Proving Divine

Tuukka Virtaperko

unread,

Jul 17, 2012, 5:46:55 AM7/17/12

to ctmu-di...@googlegroups.com

Someone using the nick subtlecalmingflow posted this question. It was stuck in spam and I don't know where it's now. One would expect that if I marked the message as NOT spam Google Groups would post it instead of deleting it. But it went like this:

"http://wakingvigilantresolute.scienceontheweb.net/
 
What do you think of this work?"

I quote the link:

"Quoting the wikipedia on isomorphism; 'In a certain sense, isomorphic
 structures are structurally identical, if you choose to ignore 
finer-grained differences that may arise from how they are defined.'"

That sounds like an unnecessarily complicated way to say that isomorphic structures are "similar".

"Langan is suggesting that language and reality are structurally identical from the perspective of informational correspondence."

How does that explain revision of theory in light of observation? If caloric theory, which is language, was identical with reality at the time people believed in it, then it would have been true and heat would actually have been a weightless gas or liquid that flows from hot bodies to colder ones.

"Langan is suggesting that language and reality are structurally identical from the perspective of informational correspondence. He is basically arguing for a synonymical logical tautology which creates incompleteness because of ignoring the finer-grained differences; and this is why he treats the Unbound Telesis as quasi-real instead of actually real, and why he presumes there is no actual/real continuum, and why he assumes the hology has no causal input to matter."

Okay, this makes some sense but is weirdly expressed.

"

Unbound Telesis is described or defined as "an ultimate self-generalization" as "a featureless existential potential" or "undifferentiated ontological potential".

Since existence or being, pertains to the particular characteristics of Unbound Telesis, it follows; that

(1) Unbound Telesis cannot be created or destroyed, that is, Unbound Telesis is eternal.

(2) Everything that exists is made of or derived from Unbound Telesis.

Unbound Telesis is a "generalization" that is "featureless", "undifferentiated", or "infinite".

However there clearly are finitary informational distinctions of existence. It therefore follows; that

(3) Finitary informational distinctions of existence can be created and destroyed.

(4) Finitary informational distinctions of existence are made of or derived from Unbound Telesis and are made of or derived from finitary informational distinctions."

Riight... so Langan seems to be arriving at the Two Truths Doctrine by means of... logical metaphors? Not bad.

"Since the universe is described as "supertautologically-closed" the Unbound Telesis of the universe is necessarily conserved."

But the notion of supertautlogical closedness seems like weird essentialism. I like your work but there's some methodological looseness here. As far as I can tell I think this is pretty good, a good start, or something like that. Thank you for sharing. I have only examined your comments on the CTMU for now - not the general aim of your website.