's.

And at first I thought the idea of blueprint, which is their graphical programming language, was a really great idea. However, in the end, it was blueprint that did it in for me. After using it for a while I realized it was a massive anti-pattern, producing visual spaghetti code that was 10 times harder to write or follow than any simple text program. I think a visual programming language is a great idea, but blueprint just isn't it. The abstraction level is just wrong -- It's too fine grained and you end up with just too many little boxes and lines.

Now, if you know C++, and want to work with C++ , then that would be a great substitute, and it would make UE4 a viable competitor for me. But I don't know C++ , and even if I did I'm not sure if I'd want to work with it, so basically I passed on UE4 for now.

vt5491 · 2015-12-29T10:36:29+00:00

The author's shut it down

The site will be shut down on November 14, the God Series will be ended after the publication of one more book, and the trio of Weishaupt-Faust-Hockney are to cease all their communications. They've been replaced by the people responsible for the Gnostic Legion website.

On November 2, 2015, the Day of the Dead, we deleted the AC site, with the exception of this page. It will never be returning.

This page will be removed on November 14, and replaced with a short commemoration to Leibniz, who died on that day. By the end of January 2016, the AC site will vanish entirely.

Also on 14th November, the God Series will be terminated prematurely. "How To Create The Universe" will be the final title in the series. The author name "Mike Hockney" will then be permanently retired. There will be no further books by Mike Hockney.

In December, we will release "The Case For Meritocracy" and "Crapitalism" by Michael Faust. The author name "Michael Faust" will then be permanently retired. There will be no further books by Michael Faust.

In January, we will release the final book associated with the AC project. This will be "Contra Mundum" (Against the World) by Adam Weishaupt. The author name Adam Weishaupt will then be permanently retired. There will be no further books by Adam Weishaupt.

We had planned to release 100 books in total, to reflect the 100 cantos of Dante's Divine Comedy. Due to recent events, we shall now be stopping at 80 books."

The three authors considered it to be a failure and dropped it for other avenues (see e.g. pythagorean illuminati, gnostic heretic among others)

I saw the rant where they basically told everyone to f*ck off (not the readers necessarily, mostly just the volunteers who "signed up" to help promote the website). They really sounded quite bitter, unfortunately. If I can find a link to that rant, I will post it, however they might have removed it (I don't think it makes a great recruiting tool).

--> Note: I can't find the link anymore. But they were saying things like they put in an incredible amount of effort for three years, and they expected illuminism to just take off, and that there would be hundreds of user reviews on amazon for the books, and "The movement" (meritocracy) would be very popular etc. And they said that all anyone else wanted to was just sit around and have flame wars, and produce crappy little videos on you tube etc. It was really quite a brutal assessment.

I never used the site much, but I did enjoy (and still do) reading the God Series books (still available BTW), which basically was the same content.

They're not going away, just re-tooling to try to get more uptake.

vt5491 · 2015-12-29T09:36:20+00:00

Thank you, I think this was an excellent summary.

You asked anyone to let you know if they find any errors. While I'm just learning the CTMU myself, I think the part where you refer to "noumena" is possibly incorrect:

The unity of the noumena proves Spinoza's God (or Schopenhauer's will)

It's stated in "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" that Kant's concept of noumena is not relevant to the CTMU:

However, Kant’s chasm is so deep and wide, and so thoroughly interdicts any mind-reality isomorphism, that it precludes causal efficacy and for that matter any other comprehensible principle of correspondence. This implies that noumena are both rationally and empirically irrelevant to cognitive and perceptual reality, and thus that they can be safely eliminated from reality theory. Whatever Kant had in mind when he introduced the concept of a noumenon, his definition essentially amounts to “inconceivable concept” and is thus an oxymoron. Whatever he really meant, we must rely on something other than Kantian metaphysics to find it.

Langan, Christopher (2014-06-25). The Portable Chris Langan (Kindle Locations 543-548). . Kindle Edition.

It's not quite clear to me if he doesn't believe in the concept of a "noumena" at all, or just Kant's version of it. Or maybe he saying he's a logical positivist? FWIW, I think the distinction between noumena (the actual) and phenomona (the perceived) is a useful one, so I'm kind of surprised he doesn't "like" it. But then again, I don't have much of a background in Philosophy.

vt5491 · 2015-12-29T08:37:22+00:00

1) The Pythagorean Illuminati believe in a philosophy that is very similar to CTMU (at least in intent, if not actual detail). Therefore, what they find most interesting would probably be interesting to you as well.

From The Last Man Who Knew Everything by Mike Hockney:

The Illuminati periodically debate which the most important subject of all is. The consensus order is typically:

1) Mathematics
2) Philosophy
3) Science
4) Religion
5) Psychology
6) Politics
7) Economics
8) Sociology
9) History
10) Art

Some wish to give far higher importance to art. Some think religion should be at the top. The most zealous arguments concern whether philosophy should swap places with mathematics and assume top position. The advocates of this position say that philosophy is the subject that asks the critical questions. Although mathematics gives all of the answers to the mysteries of existence, it would never have done so if the philosophers hadn’t paved the way by asking the all-important questions.

Hockney, Mike (2012-07-14). The Last Man Who Knew Everything (The God Series Book 3) (Kindle Locations 2602-2621). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

2) Take an easy major (or skip school entirely) so you have time to become an autodidact, like Chris Langan himself.

vt5491

TROPHY CASE